Prosecuting Bush for Murder

For clarification's sake...is Tony Blair and John Howard on that list as well?

What about Bill Clinton who in 1998 made it the standing policy of the United States that regime change in Iraq was necessary and should take place?  What about the 17 UN Resolutions broken by Saddam, any one of which was legal grounds for military action in removing him?  What about the UN Security Council voting unanimously for military action?  What about Congress (Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Edwards) voting to authorize the war? 

Being mad because you feel Bush mispronounced nuclear too often when making his case for war is one thing, and a point worth considering.  He is the Commander-in-Chief and the buck stops with him, but to ignore the rest of this pertinent information and context is beneath reasoned debate.  I appreciate, Blearc, that you at least have some restraint in your disdain for the man.  Bush will never be prosecuted for this, nor should he.

Yes, all of them are complicit. Now your getting it.Hand in hand they sang by the fire...

JLP,

Mabye I didn't put my answer clear enough, for murder no, for everything else, yes.

Here comes the mob, the shift of defending Palin must be over.

Lets hear it all the justifications of how Bush is soo great and a victim of liberal hate.  How the Buck doesn't stop with him, How just you wait till the 20th who you going to blame then, oh wait didn't mean to take yalls fun.  And we enjoy hearing it over and over and over and over.

What about the 17 UN Resolutions broken by Saddam, any one of which was legal grounds for military action in removing him?

Who's military? So if a country violates UN Resolution the U.S. (not the UN) has the right to an Imperialistic Invasion, claim profits from reconstruction and war crimes violations frowned upon by the world?? What about the U.S. violating the Geneva Convention?? Shouldn't Bush.Cheney and the rest of them Hang on national TV likewise?? Saddams execution was aired around the world so is it a fair assumption to expect all the networks to air the Bush hanging too?

Ironically, I can imagine John Locke turning in his grave over this and knowing someone with these War Ideologies is using his name......  :(

Blearc-

"He is the Commander-in-Chief and the buck stops with him, but to ignore the rest of this pertinent information and context is beneath reasoned debate"

Bernard-

Whose military?  Great question.  Who is supposed to enfore the UN's almost entirely empty threats?  It seems that they enjoy passing resolutions and then enjoy condemning whoever takes action accordingly.  Everyone says they are okay with Afghanistan being attacked, that if we were just focused on that the world's Left would be totally on board and not have to stipulate "just not their mission" when talk of supporting the troops came up....But almost no one is helping us there either.  Then, the argument goes, they aren't helping us because of Iraq and their objection to it.  But what was the reason for inaction in Rwanda?  How was that American imperialism's fault?  Maybe, just maybe, the UN and most the EU are unwilling to fight in general (see:their non-existent budgets for national defense in most EU countries).

Basically I am saying, there is the issue of if you think Bush lied and conned the world along with Blair and Howard then I understand why you are upset....but more important now, what do we do about a planet where the only people willing to fight are the bad guys and the only people willing to fight them are in the United States?

John, I agree with some of what you are saying and you are on a right track. I would emphatically assert that the reason we went into Iraq and Afghanistan and not into Rwanda is that first these wars are U.S. agenda NOT U.N. and they didn't go into Rwanda because there was not as much to gain (politically, financially etc)

The U.N. has no real power, we all know that by now...but they do serve as a puppet to push and perpetuate the US agenda.. we've seen this before..

What about Bill Clinton who in 1998 made it the standing policy of the United States that regime change in Iraq was necessary and should take place?  What about the 17 UN Resolutions broken by Saddam, any one of which was legal grounds for military action in removing him?  What about the UN Security Council voting unanimously for military action?  What about Congress (Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Edwards) voting to authorize the war? 

JLP - You posed the question of "Who will stand up to the bad guys, if we won't?", and it's an excellent question.  We're SUPPOSED to be the good guys, I agree wholly.  The problem that I, and many people have, is that we're no longer following the rules, and good guys FOLLOW THE RULES.  

Has anyone watched "Dark Knight" and remembers the scene where Batman's got the Mob guy, trying to figure out who/where the Joker is?  The Mob guy tells him that he's not gonna get ANYTHING.  He says "You've got rules, and everybody knows it.  This guy?  This guy doesn't have rules..."

In order to combat the negative and evil forces in the world today, we MUST maintain our integrity.  Otherwise, it will be entirely too easy to wind up with those same negative and evil forces in charge...

You may find the following link interesting:

http://tomjoad.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/20/2234784-open-letter-to-the-american-people-george-bush-and-co-war-criminals

JLP, you have passion, and you care, and we need more of that.  I don't care if you're left, right, or fricking upside down, as long as you care about this country, and making the world a better place.  Don't lose that.

Tom Joad-

Forces of change...I'm told we no longer have to worry about negative ones any more.  ;)

The line between crime-fighter and criminal is indeed a fine one.  Dark Knight was a fascinating movie with some incredily important themes.  I would also just point out that, since we're talking Batman, the guy was obviously willing to push the envelope further than most on every other area of fighting the enemy (save flat-out murder), as was great military leaders like Eisenhower, Patton, etc. etc.  We can retain our dignity, but when the Left and the press think EVERYTHING our president did was evil, it blurs the line in Americans' minds.  It waters down (pardon the pun) the word evil if waterboarding Kahlid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, who then gave up both information that stopped other attacks and locations of other terrorists, is considered evil.  It cheapens the word evil if housing terrorists in separate jails than the average American criminal (a citizen with rights) is evil.

I'm not naive and I'm not too idealistic to think that America is always right and that everything we've done is perfect.  But these specific terrorists we are fighting now do not wear the colors of uniform, do not claim allegiance to any nation, and do not care how or when or where they kill, only that they kill and do it well. What do we do with enemy combatants like this?  We've always gone above and beyond in our treatment of actual prisoners of war from declared nations we have fought.  THEY have broken the rules.  The Geneva Convention specifies that it does not apply to enemy combatants such as these.  What do we do with them?  Where do we keep them?  What is to be said of how many we have killed/captured on the battlefield after letting them go?  I'm not saying I have the answers, but serious people need to ask serious questions and this feel-goodery among many on the Left (or any side for that matter) for men who would cut their heads off and post it on YouTube without thinking twice helps no one and cheapens what these wretched men have done in the name of a religion that has hundreds of millions of decent people.  These issues are bigger than the sensibilities of sensitive liberals (or, again, any person whose only answer to the challenging questions and subsequent policies of the last eight years is "Bush is a doo-doo head who did everything wrong").

Or lets stay on the topic of Iraq, we cannot disagree that Bush had the legal right to invade.  We're entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts, and NO ONE has any legitimate case or claim that this was is illegal.  What we do disagree on in this country is IF we should have gone, and then of course the loons focus on DID BUSH LIE  to get us into war.  The IF is the only question that reasonable people should debate, and it is a fair one.   You can be against war in this country and its okay.

If Bush lied, then thousands complied...in the lie with him.  That is impossible.  That could not happen.  Not in 2009 with a media hell-bent on destroying Bush's legacy before and while it was being written.  Not in a world where secret CIA prison locations are divulged and I know whether or not Paris Hilton wore undies on the red carpet (thanks Extra!, you've added a lot to this culture).  

Even under the heading of the IF question, you can then say that he exaggerated the threat, but this lying business and war crimes and the rest is nothing more than an exercise in futility. 

These safety/national defense/intelligence gathering issues are OUR issues.  They affect us directly and indirectly.  We can too easily start to feel like its some existential threat far away that people far away in Washington DC play like a game of chess.  We need to be informed and on top of things, but we also need the good sense and moral clarity to be able to identify the enemy and decide on appropriate courses of action.  I think had the US military of WWII had this media and this culture of emotions-based citizens we could never have won, not with the mistakes and blunders and devastating effectiveness with which we killed our enemies.

Just some thoughts...have a good one.

These safety/national defense/intelligence gathering issues are OUR issues.  They affect us directly and indirectly.  We can too easily start to feel like its some existential threat far away that people far away in Washington DC play like a game of chess.  We need to be informed and on top of things, but we also need the good sense and moral clarity to be able to identify the enemy and decide on appropriate courses of action.  I think had the US military of WWII had this media and this culture of emotions-based citizens we could never have won, not with the mistakes and blunders and devastating effectiveness with which we killed our enemies.

Agreed.  However, during WWII we did not have the leadership culture that we have now, either.  The American people were not being asked to continue living their lives, and spending their money as if nothing was happening...only to find out that everything was collapsing around them in a house of cards that had been built over the past 40 years...and when prisoners were waterboarded, men were court-martialed for it.

We are not the America our forefathers hoped for, and I am disappointed.  I intend to do everything I can to see that America established, also.

I supported Clintons war, and the men and women who fought it, were true heroes and real role models.

invasion of Iraq was never sanctioned by the U.N.

So What?

IV sounds just like Cheney.

So What?

If we the people can come together the way the founding fathers expected us to and if Obama has some back bone.......... We'll see about SO WHAT!!!

The constitution clearly states that we must follow interational agreements that we sign on to.  (especially if we create them)

Don't worry the mass will be here too, currently they are defending the honor and intellegence of Palin.

Law Enforcement for the Constitution

www.constitution.org/mil/law_attn.htm

www.constitutionallawenforcementassoc.blogspot.com

www.constitutionyourcounty.synthasite.com

Illegal Orders

Any order which you may receive that is contrary to the Constitution of the U.S. or of your State, or to a constitutional law, is illegal. Compliance with such an order is not only not required of you, but may be and probably is illegal, and the issuance of such an order may be a crime, which obligates you to make an arrest of the person issuing it.

Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to local, state, or federal law enforcement or military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens. Every state has a similar law.

The key point is this: You not only have the right to disobey an illegal order, but you may also have the duty to apprehend the parties issuing such an order if such issuance is part of the commission of a crime.

Thanks Teodoro Leon3! Particularly the 3rd link is important in NYC right now.

See story

Was a nice find.Ur welcome.Especially #3.

Joseph Wilson told him there was no uranium deal with Niger.

Experts told him the papers trying to "prove" the existence of the deal were crude forgeries.

Hans Blix made three trips to Iraq and found nothing.

Bush pulled Blix's team out in order to start the bombing.

Bush has repeatedly claimed since then that Saddam Hussein "wouldn't let inspectors into the country."

Bugliosi probably won't be able to prosecute Bush for murder in the strictly legal sense, but in the moral sense that's exactly what it was.

Joseph Wilson told him there was no uranium deal with Niger.

Wilson actually mislead Congress in his testimony. It was latter found that Iraq was seeking "yellow cake" connecting with nuclear building. Congress has proof of this. Watch C-Span instead of MSNBC more often and you might learn something. Congress had access to same reports and most came to same conclusion as the President. What people might not realize that between Sept. of 2002 and spring of 2003 Iraq had plenty of time to move most of what any they had to Syria. Those like Kerry only retreated from their vote when it became expident pollically to do so. Not a Hillary fan but respect her for not recounting her vote. Do you want a Commander In Chief that will yeild to polls or one that will stand by his decision and will make adjustments when necessary. By the way, we in the south might want to add Obama's hero, Lincoln, to that list.

"As for "faslse pretenses" International intelligence supported the assumption that WMD's were in Iraq."

Please show where any other international agency investigated this independently, you can't because they all went on the bogus intel that Bush gave them.

"Congress had access to same reports and most came to same conclusion as the President."

No, Congress did not have the same information, that information goes to the White house first and THEN the White House distributes it to Congress. That's what the Hub bub is all about. the classified document and the White house document forwarded had omissions and variences.

"What people might not realize that between Sept. of 2002 and spring of 2003 Iraq had plenty of time to move most of what any they had to Syria"

What you may not realize is we had a satellite stationary above and was watching 24/7...he couldn't move dick! We knew every move he made.

 And that BS about Yellow cake?? Was just that...C-Span covered the investigation based on what was later found to be a forged document...how convenient of you to leave that out eh?

Hans Blix made three trips to Iraq and found nothing.

Blix could not find a bleeding hemophilic polar bear on a snow field.

Hans Blix made three trips to Iraq and found nothing.

Blix could not find a bleeding hemophilic polar bear on a snow field.

Due to the lack of intelligent, fact filled rebuttal, I'd say IV got owned.

Due to the lack of intelligent, fact filled rebuttal, I'd say IV got owned.

As usual.

Thank GOD for your intelligence, we are all blessed for the lottery you received.

Here's a proposal:

http://blearc.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/09/2290884-proposed-bill-transparency-and-secret-blocking-bush-this-is-interesting-and-needs-support

Its unreal.

This is just another Bush bashing article like a hundred others on Newsvine in last 2 weeks. Maybe it will all subside in a couple of weeks.

Hmmm, ya think??  Have you by chance bothered to see that HR 9 is a bill to investigate the criminal acts of the President?

Abraham Lincoln (Dead, he escaped us), Woodrow Wilson(Dead, he escaped us), FDR(we are attacked and war was declared on us), Truman(UN forced us in Korea, no cigar there), JFK(Didn't start Vietnam, Eisenhower did, besides, he's dead), and Bill Clinton (Serbia was sanctioned and requested for us to go there by the UN, nice try though)

Has Hr 9 ever been brought to the floor? No. Will it ever be brought to the floor? No. Have you got any others? No.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h40ih.txt

making it harder to hide

This is just another Bush bashing article like a hundred others on Newsvine in last 2 weeks. Maybe it will all subside in a couple of weeks.

Subside in a few weeks??????????????

Joe, wake up from your sleep. Really wake up!

A president responsible for the death of 7000+ Americans and arguably over 1.2 million worldwide, violates the constitution on multiple levels, trashes the geneva convention and does everything in his power to erase evidence and change laws to prevent his own war crimes trial, then throw in voter fraud, treason, Katrina, illegal wire tapping and bank bailout heists to his buddies on his way out the door among other violations.

OH this will take more than "a few weeks"! Sorry to let you in on this....

The higher authority is the feds.

armed conflict was urgently necessary.

It was necessary to go to war after 9/11 because the American people wanted it so I delivered that message and now everyone is pointing the finger at me.

On November 1, 1955 Eisenhower deployed the Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the South Vietnamese Army, ARVN. This was the beginning of U.S. involvement according to the Vietnam Veterans memorial.

Xerxes-727854

You just got owned!!

You just got owned!!

RAmen. It was Eisenhower that started US involvement in Vietnam, not JFK. That's basic US history and is indisputable.

"The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, or the Vietnam Conflict, occurred in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia from 1959^[1] to April 30, 1975. The war was fought between the communist North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of South Vietnam, supported by the United States and other member nations of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).^[9][10]"

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War}

Clinton was/is republican lite, he gave us Nafta, why the hell do people keep bring him up like his action or words excuse Bush. and Kerry?  really?

I think the only person that voted for Kerry was his mom, the rest voted against Bush, including his wife I might add. 

The names and dates that were wrong had to do with the information used for the Niger claim was on letterhead and signed by a guy who had been out of Niger government for years.

But lets take your logic.  If I show one, two, fifteen lies of Bush, does that mean we can write off the rest of what he said?

Wilson and his wife are liars.

Blearc You have to wait a few years before the rest comes out.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."—”

George Bush

If it ain't broke don't change it.

Prosecuting Bush and Cheney would restore my faith in the Federal gov.

You said it pcbynature! I really feel the same way!

We cannot let Bush simply retire and get away with this.

Too late I'm getting away with it and only 12 days and counting until I retire.

Shub Tnediserp , I like this playing Devils's advocate.

For others too dense to notice....read the words backwards..."Shub Tnediserp"

I know that I did that intentionally. wink.

but to call for his murder trial is laughable.

While you are laughing, the rest of the world is not! This is very serious, nothing to do with party lines, red vs blue or right vs left... this is war crimes!

It's odd to bust out laughing at a funeral but you have the right to do so if you wish..

Excellent point Prophet!

All of congress was forced to act one way or another with the intelligence info that the Administration WAS PROVIDING! They could go on nothing else. All the ones who bashed Clinton during her campaign over the vote, are pretending otherwise. Additionally, I dont believe Clinton or Biden said anything about approving torture, or other atrocious acts.

Yes  clearly remember the "with us or against us" comment in two initial press conferences just after 9/11.

clearly remember the "with us or against us" comment in two initial press conferences just after 9/11.

AGAINST! I say, I'm very much against war, tyranny and oppression of our rights and freedoms by a Lying Tyrant government ... I guess you are FOR them. That's fine, it's a free country...

For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. JFK

No actually I am very anti-Bush.