Bring it on.

[WillowTree]

To reiterate. Bring it on!

 

[Gord]

Where were all you liberals screaming for presidential investigations for an unjust war when Bubba attacked the Serbs based on a fraudulent claim of "500,000" Kosovars being "ethnically cleansed" with no UN consultation or approval and no US interest. Bubba even compared it to the "Holocaust" on TV. It turned out that a few thousand Kosovars were killed by the Serbs and almost the equal amount Serbs killed by the KLA who had been previously branded by the US as terrorists. The whole war was a scam by Clinton.

And you liberals want to prosecute so-called war crimes? Well if anything Bush did qualifies as a war crime, then this surely does:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6zKEUGsPCo]YouTube - Nato Bombing on Grdelica Bridge - first strike[/ame]

And not just one bomb - the U.S. pilot was ordered to strike again to take out the bridge because the first strike only hit the train. But the second bomb didn't take out the bridge either - it again hit the train! It was a passenger train for gawd's sake!?!

I look forward to your congressional hearings...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes. They won't be, but they should be.

lol... Ya know what's cool? I see a lots of idiots make this claim, but when I ask them to specifiy the war crimes to which they're referring, they never seem to be able to cite evidence of any crime having been committed by either Bush or Cheney...

Usually they cite the authorization to torture, but they can't cite a statute which limits the Exeuctive's authority to authorize water-boarding, or a statute which classifies water-boarding as torture.

Clearly you'll be no exception...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As for revolution, 25 percent is more than enough to fuel and man a revolution. That is 80 MILLION people. All it takes is about 3 million anyway.

 

[editec]

AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE MY BROTHER!!!!!!!!

Unless the truth that you discover is that you are a prisoner, of course.

I expect no indictments of any of the major players of the Bush League.

They can always fall back on the "I was mislead" defence, just as they've been doing all along.

The really sad thing about this isn't that they get off, of course that is bad enough, but that the next generation of crooks to take office will see what these crooks got away with and keep pushing that imperial envelope.

 

[Avatar4321]

No man, President or Ex-President is or should be above the law. Bush is not an exception.

No, of course he isn't above the law. But then, he hasn't broken the law. It's not criminal to do your job.

But then investigating President Bush is nothing but a smoke screen. Distract the media with talk about investigating President Bush, then while we appoint actual criminals to lead various departments of the government, people wont notice.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Unless the truth that you discover is that you are a prisoner, of course.

I expect no indictments of any of the major players of the Bush League.

They can always fall back on the "I was mislead" defence, just as they've been doing all along.

The really sad thing about this isn't that they get off, of course that is bad enough, but that the next generation of crooks to take office will see what these crooks got away with and keep pushing that imperial envelope.

Oh you're right, there will be no indictments... but you glossed over the reason that there will be no indictments; and that reason is that it's not immoral to debrief an illegal combatant through physically coersive means... thus where a law would otherwise prohibit such techniques, the moral imperative to save innocent life, trumps law, the basis of which rests upon wholly distinct foundations; meaning the law was never designed to promote the interests of illegal, mass murdering combatants and to decidedly INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WILL SUCCEED IN MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Now you pro-terrorist types need to erroneously classify water-boarding and other phycially coersive debriefing techiniques as Torture in your advocacies of anti-American activities; and while everyone agrees that such techniques are to be avoided where possible; such techniques are effective where time-sensitive information is being sought from a mass-murdering billigerent and their use is necessary TO SAVE INNOCENT LIFE; thus it is NOT POSSIBLE to avoid their use in such circumstances.

So, No, there will be no indictments; but there will no doubt be Brown-shirt investigations ...

 

[bigdaddygtr]

law, the basis of which rests upon wholly distinct foundations; meaning the law was never designed to promote the interests of illegal, mass murdering combatants and to decidedly INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WILL SUCCEED IN MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE.


so its ok for Bush to send our troops to kill innocent Iraqi people in the name of Anti-terrorism? Especially when Sadaam had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11?? (you love the CAPS so I thought I'd give them back to you)

Now you pro-terrorist types

I love it, we that totally disagreed with going to Iraq are Pro-terrorists? Oh, and since we also believe that if we are the moral leader than these criminals should be tried in a court of law and not submitted to water boarding are also for the terrorists right?

What is truly funny is that you are so convinced that you're right and we're the idiots yet the majority of this country agrees with us. Funny

 

[Avatar4321]

law, the basis of which rests upon wholly distinct foundations; meaning the law was never designed to promote the interests of illegal, mass murdering combatants and to decidedly INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WILL SUCCEED IN MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE.


so its ok for Bush to send our troops to kill innocent Iraqi people in the name of Anti-terrorism? Especially when Sadaam had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11?? (you love the CAPS so I thought I'd give them back to you)

Now you pro-terrorist types

I love it, we that totally disagreed with going to Iraq are Pro-terrorists? Oh, and since we also believe that if we are the moral leader than these criminals should be tried in a court of law and not submitted to water boarding are also for the terrorists right?

What is truly funny is that you are so convinced that you're right and we're the idiots yet the majority of this country agrees with us. Funny

Seriously, what is so damn difficult to understand about why we went into Iraq?

We declared war on terrorism and states that sponsor it. Saddam sponsors terrorism. We, and everyone else in the world, had intelligence that Saddam had WMDs and was working on putting weapons programs in place.

It's not so difficult to figure out. You keep saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What the heck does that matter? 9/11 changed the game plan. While we were previously safe sitting on our ass doing nothing, we are no longer.

What gets me is your so convinced that your intelligent and correct and yet you cant even figure out why we went into Iraq despite being explicitly shown the reasoning a million times.

 

[DiveCon]

Seriously, what is so damn difficult to understand about why we went into Iraq?

We declared war on terrorism and states that sponsor it. Saddam sponsors terrorism. We, and everyone else in the world, had intelligence that Saddam had WMDs and was working on putting weapons programs in place.

It's not so difficult to figure out. You keep saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What the heck does that matter? 9/11 changed the game plan. While we were previously safe sitting on our ass doing nothing, we are no longer.

What gets me is your so convinced that your intelligent and correct and yet you cant even figure out why we went into Iraq despite being explicitly shown the reasoning a million times.

they dont have the brain capacity to understand that

 

[Avatar4321]

they dont have the brain capacity to understand that

It's one thing if they said they thought it was the wrong thing to do. But they keep claiming they dont know why we did it. they dont understand the reasoning. A freaking five year old can understand it.

 

[bk1983]

Seriously, what is so damn difficult to understand about why we went into Iraq?

We declared war on terrorism and states that sponsor it. Saddam sponsors terrorism. We, and everyone else in the world, had intelligence that Saddam had WMDs and was working on putting weapons programs in place.

It's not so difficult to figure out. You keep saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What the heck does that matter? 9/11 changed the game plan. While we were previously safe sitting on our ass doing nothing, we are no longer.

What gets me is your so convinced that your intelligent and correct and yet you cant even figure out why we went into Iraq despite being explicitly shown the reasoning a million times.

You need to get your facts straight. The CIA debunked the Al Qaeda Iraq connection and the claim that Iraq had WMD's. Rumsfeld then created his own intelligence wing within the pentagon to present Intel that countered what CIA and FBI presented. This Intel agency was not filled with intelligence experts, but rather politically connected policy analysts. The majority of the intel that came from this new agency, was derived from the INC and Chalabi, who at the time were Iraqi exiles and labeled as fabricators. Yet they were trusted over our own US intelligence agencies, and the 10 years and 70,000 pages of intelligence they had.

The White House then had the CIA create a NIE report(highest level intelligence document). The NIE report was created to back the WMD allegations, NIE's usually take years to create, the CIA was given only 2 weeks. During those 2 weeks Cheney and Libby visited the CIA on over 10 occasions, mind you the VP never visits CIA HQ unless involved in some type of ribbon ceremony. The purpose of the visits was clearly to apply political pressure to the analysts so that the finished intelligence would fit their policy. What many people don't realize is how backwards this whole thing was done. Policy's are wrapped around the intelligence received, in this case the policy was designed and then intelligence cherry picked to fit the policy. Much like how a defense attorney makes their case, the intelligence was used to back the policy.

So you are 100% wrong on your argument.

Let me know any other baseless claims you have, and I will debunk them with FACTS one by one. What some of you guys fail to understand is, yes there was intelligence that backed the administration claims, yet those intel reports were filtered and based on the accusations of known fabricators. To put it simply their was alot more intelligence that said Iraq had no WMD's. Yet they took what little they had and sold it to the public, and as we can see in this thread, their performance definitely deserves praise as it is still fooling some.

 

[DiveCon]

You need to get your facts straight. The CIA debunked the Al Qaeda Iraq connection and the claim that Iraq had WMD's. Rumsfeld then created his own intelligence wing within the pentagon to present Intel that countered what CIA and FBI presented. This Intel agency was not filled with intelligence experts, but rather politically connected policy analysts. The majority of the intel that came from this new agency, was derived from the INC and Chalabi, who at the time were Iraqi exiles and labeled as fabricators. Yet they were trusted over our own US intelligence agencies, and the 10 years and 70,000 pages of intelligence they had.

The White House then had the CIA create a NIE report(highest level intelligence document). The NIE report was created to back the WMD allegations, NIE's usually take years to create, the CIA was given only 2 weeks. During those 2 weeks Cheney and Libby visited the CIA on over 10 occasions, mind you the VP never visits CIA HQ unless involved in some type of ribbon ceremony. The purpose of the visits was clearly to apply political pressure to the analysts so that the finished intelligence would fit their policy. What many people don't realize is how backwards this whole thing was done. Policy's are wrapped around the intelligence received, in this case the policy was designed and then intelligence cherry picked to fit the policy. Much like how a defense attorney makes their case, the intelligence was used to back the policy.

So you are 100% wrong on your argument.

Let me know any other baseless claims you have, and I will debunk them with FACTS one by one. What some of you guys fail to understand is, yes there was intelligence that backed the administration claims, yet those intel reports were filtered and based on the accusations of known fabricators. To put it simply their was alot more intelligence that said Iraq had no WMD's. Yet they took what little they had and sold it to the public, and as we can see in this thread, their performance definitely deserves praise as it is still fooling some.

you debunked NOTHING
in fact, everything you posted is BULLSHIT

 

[Valerie]

Seriously, what is so damn difficult to understand about why we went into Iraq?

We declared war on terrorism and states that sponsor it. Saddam sponsors terrorism. We, and everyone else in the world, had intelligence that Saddam had WMDs and was working on putting weapons programs in place.

It's not so difficult to figure out. You keep saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What the heck does that matter? 9/11 changed the game plan. While we were previously safe sitting on our ass doing nothing, we are no longer.

What gets me is your so convinced that your intelligent and correct and yet you cant even figure out why we went into Iraq despite being explicitly shown the reasoning a million times.

Right, like we were supposed to just sit there after 9/11 and allow Saddam to continue to thumb his nose at us? His constant defiance of the UN resolutions was simply not tolerable under those circumstances.

 

[bk1983]

you debunked NOTHING
in fact, everything you posted is BULLSHIT

any proof to what you claim, or do you still have nothing but your 2 sentence maximum?

 

[bk1983]

you debunked NOTHING
in fact, everything you posted is BULLSHIT

Is the NIE claim BS?

Is the Chalabi and INC claim BS?

Is the intel and policy claims BS?

It is clear you have no clue what you are talking about.. Why don't you stick to your usual "moron" posts, you are clearly overstepping your intellectual boundaries.

 

[jillian]

Right, like we were supposed to just sit there after 9/11 and allow Saddam to continue to thumb his nose at us? His constant defiance of the UN resolutions was simply not tolerable under those circumstances.

except saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and no one every belived he did. perhaps we'd have been better served by going after the people who actually attacked us?

 

[DiveCon]

Is the NIE claim BS?

Is the Chalabi and INC claim BS?

Is the intel and policy claims BS?

It is clear you have no clue what you are talking about.. Why don't you stick to your usual "moron" posts, you are clearly overstepping your intellectual boundaries.

if you would get your head out of your ass and actually read those rteports yourself instead of some asshole reporters word of it, you would see they said NOTHING of the sort
but you are so full up on ABDS you cant see the truth

 

[DiveCon]

except saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and no one every belived he did. perhaps we'd have been better served by going after the people who actually attacked us?

but he DID have terrorist connections and they even found that via the oil for food scandal he had funneled money to Al Qaeda front groups

 

[dilloduck]

except saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and no one every belived he did. perhaps we'd have been better served by going after the people who actually attacked us?

We did---we ALSO went after other trouble makers. Is this really that complicated ?