Bush Admin. to blame for prison abuses

!st rocks it ain't happening.

2nd rocks it ain't happening.

3rd and finally rocks moot trials are moot for a reason college professors have no standing to convict any one of anything. So it doesn't matter.
 
ROFLMNAO...

Just shut up and DO IT ALREADY... Enough of the talk... enough of your collective cryin' about 'war-crimes' committed against the enemies of the United States... Enough of the implicit little threats... GET ON WITH PROVING YOURSELF FOR WHAT YOU ARE, IN FINALITY... so you can finally be held accountable for it.

I AM BEGGING YA!

Yadda, yadda.
 
Yadda, yadda.

Do it witless... CHARGE AWAY!

Now I wonder why they won't do it?

Care to take a guess dumbass?

Because those who would charge the Bush administration with war crimes would be IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS ADVOCATES FOR THE INTERESTS OF TERRORISTS!

And while you feel very stronglly that 'most people' agree with you... those who you are following aren't as stupid as you are... they damn well know that if they tried, they'd be impeached or otherwise run out of office, shortly thereafter; and they're not prepared to toss the good life, just to appease the idiots that put them there.

So... by all means PUHLEASE... JUST DO IT or shut the fuck up...
 
Last edited:
Do it witless... CHARGE AWAY!

Now I wonder why they won't do it?

Care to take a guess dumbass?

Because those who would charge the Bush administration with war crimes would be IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS ADVOCATES FOR THE INTERESTS OF TERRORISTS!

And while you feel very stronglly that 'most people' agree with you... those who you are following aren't as stupid as you are... they damn well know that if they tried, they'd be impeached or otherwise run out of office, shortly thereafter; and they're not prepared to toss the good life, just to appease the idiots that put them there.

So... by all means PUHLEASE... JUST DO IT or shut the fuck up...

My, my, excited now, aren't we. You sound kind of like Stevens, Craig, or Cunningham.
 
I didn't read the whole thread since the answer is pretty obvious. But, just to kill a minute on Christmas.... Here goes.



Duh!

They were in charge.

Ergo, they are responsible for what happened on their watch.

I don't much care if they ordered these crimes, or they merely weren't competent enough to prevent them, they are responsible because they were in charge.

I'm a old time kinda guy in that respect.

The captian of the ship is ultimately responsible for his crew's actions and the well being of the ship under his command.

The Marines call that Leadership Responsibility. You as a leader are responsible for everything done or not done by your subordinates. I agree that GWB is fully responsible no matter how unfair it may seem. Read on.

1) That only goes so far, and you know it. While it is always lip service when we hear this, those in upper echelons are not always ultimately responsible for the actions of those below or for preventing all of said actions. There is a little thing called free will and personal choice which are not totally controllable.
2) And it is the MAJOR key here if they did order these 'crimes'. And there is no evidence whatsoever that any criminal order was ever issued. To 'not care' or to simply ignore this in an attempt to yet again 'stick it' to this administration, is simply laughable.

Well done DD. You just explained to ED the difference between responsibility and accountability. While us .mil folks can easily hold GWB responsible. There must be evidence of criminal action to hold him criminally accountable. For ED: In the service we would relieve the leader (an administrative action) and allow him to atrophy somewhere and avoid the losing GCM since evidence is still needed.

The difference, silence, is that the crime of perjury by Clinton, was clearly committed and there was direct evidence of this. There is no charge and no evidence of any crime being committed by Bush... rhetoric is not evidence..

As for higher ups not knowing.. ask any platoon sgt or company commander on how things go on without knowledge.. and those are FIRST LINE in the chain... get real silence

It's too easy to generalize. What I would be interested in is someone who hates GW's supposed "wrongs" with the intellectual courage to acknowledge the right things done.
 
My, my, excited now, aren't we. You sound kind of like Stevens, Craig, or Cunningham.

Stop yappin your cock polisher and get on with charging the Bush administration with abusing terrorists...

MAKE IT HAPPEN... I would absolutely LOVE to see the Hussein regime make that the first order of business...
 
Justice is blind and the law is about impartiality.

"He is a former drunk, was a serial failure in business who had to repeatedly be bailed out by daddy's friends and wanna-be-friends, was unable to speak articulately despite the finest education(s) that money and influence can buy, has a dislike of reading, so that 100-page memos have to be boiled down to one page for him, is heedless of facts and evidence, and appears not even to know the meaning of truth," said Velvel.

This quote shows this is about his hatred of Bush not a quest for justice, as he already prejudged it, and hopes to simply hammer a case to fit the accusation.

In short, it will be mocked as biased and a waste of time, as most partisan excersizes are.
 
In a published document entitled "The Long Term View" (PDF link), Vevel argues, at the very least, "there is no question" George W. Bush is guilty of conspiracy to commit torture, a war crime.

"He is a former drunk, was a serial failure in business who had to repeatedly be bailed out by daddy's friends and wanna-be-friends, was unable to speak articulately despite the finest education(s) that money and influence can buy, has a dislike of reading, so that 100-page memos have to be boiled down to one page for him, is heedless of facts and evidence, and appears not even to know the meaning of truth," said Velvel.

The premise is highlighted in blue... It sounds so certain doesn't it? I mean to read that premise, one comes away with a feeling that 'this guy must know what he's talkin' about...'

But the basis of that highlighted in blue set in red leads us quickly to recognize that we were lead astray by one of the carriers of "BDS"... AKA: Bush Derangement Syndrome"

The leftist prof on any given day would stand in appoplexy if one if his chharges were to denigrate a homeless person for their addiction... yet she stands in this piece ready to denigrate GW Bush for his self declared abuse of alchohol... and I would wager that this idiot is himself a alchoholic, giiven the that most academics tend towards addiction, particularly as they begin to face their mortality and reflect upon a life of failure, having accepted second best, being unable to DO... thus relegated to teach.

But with that said... the basis offered in support of the premise does not follow the premise in the slightest... thus what we find is that this would-be learned conclusion, advanced by a celebrated legal scholar is little more than yet another leftist opinion which takes the shape of a logical non sequitur... Unfit for consideration on any level, for any reason and stands as little more than the opinion of a delusional mind.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top