• 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!

Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigation"

Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I'm not... I'm one pissed off conservative. Pissed that a radical faction of the conservative party hijacked the long standing principles of my father and grandfather's party and made a joke of those values by paying them lip service while doing the opposite.

Ok....

What if I told you that traditional conservatives and the GOP have stood for a strong "America first" (arguably isolationist) foreign policy, adequately funded military, a smaller government with less taxes and greater personal freedom and the Democrats have traditionally been the party of socialism ("The New Deal" & "The Great Society"), wealth redistribution and social engineering. And like the true socialists they are, ...higher taxes and less personal freedom.

Also note that the Democrats aren't "anti religion", they are just anti Christian.

Would you agree?
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I wanted the title to read: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face international criminal investigation", but there wasn't enough space. Anway...

Found this article from YahooNews.com:

ElBaradei suggests war crimes probe of Bush team

From the article:

Gawd. Not another "international weapons inspector" moron fooled by Saddam trying to cover his a**.

No mention of what we have found in Iraq.

No mention that UNMOVIC could not account for the WMD Saddam admits he produced and never accounted for.

The poor people still suffering from BDS need our help.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

Just present wmds Saddam had that no one knew about. :coffeepap
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I wanted the title to read: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face international criminal investigation", but there wasn't enough space. Anway...

Found this article from YahooNews.com:

ElBaradei suggests war crimes probe of Bush team

From the article:

I'd love for Bush to face trial too. It would provide solid proof that he was right and you were wrong, You were wrong and he was right.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

Ok....Would you agree?

... if I told you that traditional conservatives and the GOP have stood for a strong "America first" (arguably isolationist) foreign policy, adequately funded military, a smaller government with less taxes and greater personal freedom

Yes, in the last century, Joe citizen traditional conservative has stood for that.. you forgot family...

But Joe Con has not had representation that follows that ideology since the 70's. Oh they talk a good game on the campaign trail, but their actions are big government, deficits don't matter spend spend bs!

and the Democrats have traditionally been the party of socialism ("The New Deal" & "The Great Society"), wealth redistribution and social engineering. And like the true socialists they are, ...higher taxes and less personal freedom.

Not sure you used derivatives of the word "social" enough times. Does that mean new age conservatives are anti-social? Social... society. Our society. You know what the root of a word is, right? Like the root of conservative is conserve. eh, skip it... topic for another thread...

No, I don't agree. Dems aren't socialists in the derogatory terms new age conservative talking heads would like you to believe. They don't wish for no property, they like owning houses and cars too... As the richest nation, do they feel a duty to take care of those less fortunate, and the elderly? I'm pretty sure that's what Jesus would do... did... preached. The problem isn't the programs, it's the abuse of those programs. I have a friend in healthcare in a rural county, and she reports many times more conservatives on disability and the government health plan than liberals.

Wealth re/distribution...

Read this carefully... you need to understand this fact before the rest can make sense to you...

All wealth is created by the working/middle class. The producers. Without them, the CEOs and majority stock holders would have nothing to sell and no services to provide. Nothing would get refined from raw ore/materials into usable products. Capiche? Now that we know where wealth comes from... maybe we should take a second look at how and to whom that wealth is redistributed to.... It aint the middle or lower classes...



Also note that the Democrats aren't "anti religion", they are just anti Christian.

As for hating Christians... many of the libs I've known are christians... and the ones that aren't are generally more moral and ethical than the conservatives that thump their bibles... Christian nation huh? Tell me, why is it that Christ and the bible are so very clear about excessive wealth, greed and avarice, yet people like you scream about wealth redistribution in defense of the 400 people in this country that hoard $2 trillion dollars, equal to the next 150 million people combined? It's a sin. Period. Libs don't hate christians... they hate fake christians.... the duplicitous ones... the do as I say while I do what ever I want crowd.

Now... if you don't mind... the topic is...

Bush, war crimes, El Beradei...

If you can't hang with the topic... start your own thread.
 
ElBaradei Wants Bush Probe

So Mohamed ElBaradei wants a probe in to the Bush white for the actions that led to the Iraq war. I think it's high time something like this happened. If we became aware of another countries leaders engaging in such a gross act of malfeasance we wouldn't hesitate to cry foul. Double standard much?

ElBaradei suggests war crimes probe of Bush team
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

You obviously don't know a thing about the Muslim Brotherhood.

Are you somehow insinuating that the Muslim Brotherhood is linked to all of Islam across the world, and doesn't just represent an isolated group with radical beliefs? If so then YOU should probably go do some reading about the Muslim brotherhood.

Frankly everyone in this thread who is equating Muslim's with terrorists disturbs me seriously. You get crazy Christian terrorists that crop up and these same people don't say "Christian terrorists" are responsible. They say "crazy" people did it.... and yet when it's someone from another country with another religion they don't understand that there are billions (yes billions) of normal, moral, law abiding followers, and select groups of crazies.
 
Re: ElBaradei Wants Bush Probe

So Mohamed ElBaradei wants a probe in to the Bush white for the actions that led to the Iraq war. I think it's high time something like this happened.

It has already happened. Back in 2004. 7 years ago.

The left didn't like the result and that's probably why you never heard of it.

Pull your head out of the lefty media and wake up.
 
Re: ElBaradei Wants Bush Probe

It has already happened. Back in 2004. 7 years ago.

The left didn't like the result and that's probably why you never heard of it.

Pull your head out of the lefty media and wake up.

Not really true. The entire thing was never really addressed, and we did have the determination that Fieth inappropriately used intel, which would lead us down another Bush path if we wanted to go that way.
 
Re: ElBaradei Wants Bush Probe

What I have never gotten over is how one of the world's best intelligence forces was so completely wrong about a dictator who had--in the latter years--mostly been a romance writing recluse. Unless, of course--they wanted to be wrong.
 
Re: ElBaradei Wants Bush Probe

There is no credible evidence that President Bush launched the war with full knowledge that Iraq did not possess WMD and did not pose any threat to U.S.

I dont have full knowledge that there arent gnomes stealing my underwear. I'd better invade under the bed...
 
Re: ElBaradei Wants Bush Probe

What I have never gotten over is how one of the world's best intelligence forces was so completely wrong about a dictator who had--in the latter years--mostly been a romance writing recluse. Unless, of course--they wanted to be wrong.

Some people were fired, evidence was ostensibly 'manufactured'. Look at a picture long enough you can make it look like you want.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

Bush took action because he was responsible for the safety and security of 300 million people, even though the possibility of another attack was a hundred or even a million to one, and we'll really never know what would have happened had Bush taken a different path.

Faced with the same situation and responsibility, Clinton, Gore and even Obama would have done the same thing.

ricksfolly

"Another attack"

When was the first time Hussein attacked?
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I have what I feel is an interesting perspective on this issue. I watched the entire run-up to the Iraq war on Free Speech TV.

I had a lot of it recorded, but lost the drive it was on. Nevertheless, I watched that channel debunk and challenge the entire spectacle.

From the first conflation. I can't remember if it was Al Qaida and Iraq or Iraq and 9-11. But I remember they called.shenanigans and announced they were leading is to war. And they did.

They said over and over and over that Hussein was contained. I saw documentaries that predated the conflict and journalism at the time directly challenging the Bush WH's narrative. And ya know what? They were right.

They even reported on the possibility that Hussein was lying to bluff his enemies.

I watched hours of this at work, and much of it was from sources like the BBC. German television. Award winning documentaries and journalism. Very very left, non mainstream media. So left it makes claims of liberal bias laughable.

And right. Completely right. No WMDs worth counting. Contained. No threat.

Just thought id throw that in, as that channel was only on Dish Network and most people I talk to haven't even heard of it. Not even sure if its still on the air.

The takeaway is, I SAW credible sources challenging the validity.of the evidence being presented during the runup as it was being presented. Former inspectors clarifying what they actually saw as opposed to how their reports were being spun. All the way to the invasion, and after.

They busted the Jessica Lynch story immediately, I knew days before it broke in the MM.

I know what I saw with my own eyes. I do not believe they went into Iraq in good faith. Bush may have been duped by people he trusted. But Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al? Guilty as sin.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

History will judge the decision as flawed. It won't judge it as constituting a war crime.
I believe the weapons were there. Chemical rounds were found. But not in the numbers that would have made any difference. I believe the Iraqi landscape holds many secrets. And probably will continue to for many years.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

"Another attack"

When was the first time Hussein attacked?

August 1990.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I'm willing to give GWB the benefit of the doubt about Iraq, though I know that one of the orders given to the intelligence service right after 9/11 was to find some way to prove Saddam was behind it. He was looking for an excuse to get Saddam long before one arrived. But he may not have known. Someone knew. Whoever that is, that guy is the one we ought to prosecute.

However, I will NOT let the torture slide. It's against international law. It's against American law. It violates treaties we signed. Anyone who authorized the use of torture is a war criminal and a traitor. And yes, my partisan friends, if Obama did it, he's one, too.

We.
Do.
Not.
Condone.
Torture.
In.
America.

End of f#$king discussion. If you don't like it, you leave the civilized world and go live in Saudi Arabia.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I believe the weapons were there. Chemical rounds were found. But not in the numbers that would have made any difference. I believe the Iraqi landscape holds many secrets. And probably will continue to for many years.

The trouble is belief isn't evidence, and the evidence we have of his crumbling infastructure, it takes a huge willingness to suspend disbelief to keep anging on to hope that Saddam was a real and serious threat that requirted invasion and thousands of lives spent.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I believe the weapons were there. Chemical rounds were found. But not in the numbers that would have made any difference. I believe the Iraqi landscape holds many secrets. And probably will continue to for many years.

What was found were roughly 500 artillery rounds over a period of several years and in two and threes right across Iraq - there was no cache. They were remnants of the Iraq-Iran conflict, and so degraded as to be useless as weapons. A very few were suspected of having contained chemical weapons, but the state of degradation made any such findings impossible to confirm. Anyone who believes Saddam Hussein had weapons in the qualtities claimed by the Bush administration in 2003, is conveniently delusional. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I think he should be prosecuted and not just for an illegal and immoral invasion, but for torture and spreading WMD. Millions of pounds of DU (depleted uranium).
You clearly don't have a clue what DU is or what it is used for.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I'm willing to give GWB the benefit of the doubt about Iraq, though I know that one of the orders given to the intelligence service right after 9/11 was to find some way to prove Saddam was behind it.
I doubt this. I was an intelligence officer for most of my 20 year Army career. The case against Saddam Hussein, was built over many years. He had them. He used them. He killed his enemies inside Iraq with them. We had plenty of evidence that he had chemical weapons and that his generals expected him to direct their use against the western forces.

He was looking for an excuse to get Saddam long before one arrived.
He had ample reasons. Hussein had failed to live up to the terms of the cease fire agreement.

But he may not have known. Someone knew. Whoever that is, that guy is the one we ought to prosecute.
I do not understand the desire to prosecute policy differences.

However, I will NOT let the torture slide. It's against international law. It's against American law. It violates treaties we signed. Anyone who authorized the use of torture is a war criminal and a traitor. And yes, my partisan friends, if Obama did it, he's one, too.
Fine. But we have not tortured anyone.
End of f#$king discussion. If you don't like it, you leave the civilized world and go live in Saudi Arabia.
My aren't you the powerful one?
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

The trouble is belief isn't evidence, and the evidence we have of his crumbling infastructure, it takes a huge willingness to suspend disbelief to keep anging on to hope that Saddam was a real and serious threat that requirted invasion and thousands of lives spent.

I will put you down as undecided.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

What was found were roughly 500 artillery rounds over a period of several years and in two and threes right across Iraq - there was no cache. They were remnants of the Iraq-Iran conflict, and so degraded as to be useless as weapons. A very few were suspected of having contained chemical weapons, but the state of degradation made any such findings impossible to confirm. Anyone who believes Saddam Hussein had weapons in the qualtities claimed by the Bush administration in 2003, is conveniently delusional. :mrgreen:
True. Such is the nature of intelligence work. After major combat operations the US made a significant effort to find the chemical and biological programs and weapons we believed Hussein had. After an enormous amount of additional work, including translating and understanding tons of captured documents it was clear that there were no weapons to speak of.

Still, the Iraqis buried many interesting things outside their cities. We have found a few things.

So why do Bush's enemies believe he lied? I cannot fathom it myself.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

I doubt this. I was an intelligence officer for most of my 20 year Army career. The case against Saddam Hussein, was built over many years. He had them. He used them. He killed his enemies inside Iraq with them. We had plenty of evidence that he had chemical weapons and that his generals expected him to direct their use against the western forces.

Richard Clarke, the head of the US anti-terror operations before, during, and after 9/11 has directly quoted this exchange. GWB said "find a way to prove Saddam did this." The chemical weapons you mention were the ones we gave him to fight Iran. There was no evidence whatsoever that there were any plans to use them against us. Iraq wanted us to leave them alone, not get entangled with us.

I do not understand the desire to prosecute policy differences.

Starting an illegal war is not a policy difference. It is murder, without justification. That's a crime. Just because you're backed by a government does not make a person above the law. It violates US and international law. I don't know how many times I can explain this to you. CRIME.

Fine. But we have not tortured anyone.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the real world here. All that hogwash about "enhanced interrogation" not being torture because we make up a new word for it is just that. It's a load of bull. Torture is torture and we tortured. There is no way to weasel out of that. Torture is contrary to the constitution, and anyone who took an oath to uphold that constitution and authorized torture violated that oath. That's treason.
 
Re: Former U.N. Nuclear Weapons Inspector: "GW Bush should face criminal investigati

Richard Clarke, the head of the US anti-terror operations before, during, and after 9/11 has directly quoted this exchange. GWB said "find a way to prove Saddam did this."
Other than a guy hawking a book was there any other witness? Somehow I doubt it.

The chemical weapons you mention were the ones we gave him to fight Iran. There was no evidence whatsoever that there were any plans to use them against us.
I know this to be false.

Starting an illegal war is not a policy difference.
What makes you think it was illegal?
It is murder, without justification. That's a crime. Just because you're backed by a government does not make a person above the law. It violates US and international law. I don't know how many times I can explain this to you. CRIME.
I am sensing kookiness here. Yep. Definitely kookiness.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the real world here. All that hogwash about "enhanced interrogation" not being torture because we make up a new word for it is just that. It's a load of bull. Torture is torture and we tortured. There is no way to weasel out of that. Torture is contrary to the constitution, and anyone who took an oath to uphold that constitution and authorized torture violated that oath. That's treason.
No torture took place. And just because you call it torture does not make it so.
 
Back
Top Bottom