I know this is a crazy thought (even I think so), but it was brought to mind again after listening to a Dan Carlin show related to it, and hearing about Bugliosi's book again.
It seems to me that the evidence he lied to get into Iraq is solid, and in that case I don't see why he shouldn't be tried for murder. It seems asinine because he's a former president, but I think the law should still apply to presidents, no matter their power.
Given that Saddam Hussein was a war criminal himself and threatened the U.S. more than once with aggressive and hostile actions, who gives a fuck? The dood had what was coming to him, and Bush got him dead real good.
Despite that, I don't necessarily support the aggressive stance that America has taken in the Middle East...but apparently the majority of America does. They keep voting in muthafuckers that want to wreck shit over there.
" Given that Saddam Hussein was a war criminal himself and threatened the U.S. more than once with aggressive and hostile actions, who gives a fuck? The dood had what was coming to him, and Bush got him dead real good. Despite that, I don't necessarily support the aggressive stance that America has taken in the Middle East...but apparently the majority of America does. They keep voting in muthafuckers that want to wreck shit over there. "
Lol, it wouldn't be a trial for the murder of Saddam, but for the death of the American soldiers who had to fight there.
Did he lie? We'll we have the Downing Street memo on that, don't we. But does he deserve to die? He didn't pull any triggers, so he wouldn't be facing the death penalty.
" If you want to have a political debate the internet is probably not a good place to do it sir. "
Why not? I like the Giant Bomb community. In any case, you guys are as salt of the earth as it gets. You're my people. I want your opinions, not the opinions of people who specialize in politics alone.
@Ragdrazi said:
" Did he lie? We'll we have the Downing Street memo on that, don't we. But does he deserve to die? He didn't pull any triggers. So legally speaking, he wouldn't be facing the death penalty. "
If someone purposely lies and thereby knowingly send a bunch of people into a minefield you can easily pin them with murder or manslaughter.
the bush family had and still does have oil interests in iraq, along with cheney and his Haliburton corporation. they needed an excuse to go to iraq to oust saddam heussein and turn iraq into a pseudo-state to drill baby drill!!!!!!!!!
" Given that Saddam Hussein was a war criminal himself and threatened the U.S. more than once with aggressive and hostile actions, who gives a fuck? The dood had what was coming to him, and Bush got him dead real good. Despite that, I don't necessarily support the aggressive stance that America has taken in the Middle East...but apparently the majority of America does. They keep voting in muthafuckers that want to wreck shit over there. "
Lol, it wouldn't be a trial for the murder of Saddam, but for the death of the American soldiers who had to fight there. "
The American soldiers signed up for the military. If they're going to get all the benefits, they better do their jobs. Besides, a vast majority of the soldiers agree with the wars anyway.
Anyway, Bush wasn't the one who originally claimed there were WMDs in Iraq. Intelligence agencies in both the UK and America said they believed Iraq possessed the weapons.
And we deposed a cruel tyrant, so at the end of the day, we got some good out of it.
I dont know that he lied, but I did just watch a show on the FBI interrogator who questioned Saddam. They said that Saddam told him, that he lied about having WMDs in order to keep the illusion of power over Iran. I do think Bush is a complete moron, and still dont know what the fuck we are doing in Iraq. How Afghanistan and Osama were just phased out, and became unimportant when compared with Iraq.
It's pretty obvious that the Bush administration used faulty evidence in such a way that we can clearly consider them to have been lying at the time. I don't think even the Bush administration was delusional enough to convince themselves that Iraq actually had WMD's. Besides, any WMD's that Hussein has had or used was supplied to him by the U.S., so no matter which way you slice it, either Bush was a murderer or the administration which provided Hussein with those weapons were accessories to murder.
At least he got Saddam out of power. That tinpot dictator went to war with Iran and Kuwait some decades ago. Might as well remove him out of power. Of course now there's all kinds of bloodshed in Iraq.
" the bush family had and still does have oil interests in iraq, along with cheney and his Haliburton corporation. they needed an excuse to go to iraq to oust saddam heussein and turn iraq into a pseudo-state to drill baby drill!!!!!!!!! "
What has actually been done to support any of their actions as being motivated by oil? I hear that said alot, but Ive never seen or heard anything to support it.
" Did he lie? We'll we have the Downing Street memo on that, don't we. But does he deserve to die? He didn't pull any triggers. So legally speaking, he wouldn't be facing the death penalty. "
If someone purposely lies and thereby knowingly send a bunch of people into a minefield you can easily pin them with murder or manslaughter. "
It would be manslaughter, and it probably wouldn't carry the death penalty even if he wasn't a president.
" He can't legally be charged with murder, people who think he can are idiots. "
Even Vincent Bugliosi, veteran prosecutor who had a 99% conviction rate and is one of the most respected attorneys in the country?
@AndrewGaspar said:
The American soldiers signed up for the military. If they're going to get all the benefits, they better do their jobs. Besides, a vast majority of the soldiers agree with the wars anyway. Anyway, Bush wasn't the one who originally claimed there were WMDs in Iraq. Intelligence agencies in both the UK and America said they believed Iraq possessed the weapons. And we deposed a cruel tyrant, so at the end of the day, we got some good out of it. "
The version of the NIE given to the public was significantly edited to fool the public into thinking war was necessary. That alone should be considered a lie.
A separate white paper summarizing the National Intelligence Estimate was made public in October 2002. The Senate report criticized the white paper as having ''misrepresented'' what the Senate committee described as a ''more carefully worded assessment'' in the classified intelligence estimate. For example, the white paper excluded information found in the National Intelligence Estimate, like the names of intelligence agencies that had dissented from some of the findings, most importantly on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. That approach, the Senate committee said, ''provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate within the intelligence community regarding these issues.''
Among the specific dissents excluded from the public white paper on Iraq's weapons was the view of the State Department's intelligence branch, spelled out in the classified version of the document, that Iraq's importation of aluminum tubes could not be conclusively tied to a continuing nuclear weapons program, as other intelligence agencies asserted. Also left out of the white paper was the view of Air Force intelligence that pilotless aerial vehicles being built by Iraq, seen by other intelligence agencies as designed to deliver chemical or biological weapons, were not suited for that purpose.
It would teach future presidents that we won't permit such toying with American lives and treasure. That's very much a good thing. Presidential power has run amok.
@Ragdrazi said:
" @GIVEMEREPLAY said:
@Ragdrazi said:
" Did he lie? We'll we have the Downing Street memo on that, don't we. But does he deserve to die? He didn't pull any triggers. So legally speaking, he wouldn't be facing the death penalty. "
If someone purposely lies and thereby knowingly send a bunch of people into a minefield you can easily pin them with murder or manslaughter. "
It would be manslaughter, and it probably wouldn't carry the death penalty even if he wasn't a president. "
I really doubt you have the expertise to state that with such conviction. A very experienced prosecutor happens to disagree.
" the bush family had and still does have oil interests in iraq, along with cheney and his Haliburton corporation. they needed an excuse to go to iraq to oust saddam heussein and turn iraq into a pseudo-state to drill baby drill!!!!!!!!! "
What has actually been done to support any of their actions as being motivated by oil? I hear that said alot, but Ive never seen or heard anything to support it. "
Well, it is the second largest reserve of oil in the world, and we are running out. That's what you call circumstantial evidence, but it's evidence none the less.
Let me tell you what you obviously have no concept of OP. And for anyone else in this thread who doesn't see how many things are wrong with OP's post, keep reading.
First: How Intelligence Agency's work, their role in our government, and how they communicate with each other and congress.
Second: You've disregarded the presence of congress/senate, or implied they only have one source of knowledge(president)
Here is reality(op, read real good, it might help you in on your next 10th grade history exam next year):
Congress has two roles. A: Makes laws, decisions, waste money, jerk about, take leave. B: Keep the president in check. No jokes here, they tend to do this well.
Congress is as close to our intelligence community as our president, infact, they're closer. So even IF bush lied, their overall decision to let him go to war was moreso influence by our intelligence as a whole.
So if you're going to make ANY dumbass argument, AT LEAST make it plausible. I mean I dabble in conspiracy, and some seem pretty solid, but people like you make the rest of us who question things look like complete dumbasses.
" Let me tell you what you obviously have no concept of OP. And for anyone else in this thread who doesn't see how many things are wrong with OP's post, keep reading. First: How Intelligence Agency's work, their role in our government, and how they communicate with each other and congress. Second: You've disregarded the presence of congress/senate, or implied they only have one source of knowledge(president) Here is reality(op, read real good, it might help you in on your next 10th grade history exam next year): Congress has two roles. A: Makes laws, decisions, waste money, jerk about, take leave. B: Keep the president in check. No jokes here, they tend to do this well. Congress is as close to our intelligence community as our president, infact, they're closer. So even IF bush lied, their overall decision to let him go to war was moreso influence by our intelligence as a whole. So if you're going to make ANY dumbass argument, AT LEAST make it plausible. I mean I dabble in conspiracy, and some seem pretty solid, but people like you make the rest of us who question things look like complete dumbasses. Shit. "
I'm a graduate in political science from one of the top rated universities in the country. But thanks for the info.
@Jace said:
" @GIVEMEREPLAY: Are you an idiot? The action of going to war had to be cleared by congress. MURDER CONGRESS THEY LIED FUCKKKKKKKKKK I'm getting trolled so hard, I can feel it. No one can be this dumb. "
Congress gave approval to use force, but the president made the decision to go to use force (not that Congress isn't partially culpable), and further he had the most access to the faulty evidence, and approved the use of that faulty (and as I've shown, often heavily edited) evidence to cull up public support. Not a troll, just a difficult question.
" Given that Saddam Hussein was a war criminal himself and threatened the U.S. more than once with aggressive and hostile actions, who gives a fuck? The dood had what was coming to him, and Bush got him dead real good. Despite that, I don't necessarily support the aggressive stance that America has taken in the Middle East...but apparently the majority of America does. They keep voting in muthafuckers that want to wreck shit over there. "
Lol, it wouldn't be a trial for the murder of Saddam, but for the death of the American soldiers who had to fight there. "
The American soldiers signed up for the military. If they're going to get all the benefits, they better do their jobs. Besides, a vast majority of the soldiers agree with the wars anyway. Anyway, Bush wasn't the one who originally claimed there were WMDs in Iraq. Intelligence agencies in both the UK and America said they believed Iraq possessed the weapons. And we deposed a cruel tyrant, so at the end of the day, we got some good out of it. "
Eh. No. There was possible evidence of this, yes. But Cheney actually personally set up an office to sift though intelligence data, in hopes of finding the stuff that sounded the best. They were cherry picking. And the intelligence community was sending the White House plenty of messages saying they'd got it wrong, talking independently to the media.
And, yeah, we did depose a cruel tyrant. We previously supported and funded said tyrant while he was committing the worst of his atrocities. That would have been the time to have stood up with some kind of moral authority. But, yeah, he's gone and that is a good thing.
1. He's not just to blame for the mess we caused in Iraq; Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Republican controlled Congress at the time all had MAJOR roles 2. Murder would not be what he would be convicted for; he hasn't killed anybody 3. Politicians lie all the fucking time to push their agendas, get used to it
There is a great documentary, that I forget the name of at the moment, but it talks about the whole war and what led up to the decision to go into Iraq etc. President Bush takes a lot of the heat and criticizing, but the person that basically fucked up the whole war and lied out the ass is Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush's biggest mistake during his entire presidency was choosing to have terrible people around him like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The saddest part is that most people in America today are too undereducated and stupid to form their own opinions so when something comes out of the Executive branch that the opposing party doesnt like, they will just tell the public what a shitty job the president is doing whether it was his fault or not. It works both ways too, it happen to Bush and its happening to Obama. Too many Americans only listen to the people that reinforce their own opinions instead of going out of their way to find out the facts and make decisions for themselves based off of them. So in the end, Bush gets the bad rep for some stuff that isnt even his fault. Thats not to say he didnt do some stupid things, but what president hasnt.
Faulty EVIDENCE? Repeat that to yourself. FAULTY evidence. And you think he had more access than congress?
And it's not a DIFFICULT question. It is an invalid question. Which you're confusing for difficulty. You can even give me a reason why you'd only kill bush, like he's the mastermind. Not a dictatorship. Why am I even typing anymore?
" Did he lie? We'll we have the Downing Street memo on that, don't we. But does he deserve to die? He didn't pull any triggers. So legally speaking, he wouldn't be facing the death penalty. "
If someone purposely lies and thereby knowingly send a bunch of people into a minefield you can easily pin them with murder or manslaughter. "
It would be manslaughter, and it probably wouldn't carry the death penalty even if he wasn't a president. "
I really doubt you have the expertise to state that with such conviction. A very experienced prosecutor happens to disagree. "
And I really doubt you've really been on this planet for very long. You speak with the conviction of youth. A prosecutor can argue for the death penalty in manslaughter. But it's rare. The prosecutor you're talking about seems to think he can make the case, but that would be absurd, and seem like a politically motivated double standard which would probably end up with the whole case thrown out.
I'm not a big fan of George Bush because he says stuff like " No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots.” but I don't think he knew there weren't WMD's over there. I think he was just getting advice from a bunch of people and just assumed it was all correct. George bush is gone tho, so I say just let the guy drift into the past and forget about him. Don't be like Bill Maher, still telling the same George Bush jokes a year and a half after he's no longer relevant.
" There is a great documentary, that I forget the name of at the moment, but it talks about the whole war and what led up to the decision to go into Iraq etc. President Bush takes a lot of the heat and criticizing, but the person that basically fucked up the whole war and lied out the ass is Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush's biggest mistake during his entire presidency was choosing to have terrible people around him like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The saddest part is that most people in America today are too undereducated and stupid to form their own opinions so when something comes out of the Executive branch that the opposing party doesnt like, they will just tell the public what a shitty job the president is doing whether it was his fault or not. It works both ways too, it happen to Bush and its happening to Obama. Too many Americans only listen to the people that reinforce their own opinions instead of going out of their way to find out the facts and make decisions for themselves based off of them. So in the end, Bush gets the bad rep for some stuff that isnt even his fault. Thats not to say he didnt do some stupid things, but what president hasnt. "
Frontline has done 25+ documentaries covering every aspect of Iraq and the so-called "War on Terrorism" Scroll through the list and see if any of them ring a bell Even if it doesn't, I highly recommend to watch even one of them
"The American soldiers signed up for the military. If they're going to get all the benefits, they better do their jobs. Besides, a vast majority of the soldiers agree with the wars anyway."
Yup. There's no draft anymore so everybody in the army signed up of their own free will. Maybe some of them DID just sign up for the benefits, but if you join an army you have to know that you might get shot at.
Log in to comment