• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Official: UN may prosecute Bush administration, regardless of US action

Now I know that Bush has his problems, but these will discussed and vetted here in the United States, not in the UN. Of course, you can prosecute Bush if you want to. BTW, good luck arresting Bush. Our army will kick ass on your army. :mrgreen:

Article is here.


So when is the UN going to haul Clinton into court for his rendition program?
 
And don't forget that Cheney's own fact finding investigation into whether Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was shown to be wrong.

It was not initiated or requested by Cheney.

Joseph Wilson reported to the CIA that a Niger official he met with explicitly said he believed that Iraq had approached Niger tp purchase yellowcake.

You're 0-2, wanna try, again?

Yet, Cheney and Bush ignored that report and even tried to "kill the messenger" by going after Ambassador Joe Wilson and in the process commit another crime by outing a covert CIA agent.

I guess so...

Wilson reported that he met with a Niger official who believed Iraq had appraoched Niger to purchase yellowcake.

The Special Prosecutor did not determine that any law was broken with regard to Plame's identity being disclosed.

It was not any close Bush official who initially outted Plame, it was Powell's guy, Armitage who had and then Wilson, himself, did it to The Nation's David Corn.

I find it rather disappointing that you lefties are up in arms about Plame's identity being disclosed while you have no problem whatsoever with classified national security programs being illegally disclosed by partisan bureaucrats with an axe to grind.

Kinda reveals where your priorities are...and they ain't aimed at public safety.
 
Hi buddy, how ya doin?

It was not initiated or requested by Cheney.

Sure it was. Cheney requested the Niger rumor be investigated by the CIA. A co-worker of Wilson's wife suggested Joe, since he had so much experience in that country. Wilson's wife was asked to send the email up the line and ask her husband to come in to talk about it with her boss. She was not part of any of those decisions.

From Joseph Wilson's article in the New York Times on July 6, 2003: What I Didn't Find in Africa

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

JMak said:
Joseph Wilson reported to the CIA that a Niger official he met with explicitly said he believed that Iraq had approached Niger tp purchase yellowcake.

Wilson reported that he met with a Niger official who believed Iraq had appraoched Niger to purchase yellowcake.

From the same article:
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)


JMak said:
The Special Prosecutor did not determine that any law was broken with regard to Plame's identity being disclosed.

It was not any close Bush official who initially outted Plame, it was Powell's guy, Armitage who had and then Wilson, himself, did it to The Nation's David Corn.

Wasn't Karl Rove a close Bush official?

Actually, Bob Novack testified that it was Rove who confirmed Plame's identity. Rove admitted it to Chris Mathews and even boldly said: "She was fair game"! Rove also told Matt Cooper on 7/11/2003. But, because of Libby's obstructing Fitzgerald was not able to connect all the dots well enough to charge Rove... yet.

Yes, Armitage did. There were also 4 or 5 others who exposed her identity, which is still illegal even if someone else also did it. There was an orchestrated conspiracy to out Wilson's wife to try to make it look like she suggested Wilson make the trip in some upside down way trying to discredit what he "didn't find".

Libby was found guilty of Obstructing Justice and because of his actions it was impossible to determine all the facts. Thus, no other charges... yet.

Carpe Diem!
 
It WAS shown by myself as well as others. You are European, so you can not be expected to know the nuances of the US system. I have lived through it and have a MA in political science. I have a FAR BETTER understanding of the mechanics of the US system than most other Americans go. Remember, others from the US also confirmed what I was saying.

Check out this link:

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY

To qualify for the election, you only have to:

1. Met the requirements in the Federal Constitution for the office of president;
2. Be a registered Democrat of Republican (whatever the case may be)

No provision for the party leadership to disqualify a candidate as you claimed in another thread. Will you finally yield on that point and admit you were wrong?

I never claimed to know every little detail, but you said I know nothing about US poltics, just because I do not know a tiny detail..

Thats just a lame way to debate, like me saying you know nothing about politics in Europe because you do not know about the labor party meeting in the smallest and most remote place in Norway. It was just a silly joke and me trying to demonstrate how lame this was becoming.

That link is quite interesting details btw, but still it does not prove the process once you register as a primary candidate in either party, but its satisfying enough evidence for me actually. I will from here on assume you are right on the issue, but really bash you if it turns out to be wrong. Thank you for the link, FINALLY!!!!


When I am saying the US political system and other systems are broken, I am talking about the broad and complete context of the whole political process and everything surrounding politics, as opposed to a functioning intelligent system and an ideal system, and then I also compare to a worst case scenario and identify where exactly our systems are.. So, the only conclusion is that the system is broken.. I rather like to look at the broad context of everything, because I know a lot about a lot of things, but not necessarily small technical details about everything, which is why its more interesting for someone like me to philosophize on the broader picture and the completeness of something, rather than tiny technicalities which doesnt really matter in the broader context no matter if its right or wrong. I particularily hate getting stuck in petty arguments over details as this tend to dislodge the discussion from its original purpose and broader context, which I usually speak in..

I think you would be surprised to know the amount of details I know about things even though thats not my specialty. Interesting question lastly, compared to what I know about US politics and the US in general, how much do you think people in general here on the forum knows about European and European politics in comparison?

Its also fascinating for me to know for example that people in the US or the UK and most of the world knows little about France in comparison to what the same people knows about the US, this due to language barriers and such, and I do have an appreciation for my own languages in this context, that I really understand not only what you "Angloes" understand only, but also dusins of others nations and handfuls of other languages, really almost as much as you know the US in your own language. Something to think about when you deal with me and the broader context of things. :)
 
Sure it was. Cheney requested the Niger rumor be investigated by the CIA. A co-worker of Wilson's wife suggested Joe, since he had so much experience in that country. Wilson's wife was asked to send the email up the line and ask her husband to come in to talk about it with her boss. She was not part of any of those decisions.

yeah, if you believe Valerie Plame's version of events. Meanwhile, we have her actually recommending him via a memo she drafted.

From Joseph Wilson's article in the New York Times on July 6, 2003: What I Didn't Find in Africa

And now we know via the Senate Select Intelligence Cmte that Wilson is a liar.
Wasn't Karl Rove a close Bush official?

Actually, Bob Novack testified that it was Rove who confirmed Plame's identity. Rove admitted it to Chris Mathews and even boldly said: "She was fair game"! Rove also told Matt Cooper on 7/11/2003. But, because of Libby's obstructing Fitzgerald was not able to connect all the dots well enough to charge Rove... yet.

There is no yet, fool.

Notice Rove confirmed something. In other words, not a deliberate attempt to feed something to a reporter per your preferred narrative.

Yes, Armitage did. There were also 4 or 5 others who exposed her identity, which is still illegal even if someone else also did it. There was an orchestrated conspiracy to out Wilson's wife to try to make it look like she suggested Wilson make the trip in some upside down way trying to discredit what he "didn't find".

Libby's obstruction and perjury concerned his faulty memory, liar.

Libby was found guilty of Obstructing Justice and because of his actions it was impossible to determine all the facts. Thus, no other charges... yet.

There is no yet, fool.

Libby was prosecuted for obstruction and perjury because he had a faulty memory. Fitz never stated or even suggested that Libby's obstruction and perjury prevented a connection of dots.

Fitz knew before he even started the investigation that Armitage was the initial disclosure.

Wilson is a liar and his wife is, too. Those are indisputable facts.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Sure it was. Cheney requested the Niger rumor be investigated by the CIA. A co-worker of Wilson's wife suggested Joe, since he had so much experience in that country. Wilson's wife was asked to send the email up the line and ask her husband to come in to talk about it with her boss. She was not part of any of those decisions.

From Joseph Wilson's article in the New York Times on July 6, 2003: What I Didn't Find in Africa
Joe Wilson is a contemptible liar. The Butler Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee both said he was a liar. That bastion of conservatism, The Washington Post, called Wilson a blowhard.

A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson....

Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard.

and

Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
 
Last edited:
Joe Wilson is a contemptible liar. The Butler Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee both said he was a liar. That bastion of conservatism, The Washington Post, called Wilson a blowhard.

Joe Wilson is one of the most honorable Americans you'll ever hear about. The fact that GWB went after him, in a failed attempt to push his war of lies, will be seen as one of the most despicable acts he did during his 8 years of evil and crime.

The CIA, under the thumb of Cheney, reworked Wilson's verbal report.

For those who are interested in the truth, Wiki has a nice summary of Joe:
From January 1976 through 1998, he was posted in five African nations; as a general services officer in Niamey, Niger (his first assignment) he was "responsible for keeping the power on and the cars running, among other duties".[7] From 1988 to 1991, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission (to U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Catherine Glaspie) at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. In the wake of Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, he became the last American diplomat to meet with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, telling him in very clear terms to leave Kuwait (Wilson, The Politics of Truth 107–27).

When Hussein sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Baghdad) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck and declaring, "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own ****ing rope."

Despite Hussein's threats, Wilson sheltered more than 100 Americans at the embassy and successfully evacuated several thousand people (Americans and other nationals) from Iraq. For his actions, he was called a "a true American hero" by President George H. W. Bush.
Joseph C. Wilson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reality that Bush has convinced some of you that Joe Wilson had a dog in this fight is representative of just how morally bankrupt Bush is.

Carpe Diem!
 
Okay, ADK, you're a Joe Wilson Champion, no wonder you believe so many outrageous lies about Bush, you believe Wilson. I think that says everything about your inability, or refusal to check the accuracy of information. Mr. Wilson's "What I did not find in Africa" has been thoroughly debunked as crap.
 
I never claimed to know every little detail, but you said I know nothing about US poltics, just because I do not know a tiny detail..

Selection of nominees is headly a tiny detail.

Thats just a lame way to debate, like me saying you know nothing about politics in Europe because you do not know about the labor party meeting in the smallest and most remote place in Norway. It was just a silly joke and me trying to demonstrate how lame this was becoming.

A single party in a minor European country is NOT the same as understanding how the two major parties in the world's second largest democracy and the world's main economic and military power selects it's nominees for office. Nice try, but FAIL!

That link is quite interesting details btw, but still it does not prove the process once you register as a primary candidate in either party, but its satisfying enough evidence for me actually. I will from here on assume you are right on the issue, but really bash you if it turns out to be wrong. Thank you for the link, FINALLY!!!!

This is the THIRD different link I have provided and others have provided linkes and you have yet to provide counter examples. If there was an example where the party leadership had disqualified a candidate, you should have been able to come up with one. Thanks for the belated admission.

When I am saying the US political system and other systems are broken, I am talking about the broad and complete context of the whole political process and everything surrounding politics, as opposed to a functioning intelligent system and an ideal system, and then I also compare to a worst case scenario and identify where exactly our systems are.. So, the only conclusion is that the system is broken.. I rather like to look at the broad context of everything, because I know a lot about a lot of things, but not necessarily small technical details about everything, which is why its more interesting for someone like me to philosophize on the broader picture and the completeness of something, rather than tiny technicalities which doesnt really matter in the broader context no matter if its right or wrong. I particularily hate getting stuck in petty arguments over details as this tend to dislodge the discussion from its original purpose and broader context, which I usually speak in..

I don't think the US system is broken, but it certainly can be improved. It is clear, however, that based on your description of European parliamentary democracies that party leaders have a lot more power in selecting nominees than in the US. I also dispute the US is on the way to a civil war. We had that once. It is still a tramautic event in the psyche of U.S. history. I don't think it will be repeated any time in my lifetime.

I think you would be surprised to know the amount of details I know about things even though thats not my specialty. Interesting question lastly, compared to what I know about US politics and the US in general, how much do you think people in general here on the forum knows about European and European politics in comparison?

Fine, but the selection of nominees is a crucial part of the US political system. I hope myself and others have helped to enhance your understanding of it.

Its also fascinating for me to know for example that people in the US or the UK and most of the world knows little about France in comparison to what the same people knows about the US, this due to language barriers and such, and I do have an appreciation for my own languages in this context, that I really understand not only what you "Angloes" understand only, but also dusins of others nations and handfuls of other languages, really almost as much as you know the US in your own language. Something to think about when you deal with me and the broader context of things. :)

Remember, the US is a FAR MORE important country than France is. Also, due to the proliferation of US media around the world (ie CNN) people have a much closer look at the US than any other country in the world. Even in the local media of the country I live in, at least half of all foreign news coverage is from the US. The US is the most important country in the world, so this is hardly a surprise.
 
And if Iraq HAD successfully sought WMDs (and we KNOW they had tried in the past), they very well could have showed us all the folly of doing nothing.

But they didn't. And we all know they dismantled their WMD program wayyyy back in '91.

"If" Bush was honest and actually cared about the lives of Americans, and humans in general, and listened to his, and the world's, experts... over 100,000 people who are dead as a door nail now would be alive.

"If" Bush had listened to Clinton's warnings during his transition, as well as all the other warnings, and actually had gotten off his lazy duff and taken some action against terrorists attacking the United States he could have stopped 9/11 from happening.

"If" doesn't really help exonerate Bush from his failed Presidency.

If the dog didn't stop to take a dump, he would have caught the fox.

Carpe Diem!
 
Selection of nominees is headly a tiny detail.

I knew 95% of that process. I only thought parties could disqualify people who runs for primaries. Thats a tiny, understandable mistake, considering its that way in Europe, and that it is quite illogical that that is the way it is. And since it is like that, parties in the US are more of a formal institution than a party like it is in Europe, that shocks me considering the way parties "work" in the US in general, and hatred and polarization between them.

A single party in a minor European country is NOT the same as understanding how the two major parties in the world's second largest democracy and the world's main economic and military power selects it's nominees for office. Nice try, but FAIL!

Well, actually the third largest democracy. India as far as I know is biggest ahead of the European Union parliament whom represent 550 million people, and then third is the US. And besides, any election in Europe, especially the German, French and British is very important.
And if the US democracy is weird compared with European ones that represent 500 million people, and the other democracies in the world, then sure, that is weird, its not the other way around.

This is the THIRD different link I have provided and others have provided linkes and you have yet to provide counter examples. If there was an example where the party leadership had disqualified a candidate, you should have been able to come up with one. Thanks for the belated admission.

Those previous links didnt prove anything, and this link to be honest didnt really describe the whole process, but yet I accept it out of good will :lol:

I don't think the US system is broken, but it certainly can be improved. It is clear, however, that based on your description of European parliamentary democracies that party leaders have a lot more power in selecting nominees than in the US. I also dispute the US is on the way to a civil war. We had that once. It is still a tramautic event in the psyche of U.S. history. I don't think it will be repeated any time in my lifetime.

Here we just disagree about the political systems in the US and Europe. I think all are failing, and democracy in general is in a stage of great decline, one of the last stages of total political collapse. Lets say we can rank the systems from 0% to 100% as dysfunctional and functional, I would rank none of the western democracies above 50%, of those I am very familiar with. I would rank for example Italy at 10%, the US at perhaps 35% and declining, the UK at 45%, France at 35% and declining... Actually I would rank Germany above 50%, perhaps even 65%. I would rank Norway, the system I am most familiar with at 25% and rapidly declining for example. Most other European democracies would fall between 30-50%. The European Union I am uncertain about but would rank it higher than most considering its several layers of democracy, including those of the nations within its average, and on top of that the European parliament, and the democracy between the nations and so fourth, but still below 50%, since I can only put European democracies on average at maximum 45% and declining.

As for the civil war in the US, I am not saying its definetely going to happen, but unlike other people, I am not going to be surprised if it does happen, and I am certainly going to be one of the soldiers who will help you.


Fine, but the selection of nominees is a crucial part of the US political system. I hope myself and others have helped to enhance your understanding of it.

Certainly, that is why I am on this forum and others, to learn. I certainly did that, feel way more comfortable about my knowledge on the US political system. I have learned a lot of it in general from this forum, and would consider my knowledge on US politics quite excellent, and my knowledge about US governance pretty good.

Remember, the US is a FAR MORE important country than France is. Also, due to the proliferation of US media around the world (ie CNN) people have a much closer look at the US than any other country in the world. Even in the local media of the country I live in, at least half of all foreign news coverage is from the US. The US is the most important country in the world, so this is hardly a surprise.

Hmm, perhaps, perhaps not, with the enormous French influence in the European Union(and Europe in general), France is perhaps the second or third behind Germany most important country in the world, not that far behind the US.

I think you are mistaken about the media, I think the reason people have more familiarity with the US than for example French, is mostly due to language. This is also why people have far more knowledge on the UK than any other European country. But certainly, the media do play a role.

The US is certainly the most important country in the world, but its influence is decreasing very fast, and its importance in the world is also rather quickly vanishing.
 
Hey man, aren't you in another thread complaining about people posting crap like this?

Just sayin man. :2wave:

I'm in another thread discussing people making personal attacks, yes.

This is a general statement that is directed at no one here, specifically.

Just sayin. :mrgreen:
 
I'm in another thread discussing people making personal attacks, yes.

This is a general statement that is directed at no one here, specifically.

Just sayin. :mrgreen:



Right, you did not refer to Mr. V that way.... :roll:



Be the change you seek. :2wave:
 
Right, you did not refer to Mr. V that way.... :roll:

Be the change you seek. :2wave:

It's these kinds of posts that keep people from posting in here.

Show me where I called Mr V anything!!!

If you can't, which you can't, why don't you go play in another sand box? We're busy building sand castles in this one. :lol:
 
Again, she was creating a hypothetical. This is NOT a lie. Her point was to do something BEFORE this happens. This is NOT a lie if it is something that the information you have access to leads to that as a possibility.
The mushroom cloud was clearly hypothetical. The smoking gun was not. You're pulling that out of your ass. Look, here's the exact quote by Condoleeza Rice:

"But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

You would actually have us believe that the smoking gun is supposed to be hypothetical? Even if that were true, then her assertions are even more wild and misguided. That would mean she was extrapolating hypotheticals from other hypotheticals, which alone could be a good case for dishonesty. But no, she qualified it as "the smoking gun," not "a smoking gun." She misrepresented the situation to make it sound like we actually had a smoking gun, when we didn't.

Next you're going to say she only meant a "mushroom-sized" cloud, right? :rofl
 
Back
Top Bottom