PDA

View Full Version : Should Bush and company be held accountable?



cotts135
01-11-2009, 07:29 AM
Here is three articles dealing with the present administrations culpability for war crimes and how they should be handled. All of them should be read as each has a different perspective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11fried.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11lithwick.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11balkin.html?_r=1

subroc
01-11-2009, 08:52 AM
No!

BTW, I didn't read the articles.

Should the Bush administration be thanked by the American people for keeping United States soil safe after 9/11?

YardleyLabs
01-11-2009, 09:03 AM
I believe that in the most fundamental sense the American people have already held the administration accountable by turning out in very large numbers at the polls. While I believe a number of the people in the administration may well have earned criminal prosecution by their lawless behavior (most notably the V-P), I'm not sure that such a prosecution would benefit anyone. However, I believe it would be useful to throw away a lot of the shield of secrecy that the administration has used to hide its activities. Disclosure of what has been done wrongly in our name is the first step towards preventing similar abuse in the future.

Jim Pickering
01-11-2009, 09:17 AM
The true George Bush haters, might enjoy reading The Prosectuion of George Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi.

Yes I have listened to the audio version driving to and from trials. While I truly believe that history will record George Bush as one of the worst presidents in this country's history, I could not finish the book. This man HATES George Bush and that hate oozes from every page, but he does make a case and the book does include dramatic examples of Mr. Bush's incompetence.

Bob Gutermuth
01-11-2009, 10:11 AM
Today's NY Times would have prosecuted FDR, Ike and MacArthur for war crimes in WWII if they could. That paper is as anti-American as Pravda.

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 10:36 AM
No!

BTW, I didn't read the articles.

Should the Bush administration be thanked by the American people for keeping United States soil safe after 9/11?

While it is true there has been no successful foreign based terrors attack on the U.S. in the 7 years after 9/11, there weren't any foreign based terror attacks the seven years before 9/11 either. Looks like there is a full round of kudos overdue to other people along with those going to W.

Gun_Dog2002
01-11-2009, 11:42 AM
While it is true there has been no successful foreign based terrors attack on the U.S. in the 7 years after 9/11, there weren't any foreign based terror attacks the seven years before 9/11 either. Looks like there is a full round of kudos overdue to other people along with those going to W.

Frankly put, not a good analogy. The world changed after 9/11 and if you don't see that, then you need to come back from living on mars.....

/Paul

subroc
01-11-2009, 11:50 AM
does 1993 count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 12:52 PM
Frankly put, not a good analogy. The world changed after 9/11 and if you don't see that, then you need to come back from living on mars.....

/Paul

America may have changed when it found out it was not safe behind those big oceans. But, the world was already gunning for us for a long time.

Uncle Bill
01-11-2009, 01:53 PM
America may have changed when it found out it was not safe behind those big oceans. But, the world was already gunning for us for a long time.


WRONG. Why do you confuse the "world" and Islam???? Or are you conceding the entire world to Islam? Or mebbe you are an Islamic apologizer?

UB

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 08:24 PM
Bill:
I own three dogs. Dogs are considered to be unclean animals by Muslims. You think I am going to be an apologist for them? Nice try!
Besides I am too irreverent to pray five times a day.

cotts135
01-11-2009, 08:28 PM
No!

BTW, I didn't read the articles.

Should the Bush administration be thanked by the American people for keeping United States soil safe after 9/11?t

I might think about if had taken absolutely any responsibility for the attacks on 9/11

K G
01-11-2009, 08:48 PM
While it is true there has been no successful foreign based terrors attack on the U.S. in the 7 years after 9/11, there weren't any foreign based terror attacks the seven years before 9/11 either. Looks like there is a full round of kudos overdue to other people along with those going to W.

There wouldn't have BEEN an attack on 9/11 if our 42nd President had taken care of business when he had the chance.

Just think of where our country, and the world at large, would be today if he'd just had the GUTS to take care of business rather than being consumed by his own prurient interests.

BHO has more on his plate than worrying about keeping the old wounds open...and for the love of Mike, I cannot make any sense out of this statement:
I might think about if had taken absolutely any responsibility for the attacks on 9/11. I might comment on it if I knew what it meant....

kg

subroc
01-11-2009, 09:08 PM
He means and believes, like all good liberals, that Bush is resposible for 9/11

Gun_Dog2002
01-11-2009, 10:04 PM
America may have changed when it found out it was not safe behind those big oceans. But, the world was already gunning for us for a long time.

And how is that Bush's fault? Had Clinton been more concerned with safeguarding this country than getting blow jobs in the oval office, perhaps 911 wouldn't have happened.

/paul

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 10:34 PM
And how is that Bush's fault? Had Clinton been more concerned with safeguarding this country than getting blow jobs in the oval office, perhaps 911 wouldn't have happened.

/paul

Jeeze, Louise, you fellas are edgy. Can you guys read? I didn't claim 9/11 was Bush's fault.

K G
01-11-2009, 11:05 PM
Jeeze, Louise, you fellas are edgy. Can you guys read? I didn't claim 9/11 was Bush's fault.


We read quite well. Thanks for asking. We're saying that had William Jefferson Clinton had the guts and his priorities in the right place, and made the decision when he had the chance, 9/11 would have been avoided altogether in all probability.

kg

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 11:29 PM
I dunno. Bubba was far more talented at multitasking with his drawers around his knees than any other person I know.

We can get us into the blame game here with all kinds of folks and agencies going back through the post war era if we want. I don't know if that will get anybody anywhere.

W is trying to cling to the fact that he kept us safe. I am prepared to be charitable and concede the point to him. After all he screwed up just about every other thing he touched and he needs something to save face.

cotts135
01-12-2009, 08:51 AM
I thought the thread was about Bush and Co breaking the law and whether they should be held accountable?

Gun_Dog2002
01-12-2009, 09:13 AM
I dunno. Bubba was far more talented at multitasking with his drawers around his knees than any other person I know.

We can get us into the blame game here with all kinds of folks and agencies going back through the post war era if we want. I don't know if that will get anybody anywhere.

W is trying to cling to the fact that he kept us safe. I am prepared to be charitable and concede the point to him. After all he screwed up just about every other thing he touched and he needs something to save face.

Thats right and the only people with lower approval ratings was the democrat congress. Perhaps they should go on trial for sucking worse than Bush. That seems criminal to me...

/Paul

zeus3925
01-12-2009, 11:11 AM
I thought the thread was about Bush and Co breaking the law and whether they should be held accountable?


Maybe. But, I am not going to spend my time and money to purge his demons. Do you think the Milosovich family might pony up?

smillerdvm
01-12-2009, 12:02 PM
We read quite well. Thanks for asking. We're saying that had William Jefferson Clinton had the guts and his priorities in the right place, and made the decision when he had the chance, 9/11 would have been avoided altogether in all probability.

kg
This seems to be a common default excuse for the neo con Bush apologists......

" Intelligence shows that Clinton could have eliminated the whole problem if he would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance"

This line of reasoning is suspect on more than one front

First the Bush administrations record on "Intelligence" reports is suspect to say the least

Second, there is no guarantee that had Clinton acted on said "Intelligence" that they would have been succesful in taking out Bin Laden. Remember the Bush administration has spent the better part of his 8 years in office and committed thousands of troops, billions of dollars, countless raids and air strikes on caves or areas that "Intelligence" reports stated were Bin Laden hideouts; and they haven't gotten him yet. This slime ball has proven to be kind of hard to pin down, in spite of their "reliable intelligence". Once again review part one {above} on Bush's "Intelligence" record

Third, if we were succesful in getting Bin Laden don't you think that there would have been a successor to take his place. I can't think of how many times they have bragged that they have caught the supposed "second in command" of Al Queada. That would seem to show that there are plenty of these radicals to step up and fill the void.



I also love it that when you neo con Bush apologists are asked to list what Bush has done well, you always state that he "kept Ameica safe". You certainly can't brag on the economy; unless you approve of his bailouts and socialization of our banking, financial, auto and insurance sectors. He has completely abandoned free market principles. Brilliant

Well call me stupid...{and I'm sure you will} but I thought that 9-11 occurred on Bush's watch; despite "actionable intelligence" [cuts both ways don't it] that if acted upon could have "eliminated the whole problem"

His response was to eventually invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, and where Al Queda didn't exist. Remember they sold us on the war because their "intelligence" showed that they had WMD's, were sponsors of terror etc. Additionally their "intelligence" indicated that the war would be relatively short and inexpensive, as we would be "welcomed" as liberators; further it could be paid for with oil revenues.

Do you remember when Robert Gates was asked if America was safer because of our military actions in Iraq & Afghanistan. His answer was NO.

That was his appointment. I bet he got chastised, in private for that honest response; as honesty seems to be anethma to this administration. That may explain the attraction of the apologists!!!

"Mission Accomplished" regards

Gun_Dog2002
01-12-2009, 12:47 PM
This seems to be a common default excuse for the neo con Bush apologists......

" Intelligence shows that Clinton could have eliminated the whole problem if he would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance"

This line of reasoning is suspect on more than one front

First the Bush administrations record on "Intelligence" reports is suspect to say the least

Second, there is no guarantee that had Clinton acted on said "Intelligence" that they would have been succesful in taking out Bin Laden. Remember the Bush administration has spent the better part of his 8 years in office and committed thousands of troops, billions of dollars, countless raids and air strikes on caves or areas that "Intelligence" reports stated were Bin Laden hideouts; and they haven't gotten him yet. This slime ball has proven to be kind of hard to pin down, in spite of their "reliable intelligence". Once again review part one {above} on Bush's "Intelligence" record

Third, if we were succesful in getting Bin Laden don't you think that there would have been a successor to take his place. I can't think of how many times they have bragged that they have caught the supposed "second in command" of Al Queada. That would seem to show that there are plenty of these radicals to step up and fill the void.



I also love it that when you neo con Bush apologists are asked to list what Bush has done well, you always state that he "kept Ameica safe". You certainly can't brag on the economy; unless you approve of his bailouts and socialization of our banking, financial, auto and insurance sectors. He has completely abandoned free market principles. Brilliant

Well call me stupid...{and I'm sure you will} but I thought that 9-11 occurred on Bush's watch; despite "actionable intelligence" [cuts both ways don't it] that if acted upon could have "eliminated the whole problem"

His response was to eventually invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, and where Al Queda didn't exist. Remember they sold us on the war because their "intelligence" showed that they had WMD's, were sponsors of terror etc. Additionally their "intelligence" indicated that the war would be relatively short and inexpensive, as we would be "welcomed" as liberators; further it could be paid for with oil revenues.

Do you remember when Robert Gates was asked if America was safer because of our military actions in Iraq & Afghanistan. His answer was NO.

That was his appointment. I bet he got chastised, in private for that honest response; as honesty seems to be anethma to this administration. That may explain the attraction of the apologists!!!

"Mission Accomplished" regards

So you blame Bush for the economy despte the democrat behaviors that sparked the whole mess? What else are you going to blame Bush for? Herpes, AIDS, 7-11 raising the price in slurpee's......Geez,

/Paul

zeus3925
01-12-2009, 01:19 PM
And where was Bush when the Demo's were running amok. "Veto" was too big a word for him to understand.

Gun_Dog2002
01-12-2009, 01:32 PM
And where was Bush when the Demo's were running amok. "Veto" was too big a word for him to understand.

So let me get this straight. Its ok for all those democrats to act like that but the republican president is suppose to stop them? What a hypocrytical thing to say. I can't wait for the next 4 years.

/Paul

Hew
01-12-2009, 01:37 PM
This seems to be a common default excuse for the neo con Bush apologists......

" Intelligence shows that Clinton could have eliminated the whole problem if he would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance"

This line of reasoning is suspect on more than one front

First the Bush administrations record on "Intelligence" reports is suspect to say the least

Second, there is no guarantee that had Clinton acted on said "Intelligence" that they would have been succesful in taking out Bin Laden. Remember the Bush administration has spent the better part of his 8 years in office and committed thousands of troops, billions of dollars, countless raids and air strikes on caves or areas that "Intelligence" reports stated were Bin Laden hideouts; and they haven't gotten him yet. This slime ball has proven to be kind of hard to pin down, in spite of their "reliable intelligence". Once again review part one {above} on Bush's "Intelligence" record
What in the world do Bush admin intelligence reports have to do with Clinton kicking the bin Laden can down the road? The context of your screed above indicates that you have never read about the Sudanese offer to hand bin Laden over to us. Perhaps you'll believe your hero, Bill Clinton:



"At the time, 1996, he [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it [the bin Laden issue] was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan".

Call me nutty, but when you're as stunningly ill-informed as you appear to be, I'm thinking it's probably not a good idea to come out blazing with invectives like you have. But that's just me...

zeus3925
01-12-2009, 02:01 PM
So let me get this straight. Its ok for all those democrats to act like that but the republican president is suppose to stop them? What a hypocrytical thing to say. I can't wait for the next 4 years.

/Paul

Paul--Read the Constitution. That is exactly the function of the presidential veto. And if the President doesn't employ that tool, then the Senate Republicans had the strength to sustain a filibuster. (That isn't in the Constitution.)

If the Republicans had been more mainstream they would have prevailed in the last election. Instead they were too fixated on their brand of ideological purity to give a rip about the real world. They, more than anyone, are responsible for Congress's poor public ratings. The public responded in spades by increasing Pelosi's and Reid's minions.

txbadger
01-12-2009, 04:32 PM
Paul--Read the Constitution. That is exactly the function of the presidential veto. And if the President doesn't employ that tool, then the Senate Republicans had the strength to sustain a filibuster. (That isn't in the Constitution.)

If the Republicans had been more mainstream they would have prevailed in the last election. Instead they were too fixated on their brand of ideological purity to give a rip about the real world. They, more than anyone, are responsible for Congress's poor public ratings. The public responded in spades by increasing Pelosi's and Reid's minions.

Not in this "fight" but I'd like to see a link to the Constitution that provides a Presidential Veto .....

zeus3925
01-12-2009, 06:13 PM
Not in this "fight" but I'd like to see a link to the Constitution that provides a Presidential Veto .....

Here you go. You'll find it in Article I, Sec. 7-Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec3

Gun_Dog2002
01-12-2009, 08:22 PM
Paul--Read the Constitution. That is exactly the function of the presidential veto. And if the President doesn't employ that tool, then the Senate Republicans had the strength to sustain a filibuster. (That isn't in the Constitution.)

If the Republicans had been more mainstream they would have prevailed in the last election. Instead they were too fixated on their brand of ideological purity to give a rip about the real world. They, more than anyone, are responsible for Congress's poor public ratings. The public responded in spades by increasing Pelosi's and Reid's minions.


Why should I? I got democrats to let me know I don't know squat, firmly convinced that their $hit don't stink, that are more than willing to explain to me that despite their actions it was someone's else's fault for letting them do it, and that they just happen to be experts on consitutional law, which strangely enough always supports their viewpoint. Its just one of the many problems mankind will has not been able to resolve, the complete lack of ownership and accountability for their own actions. Adam started it when he blamed Eve and liberals have made it an art form.

/Paul

Richard Halstead
01-12-2009, 08:54 PM
Bush would probably use the defense shown in the ads forthe Nixon movie, "When the President does it, it's not illegal."

K G
01-12-2009, 08:59 PM
Bush would probably use the defense shown in the ads forthe Nixon movie, "When the President does it, it's not illegal."

Careful, Richard....you're going to embarrass yourself. Did you see his press conference today? Apparently you should have....

kg

zeus3925
01-12-2009, 09:06 PM
Why should I? I got democrats to let me know I don't know squat, firmly convinced that their $hit don't stink, that are more than willing to explain to me that despite their actions it was someone's else's fault for letting them do it, and that they just happen to be experts on consitutional law, which strangely enough always supports their viewpoint. Its just one of the many problems mankind will has not been able to resolve, the complete lack of ownership and accountability for their own actions. Adam started it when he blamed Eve and liberals have made it an art form.

/Paul

Excuse me with confusing you with the facts, Paul. If you are an American, you should be at least familiar with the basic document that outlines your liberties and the functions of your government.

You have been grousing about the Democrats miss-behavior. What specifically burrs your saddle? But, don't try to sell me on the idea that Republicans are born with immunity from the same acts. They ain't. They put their pants on the same way as the rest of us. Again if the politicians' bosses, the people, get so ticked off at their actions, then we have elections every two years to throw the rascals out.

I also have another news flash for you. Not all Democrats are liberals and a few Republicans are not conservatives.

Gun_Dog2002
01-12-2009, 09:26 PM
Excuse me with confusing you with the facts, Paul. If you are an American, you should be at least familiar with the basic document that outlines your liberties and the functions of your government.

You have been grousing about the Democrats miss-behavior. What specifically burrs your saddle? But, don't try to sell me on the idea that Republicans are born with immunity from the same acts. They ain't. They put their pants on the same way as the rest of us. Again if the politicians' bosses, the people, get so ticked off at their actions, then we have elections every two years to throw the rascals out.

I also have another news flash for you. Not all Democrats are liberals and a few Republicans are not conservatives.

First things first. Get the guts to post your real name.
Second of all, the very consitution that your're quoting chapter and verse gives me the freedon and the very right to not even read the constitution if I don't want to, although I have certainly read it.
I have not been grousing about the democrats mis-behavior, I've been grousing about your clearly biased view that Bush should be held accountable but the democrats should get off completely. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Your suddenly playing the victim, another common tactic of liberals democrats that I've seen in every discussion.

/Paul

zeus3925
01-12-2009, 09:36 PM
First things first. Get the guts to post your real name.
Second of all, the very consitution that your're quoting chapter and verse gives me the freedon and the very right to not even read the constitution if I don't want to, although I have certainly read it.
I have not been grousing about the democrats mis-behavior, I've been grousing about your clearly biased view that Bush should be held accountable but the democrats should get off completely. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Your suddenly playing the victim, another common tactic of liberals democrats that I've seen in every discussion.

/Paul

Hey Paul, read post #21--I am not going to waste my time or money pursuing Bush's accountability.

How old are you any way? Are you old enough to vote?

smillerdvm
01-12-2009, 09:43 PM
What in the world do Bush admin intelligence reports have to do with Clinton kicking the bin Laden can down the road? The context of your screed above indicates that you have never read about the Sudanese offer to hand bin Laden over to us. Perhaps you'll believe your hero, Bill Clinton:


Call me nutty, but when you're as stunningly ill-informed as you appear to be, I'm thinking it's probably not a good idea to come out blazing with invectives like you have. But that's just me...

Hey there Mr Well Informed, you may want to check your facts

Gun_Dog2002
01-12-2009, 11:08 PM
Hey Paul, read post #21--I am not going to waste my time or money pursuing Bush's accountability.

How old are you any way? Are you old enough to vote?

Clearly not old enough to know better than to expect reason in a thread too insecure to post even a first name.

/Paul

Patrick Johndrow
01-12-2009, 11:14 PM
Clearly not old enough to know better than to expect reason in a thread too insecure to post even a first name.

/Paul

That is why I am thinking Zero is a troll.........

zeus3925
01-12-2009, 11:41 PM
Good Night, Paul.

Gun_Dog2002
01-12-2009, 11:50 PM
Good Night, Paul.

Good grief troll....

/Paul

subroc
01-13-2009, 03:51 AM
Here is a look at President George W. Bush success as President.

I expect that every item highlighted as a success in this article will be deemed a failure by the left.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp

YardleyLabs
01-13-2009, 07:17 AM
Here is a look at President George W. Bush success as President.

I expect that every item highlighted as a success in this article will be deemed a failure by the left.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp

I'd give him 1/10 on the list (#10). The first three I would actually put on the articles of impeachment. The others overstate what was done at best. I probably won't live long enough to ever see a balanced historic analysis of Bush's presidency (it takes about 50 years to dilute the passions). However, I suspect he will be remembered as one of the worst and most destructive presidents in history -- not because he's a bad man (I don't believe he is), but because of the grotesque incompetence of his administration. I believe a primary reason for that incompetence has been the consistent failure to differentiate between ideology and fact-based analysis. That failure traces directly to Rove and to Bush.

cotts135
01-13-2009, 07:25 AM
Here is a look at President George W. Bush success as President.

I expect that every item highlighted as a success in this article will be deemed a failure by the left.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp

Your right Subroc. After reading the article it just reaffirmed to me that the far right will excuse any behaviour by their great and vaunted leaders. The article was long on rhetoric but short on facts.

"Second, enhanced interrogation of terrorists. Along with use of secret prisons and wireless eavesdropping, this saved American lives. How many thousands of lives? We'll never know. But, as Charles Krauthammer said recently, "Those are precisely the elements which kept us safe and which have prevented a second attack."

Also this: "Crucial intelligence was obtained from captured al Qaeda leaders, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with the help of waterboarding. Whether this tactic--it creates a drowning sensation--is torture is a matter of debate. John McCain and many Democrats say it is. Bush and Vice President Cheney insist it isn't."

This is just ridiculous and not even debatable. Bush and Cheney sought out lawyers in the Justice Department who were, friendly to their position and had them write legal opinions that would justify their actions.We should not forget we prosecuted Japanese soldiers from WW11 who waterboarded our own soldiers.

I would like to make clear that when I say I would like to see Bush and company prosecuted for any illegal activity I am not limiting it to just Bush, Cheny, Rumsfeld etc. A truth commision just targeting these individuals would be highly hypocritical.I am all for looking into members of Congress who endorsed such tactics be it Democratic or Republican.

zeus3925
01-13-2009, 10:03 AM
Cotts:

Supposed enough charges have substance that Bush could be prosecuted. Is it good for the country at this time?

The country has a three headed bear on its back. We need every bit of concentration to solve the issues of depression, war, and financial ruin. A trial of Bush and minions would be a big distraction from the tasks at hand.

If someone still wants to pursue it, let some international entity go for it , IF they can assemble the evidence. Pursuit from an American source will just open up the floodgates of rancor. We need every bit of common effort to get the country out of the jam it is in.

cotts135
01-13-2009, 10:42 AM
Cotts:

Supposed enough charges have substance that Bush could be prosecuted. Is it good for the country at this time?

I don't think it is as bad as been portayed by some. The consequences of not pursing this I think outweigh any perceived damage that might be done to the country. (Like giving future politician's the excuse to violate the law)This is a Great Country and has survived and endured many crisis's . I have faith we could do the same with this.


The country has a three headed bear on its back. We need every bit of concentration to solve the issues of depression, war, and financial ruin. A trial of Bush and minions would be a big distraction from the tasks at hand.


You are correct. We do face many challenges but this should not be an excuse to let people break the law and do it with no consequences.


If someone still wants to pursue it, let some international entity go for it , IF they can assemble the evidence. Pursuit from an American source will just open up the floodgates of rancor. We need every bit of common effort to get the country out of the jam it is in.

I don't think we should leave our distasteful business to be taken care of by some other country. I would feel better if our system of Justice took care of this then some International Court. I do however feel that regardless of what we do here, eventually some country is going to push this issue and it's then I think it is really going to get messy.

Hew
01-13-2009, 12:46 PM
We should not forget we prosecuted Japanese soldiers from WW11 who waterboarded our own soldiers.
Got link? I'm looking for any Japnese officer who was prosecuted solely for waterboarding. Just one.

Hew
01-13-2009, 12:53 PM
If someone still wants to pursue it, let some international entity go for it , IF they can assemble the evidence. Pursuit from an American source will just open up the floodgates of rancor.
I know you people (apologies to Ross Perot) are giddy with the direction you think the country has taken, but if you believe that any Americans outside of the flying moonbats on the left (and you apparently) want to see Bush tried by some foreign kangaroo court then you're amazingly tone deaf.

zeus3925
01-13-2009, 01:09 PM
We certainly were in favor of prosecuting Nazis, Amin, Milosovich, and citizens of other countries in international courts. What we say is good for them is also good for us. Or do you subscribe to double speak.

K G
01-13-2009, 01:32 PM
We certainly were in favor of prosecuting Nazis, Amin, Milosovich, and citizens of other countries in international courts. What we say is good for them is also good for us. Or do you subscribe to double speak.

You have got to be kidding me........seriously.......:eek:..........please help me understand how you can sanely make the comparison of those animals to President Bush.

Remember...sanely is a requirement....:rolleyes:

kg

cotts135
01-13-2009, 01:44 PM
Got link? I'm looking for any Japnese officer who was prosecuted solely for waterboarding. Just one.

Your inference here is that If someone wasn't convicted solely on Waterboarding than it is somehow not a War Crime. The Japanese commited many atrocities against allied soldiers and when brought to trial there were many charges brought against them Waterboarding among them.

Here is a link you can read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#International_law

Under the United States law heading you will find that the United States prosecuted a Japanese Officer by the name of Yukio Asano for various acts of torture which included Waterboarding. He recieved a 15 yr sentence.

Lush Lumbago
01-13-2009, 02:15 PM
You have got to be kidding me........seriously.......:eek:..........please help me understand how you can sanely make the comparison of those animals to President Bush.

Remember...sanely is a requirement....:rolleyes:

kg

Anyone who tortures, orders torture, or condones torture is by definition an animal.

K G
01-13-2009, 02:41 PM
Anyone who tortures, orders torture, or condones torture is by definition an animal.

Show me that definition, Lush. I'd personally include anyone who makes another person eat liver an animal, but that's just me....

Just in case you haven't read a history book in your life, Lush, the "Big 3" (minus Joe Stalin, strangely....) were collectively responsible for the MURDER of millions of innocents, not to mention prisoners.

That you folks can remotely equate isolated incidents of torture in a war zone with acts of genocide pretty much tells me everything I need to know.....and Lush, you and the last child of Cronus and Rhea need to come forth with real names 'fore you start gettin' all cranked up.

The smell of trolls doth vex me regards,

kg

Lush Lumbago
01-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Well KG you don't use full name either.

Say, why don't you go down to and volunteer for a day of waterboarding. I bet at the end of the day you'll be spouting lots of terms at those who did the job. None of them will be "Human Being".

K G
01-13-2009, 03:28 PM
Check my number of posts, Lush...this ain't my first rodeo here. You want my name? You can find it with the slightest bit of research.

Troll on over to this thread http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=33949 if you want to talk about waterboarding. That horse is already dead.

Now....about the Nazis, Amin, Milosovich, and Stalin (just had to add Joe...:cool:)....you didn't answer the question: are you equating waterboarding with murder and genocide???????????????

Step on up with your real name, troll, if you want to hang here....;-)

kg

badbullgator
01-13-2009, 03:59 PM
Well KG you don't use full name either.

Say, why don't you go down to and volunteer for a day of waterboarding. I bet at the end of the day you'll be spouting lots of terms at those who did the job. None of them will be "Human Being".


hummm yet another troll. 2 post so I guess you were looking for a political forum and decided on a retriever site huh? Wonder what lefty signed up for a second account today? Most people who sign up for a retriever training forum usually post about dogs first and then might find their way into this forum but you want us to believe that with your screen name you just happend on rtf and here you are in politics:rolleyes:

Go play some place else and close one of your accounts

Eric Johnson
01-13-2009, 04:22 PM
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm

Eric

cotts135
01-13-2009, 04:23 PM
You have got to be kidding me........seriously.......:eek:..........please help me understand how you can sanely make the comparison of those animals to President Bush.

Remember...sanely is a requirement....:rolleyes:

kg
I didn't see where he made any comparsion at all to these guys. He just said the US chose to prosecute. It looks to me that you were the one that made that. Of course there is no comparsion to what those tyrants did in scope to what Bush is accused of. But as much as you might not like it you don't get a mulligan if you commit a war crime or any crime for that matter.

K G
01-13-2009, 04:43 PM
I didn't see where he made any comparsion at all to these guys. He just said the US chose to prosecute. It looks to me that you were the one that made that. Of course there is no comparsion to what those tyrants did in scope to what Bush is accused of. But as much as you might not like it you don't get a mulligan if you commit a war crime or any crime for that matter.

You guys run in flocks, don't you! Where's that LMAO icon when you need it....:D "You don't get a mulligan if you commit...any crime for that matter." What planet are you living on, cotts? Our courts give out undeserved mulligans every day!!!

What the son of Cronus and Rhea said was:
Originally Posted by zeus3925: We certainly were in favor of prosecuting Nazis, Amin, Milosovich, and citizens of other countries in international courts. What we say is good for them is also good for us.

So that is no comparison? The Nazis, Amin, and Milosovich, perpetrators of heinous crimes that cost millions of lives....."what we say is good for them is good for us....." No comparison???????????????

Unbelievable..........:rolleyes:

kg

cotts135
01-13-2009, 05:43 PM
You guys run in flocks, don't you! Where's that LMAO icon when you need it....:D "You don't get a mulligan if you commit...any crime for that matter." What planet are you living on, cotts? Our courts give out undeserved mulligans every day!!!

What the son of Cronus and Rhea said was:

[QUOTE]So that is no comparison? The Nazis, Amin, and Milosovich, perpetrators of heinous crimes that cost millions of lives....."what we say is good for them is good for us....." No comparison???????????????

Unbelievable..........:rolleyes:

kg

Did you ever consider that it could possible mean that If we say those guys commit war crimes and we prosecute that if our guys do the same we also would prosecute? I doubt it.

zeus3925
01-13-2009, 05:49 PM
Good evening gentle men; I did see the discussion is still quite lively.

For those of you who care, I did add a signature. That name is what my hunting and fishing buddies call me and that will do.

One thing they will not call me is "liberal". If you think I have been a major source of your rectal discomfort, sign in as a participating PETA member. I do not suffer Limbaughites lightly, nor do I have any affection for Frankenites, either. While I tend to vote Democrat, I am not adverse to voting for a really good Republican. The last election I was faced with a choice of voting for a weather vane politician and a professional funny man. I ended voting for the third party candidate as he was the only candidate from this planet.

I live a conservative life style. I have been married 42 years to the same woman. My son was a national merit scholar. My daughter also had a full college scholarship. They are polite and successful and don't wear their hats backward. I own a house, two trucks and a car. I have two shotguns, a rifle and three hunting dogs. I eat meat everyday. I have money in the bank.

Now some of you coyotes have a habit of thinking you know more about me than I do. Frankly, I am quite pleased to tell those that do which road to take to the Great Furnace.

As for King George, the Illegitimate, Limbaughites listen up, this president has been nothing but a disaster. He is like an animated version of MAD magazine. (What me worry.)

No weapons of mass destruction? --"What me worry." New Orleans drowns --"What me worry." No competitive bidding on Iraq--"What me worry." Billions of dollars disappear in Iraq's reconstruction--"What me worry." Air force lost track of billions of dollars--"What me worry." Give away public hunting lands--"What me worry." Abstinence doesn't work--"What me worry." Insult the French, one of long historical allies--"What me worry." Wall street in shifty deals--"What me worry." Planet going to hell--"What me worry." Jobs moving wholesale to China--"What me worry." Bridges fall in Minneapolis--"What me worry." Blowing up the national debt--"What me worry." Torture --"What me worry." Mission accomplished--"What me worry." Ad infinitem.

Thankfully, George What-me-worry Bush is headed for Crawfordsville. I have a nice bottle of champagne cooling for that evening.

Gun_Dog2002
01-13-2009, 05:53 PM
Good evening gentle men; I did see the discussion is still quite lively.

For those of you who care, I did add a signature. That name is what my hunting and fishing buddies call me and that will do.

One thing they will not call me is "liberal". If you think I have been a major source of your rectal discomfort, sign in as a participating PETA member. I do not suffer Limbaughites lightly, nor do I have any affection for Frankenites, either. While I tend to vote Democrat, I am not adverse to voting for a really good Republican. The last election I was faced with a choice of voting for a weather vane politician and a professional funny man. I ended voting for the third party candidate as he was the only candidate from this planet.

I live a conservative life style. I have been married 42 years to the same woman. My son was a national merit scholar. My daughter also had a full college scholarship. They are polite and successful and don't wear their hats backward. I own a house, two trucks and a car. I have two shotguns, a rifle and three hunting dogs. I eat meat everyday.

Now some of you coyotes have a habit of thinking you know more about me than I do. Frankly, I am quite pleased to tell those that do which road to take to the Great Furnace.

As for King George, the Illegitimate, Limbaughites listen up, this president has been nothing but a disaster. He is like an animated version of MAD magazine. (What me worry.)

No weapons of mass destruction? --"What me worry." New Orleans drowns --"What me worry." No competitive bidding on Iraq--"What me worry." Billions of dollars disappear in Iraq's reconstruction--"What me worry." Air force lost track of billions of dollars--"What me worry." Give away public hunting lands--"What me worry." Abstinence doesn't work--"What me worry." Insult the French, one of long historical allies--"What me worry." Wall street in shifty deals--"What me worry." Planet going to hell--"What me worry." Jobs moving wholesale to China--"What me worry." Bridges fall in Minneapolis--"What me worry." Blowing up the national debt--"What me worry." Mission accomplished--"What me worry." Ad infinitem.

Thankfully, George What-me-worry Bush is headed for Crawfordsville. I have a nice bottle of champagne cooling for that evening.

Well instead of a president trying to calm the masses with "what me worry." we now get to hear a president say "change, change, change, change....."

/paul

zeus3925
01-13-2009, 06:27 PM
Well instead of a president trying to calm the masses with "what me worry." we now get to hear a president say "change, change, change, change....."

/paul

And that's bad?

subroc
01-13-2009, 07:24 PM
...No weapons of mass destruction? --"What me worry." New Orleans drowns --"What me worry." No competitive bidding on Iraq--"What me worry." Billions of dollars disappear in Iraq's reconstruction--"What me worry." Air force lost track of billions of dollars--"What me worry." Give away public hunting lands--"What me worry." Abstinence doesn't work--"What me worry." Insult the French, one of long historical allies--"What me worry." Wall street in shifty deals--"What me worry." Planet going to hell--"What me worry." Jobs moving wholesale to China--"What me worry." Bridges fall in Minneapolis--"What me worry." Blowing up the national debt--"What me worry." Torture --"What me worry." Mission accomplished--"What me worry." Ad infinitem...

I do believe, that under his administration, the common cold was not cured!

K G
01-13-2009, 09:30 PM
Zeus, what do you think you've said that's new on this board? Other than your biography?

Seriously...there have been more posts than I can count by folks who whine far less that have covered EVERY topic you covered and in more detail....champagne, chip on your shoulder, and all. Don't you guys have something something new you can throw out there?

It's old news/the messiah comes in 7 days regards,

kg

zeus3925
01-13-2009, 09:57 PM
If Cotts feels he got what he wanted lets wrap up!

Hew
01-13-2009, 10:26 PM
Here is a link you can read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#International_law

Thanks, Cotts, but I already knew the answer to the question I asked you. The homework assignment was meant for you. ;-)

Bob Gutermuth
01-13-2009, 10:55 PM
Those who think W was a disaster...............just wait, the 'messiah' will be the biggest disaster since the Hawley Smoot tarriffs, the biggest last nail in the coffin of the nation's economy at the outset of the Great Depression.

Hew
01-13-2009, 10:55 PM
If Cotts feels he got what he wanted lets wrap up!
You misunderestimate Cotts. He's nothing if not tenacious. This is what, the fourth thread or so he's started regarding the same subject? We get it:

Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the 8 Congressional members who signed off on waterboarding, as well as all military and CIA personnel involved in any way, shape or form with carrying out their lawful orders, should be tried for war crimes because they caused emotional stress to three terrorists in the process of protecting you and your family.

Does that about cover it, Cotts?

cotts135
01-14-2009, 08:22 AM
You misunderestimate Cotts. He's nothing if not tenacious. This is what, the fourth thread or so he's started regarding the same subject? We get it:

Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and the 8 Congressional members who signed off on waterboarding, as well as all military and CIA personnel involved in any way, shape or form with carrying out their lawful orders, should be tried for war crimes because they caused emotional stress to three terrorists in the process of protecting you and your family.

Does that about cover it, Cotts?

Sorry if I am redundant Hew but I think it important that we think about what went on during this Administration. I would like to change peoples opinions on how we should go about this, but I am realistic and not really hopeful. It is the partisan politics that has caused the rancor and distrust we see not only in the general public but also on these boards. I think we would all be better served if we trashed the partisan stuff and instead looked at events with an critical and objective eye.

Thats it for me I am done with this thread. Don't be surprised if you see more though.

BTW Hew Sorry that wasn't a homework assignment of course I knew that before I posted;)

smillerdvm
01-14-2009, 01:32 PM
What in the world do Bush admin intelligence reports have to do with Clinton kicking the bin Laden can down the road? The context of your screed above indicates that you have never read about the Sudanese offer to hand bin Laden over to us. Perhaps you'll believe your hero, Bill Clinton:


Call me nutty, but when you're as stunningly ill-informed as you appear to be, I'm thinking it's probably not a good idea to come out blazing with invectives like you have. But that's just me...

Hew, since you are so big on doing homework, have you managed to do your homework and check out your facts?

zeus3925
01-14-2009, 01:59 PM
Doc Miller:

This thread has been closed out. It appears the main motive of the initiator is "Lets you and him fight." It no longer deserves the dignity of a reply.

Hew
01-15-2009, 06:05 PM
Hew, since you are so big on doing homework, have you managed to do your homework and check out your facts?
I ignored you the first time as I wasn't prepared to waste time arguing with a guy, who up until a few days ago, didn't even realize there was a Sudanese component to the "wtf did Clinton do to stop 9/11" discussion...it would have been like discussing space travel with a Khalahari bushman. Since you're persisting, I'm assuming you're all googled up now and are flush with Daily Kos-approved rebuttals, so I'll bite...what facts are wrong? And please tell me you're holding more cards in your hand than the 9/11 Commission discounting the Sudan/Clinton connection based entirely upon Team Clinton denials,...as if a Clinton denial of anything isn't laughable enough, you've got a self-important former President, while grasping to remain relevent, who steps on his own cack and blurts out...



"At the time, 1996, he [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it [the bin Laden issue] was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan".

smillerdvm
01-15-2009, 10:39 PM
Doc Miller:

This thread has been closed out. It appears the main motive of the initiator is "Lets you and him fight." It no longer deserves the dignity of a reply.

I agree Zeus,

I am very impressed with Hews assumed clairevoyence, as it appears he thinks he knows what incident I was referring to. Furthermore he presumes to know what I knew and when I knew it. However it appears Hew is going to get an incomplete on his homework assignment.

So Hew you run along and finish your homework project. Although, I suspect Hew may have found the facts and is just a little embarressed to admit them in front of the rest of the class

JDogger
01-16-2009, 12:26 AM
:p chuckling :p

Naa... the dog ate his homework, it happens you know.



I agree Zeus,

I am very impressed with Hews assumed clairevoyence, as it appears he thinks he knows what incident I was referring to. Furthermore he presumes to know what I knew and when I knew it. However it appears Hew is going to get an incomplete on his homework assignment.

So Hew you run along and finish your homework project. Although, I suspect Hew may have found the facts and is just a little embarressed to admit them in front of the rest of the class

Henry V
01-17-2009, 09:04 AM
Here is an interesting report on the legacy: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/4452/

Steve Hester
01-25-2009, 11:49 PM
I didn't see where he made any comparsion at all to these guys. He just said the US chose to prosecute. It looks to me that you were the one that made that. Of course there is no comparsion to what those tyrants did in scope to what Bush is accused of. But as much as you might not like it you don't get a mulligan if you commit a war crime or any crime for that matter.

Clinton did!