• 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

Reid or Polosi, perhaps might do something like that, but I don't think Obama would stoop that low.

Not even then, despite some people's hatred towards them.

The simple fact is the U.N. does not have the authority nor the support of the leaders or people of the U.S. for that type of thing.

If Bush is not brought before a U.S. court, there is no way that ANYONE currently serving in congress or the new administration that would turn Bush over to the U.N.

Sorry, but there is no politician currently serving in Congress or the new administration that would support turning Bush over to the U.N. on that threat.
 
Thats delusional, he is not your president, he is just a civilian with a dark past. And you dealing with him is doing nothing.
Incorrect, former presidents are afforded security detail and are protected for life past service, that he is not the president anymore is irrelevent, he is a former executive and is due all the respect for the office therein, I hate Jimmy Carter but respect that he was a former president.
 
Incorrect, former presidents are afforded security detail and are protected for life past service, that he is not the president anymore is irrelevent, he is a former executive and is due all the respect for the office therein, I hate Jimmy Carter but respect that he was a former president.

You forgot to add what ADK ignores. All Presidents are privvy to many things, things none of probably will never know about. EVEN IF Obama and Pelosi wanted to hand Bush over, they couldn't for National Security reasons.
 
Bush committed war crimes when he ordered and authorized torture.

Bush committed war crimes when he lied to the world his reasons for invading Iraq.

Obama has done none of these.

What's going on in Israel/Gaza is no comparison.

Obama ordered attacks that killed civilians and children based on iffy intel. OBviously they were wrong and Obama acted in bad faith, terrorizing innocent people. He should be tried for war crimes.
 
Obama ordered attacks that killed civilians and children based on iffy intel. OBviously they were wrong and Obama acted in bad faith, terrorizing innocent people. He should be tried for war crimes.

So you support trying Bush for war crimes then?
 
Is that your opinion or did you have to first check on Limbaugh's website to get his opinion? Did you get melon head's permission to post that reply? :doh

Finding out you're a dyed-in-the-wool ditto head explains why your posts are heavy on rhetoric and personal attacks and light, very light, on facts. :roll:

The pressure is gently building to prosecute dubya and his punk thugs. I'm sure melon head will post his usual spin as soon as he hears each increase in pressure to spank dubya. Just keep an eye on his site. He, like you, never disappoints. :lol:

Stay tuned.....

...tick...tock...tick...tock....

Don't forget to bring your handcuffs, then have fun in whatever replaces Gitmo. :mrgreen:
 
That's rather nice of you to give ADK the power to dictate your position. :lol:

Sine you asked a silly question I thought a silly answer was in order don't you?

My post was taking ADK's POV on Bush and applying all her reasoning to Obama's first military action.
 
Sine you asked a silly question I thought a silly answer was in order don't you?

My post was taking ADK's POV on Bush and applying all her reasoning to Obama's first military action.

I know what you were doing. I just thought I would turn it back around on ya. ;)
 
You forgot to add what ADK ignores. All Presidents are privvy to many things, things none of probably will never know about. EVEN IF Obama and Pelosi wanted to hand Bush over, they couldn't for National Security reasons.
I thought that was part of the inference with the security mention, good catch on that, thanks for the save.
 
Bush committed war crimes when he lied to the world his reasons for invading Iraq.
What lies?

Please make a list or offer just one example.
One.
 
It seems the lefties now have their own version of the dictionary:

Lie (v.): Intentional making of a false statement; or if you are a Republican, saying something that is false, whether intentional or not.

I think eventually there will be civil war in the US, it seems unavoidable.. Both sides try to redefine words to fit their own policies. Its getting ridiculous and out of hands, the sides are getting more and more extreme and more and more hostile towards each others and the other sides ideas.

Either that or the US will end up like in "idiocracy" where politics and such just gets more and more stupid, and the people get more and more stupid as a result of the political process and polarization created between them because of politics and parties.
 
I would say the difference is that the war on OBL/al'Qaeda is justified while the war on Hussein/Iraq was not.
And who gets to determine that, you?
Where are you going with this? It's not hypocritical to support the war in Afghanistan but not the one in Iraq. People keep merging the two together as though they're one and the same, but they're not. If you want to know why people support war crimes charges for civilians killed in Iraq but not in Afghanistan, you should start by understanding why people view one war as justified and the other not. That's all I'm saying.
 
What lies?

Please make a list or offer just one example.
One.

They've been listed and debated here plenty! Just look for their threads.

However... From Bush's speech in Cincinnati on October 10, 2002..
We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

ref: CNN.com - Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud - Oct. 6, 2002

Rice and Cheney repeated and pushed this lie on all the talk shows.

This lie, that Iraq, had WMDs, especially a nuclear program, had been proven false to the liars in the white house numerous times, by intelligence community experts as well as leaders of other countries! They had been warned that all the info they based their claims on were either blatantly forged or had no basis in fact. The white house liars continued using them anyway.

These lies will be their down fall! Whether they find justice in an international forum or domestic makes no difference to me. Just so long as it happens.

And do I need to mention the authorizing and ordering of unlawful torture? No, I don't think so. :roll:

Our country's reputation is at the lowest point in the world that it has ever been in all history. Bush and his thugs are solely responsible for this. This is an open wound on our country and will not heal until dubya and his unpatriotic cronies pay for their crimes.

It's only a matter of time...
 
I think eventually there will be civil war in the US, it seems unavoidable.. Both sides try to redefine words to fit their own policies. Its getting ridiculous and out of hands, the sides are getting more and more extreme and more and more hostile towards each others and the other sides ideas.

Either that or the US will end up like in "idiocracy" where politics and such just gets more and more stupid, and the people get more and more stupid as a result of the political process and polarization created between them because of politics and parties.

Sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
 
What lies?

Please make a list or offer just one example.
One.
- Centrifuge tubes "really only suited" for nuclear enrichment programs. Statement was made by Rice several months after the NIE said they were "poorly suited" for that purpose.
- Curveball was a "solid source." Statement was made by Powell after German intelligence warned us about his serious credibility problems.
- Hussein might give WMDs to terrorists "on any given day." Statement was made by Bush several months after the NIE said that probability was low.
- "There is no doubt..." repeated multiple times when there really was doubt.
- "We can't wait for a smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud." Statement was made by Rice when there was never a smoking gun by any definition.

Please research these before discounting them out of hand. You will find they are all "lies" in that Team Bush knew at the time they were untrue or uncertain.

It's also important to keep separate statements made before and after the 2002 NIE. Many statements on the famous Democrat quote list were based on the 1998 NIE. The assessment was not the same in 2002.
 
- Centrifuge tubes "really only suited" for nuclear enrichment programs. Statement was made by Rice several months after the NIE said they were "poorly suited" for that purpose.
- Curveball was a "solid source." Statement was made by Powell after German intelligence warned us about his serious credibility problems.
- Hussein might give WMDs to terrorists "on any given day." Statement was made by Bush several months after the NIE said that probability was low.
- "There is no doubt..." repeated multiple times when there really was doubt.
- "We can't wait for a smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud." Statement was made by Rice when there was never a smoking gun by any definition.

Please research these before discounting them out of hand. You will find they are all "lies" in that Team Bush knew at the time they were untrue or uncertain.

It's also important to keep separate statements made before and after the 2002 NIE. Many statements on the famous Democrat quote list were based on the 1998 NIE. The assessment was not the same in 2002.
So where are you going with all this? Are you hoping for a fantasy, or do you really believe the UN is going to PROSECUTE Bush? Obviously it's the former, cause the latter is silly.
 
Any UN resolution is a joke if the great powers are not behind it.
 
So where are you going with all this?
Team Bush knowingly lied to the public about the facts behind the rationale for war in Iraq. That's where I'm going.

Are you hoping for a fantasy, or do you really believe the UN is going to PROSECUTE Bush? Obviously it's the former, cause the latter is silly.
No, actually I tend to agree with the concerns behind what kind of precedent this would impose on our sovereignty. The U.S. needs to man up and prosecute him our own damn selves.
 
- Centrifuge tubes "really only suited" for nuclear enrichment programs. Statement was made by Rice several months after the NIE said they were "poorly suited" for that purpose.
- Curveball was a "solid source." Statement was made by Powell after German intelligence warned us about his serious credibility problems.
- Hussein might give WMDs to terrorists "on any given day." Statement was made by Bush several months after the NIE said that probability was low.
- "There is no doubt..." repeated multiple times when there really was doubt.
- "We can't wait for a smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud." Statement was made by Rice when there was never a smoking gun by any definition.

Please research these before discounting them out of hand. You will find they are all "lies" in that Team Bush knew at the time they were untrue or uncertain.

It's also important to keep separate statements made before and after the 2002 NIE. Many statements on the famous Democrat quote list were based on the 1998 NIE. The assessment was not the same in 2002.

If hyperbole were an impeachable offense, every President in our history would have been found guilty. That's all you have here.
 
Team Bush knowingly lied to the public about the facts behind the rationale for war in Iraq. That's where I'm going.


No, actually I tend to agree with the concerns behind what kind of precedent this would impose on our sovereignty. The U.S. needs to man up and prosecute him our own damn selves.
Yeah, I'm sure you're real concerned about our sovereignty. Your feigned concern is a joke. Join Fantasy Island with your other buds.
 
If hyperbole were an impeachable offense, every President in our history would have been found guilty. That's all you have here.
You are equivocating "lie" and "hyperbole," not me. Let me explain the difference. If I'm hungry, and I say that I'm so hungry I could eat a horse, that's hyperbole. If I'm not hungry, and I say that I'm so hungry I could eat a horse, that's a lie.

Yeah, I'm sure you're real concerned about our sovereignty. Your feigned concern is a joke. Join Fantasy Island with your other buds.
Thanks for the ad-hominem. Got anything relevant to what I actually said?
 
You are equivocating "lie" and "hyperbole," not me. Let me explain the difference. If I'm hungry, and I say that I'm so hungry I could eat a horse, that's hyperbole. If I'm not hungry, and I say that I'm so hungry I could eat a horse, that's a lie.


Thanks for the ad-hominem. Got anything relevant to what I actually said?

Actually, you have it backwards. You're the one saying that the hyperbole used by the Bush administration is the same as lying. Take your last bullet point, for example. No one said there was a mushroom cloud, or that Iraq had nuclear weapons. What was said was that they didn't want to see the smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud. Clearly, hyperbole used for effect, and one glommed on to by the "Bush to The Hague!" crowd as a lie, regardless of what was actually said.
 
Centrifuge tubes "really only suited" for nuclear enrichment programs. Statement was made by Rice several months after the NIE said they were "poorly suited" for that purpose.
My reply: Source: Senate Armed Services Cmte. Testimony of David Kay.

Remember these are taken under oath. Not that it matters to a lib.
KAY: Senator Kennedy, it's impossible in a short time I have to reply to take you through fully that. And in fact, that's my hope that Senator Roberts and his committee will have done that.

But let me just say that while it -- there's a selecting process that goes on both ways. There were people in the DOE who believed that those aluminum tubes were indeed for a centrifuge program. It's a lot easier after the fact and after you know the truth to be selective that you were right. I've gone through this a lot in my career.
LEVIN: My final question, Dr. Kay, subject to the chair perhaps commenting on my request, is this: Is it your judgment that the aluminum tubes that Iraq was trying to acquire were intended or used for a centrifuge program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons? Is that your view?

KAY: Senator Levin, this is an area which falls into what Senator Warner referred to -- where I think it's important that the investigation continue.

It is my judgment, based on the evidence that was collected, but there clearly can be more, that it's more than probable that those tubes were intended for use in a conventional missile program, rather than in a centrifuge program. But it's an open question still being investigated.

LEVIN: But that is your judgment, that they were not related to uranium enrichment?

KAY: That is my personal judgment, that they probably were not, based on evidence -- but there's still more evidence possible to gain.

LEVIN: One short, final question, my second final question: In your judgment, had Iraq reconstituted its nuclear weapon program in the way you understand the word "reconstitute"?

KAY: It was in the early stages of renovating the program, building new buildings. It was not a reconstituted, full-blown nuclear program.

LEVIN: Thank you.
CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee



- Curveball was a "solid source." Statement was made by Powell after German intelligence warned us about his serious credibility problems.
I do not see a lie here. Do you think intel agencies deal with Cinderella's? It was a "slam dunk" as far as the CIA Director knew. You know, the same guy The Clintons met with twice?

- Hussein might give WMDs to terrorists "on any given day." Statement was made by Bush several months after the NIE said that probability was low.
The probability that a bunch of terrorists would fly three of four buildings into strategic targets killing thousands was also low probability. So low nobody had thought about it.
No Lie here either.
Here is more testimony on that scenario:
CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation.

You said that there was a risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer of such weapons or weapon stockpiles, whether they be large, small or programs, whether it's information that Iraqi scientists might be willing to sell or work in cooperation with rogue organizations or even nations.

But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?

KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his programs being successful.

KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid, we barely avoided.

- "There is no doubt..." repeated multiple times when there really was doubt.
This does not illustrate a "lie"... and you make a generalization... do not state a shred of fact.

- "We can't wait for a smoking gun to turn into a mushroom cloud." Statement was made by Rice when there was never a smoking gun by any definition.
Many from the Democrat party, including its leadership and Presidents, The Clintons, stated with force he was a serious threat with WMD. Hillary defended her vote before a gathering of Code Pinko's.

Please research these before discounting them out of hand. You will find they are all "lies" in that Team Bush knew at the time they were untrue or uncertain.
Researched. No lies found.

Try again.

It's also important to keep separate statements made before and after the 2002 NIE. Many statements on the famous Democrat quote list were based on the 1998 NIE. The assessment was not the same in 2002.
LOL. You get to pick the facts. LOL.
You see, Saddam kicked out the inspecteurs of da sortie of da yew-ehn (UN) in 1998. Why would the intel change? Why would he disarm himself? LOL.
Sorry, that was funny.

CNS - Iraq and UNSCOM: Selected CNS Missile Database Abstracts 1998
Bibliography: Washington Times, 6 August 1998, <http://www.washtimes.com>
Headline: Saddam Shuts Down UN Inspectors
Orig. Source:

ABSTRACT:

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on 5 August 1998 ended all cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. An Iraqi government statement said that "there would be no further cooperation with the UN's Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) until the following demands were met:"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom