• 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!

Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

  • Yes we will see them and they are justified.

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.

    Votes: 4 8.3%
  • No we will not see them but they would have been justified.

    Votes: 14 29.2%
  • No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.

    Votes: 27 56.3%

  • Total voters
    48
What I'm saying is that international law is irrelevent to U.S. constitutional affairs because we cannot sign away american sovreignity,

We are a signator of the Geneva Convention and a member of the world community. If a court, that the U.S. and SCOTUS agree has standing, brings indictments against Bush, and any of his cronies, then you can rest assured the USA will hand him over for prosecution.

And that will be a sad but, righteous day.
 
Last edited:
We are a signator of the Geneva Convention and a member of the world community. If a court, that the U.S. and SCOTUS agree has standing, brings indictments against Bush, and any of his cronies, then you can rest assured the USA will hand him over for prosecution.

And that will be a sad but, righteous day.




nonsense, keep dreaming..... :roll:
 
nonsense, keep dreaming..... :roll:
Exactly, the poster conveniently ignored the constitutional and contract law examples I generously stated earlier about why the postition of international law is untenable, any opinion to the opposite is simply that, an opinion.
 
Have you taken a gander at his approval ratings lately? :doh
Approval ratings versus your claim that "most americans think he is a traitor", I would love to see your logical process on this one.



Hell-LOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! How long have you been in that cave? :roll: What difference does it make if some people think more of Bush than someone else? What matters is what they think of Bush! That right wing tactic of switching the argument won't hold any water.
The difference is YOU are trying to make the logical leap that low approval ratings = "Most Americans think Bush is a traitor" I am pointing out that the Democrat led bi-cameral house of Congress has a lower approval rating than the president, does that.....follow with me.......by your logic mean that "Most Americans think that the Democrat congress are traitors"? Where is this scientific poll that states "most Americans think Bush is a traitor"? What's the criteria? Margin of error? Polling group? Group doing the research? If you don't have that, then "Most Americans think Bush is a traitor" is YOUR opinion, and YOU are trying to assert that it is a shared one.



You'll forgive me if I don't take Gobieman's word on this issue. Bush ordered Cheney and Rove to disclose the identity of an undercover CIA agent. No matter your party, that should be important to you. Bush ordered torture to be used against prisoners. Torture that people from other countries were convicted of using.
Okay, it was Richard Armitage that leaked the source, "Valerie Plame" was NOT under covert status at the time, that's all been settled.



Bush and Cheney lied to the world about what so-called proof they used to validate invading Iraq. He blamed Britain's intelligence doc which has been proven to be based on forged documents. AND there is talk that Cheney is the one behind that forged document. Oh if only they could prove that one! :lol:
They didn't lie, the info was possibly bad, the buildup of military force allowed for a timeframe for weapons removal, which is speculation admittedly, the "forged documents" is bogus, already been proven, nice try though.



GySgt provided history. It, however had nothing to do with why Bush invaded Iraq. What happen ten years ago doesn't matter when you're talking about invading an innocent country anticipating killing thousands of people! What is important is what is true at the time! And "at the time" Bush and Cheney and Rummy KNEW Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Got it, yet? To believe that right wing fairy tale is to swallow Bush and Cheney's lies, hook, line and sinker. Wake up and read what they actually did.
So, you are saying that you know more than someone who has served in theater and is privvy to the information now?:doh You are seriously losing all credibility in this one. C-YA.





What is way past ridiculous is people like you defending the crimes this President has committed. If Clinton had done these despicable acts the neo-cons and right-wingers would have been all over him. And I would be right there with them! Party loyalty has its limits. And committing treason is way past any loyalty line.
There are no crimes, get of the kool-aid for a second and use some logic.
Even Bush 41 thinks his son is a traitor! As a former head of the CIA he knows how serious such a crime is.[/COLOR][/B]
YouTube - Bush 41 on Traitors
Yeah, cause a video on youtube could NEVER be edited right?:roll:
 
Last edited:
There are no crimes, get of the kool-aid for a second and use some logic.
Yeah, cause a video on youtube could NEVER be edited right?:roll:
One last thing, That video was probably pre-judgement on the "Valerie Plame" case, when it was unknown whether her status was covert or not, she was not covert BTW, AND, where did that video state anything about GWB, I know though, your inferrence that the president and vice president should be enough in your mind to tie in the traitor speech of G.H.W.B. because we just don't get the "subtlety" of the speech right? This is a weak attempt from you an all fronts, ya gotta do better than that.:laughat:
 
There is nothing inherent about war crime prosecutions that state they can only happen after a government is overturned.

It just so happens that in the past, the only way to bring to light war crimes is by toppling the government who manipulates public opinion. That is no longer the case with the free flow of information due to the advent of the internet. The media still holds significant sway in terms of public opinion, but things can no longer be ignored as blogging and less prevalent journalism has a medium to inform the public.

Summary of Findings: Internet Overtakes Newspapers As News Source
And that means it's time to expect internet control soon.
 
They didn't lie, the info was possibly bad, the buildup of military force allowed for a timeframe for weapons removal, which is speculation admittedly, the "forged documents" is bogus, already been proven, nice try though.

They lied through their teeth.

Why do you think Cheney was so mad at Wilson for exposing the White house's lies to go to war?

The forged document was simply an excuse to blame it all on Britain's intel.

So, you are saying that you know more than someone who has served in theater and is privvy to the information now?

What does "serving in theater" have to do with knowing the facts leading up to war? :doh The military would be one of the last groups to find out the truth why they're in a war. They don't have the free will to make judgements as to why they're at war. They simply follow orders in good faith that their President is acting in good faith. THEY should be more inquisitive about the truth and THEY should be the angriest at the truth. If they choose to not look for the truth, that to me is akin to the ostrich hiding its head in the sand. GySgt's "history" is just that. He avoided the real reasons and the time immediately prior to Bush's lying to Congress and the American people.

There are no crimes

Then why did Bush insert into a bill attempting to give immunity to his entire staff against prosecution for the war crime of torture? If there was no crime, what would he and his gang need immunity from?

Here's a bone to chew on...

George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent – according to Scooter Libby: YouTube - George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent
 
And that would matter only if they committed war crimes, which most of them have not done since international law doesn't apply to U.S. war powers in this case.

Actually, even US law prohibits torture, to give an example.

What attrocities are you talking about specifically?

I love how the Bush supporters LOVE to play dumb like this.... anytime a point is made it's just a matter of denying that anyone else had made that point previously.

Wrong, because he is the commander in chief, but is not issuing direct orders.

Not issuing direct orders, BUT DOES direct the policies for the subordinate commanders who 'trickle down' these policies into their orders.... and plus, there was a newscast shown previously where WHITEHOUSE PERSONEL (in Bush's cabinet) were shown to have been DISCUSSING SPECIFIC TORTURE, DURATION and TECHNIQUE of torture of SPECIFIC DETAINEEES IN THE WHITEHOUSE!!!

?????? If you are talking about defense spending you are absolutely incorrect, it's called the supply chain, every step in making any produced unit involves supplies including but not limited to finished goods(parts) made from raw materials, no one company is completely involved in the whole chain as a general rule, so every one unit arguably creates jobs at a 1:5 ratio, that's a lot of paychecks, the next argument is that those paychecks purchase other goods and services or are else invested or saved, creating more mobility of the money as lending or purchasing power. If this is what you are calling "trickle down" it does work, if you are simply blathering then that would explain why you are using that old "rich get richer......" argument.

You're right, it's not 1 company that gets all the money, it's a small handful of companies, oil companies, arms dealers, military contractors (re:mercenaries).

Yes, 'trickle down' does work... it ensures that the CEO's of various companies have their multimillion dollar bonuses intact while the average workers are paid enough for sustenance and sometimes a little extra. That 'rich get richer' argument is old because it is a truism. I mean just compare the prices of various things from the 1940's-50's compared with the EQUIVALENT products today and you will see an inflation rate in the 1000's of percent while the rates of pay have gone up in the hundreds of percent (150-250%)... add to the fact that there is many times more DEBT then there is currency in circulation.

Yes, because people are trying to engineer the economy, which wrecks it, if you let the natural rules of economics take effect you wouldn't need external stimuli such as war, but as of right now we must fix what socialists have decimated, and unfortunately war is an easy sell when you have true evil in the world, such as Saddam, Osama, Milosevic, et. al.

So, which is it?? Do we live in a 'free-market' or do we live in a 'trickle-down' economy?? You seem to be arguing for both sides of this?

Yes, there is TRUE evil in the world... and while it may be 'socialists' that have wrecked the economy, it's not 'socialists' like you've mentioned that have caused this, but the 'socialists' within our own country included.

It's more complex than "banks fail and down the economy", it has more to do with constantly supplementing earnings with goodies, coercion towards risky loans by government on banks, overinflated markets, lack of a hard money standard, overly complex economic theories that don't work replacing the common sense of free-market economics, and an overall "gimme" attitude within our generation.

- constantly supplementing earnings with goodies, I agree.
- coercion towards risky loans, while this 'coercion' is a factor, the banks took it a step further and HEAVILY ADVERTISED these risky loans arguably KNOWING that this would eventually come back to 'bite them' (unless the goal is to impoverish america)
- overinflated markets, this issue boils down to fraud on a company by company basis, where companies might play with the numbers in order to maximize tax deductions or various other reasons slowly building up a house of cards that eventually crumbles when the truth of the company finances are forced to come out.
- a free-market system rather than the 'complex theories', I would agree except that we aren't really in a 'free market', make the distinction the market has a lot of 'freedoms' but we end up with 6 big media companies controlling over 90% of the media, a small handful of large auto-manufacturers accounting for the VAST MAJORITY of car sales, or like in Canada where there is a 'free choice' of 3 or 4 cell phone companies, a free market in software where the choice is Windows, Mac or linux, a free market in soft drinks where the choice is always coke, pepsi or imitation.
- the 'gimme' attitude, I agree with that as well.

Have you taken a gander at his approval ratings lately? :doh

Last I saw was a 20% or less approuval... too bad there isn't really a 'vote of no confidence' in the president.

You'll forgive me if I don't take Gobieman's word on this issue. Bush ordered Cheney and Rove to disclose the identity of an undercover CIA agent. No matter your party, that should be important to you. Bush ordered torture to be used against prisoners. Torture that people from other countries were convicted of using.

Don't forget that Bush could admit to sustaining himself by eating 3 babies a day and still some would jump to his defense and say that 'he only eats terrorist babies'...

GySgt provided history. It, however had nothing to do with why Bush invaded Iraq. What happen ten years ago doesn't matter when you're talking about invading an innocent country anticipating killing thousands of people! What is important is what is true at the time! And "at the time" Bush and Cheney and Rummy KNEW Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Got it, yet? To believe that right wing fairy tale is to swallow Bush and Cheney's lies, hook, line and sinker. Wake up and read what they actually did.

Add the distinction : They did NOT SAY that there was a connection, BUT they HEAVILY associated 9-11 and Saddam hussein while presenting the case for war.

Approval ratings versus your claim that "most americans think he is a traitor", I would love to see your logical process on this one.

The last CNN poll I had seen on the issue found that app. 80% of americans felt lied to on Iraq, about the same number that feels that 9-11 was at the least 'ALLOWED to happen' if not 'orchestrated by' the US.

They didn't lie, the info was possibly bad, the buildup of military force allowed for a timeframe for weapons removal, which is speculation admittedly, the "forged documents" is bogus, already been proven, nice try though.

It's bogus because someone in the Bush administration 'debunked it'... the same person that 'debunked' the downing street memo'...

Look, it's only been 'debunked' if you use the definition of debunked as being 'I have a different opinion therefore YOU are wrong.'

There are no crimes, get of the kool-aid for a second and use some logic.
Yeah, cause a video on youtube could NEVER be edited right?:roll:

LMAO... I love that defense... like on the issue of 9-11 what are you basing this assertion of edited videos?? Are you an expert in the field and have evidence that the video was modified? or are you on a 'debunking' spree??

So, show us the evidence to back up your claim, the original video side by-side with the 'edited' one...

Gotta love neo-con supporters defending an issue... if it's a valid point 'it never happened', was 'debunked' or 'does not apply'.
 
They lied through their teeth.
BULL **** You have no proof and THERE ARE NO PERJURY CHARGES FILED or CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS Until that happens you are in fact slandering the president by constantly asserting he lied without proof AND committing libel. In case you don't know those definitions, they are spoken and written defamation of another, that means you are spreading falsehoods, if you can prove yourself even half correct, I will apologize, until then quit with the "Bush lied" garbage, it makes you look silly.
Why do you think Cheney was so mad at Wilson for exposing the White house's lies to go to war?
Jesus ****ing christ, your side already got shot down on this, Joe Wilson basically came out with two different stories under two different administrations, if you wanna be pissed about lying, be pissed at him.

The forged document was simply an excuse to blame it all on Britain's intel.
Again, the "forged document" is a debunked myth.



What does "serving in theater" have to do with knowing the facts leading up to war? :doh The military would be one of the last groups to find out the truth why they're in a war.
You don't have to serve in theater to know what's happening, but I know many people who have and their unclassified personal accounts match our resident G.S, not yours, your accounts match those of the kooks that constantly spread mis-information to people like......well.....you, who do YOU think is going to be more accurate:roll:
They don't have the free will to make judgements as to why they're at war. They simply follow orders in good faith that their President is acting in good faith.
Bull, they have plenty of time when off duty, it's not like they are being shot at 24/7.
THEY should be more inquisitive about the truth and THEY should be the angriest at the truth. If they choose to not look for the truth, that to me is akin to the ostrich hiding its head in the sand. GySgt's "history" is just that. He avoided the real reasons and the time immediately prior to Bush's lying to Congress and the American people.
Look in the MIRROR before you go spouting that off, you don't trust anyone with a differing opinion and it shows, I have seen you lose just about every debate because you go with emotion over logic to maintain this worldview you have, face it, you are wrong.


Then why did Bush insert into a bill attempting to give immunity to his entire staff against prosecution for the war crime of torture? If there was no crime, what would he and his gang need immunity from?
Does the term witchhunt mean anything to you? In other words, when the Democrats tried to re-define interrogation techniques as torture, then the president had to protect his people, don't be obtuse.
Here's a bone to chew on...

George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent – according to Scooter Libby: YouTube - George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent
And here's more egg on your face.
YouTube - Richard Armitage Admits Plame Leak "Extraordinarily Foolish"
 
Actually, even US law prohibits torture, to give an example.
It prevents torture of U.S. citizens, and that actually came about because of court cases and an interpretation of standing principle to formulate more accurate due process laws, you are technically correct, but the wording of the constitution bans no such thing specifically. Point two is that torture is debateable, and, as I adressed to the other poster, people constantly tried to re-define torture v. interrogation throughout the whole war, so the argument's effectiveness is debateable when talking about U.S. law and invalid towards the Geneva conventions and nill on the need for an international tribunal.






Not issuing direct orders, BUT DOES direct the policies for the subordinate commanders who 'trickle down' these policies into their orders.... and plus, there was a newscast shown previously where WHITEHOUSE PERSONEL (in Bush's cabinet) were shown to have been DISCUSSING SPECIFIC TORTURE, DURATION and TECHNIQUE of torture of SPECIFIC DETAINEEES IN THE WHITEHOUSE!!!
Bush's personnel, okay, they were talking about interrogation techniques, again, how much context is provided in the video, and what are the rights under the constitution or geneva conventions for those caught as enemy combatants, they aren't members of any standing army, and they aren't technically citizens of any country, much less ours, so what protections are due them exactly?



You're right, it's not 1 company that gets all the money, it's a small handful of companies, oil companies, arms dealers, military contractors (re:mercenaries).
No, there is more to it, at the intial purchase then it is this "handful" of companies, but their employees go out and purchase, which requires another supply chain, which leads to those employees purchasing, and yet another supply chain is used......etc.......etc.

Yes, 'trickle down' does work... it ensures that the CEO's of various companies have their multimillion dollar bonuses intact while the average workers are paid enough for sustenance and sometimes a little extra.
Really, that's why I've never had a job with pay rate stagnation, I put out extra effort and it always comes back to me, maybe if people earned more they would get it.
That 'rich get richer' argument is old because it is a truism.
Maybe if someone is in a stagnant union contract are is willing to work for stagnant wages, not anyone else's fault but the individuals.
I mean just compare the prices of various things from the 1940's-50's compared with the EQUIVALENT products today and you will see an inflation rate in the 1000's of percent while the rates of pay have gone up in the hundreds of percent (150-250%)... add to the fact that there is many times more DEBT then there is currency in circulation.
Read the history behind that, here's the dirty secret, it involves the government and overregulation/taxation at all levels, and leaving the gold standard.


So, which is it?? Do we live in a 'free-market' or do we live in a 'trickle-down' economy?? You seem to be arguing for both sides of this?
They aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes, there is TRUE evil in the world... and while it may be 'socialists' that have wrecked the economy, it's not 'socialists' like you've mentioned that have caused this, but the 'socialists' within our own country included.
Yes, it is socialism that wrecked the economy, by slowing down the processes necessary for markets to correct, war jump starts economies like this, which is why they are so easy to get into, all you need is a bad guy. That doesn't invalidate our wars or reasons to get into them, but it just explains why they are easy to get into.



- constantly supplementing earnings with goodies, I agree.
Good, and correct
- coercion towards risky loans, while this 'coercion' is a factor, the banks took it a step further and HEAVILY ADVERTISED these risky loans arguably KNOWING that this would eventually come back to 'bite them' (unless the goal is to impoverish america)
Correct
- overinflated markets, this issue boils down to fraud on a company by company basis, where companies might play with the numbers in order to maximize tax deductions or various other reasons slowly building up a house of cards that eventually crumbles when the truth of the company finances are forced to come out.
Also correct
- a free-market system rather than the 'complex theories', I would agree except that we aren't really in a 'free market', make the distinction the market has a lot of 'freedoms' but we end up with 6 big media companies controlling over 90% of the media, a small handful of large auto-manufacturers accounting for the VAST MAJORITY of car sales, or like in Canada where there is a 'free choice' of 3 or 4 cell phone companies, a free market in software where the choice is Windows, Mac or linux, a free market in soft drinks where the choice is always coke, pepsi or imitation.
Good point, it boils down to the overregulation of corporations, I may have a better idea than the competition, but start behind the eight ball because I don't have the money to cover regulatory burdens, costs, and time losses necessary to the impending beauracracy that comes with it.
- the 'gimme' attitude, I agree with that as well.
We need to get rid of the mentality of automatic rights creation and get back to innovation, production, and investment.


Last I saw was a 20% or less approuval... too bad there isn't really a 'vote of no confidence' in the president.
We may see that within the next generation or so, I don't think the president gets more than a C- for his time in office, but think he takes crap for the wrong reasons and gets a pass on the things we should be questioning.



Don't forget that Bush could admit to sustaining himself by eating 3 babies a day and still some would jump to his defense and say that 'he only eats terrorist babies'...
Understood, I think we need to be fair and have some standard of criticism, instead of the current method of throwing out unsubstantiated opinion as fact.



Add the distinction : They did NOT SAY that there was a connection, BUT they HEAVILY associated 9-11 and Saddam hussein while presenting the case for war.
It's not an impossible stretch, Iraq and Al-Quaida did have a loose relationship, it's a judgement call.

The last CNN poll I had seen on the issue found that app. 80% of americans felt lied to on Iraq, about the same number that feels that 9-11 was at the least 'ALLOWED to happen' if not 'orchestrated by' the US.
I stand corrected on the numbers, however that isn't proof on anything, also, public opinion is tainted IMO because of daily negative press and opposition attacks on him, hard evidence MUST be the standard.



It's bogus because someone in the Bush administration 'debunked it'... the same person that 'debunked' the downing street memo'...
The downing street memo wasn't even a third party account, it was quite a few tiers down from that.

Look, it's only been 'debunked' if you use the definition of debunked as being 'I have a different opinion therefore YOU are wrong.'
No, it's been debunked.



LMAO... I love that defense... like on the issue of 9-11 what are you basing this assertion of edited videos?? Are you an expert in the field and have evidence that the video was modified? or are you on a 'debunking' spree??
Actually, yes, I am college educated in broadcasting and know quite a few editing techniques, and I know that most news packages are edited for time considerations, but, my professors who weren't exactly conservative, taught us how many of the Michael Moore's and other "documentary" producers, as well as inependents(conspiracy theorists), and even major producers edit to make video say whatever they want it to. I could easily make someone say something embarrasing on video simply for looking for the right spot to take out of context, or patching together video to create something that didn't actually happen. This is why I don't trust anything other than raw footage in full.

So, show us the evidence to back up your claim, the original video side by-side with the 'edited' one...
I'm not using the video, so my credibility isn't in question.

Gotta love neo-con supporters defending an issue... if it's a valid point 'it never happened', was 'debunked' or 'does not apply'.
Nice try, I am a republican but will probably be switching to constitutionalist party in the next year or so. You are saying people invalidate things because they disagree with the position, which is not true, we simply state that the invalid or discredited aren't valid points.
 
BULL **** You have no proof and THERE ARE NO PERJURY CHARGES FILED or CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS Until that happens you are in fact slandering the president by constantly asserting he lied without proof AND committing libel.

I beg your pardon. Libby was convicted of Obstruction of Justice. Have you forgotten about him? No one else has been charged because of Libby's lies.

If it's true, it's not slander or libel. Whether there are charges pending doesn't matter. I've posted Scott McClellan stating that Bush admitted to him that he authorized the outing of Plame. And make no mistake about it, that doesn't make it legal. Also, Scooter Libby testified UNDER OATH that Bush leaked her identity.

Scott McClellan Says George W. Bush Told Him He Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame:
YouTube - George W. Bush Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame

George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent – according to Scooter Libby: YouTube - George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent

Now, as far as that other point, that Bush lied to take us to war, Colin Powell stated that he was misled by the adminstration. "Misled"? What do you think that means? To me, that means he was "lied" to.

Colin Powell Saying He Was Misled Before UN Speech on WMDs: YouTube - Colin Powell Saying He Was Misled Before UN Speech on WMDs

Gen. Colin Powell - "I Tried To Avoid This War.": YouTube - Gen. Colin Powell - "I Tried To Avoid This War."

Bush's ex Treasury Secretary Paul O'neill from:
Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?, O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11 - CBS News
said this:
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.


Again, the "forged document" is a debunked myth.

Debunked Myth? Isn't that like a triple negative? It's a fact that there was a forged document that helped to get this all rolling. It is that doc that the Brit's doc was based on which Bush claimed his reason was for suspecting Iraq tried to buy yellow cake when he knew, from Joe Wilson's trip, was not valid claims. That is why Cheney went after Valerie Wilson with a vengeance! Their whole position lay on the door step of that phony Iraq-Niger fairy tale.

You don't have to serve in theater to know what's happening, but I know many people who have and their unclassified personal accounts match our resident G.S, not yours, your accounts match those of the kooks that constantly spread mis-information to people like

WTF? :confused: You mentioned them being "in theater" as if that gives them more credibility as to the reasons they got where they are. My comment is simply, one has nothing to do with the other.

Does the term witchhunt mean anything to you?

Hey, common ground. Yes, a witch hunt is what Bush+Cheney+Rove were doing going after Joe and Valerie Wilson. Except that they knew they were going after honest people, innocent people. As opposed to the Repubs' witch hunt going after the Clintons during their multi-million dollar Whitewater witch hunt. You do remember that witch hunt, right?


"egg on my face"? :doh Armitage admitted he outted Plame and it does seem it was an accident. Dumb and irresponsible but, an accident. So what? His actions didn't clear the board for the Bush-Cheney conspiracy to out Mrs. Wilson. When Rove outed her, it was still illegal.

So, you can use your capital letters and pound salt. They don't bother me. And Jesus Christ ain't going to help you. :doh Bush lied and committed treason and we all know it. The sooner you accept that, the easier it will be for you when he looks like my avatar. :lol:

By the by, I'm quite calm writing this. Maybe you should see someone for anger management? Embracing a lying President will make a body nuts. :mrgreen:
 
I beg your pardon. Libby was convicted of Obstruction of Justice. Have you forgotten about him? No one else has been charged because of Libby's lies.
Libby was indeed charged with perjury because of an e-mail he sent, this is true, however it was something to do with the time of a meeting if I remember correctly and was not related to the charge of "outing" the very overt Valerie Plame. What happened to Libby was a process crime, that is, he couldn't have committed perjury if Armitage had simply been honest in the first place and admitted he gave Plame to Novak to begin with, no hearing, no perjury.

If it's true, it's not slander or libel. Whether there are charges pending doesn't matter. I've posted Scott McClellan stating that Bush admitted to him that he authorized the outing of Plame. And make no mistake about it, that doesn't make it legal. Also, Scooter Libby testified UNDER OATH that Bush leaked her identity.
Is Bush a proven liar, no, you have the opinion that he lied and are trying to pass that off as a fact, that is defamation.

Scott McClellan Says George W. Bush Told Him He Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame:
YouTube - George W. Bush Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame
McClellan is not exactly a credible source, he has been known to change his tune with the political winds, which is probably why he was replaced as the press secretary to begin with.

George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent – according to Scooter Libby: YouTube - George Bush Leaks identity of CIA agent
Again, trying to back your arguments solely with Youtube videos, where are the charges?

Now, as far as that other point, that Bush lied to take us to war, Colin Powell stated that he was misled by the adminstration. "Misled"? What do you think that means? To me, that means he was "lied" to.
The information was mis-leading, he did not say he was lied to. Mis-leading can be anything from an honest mistake to data being inaccurate to a lie. You are trying to play a semantics game here and that is dishonest.


Debunked Myth? Isn't that like a triple negative? It's a fact that there was a forged document that helped to get this all rolling.
So produce it.
It is that doc that the Brit's doc was based on which Bush claimed his reason was for suspecting Iraq tried to buy yellow cake when he knew, from Joe Wilson's trip, was not valid claims.
Joe Wilson had two stories about that, not a credible source.
That is why Cheney went after Valerie Wilson with a vengeance! Their whole position lay on the door step of that phony Iraq-Niger fairy tale.
You are a master of speculation, but here's the deal, there was an attempt to gain yellow cake by Iraq, that was in multiple U.N. reports AND Joe Wilson's original report. Did they lie?


WTF? :confused: You mentioned them being "in theater" as if that gives them more credibility as to the reasons they got where they are. My comment is simply, one has nothing to do with the other.
Oh, I'm sorry, did you need to know that in theater they need information, or maybe that many soldiers currently in theater also did some time in the Sudan, Somalia, Mogadeshiu(sp?), etc. under the Clinton administration and saw many of these things. Yeah, that means they know more than we do, some of it is classified, some is not. You sound an awful lot like most of the anti-war movement, one that doesn't deal with fact as much as speculation, so you'll have to forgive me if I trust people who had to know the facts to survive and do their job over speculation.



Hey, common ground. Yes, a witch hunt is what Bush+Cheney+Rove were doing going after Joe and Valerie Wilson. Except that they knew they were going after honest people, innocent people. As opposed to the Repubs' witch hunt going after the Clintons during their multi-million dollar Whitewater witch hunt. You do remember that witch hunt, right?
WOW! Just WOW! I can't believe you guys hold on to this, the dirtbags in this are the Wilsons and somehow it's the presidents fault that an idiot accidentally spills an overt agents identity and the Democrats have zero credible charges to file. WOW!



"egg on my face"? :doh Armitage admitted he outted Plame and it does seem it was an accident. Dumb and irresponsible but, an accident. So what? His actions didn't clear the board for the Bush-Cheney conspiracy to out Mrs. Wilson. When Rove outed her, it was still illegal.
He slips up and it's the administrations fault huh? BTW, she wasn't a COVERT OP so there were no charges to file.

So, you can use your capital letters and pound salt. They don't bother me. And Jesus Christ ain't going to help you. :doh Bush lied and committed treason and we all know it. The sooner you accept that, the easier it will be for you when he looks like my avatar. :lol:
So prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he lied instead of playing these semantic games, otherwise drop it.

By the by, I'm quite calm writing this. Maybe you should see someone for anger management? Embracing a lying President will make a body nuts. :mrgreen:
I'm not angry, just trying to pound some common sense into your head, actually, you partisans on both sides are really funny to me.
 
uhm adk, libby was convicted for perjery when there was no underlying crime, left right or center to be convicted of this should piss you off.....
 
uhm adk, libby was convicted for perjery when there was no underlying crime, left right or center to be convicted of this should piss you off.....
People who hate the outgoing president never let facts get in the way of a good attack though.
 
People who hate the outgoing president never let facts get in the way of a good attack though.





:lol: if one has nothing flattering to say about someone, one should air on the side of restraint over commentary....... :rofl
 
BULL **** You have no proof ...
...
another, that means you are spreading falsehoods, if you can prove yourself even half correct, I will apologize, until then quit with the "Bush lied" garbage, it makes you look silly.


This has been all but proven as much as it can reasonably be done on an internet forum. The Bush is a good guy crowd has done a LOT to deny the evidence, claim it's been debunked, etc.

I mean even from the time when it was announced that Saddam was going to nuke america, from sources within the intelligence community showed conflicting information on the subject. So, The only question left to determine whether or not Bush lied was proving that he HAD all the information and and stated that Iraq had nukes anyway.

Which, as I've said before; for saddam to be as crazy as he was claimed AND in possession of NUCLEAR wmds.... an invasion of that country is an INVITATION to UNLEASH those WMD's if only as a final desperate act of inflicting as much damage prior to his inevitable defeat.

Jesus ****ing christ, your side already got shot down on this, Joe Wilson basically came out with two different stories under two different administrations, if you wanna be pissed about lying, be pissed at him.

Allright, here's the deal : If his lying was considered a BAD thing then he would have been demoted or fired from his position... that he has kept his job is an insinuation that the administration supported a known liar.

Again, the "forged document" is a debunked myth.

Debunked: How? by who? When? Let's see the source of this... cause you got 1 side of the intelligence community talking about forged documents and the other side saying that it's a myth.... are you CERTAIN that it's not your position that is the myth?

Does the term witchhunt mean anything to you? In other words, ...
...
YouTube - Richard Armitage Admits Plame Leak "Extraordinarily Foolish"

No, not 'interrogation techniques' but 'enhanced interrogation'. Which in a government memo was essentially defined as : Anything up to the line which would be called torture without actually being torture. Again this is a conflictng situation since Bush supports enhanced interrogations, but not torture, meanwhile waterboarding IS considered to be an act of torture.... where do you draw the line?

It prevents torture of U.S. citizens, and that actually came about because of court cases and an ....
...
debateable when talking about U.S. law and invalid towards the Geneva conventions and nill on the need for an international tribunal.

The whole point is that : the bush administration has kept itself in such the gray area on just about all it's activities since 9-11.

Regardless of the legality of the administration Bush has successfully created a divide in the US. Between those that feel that the constitution and our rule of law is of utmost importance to protect, and another who feels that it's the security and 'prosperity' of the US as a country that deserves to be protected.... so, what's more important : the people of the country or the ideals that are meant to guide the direction of our country.



Bush's personnel, okay, they were talking about interrogation ... protections are due them exactly?

I'm going to side-step this question... I mean ideally all humans should be protected and guaranteed at least a basic level of respect and protection against abuses I see this accurately as being an ideal. The only real problem I have with this 'enemy combatant' definition is that on paper it sounds fair... but we are attacking groups that are NOT based on the country in which the war is fought.... (kinda like having a war with mexico as example where mexican americans would be joining the fight... how do you make the distinction between an 'enemy combatant' and a 'pow'? If an enemy combatant gets a military uniform, does that protect him? If a venezuelan in this circumstance joins the fight, does that mean that he is forfeiting his status of being a citizen of that country? Where does this stop? If there is an american anti-war protestor that comes along, since he isn't 'supporting our soldiers' can he also be deemed to be an enemy combatant??

Do you catch my meaning?

Anyway, there was a quote from the video specifically : "History will not look kindly upon this discussion taking place in the whitehouse.'

No, there is more to it, at the intial purchase then it is this "handful" of ... supply chain is used......etc.......etc.

You're right I did over-simplify.... but the point being the over-time all the funds of this contract gets syphoned to the bigger companies... but then taxpayers are left holding the bag for the debt generated. To put it simply : the profits of war are privatized while the costs are socialized. Noone wants to admit the increase of tax burden that is left for the citizens to take on. That is why we shouldn't be so eager to go to war.


Really, that's why I've never had a job with pay rate stagnation, I put .... the government and overregulation/taxation at all levels, and leaving the gold standard.

I'm not talking about 'stagnant rates of pay' due to union contracts... I'm saying that while a doctor today has seen an increase in pay between 150-250% over the past 50 years the COSTS of products has increased in the 1000's of percent over the same time frame. Factors NOT considered in the measures of inflation that we see reported (using tactics like 'people buy cheaper alternatives more now so let's use this cheaper alternative to measure', etc)

Yes, it is socialism that wrecked the economy, by slowing down the processes necessary for markets to correct, war jump starts economies like this,

I actually think I'm in agreement with you that socialism has wrecked our economy... but does this mean that you were also against the banker bailout, which for all intents and purposes was a 'socialist' move??

which is why they are so easy to get into, all you need is a bad guy. That doesn't invalidate our wars or reasons to get into them, but it just explains why they are easy to get into.

This illustrates our differences in opinion.... while I know that war stimulates the economy (like a band-aid over gaping wound)... that this factor makes it so easy to go to war at least in some respects DOES invalidate the 'justification' used to start them.

We may see that within the next generation or so, I don't think the .... questioning.

Thank you for at least conceding that much. I would appreciate a bit of clarification as to some of the things where the president seems to have gotten a 'pass' where he should not have?

Understood, I think we need to be fair and have some standard of criticism, instead of the current method of throwing out unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

LOL, for the record, I've repeated that approximately a dozen times on this site, and you were the first to address that point. So again, thanks. In my defense though, I have made an attempt to minimizing the 'unsubstantiated' claims (although I'm not very eager to source the same point repeatedly.... which leads to some claims being called that without necessarily being so)

It's not an impossible stretch, Iraq and Al-Quaida did have a loose relationship, it's a judgement call.

You're right, it's not impossible... but it's also not a stretch to say that the connection was emphasized without saying it, maybe overemphasized, either way is speculation at best.

I stand corrected on the numbers, however that isn't proof on anything, also, public opinion is tainted IMO because of daily negative press and opposition attacks on him, hard evidence MUST be the standard.

No, it's not proof of anything other than that in a 'democracy' you'd expect that such low-support would be deemed reason enough to remove the guy from power. Know what I mean, do a bad job and you LOSE YOUR JOB type of thing. That there is so little discussion of impeachment (other than Kucinich, I'm not sure how many other times it's been brought up officially.) implies that the president is doing a 'good job' (regardless of the trememdous lack of support).

This is speculation, but ultimately I could see Bush being part of a grander plan.... consider : he's successfully created a divide in the US, he's blundered around the past 8 years, like you said in a barely passible fassion... then some eloquent character (who I predicted would win 3-4 weeks prior to the election, which is why I state this) Obama comes in to sweep the nation into blindly supporting the government again meanwhile very little if anything will actually change... especially not for the better. Obama however has the eloquence to do some pretty terrible things, bonus that he's black so now if you don't support the president not only are you gonna be some whack-job repbulican... you get to be a racist too. Sorry I'm ranting.

The downing street memo wasn't even a third party account, it was quite a few tiers down from that.

Even still doesn't necessarily make the memo baseless, if it's some secretary that overheard a meeting (as example) doesn't mean the people talking also didn't know for sure. Let's just say the validity of the memo is debateable rather than 'debunked'.

Actually, yes, I am college educated in broadcasting and know quite a few editing techniques, and I know that most news packages are edited for ..... something that didn't actually happen. This is why I don't trust anything other than raw footage in full.

You are right, and while that makes any sort of video evidence on this site 'inadmissable'. Since even a copy of 'raw footage' can be accused of being edited... however, wouldn't the type of editing your referring to be apparent to the trained eye?

I'm just saying it's one thing to show a video, and you come up and say that it's been edited without any further comment, a time index of where editing is evident, or something to base the claim on beyond the assertion that you don't trust it because it's not the raw video?

I'm not using the video, so my credibility isn't in question.

But you ARE asserting that it's fake with no evidence, so as much as I might like you, I'm not asking for much, just something to show that THIS video had been edited in such a way. A time index of showing that the video had been altered (a frame skip, or something)

Nice try, I am a republican but will probably be switching to .... we simply state that the invalid or discredited aren't valid points.

It turns out that I wasn't really referring to you on this, but many times valid points do get brushed aside in that manner. In the same way that you told us that no video evidence that can be presented on this site can be used as evidence of anything on this site (if not intentionally by implication). On some issues, these points had been 'debunked' by opinion alone... so while you may not be purposely included in this, there are a great deal of neo-con supporters that DO engage in these things.

While I do agree that a discredited point is not a valid one, it's also important to question the means in which it had been discredited.
 
This has been all but proven as much as it can reasonably be done on an internet forum. The Bush is a good guy crowd has done a LOT to deny the evidence, claim it's been debunked, etc.
Reasonable evidence would include perjury charges, especially with a currently unfriendly house.

I mean even from the time when it was announced that Saddam was going to nuke america, from sources within the intelligence community showed conflicting information on the subject. So, The only question left to determine whether or not Bush lied was proving that he HAD all the information and and stated that Iraq had nukes anyway.
The problem is that the conflicting information was in doubt, since many politicians before the presidency were calling for action against Iraq using the same standard.


Allright, here's the deal : If his lying was considered a BAD thing then he would have been demoted or fired from his position... that he has kept his job is an insinuation that the administration supported a known liar.
Again, if there is rock solid proof he lied, that's fine, but we are in speculation period at the moment, and I give the "accused" the benefit of the doubt without hard evidence to the contrary, I applied the same standard to the Blogojevich/Obama argument against some in my own party.




No, not 'interrogation techniques' but 'enhanced interrogation'. Which in a government memo was essentially defined as : Anything up to the line which would be called torture without actually being torture. Again this is a conflictng situation since Bush supports enhanced interrogations, but not torture, meanwhile waterboarding IS considered to be an act of torture.... where do you draw the line?
As far as these prisoners go, I don't, not if it saves one soldier or civilian.



Regardless of the legality of the administration Bush has successfully created a divide in the US. Between those that feel that the constitution and our rule of law is of utmost importance to protect, and another who feels that it's the security and 'prosperity' of the US as a country that deserves to be protected.... so, what's more important : the people of the country or the ideals that are meant to guide the direction of our country.
If this is the first administration people are bringing the constitutional protection argument into then we have already lost the battle on that one, it has been violated since at least the late 18 hundreds.



I'm going to side-step this question... I mean ideally all humans should be protected and guaranteed at least a basic level of respect and protection against abuses I see this accurately as being an ideal. The only real problem I have with this 'enemy combatant' definition is that on paper it sounds fair... but we are attacking groups that are NOT based on the country in which the war is fought.... (kinda like having a war with mexico as example where mexican americans would be joining the fight... how do you make the distinction between an 'enemy combatant' and a 'pow'?
It's hard because they aren't in fact soldiers of any state, but are engaged in para-military style attacks on various countries, if there is a better answer than enemy combatant I will listen.
If an enemy combatant gets a military uniform, does that protect him?
Technically yes, realistically, since they don't have a nation signed into the Geneva conventions, probably not.
If a venezuelan in this circumstance joins the fight, does that mean that he is forfeiting his status of being a citizen of that country?
Possibly, depending on that country's laws to the effect, I really couldn't answer this one honestly
If there is an american anti-war protestor that comes along, since he isn't 'supporting our soldiers' can he also be deemed to be an enemy combatant??
Not on it's face, as long as it is protected speech and doesn't surpass that, if said war protester gave aid and comfort to the enemy, then yes, that could be considered treason


You're right I did over-simplify.... but the point being the over-time all the funds of this contract gets syphoned to the bigger companies... but then taxpayers are left holding the bag for the debt generated. To put it simply : the profits of war are privatized while the costs are socialized. Noone wants to admit the increase of tax burden that is left for the citizens to take on. That is why we shouldn't be so eager to go to war.
This is true, but the fact is we overspend in general as a country. One problem is unconstitutional v. constitutional spending, defense is mandated in the constitution whereas social programs are supposed to be prohibited, neither of the two have been efficiently done in our modern history, the military must be given what they need, however many on both sides have buddies in the defense industry and will supply expensive yet less than worthwile equipment because their buddies get an economic boost, this needs to be reigned in, not just in defense and infrastructure spending, but across the board.




I'm not talking about 'stagnant rates of pay' due to union contracts... I'm saying that while a doctor today has seen an increase in pay between 150-250% over the past 50 years the COSTS of products has increased in the 1000's of percent over the same time frame. Factors NOT considered in the measures of inflation that we see reported (using tactics like 'people buy cheaper alternatives more now so let's use this cheaper alternative to measure', etc)
It's all part of the same problem, it's a system in need of a fix, a legally proper one.



I actually think I'm in agreement with you that socialism has wrecked our economy... but does this mean that you were also against the banker bailout, which for all intents and purposes was a 'socialist' move??
Absolutely, the market would have worked itself out, it would have been painful, but efficient.



This illustrates our differences in opinion.... while I know that war stimulates the economy (like a band-aid over gaping wound)... that this factor makes it so easy to go to war at least in some respects DOES invalidate the 'justification' used to start them.
Yes, the validity of some of our wars can be questioned, Iraq is up for debate, I believe it would have happened anyway, but the timing is fair game. I don't think it necessarily makes it easier to justify a war to the public, but could see how some of our politicians would exploit a war to spur an economy for their economic legacy. This is in no way meant to say this administration went to this war for that reason, I will wait for the historians to piece it together.



Thank you for at least conceding that much. I would appreciate a bit of clarification as to some of the things where the president seems to have gotten a 'pass' where he should not have?
The above mentioned bail out bill for one, the automaker bailout also comes to mind, I don't think he was hammered nearly hard enough for the immigration debate, and overall his spending was attrocious. I can't think of some of the other issues at the moment, but those readily come to mind.



LOL, for the record, I've repeated that approximately a dozen times on this site, and you were the first to address that point. So again, thanks. In my defense though, I have made an attempt to minimizing the 'unsubstantiated' claims (although I'm not very eager to source the same point repeatedly.... which leads to some claims being called that without necessarily being so)
You bring some pretty good firepower to the debate, the problem is with some posters that bring the most partisan garbage out there, I will accept things stated as opinion, but not opinion stated as fact.



You're right, it's not impossible... but it's also not a stretch to say that the connection was emphasized without saying it, maybe overemphasized, either way is speculation at best.
I have no doubt Saddam helped Al-Quaida to prosper and survive. He didn't necessarily have anything to do with 9/11, but one could argue(devil's advocate) that he facilitated in a small part the people who pulled off the attacks. It really is a speculation issue however, I can fully concede that.



No, it's not proof of anything other than that in a 'democracy' you'd expect that such low-support would be deemed reason enough to remove the guy from power. Know what I mean, do a bad job and you LOSE YOUR JOB type of thing. That there is so little discussion of impeachment (other than Kucinich, I'm not sure how many other times it's been brought up officially.) implies that the president is doing a 'good job' (regardless of the trememdous lack of support).
This particular president got hammered daily for eight years, I am curious to see what the approval ratings would have been without the daily attacks, we can never know, I don't think he was a great president, but certainly not the evil idiot he was portrayed to be.





You are right, and while that makes any sort of video evidence on this site 'inadmissable'. Since even a copy of 'raw footage' can be accused of being edited... however, wouldn't the type of editing your referring to be apparent to the trained eye?
Not necessarily, really depends on how carefully someone pays attention to "jump cuts" which is a fancy way of saying the scenes don't synch up in a way that would portray a natural flow of events, things like body movement/word matches, etc. Setting up a video argument in the manner I described is tricky, but when someone is purposefully trying to make someone look a certain way they seem to find all the time in the world.

I'm just saying it's one thing to show a video, and you come up and say that it's been edited without any further comment, a time index of where editing is evident, or something to base the claim on beyond the assertion that you don't trust it because it's not the raw video?
Don't get me wrong, video is a powerful thing, I just don't like when people use it exclusively to make a point, also, time stamps on many cameras and tracking code can deactivated, plus, with digital editing equipment much is possible.



But you ARE asserting that it's fake with no evidence, so as much as I might like you, I'm not asking for much, just something to show that THIS video had been edited in such a way. A time index of showing that the video had been altered (a frame skip, or something)
Not saying it's fake, only that the credibility is suspect automatically so other evidence should be used in support of it. I would really have to look at the video for a while, frame by frame, and have software handy with a freeze/slow feature to be able to process it fully.



It turns out that I wasn't really referring to you on this, but many times valid points do get brushed aside in that manner. In the same way that you told us that no video evidence that can be presented on this site can be used as evidence of anything on this site (if not intentionally by implication). On some issues, these points had been 'debunked' by opinion alone... so while you may not be purposely included in this, there are a great deal of neo-con supporters that DO engage in these things.
Again, video evidence is fine, but needs other supporting evidence else it is subject to questions about the validity.

While I do agree that a discredited point is not a valid one, it's also important to question the means in which it had been discredited.
I wouldn't expect anything less.
 
Reasonable evidence would include perjury charges, especially with a currently unfriendly house.

It's a touchy issue, because the implication of a perjury charge would imply that Saddam was really someone 'wrongly accused' type of thing... when he really was a bad guy. Kucinich seems to be the most vocal in raising impeachment... implying that the evidence is there... it seems that whoevers really running things feels that Bush is doing a good job.

As far as these prisoners go, I don't, not if it saves one soldier or civilian.

Ok, another hypothetical example : The government becomes truly and openly oppressive, and there is a resistance movement revolting against this. WOuld you still agree that american citizens should be deemed 'enemy combatants' and stripped of all rights?? (I'm talking born and raised citizen of several generations, within the US). While I might agree that protecting the soldiers as best possible should be a priority, tactics that run just shy of torture are ineffective at getting info (either the person has dated information, will supply falsehoods, or will genuinely NOT KNOW what is asked.

It's hard because they aren't in fact soldiers of any state, but are engaged in para-military style attacks on various countries, if there is a better answer than enemy combatant I will listen.

So is it that you believe that America is meant to be the 'world police' or that we've taken on and embraced the role? So, are you saying that a civilian that takes up arms to fight an invading army should be stripped of his rights? I promise you, if another countries army places boots on the ground IN MY CITTY YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'm gonna take out as many as I can.

That we've used the distinction of fighting a 'war on terror' the reason this whole 'enemy combatant thing flies is because is because we say 'enemy combattants are terrorists' when they are merely attempting to protect their home and their lives from an invading army.

Technically yes, realistically, since they don't have a nation signed into the Geneva conventions, probably not.

This answer scares me. So, if I got this right, you are sayng that so long as we go to war with the countries that have not signed the geneva convention we are allowed to invade the country, and strip the rights of all civilians that protect themselves and are not killed of their rights and detained indefinately???

Or is it that if you pick up a gun to protect yourself from an invading army that the nation no longer recognizes you as one of its citizens?? Or is it that by doing so the invading army deems you independant of the country you are fighting to protect?

if said war protester gave aid and comfort to the enemy, then yes, that could be considered treason
agreed.


This is true, but the fact is we overspend in general as a country. One problem is unconstitutional v. constitutional spending, defense is mandated in the constitution

Invading another country is a twisted sense of 'defense'. The last country that invaded another in the name of 'national security' (re: national defense) was 'national socialism'

this needs to be reigned in, not just in defense and infrastructure spending, but across the board.
Agreed.

Absolutely, the market would have worked itself out, it would have been painful, but efficient.

Agreed, now we are in a trap where the market alone will not be able to fix the problem... 'bailouts' are going to make the problem worse in the long run.

Yes, the validity of some of our wars can be questioned, Iraq is up for debate, I believe it would have happened anyway, but the timing is fair game.

Agreed. Look at PNAC - Rebuilding america's defenses. Which was read by people in government mainly that says specifically that the process of justification would be long and drawn out without an event like 9-11.

You bring some pretty good firepower to the debate, the problem is with some posters that bring the most partisan garbage out there, I will accept things stated as opinion, but not opinion stated as fact.

In 2 opposing viewpoints the truth is generally somehwere in the middle.

This particular president got hammered daily for eight years, I am curious to see what the approval ratings would have been without the daily attacks, we can never know, I don't think he was a great president, but certainly not the evil idiot he was portrayed to be.

I'm honestly uncertain whether Bush was just a dumb-guy that fudged his way through the presidency or some sort of evil genius that's playing us all for fools. For every piece of stupidity I see from Bush, it's stupidity that gets used to get things done. His script writers are genius however.

Not necessarily, really depends on how carefully someone pays attention to "jump cuts" which is a fancy way of saying the scenes don't synch up in a way that would portray a natural flow of events, things like body movement/word matches, etc. Setting up a video argument in the manner I described is tricky, but when someone is purposefully trying to make someone look a certain way they seem to find all the time in the world.

Don't get me wrong, video is a powerful thing, I just don't like when people use it exclusively to make a point, also, time stamps on many cameras and tracking code can deactivated, plus, with digital editing equipment much is possible.

So long as distinction is made... not sure about others, but I generally try to determine the validity of a video prior to using it as a source... since this time it wasn't my vid posted I'll continue...

Not saying it's fake, only that the credibility is suspect automatically so other evidence should be used in support of it. I would really have to look at the video for a while, frame by frame, and have software handy with a freeze/slow feature to be able to process it fully.

True, there are those with that level of skill... but generally the level of editing skill of the average youtube vid creator is likely to be average at best, also that most 'fake' videos are so clearly fake that it's painful.

Again, video evidence is fine, but needs other supporting evidence else it is subject to questions about the validity.
Fair enough.
 
Libby was indeed charged with perjury because of an e-mail he sent, this is true, however it was something to do with the time of a meeting if I remember correctly and was not related to the charge of "outing" the very overt Valerie Plame. What happened to Libby was a process crime, that is, he couldn't have committed perjury if Armitage had simply been honest in the first place and admitted he gave Plame to Novak to begin with, no hearing, no perjury.

Oh, so now lying under oath isn't such a bad thing. Interesting how you guys change your tune when it's one of your boys lying. Libby actually abstructed justice, not once but several times, in the effort to out a CIA spy! But, when Clinton lied about a bj ... now THAT was serious shiite, ehh? :roll:

From: Online NewsHour: Analysis | Libby Convicted of Perjury | March 6, 2007 | PBS
Libby was convicted on four of five counts resulting from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

RAY SUAREZ: There were five counts in all. Could you quickly walk us through how they broke down?

CAROL LEONNIG: I sure can. There were five counts. Two counts were felony charges of lying to the FBI; two counts of lying to the grand jury, perjury counts; and one count, the most serious of all, which was obstruction of justice.

The jury found Mr. Libby guilty on all but one of those counts. On the one that he was found innocent of was one that the jury had struggled with for the last five days, lots of questions back and forth. It was the charge suggesting that Mr. Libby had lied to the FBI about conversations he had about Valerie Plame, the CIA officer, who's at the center of this leak probe, conversations he had with Time magazine's Matt Cooper about her.

Don't kid yourself that Libby was convicted only because of a misinterpreted email!


Is Bush a proven liar, no, you have the opinion that he lied and are trying to pass that off as a fact, that is defamation.

He is and I've provided plenty of proof that he lied. Period. End of case.

McClellan is not exactly a credible source, he has been known to change his tune with the political winds, which is probably why he was replaced as the press secretary to begin with.

Again, trying to back your arguments solely with Youtube videos, where are the charges?

McClellan testified under oath to Congress. Bush refused to do the same, or to allow any of his staff do so. Not exactly the actions of an innocent man.

So produce it. Joe Wilson had two stories about that, not a credible source. You are a master of speculation, but here's the deal, there was an attempt to gain yellow cake by Iraq, that was in multiple U.N. reports AND Joe Wilson's original report. Did they lie?

I did. You just don't want to read or accept it.

There was not an attempt by Iraq to buy yellow cake. It was wrongly put into the SSIC (sp) report by the Republicans. And the Dems gave up Wilson when they decided not to fight every detail of the report.

Valerie Wilson details in her book, Chapter 11, what was wrong in that report.


WOW! Just WOW! I can't believe you guys hold on to this, the dirtbags in this are the Wilsons and somehow it's the presidents fault that an idiot accidentally spills an overt agents identity and the Democrats have zero credible charges to file. WOW!

The Wilsons were not partisan until she was outed and Cheney went after both of them. Joe actually worked for Bush 41 and was awarded some medal of service for his work.

He slips up and it's the administrations fault huh? BTW, she wasn't a COVERT OP so there were no charges to file.

I agreed that Armitrage's outting of Wilson was accidental. Dumb, unprofessional and irresponsible but, not intentional. Can't you read?

So prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he lied instead of playing these semantic games, otherwise drop it.

I'll drop nothing. The proof here IS beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prosecution of BushCo will all depend on how big Obama's balls are.


I'm not angry, just trying to pound some common sense into your head, actually, you partisans on both sides are really funny to me.

Actually, it is you who is arguing against proof put right in front of your face. As I've said, this is very complicated and a lot of lies have been told being portrayed as truth.

The bottom line is... Joe Wilson gave a verbal report to the CIA when he returned from Niger. It looks like some mistakes were made in that report. Then his testimony to Congress was written up wrong. It is the one constantly referred to here calling him a liar.

And from these 2 reports all this conspiracy crap arose. Cheney pushed this idea that Wilson's wife sent him, trying to discredit Wilson's Niger report. WTF does it really matter if she did send him? But, this is politics.

So, either you accept the truth, that I have laid at your door step, or you refuse it. In the end, it is solely up to you. But, make no mistake, this was an orchestrated conspiracy to out a CIA spy and to take us into an unprovoked war. THAT IS TREASON AND FOR THAT THEY SHOULD ALL GO TO LEAVENWORTH!
 
It's a touchy issue, because the implication of a perjury charge would imply that Saddam was really someone 'wrongly accused' type of thing... when he really was a bad guy. Kucinich seems to be the most vocal in raising impeachment... implying that the evidence is there... it seems that whoevers really running things feels that Bush is doing a good job.
I probably should have included impeachment as well, that would certainly have been another clue that the president wasn't on the up and up, again, Bush does some things well and is a total f-up at others, history will judge him better than we can currently.


Ok, another hypothetical example : The government becomes truly and openly oppressive, and there is a resistance movement revolting against this. WOuld you still agree that american citizens should be deemed 'enemy combatants' and stripped of all rights?? (I'm talking born and raised citizen of several generations, within the US). While I might agree that protecting the soldiers as best possible should be a priority, tactics that run just shy of torture are ineffective at getting info (either the person has dated information, will supply falsehoods, or will genuinely NOT KNOW what is asked.
I would say this is an apples/oranges argument, the problem we have here is that Americans have rights we would have to fight for, and I believe most would immediately defend our own country from a dictatorial or oppressive government, any soldier that drew weapons against an armed resistance would effectively be a traitor either way, i.e. he would be betraying his country if he fired on civilians even with the order to do so, but to not do so he would be betraying his government and contractual duty. The problem with Iraq is multifaceted, the insurgents weren't all Iraqis, some were Iranian and Al-quaida snuck in for good measure, most of the citizens didn't mind our presence, however Baath loyalists and those loyal to the racical Mullas like Al-Sadr definitely want us out as they have their own desires for the country.



So is it that you believe that America is meant to be the 'world police' or that we've taken on and embraced the role? So, are you saying that a civilian that takes up arms to fight an invading army should be stripped of his rights? I promise you, if another countries army places boots on the ground IN MY CITTY YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'm gonna take out as many as I can.
Let's take it back a second, I'm an isolationist at heart, I can't stand the U.N. and don't think the U.S. should automatically police the world, however, in our modern day and age I don't have a problem with small involvements if we have a treaty signed with or are asked directly for help by another country. If a civilian rightfully fights back against oppression they have that natural right, however with these detainees they aren't fighting for the oppressed nor are they fighting for a country, they are fighting for their own brand of oppression, however, if we are holding a civilian who is absolutely innocent or was defending themself/family, we should let them go.

That we've used the distinction of fighting a 'war on terror' the reason this whole 'enemy combatant thing flies is because is because we say 'enemy combattants are terrorists' when they are merely attempting to protect their home and their lives from an invading army.
Same as above, it boils down to whether it was a defensive or offensive act IMO.



This answer scares me. So, if I got this right, you are sayng that so long as we go to war with the countries that have not signed the geneva convention we are allowed to invade the country, and strip the rights of all civilians that protect themselves and are not killed of their rights and detained indefinately???
I don't have a solid opinion on any specific war, but take it as they come, the only thing my answer meant was how the geneva conventions would apply under their direct interpretation.

Or is it that if you pick up a gun to protect yourself from an invading army that the nation no longer recognizes you as one of its citizens?? Or is it that by doing so the invading army deems you independant of the country you are fighting to protect?
It depends on whether we are talking about a freedom fighter or a terrorist.




Invading another country is a twisted sense of 'defense'. The last country that invaded another in the name of 'national security' (re: national defense) was 'national socialism'
Iraq was different in that we let it fester after we kicked them out of Kuwait, we should have taken Saddam out of power then and there which arguably would have stopped much of the terrorist acts that followed in the Clinton/Bush administrations, but it is too late now. The reasons will always be suspect because of the economics of war though, I can concede that.


In 2 opposing viewpoints the truth is generally somehwere in the middle.
Typically I find that to be the case.


So long as distinction is made... not sure about others, but I generally try to determine the validity of a video prior to using it as a source... since this time it wasn't my vid posted I'll continue...
Fair enough.



True, there are those with that level of skill... but generally the level of editing skill of the average youtube vid creator is likely to be average at best, also that most 'fake' videos are so clearly fake that it's painful.
However don't forget that anyone can post on youtube, it may be someone else's work that a second party is using to make a case, where a third party passes it again as a source during a debate such as this. There are other tricks, such as starting at points that destroy the context of the speech, or off camera baiting, those are more amateur grade tricks, but effective and much easier than the other editing tactics, also they are almost as effective.
 
Oh, so now lying under oath isn't such a bad thing. Interesting how you guys change your tune when it's one of your boys lying. Libby actually abstructed justice, not once but several times, in the effort to out a CIA spy! But, when Clinton lied about a bj ... now THAT was serious shiite, ehh? :roll:
There shouldn't have been a trial, the leaker was known and there was no initial crime since Plame wasn't a covert status agent at the time, sorry you can't grasp that. And, Clinton lied about questions related to why he was in court, he wasn't there for a B.J. as partisans like yourself like to state, that was part of the pattern of sexual deviance that was related to the sexual harassment case against him from his years as governer, so yes, perjury WAS an appropriate charge for Clinton and not Libby.




Don't kid yourself that Libby was convicted only because of a misinterpreted email!
And don't kid yourself that he needed to be a witness, and yes, it was involving a specific e-mail.



He is and I've provided plenty of proof that he lied. Period. End of case.
You have provided two things, jack and ****, and jack left town. Bring something concrete and credible or drop it, cause you haven't proven he lied, you have proven yourself to be partisan and incapable of producing credible sources.



McClellan testified under oath to Congress. Bush refused to do the same, or to allow any of his staff do so. Not exactly the actions of an innocent man.
McClellan is an idiot, and he is a backstabber, so who cares what oath he takes, it is only as good as his integrity, of which he is proven to have none.





There was not an attempt by Iraq to buy yellow cake. It was wrongly put into the SSIC (sp) report by the Republicans. And the Dems gave up Wilson when they decided not to fight every detail of the report.
Get your head out of the sand, plenty of reports are decidedly in
favor of the argument that Iraq wanted yellow cake.

Valerie Wilson details in her book, Chapter 11, what was wrong in that report.
She is also a disgraced liar, what's your point. Do you want to see her C-Span spin where she weakly tries to explain why she was covert even though her status wasn't.




The Wilsons were not partisan until she was outed and Cheney went after both of them. Joe actually worked for Bush 41 and was awarded some medal of service for his work.
Bull.



I agreed that Armitrage's outting of Wilson was accidental. Dumb, unprofessional and irresponsible but, not intentional. Can't you read?
Doesn't matter, he did it, and the proceeding trial for a non-crime forced someone else to pay for it for something that shouldn't have happened(perjury)


I'll drop nothing. The proof here IS beyond a shadow of a doubt. Prosecution of BushCo will all depend on how big Obama's balls are.
Then you are a partisan if you can't see that "Bush Lied" is as of now an un-informed opinion based on your hatred of his ideology, until you have proof you are nothing more than a bitter partisan, and are coming across as a hack.
 
I would say this is an apples/oranges argument, the problem we have here is that Americans have rights we would have to fight for, and I believe most would immediately defend our own country from a dictatorial or oppressive government.

Here's one last hypothetical; Let's say another country managed to invade our own and used that same standard to determine who deserves POW status and who gets 'dissappeared'. Would that distinction of how this type of action be used against us make it anymore accusrate??

any soldier that drew weapons against an armed resistance would effectively be a traitor either way, i.e. he would be betraying his country if he fired on civilians even with the order to do so, but to not do so he would be betraying his government and contractual duty.

I would wager that 90-95% of soldiers that would be ordered to shoot an american would do so without hesitation, since the punishment for disobeying orders is WORSE than that of committing war-crimes even.

The problem with Iraq is multifaceted, the insurgents weren't all Iraqis, some were Iranian and Al-quaida snuck in for good measure, most of the citizens didn't mind our presence, however Baath loyalists and those loyal to the racical Mullas like Al-Sadr definitely want us out as they have their own desires for the country.

First, the soldiers on the ground... are they really going to make that distinction before deciding how a captured combatant would be treated? Get his ID to determine if he was really Iraqi to start and all? Is it that we as an invading army have stripped them of their 'citizen of a country' status, or is it that the country (the combatant calls his own) rejects their status of being a citizen of any country, or are we just saying that because they were fighting in a country in which they do not belong that they are deemed to have no affiliation with any country and will not determine which country that is?

Second, I agree that Iraq is multi-faceted... Sunni, shiite and kurds... essentially 3 rival factions wuth a clear difference in numbers. What I disagree with is that imposing a 'democracy' on them is even a good thing, since there is the racial/religious divide existing in the country in a democratic election, the faction with the highest number of people will be guaranteed to have their candidate be elected everytime... so what the US has done is simply turned power over from the Shiites to the Sunnis (or vice versa, I forget at the moment).

Let's take it back a second, I'm an isolationist at heart, I can't stand the U.N. and don't think the U.S. should automatically police the world,

I disagree with isolationism... but would strongly support a policy of 'non-interference' (non-interference would allow the defense of our country but NOT of defending specific interests...) it's my opinion that we have created such huge political messes by interfering where we do not belong and then being forced into further interference as a result of our initial actions.



however, in our modern day and age I don't have a problem with small involvements if we have a treaty signed with or are asked directly for help by another country.

This is a gray area for sure, and care should be taken in deciding which ventures should be taken on in such a circumstance.

Same as above, it boils down to whether it was a defensive or offensive act IMO.

On the ground that would be a difficult distinction to make, especially in the cases of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, since we our an invading force in another country.

It depends on whether we are talking about a freedom fighter or a terrorist.

They are one in the same. A terrorist, in spite of Bush's assertion that they simply hate OUR freedoms, is a response to BEING oppressed. You won't strap a bomb to your chest because the people you're attacking have too much freedoms, but because YOUR PEOPLE are being restricted on their freedom in an oppressive way.


Iraq was different in that we let it fester after we kicked them out of Kuwait, we should have taken Saddam out of power then and there which arguably would have stopped much of the terrorist acts that followed in the Clinton/Bush administrations, but it is too late now. The reasons will always be suspect because of the economics of war though, I can concede that.

Yes, we should have stopped him when we were already in conflict with him rather than allowing the hatred created in the 90's to 'fester' as you've said. I was too young at the time to have an opinion ofo such matters, but I feel that I would have supported that action.

However don't forget that anyone can post on youtube, it may be someone else's work that a second party is using to make a case, where a third party passes it again as a source during a debate such as this. There are other tricks, such as starting at points that destroy the context of the speech, or off camera baiting, those are more amateur grade tricks, but effective and much easier than the other editing tactics, also they are almost as effective.

Allright, I will try to use that in my determination of what constitutes a video worthwhile of using for further points. I'm by no means a professional at spotting these things, but I believe myself to have the common sense to determine. Even though I have tended to use newscasts and apparent copies of raw footage already.
 
Here's one last hypothetical; Let's say another country managed to invade our own and used that same standard to determine who deserves POW status and who gets 'dissappeared'. Would that distinction of how this type of action be used against us make it anymore accusrate??
Depends really. If they have a solid constitution as do we and that didn't allow for treaties it is possible, don't really want to speculate though without definites.



I would wager that 90-95% of soldiers that would be ordered to shoot an american would do so without hesitation, since the punishment for disobeying orders is WORSE than that of committing war-crimes even.
again, possible. It all would depend on protocol, the country of origin, their miliatary code, and how closely international law applies to their sovreignity.



First, the soldiers on the ground... are they really going to make that distinction before deciding how a captured combatant would be treated? Get his ID to determine if he was really Iraqi to start and all?
No, that would be suicide in the heat of battle, but there are, as I understand release provisions to allow for those distinctions.
Is it that we as an invading army have stripped them of their 'citizen of a country' status, or is it that the country (the combatant calls his own) rejects their status of being a citizen of any country, or are we just saying that because they were fighting in a country in which they do not belong that they are deemed to have no affiliation with any country and will not determine which country that is?
If they are citizens of the country the rules are obviously different, I would think the action would be a case by case, if they are insurgents of that country's origin it would depend on faction affiliation I would think, if they are terrorists they are a completely different situation, as they are not really citizens of their native countries anymore since they typically renounce said citizenship or are stripped of such by said country, if they are enemy forces from a neighboring country, that opens the door to alot of questions that would be up for yet another debate.

Second, I agree that Iraq is multi-faceted... Sunni, shiite and kurds... essentially 3 rival factions wuth a clear difference in numbers. What I disagree with is that imposing a 'democracy' on them is even a good thing, since there is the racial/religious divide existing in the country in a democratic election, the faction with the highest number of people will be guaranteed to have their candidate be elected everytime... so what the US has done is simply turned power over from the Shiites to the Sunnis (or vice versa, I forget at the moment).
This is a good argument, and is where I believe diplomatic relations are of the utmost importance, instead of imposing democracy, we should, and I think are, become more or less advocates of a democratic republic system with similar yet culturally relevent checks and balances in place to insure stability and fair representation. That will in no way be an easy task and the Iraqis ultimately must shape their own destiny, but let's not forget that this country had it's own constitutional growing pains in it's early days.



I disagree with isolationism... but would strongly support a policy of 'non-interference' (non-interference would allow the defense of our country but NOT of defending specific interests...) it's my opinion that we have created such huge political messes by interfering where we do not belong and then being forced into further interference as a result of our initial actions.
I can agree to that.





This is a gray area for sure, and care should be taken in deciding which ventures should be taken on in such a circumstance.
No doubt, one of the biggest tasks though is to deal with a media that by and large fails to bring all of the relevant information to we the people. By relevent I do realize that critical information which is classified should be protected and hidden, that standard only should apply to that which protects the mission, and not the special interest of those seeking the action.


On the ground that would be a difficult distinction to make, especially in the cases of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, since we our an invading force in another country.
True, however I believe we are doing it correctly for the most part, I have no problem with additional safeguards to allow for the innocent or harmless to be released, but we shouldn't be so lax as to allow for those who would re-join the battle to be allowed to do so.



They are one in the same. A terrorist, in spite of Bush's assertion that they simply hate OUR freedoms, is a response to BEING oppressed. You won't strap a bomb to your chest because the people you're attacking have too much freedoms, but because YOUR PEOPLE are being restricted on their freedom in an oppressive way.
I think there are some who simply wish to impose their militant version of Islam on the world, they exploit the repressed, and no one in the west is necessarily innocent in that, the current terrorist acts date back to the U.N. and post war allocations of the German released lands, there is work to do, but we must defend ourselves in the meantime.




Yes, we should have stopped him when we were already in conflict with him rather than allowing the hatred created in the 90's to 'fester' as you've said. I was too young at the time to have an opinion ofo such matters, but I feel that I would have supported that action.
This is a small part of the problem, but still a part of it. The nineties were a major failing of G.H.W.B, he wasn't the worst of presidents, but this current Iraq situation was a result of his bowing to political pressure, and it was a mistake.



Allright, I will try to use that in my determination of what constitutes a video worthwhile of using for further points. I'm by no means a professional at spotting these things, but I believe myself to have the common sense to determine. Even though I have tended to use newscasts and apparent copies of raw footage already.
By all means use video, but it is so much more powerful when backed up by original transcripts and other evidence.
 
You really need to go back to the 70's. Rumsfield and Cheney were instigating a plan to invade Iraq decades before you start you analysis.

Any meaningful and accurate account needs to take that into account.


What are you talking about? During the '80s Rumsfeld was the most senior conduit for crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein against Khomeini. Before this he was dealing with Soviet issues. Given his job, he was tasked with multiple invasion scenarios around the world. Obama's cabinet will do the same. It's contingency planning. 1991 marked the beginning of the Hussein game.

And Cheney? Cheney doesn't have much of a history with Iraq until the Gulf War. If you are referring to his relationship with Wolfowitz and other NeoCons, then you have to consider what they believed. The spreading of democracy and American values went far beyond Iraq. Iraq wasn't a focus until 1991. And even after the Guld War, both Cheny and Rumsfeld agreed with the policy of containment, which conflicted with what Wolfowitz believed.

What you seem to be doing is glossing over the very real issues between 1991 and 2003 as if they didn't exist and opting to cling to your rhetorics. Why is this? Certainly there is enough actual story to criticize without seeking to bend everything into an issue.
 
Last edited:
If only you guys had to donate $1 to the national debt every time you turned an argument back on Clinton.

Yep, and all parties were being led by the nose by Bush's lies.

The argument, is that this history did not begin in 2003 like "you guys"wish in vain that it did. The decision to take out Hussein did not come in a Bush dream. There is a history. The fact is that Clinton was preaching about Hussein and his WMD long before Bush was in the White House. Once again....history did not begin in 2003.

The argument, that you guys ALWAYS ignore, is that we were supposed to be going after "those folks who attacked us"! Can you explain why Bush stopped pursuing Osama Bin Laden, after so few months of attacking us and murdering over 3,000 innocent people on our soil? Could it be that it was too much work for them and wasn't producing improved polling numbers for them?

Could it be that he simply used 9/11 to do what was already set in motion? This is more true to the facts than your implications. Bush stopped pursuing Bin Laden because he was not persuable. We were a 21st century military being asked to board donkeys into mountains that were so high that our choppers and ground support would be useless. But Bin Laden is dead now. Our mission is to beat Taliban lingerers down enough for the Afghani government to have an upper hand before they "talk."

And Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
It really is that simple.

And? I have stated this enough times that I grow tired of replying to the complaint. "Afghanistan was about the immediate threat post 9/11...and Iraq was about the a bigger picture in the region."

It has been proven all over this forum that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he even took office. Bush always felt that a war helped to bolster a sitting president's popularity. He always thought daddy didn't go far enough. They just under estimated how much effort it would take to occupy Iraq.

"Proven?" Given that President Clinton wanted to take him out, what exactly was their to "prove?" Seems to me that this was as much a White House/Pentagon vision as it was a single man's. I believe Clinton and Gore blasted "daddy" on the campaign trail for coddling the dictator and allowing him to remain in power. Once again..this history began before 2003.

And by the way...using words like "daddy" kind of places you in a certain category of protestor.

So, answering this thread's question: AB-SO-LOOT-LEE!!! The whole bunch of them should be behind bars. Maybe we'll hear something on this in 19 days.

Think so, huh? You Obama worshippers are in for a surprise. I like Obama too. But for reasons beyond the disciple fantasies. It's going to get bloody.
 
Back
Top Bottom