Renowned attorney Vincent Bugliosi charges George Bush with murder

[Izi]

Heard about this on Abrahadabra.com this morning, just thought I'd share - this is the guy who prosecuted Charles Manson btw...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent

[bat]

I am strongly apolitical but why doesn't Bugliosi charge bin Laden with the same crime? I wouldn't mind if only the severed head of bin Laden made it to court, I am annoyed by the sight of the leering face and the demonizing of the West while pretending that wholesale murder and terror is fine and dandy. Sort of like everyone pointing to the prison scandal in Iraq but easily forgetting the private contractors who were kidnapped, dismembered and had their body parts hung from trees.

Anarchy, it's the only way to be.

[Izi]

I don't think you're being reasonable to assume that he should prosecute both. What single person has time for both? I think that's illogical. Let's stay focused on Bushies crimes here...this is interesting. Bush and his thugs used the right wing government to back his get rich quick scheme. That's all the deaths ever meant to Bush....Iraq soldiers, American soldiers, civilians, media tycoons...the whole mess comes down to a few royal pigs riding high on the hog at the cost of what (was once) a free nation.....yes, The United States...if Bush goes on to sire more grandkids and pass on his immense fortune to them along with Cheney's little weeds, the line of American royalty will never end. The wars will continue, and the rest of America will just keep taking it up the ass in the name of democracy (it's not democracy, it's tyranny)

It's a bold move, let's hope the book stays atop the best seller list for a good long while, I'm going to pick it up tomorrow myself and check out what he has to say.

[Mr.Delicious]

yesssss

and bin laden isnt the leader of america the free nation

[DeadlyFreeze]

I am strongly apolitical but why doesn't Bugliosi charge bin Laden with the same crime?

>_> He has already been charged, check the FBI's most wanted.

[Costau D]

Devils Advocate> Trying to start a conversation.

Who here wants to sincerely see George W. Bush Executed?

[Justice Von Brandt]

Don't make comments like that cosmo chimp, you'll get CA shut down :P

[Costau D]

:devil:

This is all this topic is going to boil down too. Just jumping the gun.

[eskanto]

What makes what Vincent Bugliosi said in this book new? It's not a revelation that Bush has commited atrocities and undermined the constitution. What I would have liked to see is his impeachment.

[bat]

Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting Bush by my comment, however I am not aiming for logic, either. bin Laden being charged by the FBI means very little while he is free and protected.

I am not opposed to war or killing, these are merely natural human acts, thankfully not committed by everyone, but the idea of avoiding wars is ridiculous, if the war has a real purpose and it is over quickly. If Bush meant it the war would have been focused on the perpetrators of September 11th, 2001, the CIA and the FBI would have been fully activated and special forces snipers would have been allowed to assassinate any terrorists responsible for the attacks, since they do not respect modern war conventions, neither should we. This would not have taken a lot of innocent lives nor cost as much as it has. Wars should be efficient and quick.

Bush's actions have done nothing for us, we are despised even more by most every other country, America is in a rapid decline and we didn't even get cheap gas out of the deal. The result of war should be some benefit to the average person; since Iraq wasn't attacking us we should have 40-cent/gallon gas (like Kuwait, who we bailed out the first time and they did nothing for us), not fewer and fewer civil liberties.

[silvestri99]

Well if you wanted to stop the "royal line" of rich folks that run the country and help to cause worldwide death and overall unhappiness then Bush shouldn't be you first or last stop. How about the Clinton's, the Kennedy's, the Rochefeller's etc.
Anytime anyone points the finger at one or two people and says: "there, if they weren't in charge everything would be just fine. Get rid of them and their thugs and it will all be better" I just shake my head. It's never that easy. There are people all over the political spectrum- democrat and republican that are responsible for the mess we are all in.
And BTW- I hear so many people talk about what an Idiot Bush is and then turn around and say that he and his croonies are masterminding a get rich-rule the world conspiricy. Come on, you can't have it both ways.

It's not my fault, I'm voting for Ron Paul. :)

[bat]

That is true, there are too many people involved and getting rich off of the war to sit back and snicker just at Bush and the mess he made. He may be a warpig, but he has a lot off followers on both sides of the political fence. Bush does sign a lot of papers and bills that reinforce the wills of others as well as his will.

[Art_Addict]

I am not opposed to war or killing, these are merely natural human acts, thankfully not committed by everyone, but the idea of avoiding wars is ridiculous, if the war has a real purpose and it is over quickly. If Bush meant it the war would have been focused on the perpetrators of September 11th, 2001, the CIA and the FBI would have been fully activated and special forces snipers would have been allowed to assassinate any terrorists responsible for the attacks, since they do not respect modern war conventions, neither should we. This would not have taken a lot of innocent lives nor cost as much as it has. Wars should be efficient and quick.

Bush's actions have done nothing for us, we are despised even more by most every other country, America is in a rapid decline and we didn't even get cheap gas out of the deal. The result of war should be some benefit to the average person; since Iraq wasn't attacking us we should have 40-cent/gallon gas (like Kuwait, who we bailed out the first time and they did nothing for us), not fewer and fewer civil liberties.

???????????????????????????????????????????????!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :jawdrop:

[Anid Maro]

...since they do not respect modern war conventions, neither should we.

Really? I'd like to think we're better than these terrorists. That we, ourselves, are not terrorists. Though our government has already proven otherwise. :P

This would not have taken a lot of innocent lives nor cost as much as it has. Wars should be efficient and quick.

Wars are neither efficient, or quick. Ever.

If you think the bombing of Kosovo, or the Gulf War, were really "Wars", then you have some studying to do.

And incidentally, Israel has taken your stance on how to approach war. Focused assasinations to eliminate the leaders in order to orchestrate a quick and efficient war. Ask Ariel how that's worked out so far.

Bush's actions have done nothing for us, we are despised even more by most every other country, America is in a rapid decline and we didn't even get cheap gas out of the deal. The result of war should be some benefit to the average person; since Iraq wasn't attacking us we should have 40-cent/gallon gas (like Kuwait, who we bailed out the first time and they did nothing for us), not fewer and fewer civil liberties.

This actually touches on one of the issues that really gets me worked up about Bush and his administration. I accept that our nation, the United States of America, does not play nice. One only has to look at our history.

However, is it too much to ask, that if we're going to be evil pricks... to at least do it right? I mean, not only is our government morally defunct, but it has also displayed a staggering amount of incompetence.

Once upon a time we would do things like take the Phillipenes from Spain, or turn Cuba into a bananna plantation, or force an "Open Door Policy" on certain far eastern nations, or outright steal land from our southern neighbor, or slaughter indigenous inhabitants by the thousands... but goddamnit at least we had more to show for our moral bankruptcy than a humongous debt!

[Costau D]

Really? I'd like to think we're better than these terrorists. That we, ourselves, are not terrorists. Though our government has already proven otherwise. :P

Said the red coat to the other red coat.

yShb2ioAHqY

[Izi]

Bush SHOULD be impeached, but that's not going to happen. I like the idea of him getting charged with the murder of thousands of American troops. He misled and mislead them. I'm going to sit back and wait until I get my hands on the book before I continue this conversation...

I also don't get the comparison to Britain vs. America in the Revolutionary war? That was a lot different, I think this terrorist scheme is more like Nero blaming his burning of Rome on the Christians.

I'm a Satanist, but it is like the Christians...Bush is a fucking murdering asshole and murdering assholes should not be allowed anywhere near civilization let alone our fucking capital!!!

[Costau D]

Bare with me here. It is just a question.

Are you saying that every leader or president should be fataly punished for killing his own troops only if he loses or finds the war was a bad decision? Kicked out or demoted I can understand.

You gotta remember, a lot of people voted for this man, and a lot still support him... The president is just a puppet anyway. We are headed into a grey area here now, because it's not so simple. Now, you have to blame incompetent people and prove them guilty, and also prove if they did it with wrong intentions. The president did not just up and make up his mind on this thing on his own. People make fun of him for how dumb he is and when it comes to this stuff it's as if he is a genius mastermind... The president does not have as much control as some would like to think. I'm not sticking up for the guy, but I think being tried for 4000 murders is crazy, and IMO I have no clue what are facts anymore. Let this presidency end and let this countries energy be better focused to correcting mistakes, and learning from them. I don't think vengeance is going to get anyone anywhere. It's what got us here in the first place.

[Mike Frank]

As far as execution goes, we should still try to live in a society where people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It would be great to see an official process occur of any kind .. civil suits, impeachment processes, etc.. There are serious questions to be answered.

I think a lot of people are realizing that something has been going wrong, but I have to agree that it doesn't start and stop with Bush.

[Anid Maro]

...The president is just a puppet anyway. We are headed into a grey area here now, because it's not so simple. Now, you have to blame incompetent people and prove them guilty, and also prove if they did it with wrong intentions. The president did not just up and make up his mind on this thing on his own. People make fun of him for how dumb he is and when it comes to this stuff it's as if he is a genius mastermind... The president does not have as much control as some would like to think.

Just quoting for emphasis. This is why I'm careful to talk of the US government, and not just specifically Bush.

When you go to the polls, don't just think of the candidate, think of their party too. The party makes the policy, the candidate is mostly just the public front.

I'm not sticking up for the guy, but I think being tried for 4000 murders is crazy, and IMO I have no clue what are facts anymore. Let this presidency end and let this countries energy be better focused to correcting mistakes, and learning from them. I don't think vengeance is going to get anyone anywhere.

Agreed. Hadn't read the article yet, but just from the title it sounds more like a public statement (specifically, of disapproval) than any actual attempt to convict. To actually try and convict would be rather silly, especially when serious investigation would clearly show that there are far more at fault than Bush alone.

[Izi]

I don't believe in the death penalty I support Amnesty International.

[Hexokinase]

dv2SdTeN7dY

[Justice Von Brandt]

woot woot
dennis kucinich for president ;0

[eskanto]

I also don't get the comparison to Britain vs. America in the Revolutionary war? That was a lot different, I think this terrorist scheme is more like Nero blaming his burning of Rome on the Christians.


The situations do have similarities if you think about it. Aren't the Americans now just enagaging in another form of colonialism and fighting with a bunch of guys 'without uniforms'? The sides are switched now. The Americans are the red coats and the insurgents in Iraq are a little like the original inhabitants of the 13 colonies.

[Elam]

Well, it's nice to see Kucinch taking a break from contacting aliens to actually do his job.

The Americans are the red coats and the insurgents in Iraq are a little like the original inhabitants of the 13 colonies.
Yeah that works, if by 'a little like the' you mean 'not even remotely fucking similar to the'.

There are serious questions to be answered.
Eh , really? Like what?

[Costau D]

yeah that works, if by 'a little like the' you mean 'not even remotely fucking similar to the'.



Actually the point of the the comment was about the irony of us calling terrorists unfair because they don't follow the the rules of warfare like we do. "be a man and fight" basically, to show who has more strength. I just find it funny for many of us to think that way when we encountered the same problem with the redcoats, and us not fighting like gentlemen, and by the rules of combat. Which to them was the showing of raw power through numbers and technique on forming and commanding lines taking volleys. So YES Elam it is similar with today. We hid in the woods, and picked off important officials and terrorized supporters. Just, not by blowing ourselves up and intentionally killing innocents. We would not have been able to defeat a force that powerful if it wasn't for our guerrilla approach which was not very gentleman like.

Not condoning what reasons the terrorists do it for today. They are backed by religion, and their own political views, and use suicide bombing and guerrilla tactics with no uniforms. We did the same basic thing during the revolutionary war, and for the same basic reasons which was about our freedom of religion and to worship God the way we wanted, and also not to be taxed to high hell or treated like shit by someone thousands of miles away who doesnt understand our viewpoints. We just seem to have a better intention, but back then by those standards we were just like the terrorists we fight today. To them, and in some ways we are, we are like the redcoats.

To add. I shouldn't have to explain myself since it was an obvious joke, and should've been looked at at face value instead of trying to be politically correct and scrutinized.

[Anid Maro]

To add. I shouldn't have to explain myself since it was an obvious joke, and should've been looked at at face value instead of trying to be politically correct.

I think the problem with that one, is that most of us don't confuse guerilla tactics with terrorism. At the end of the day, say what you may of the unmanly rebellious soldiers, they were still shooting redcoats and not their wives and children.

If you were looking for a comparison to terrorism, I think you'd be more apt to invoke the contemporary US account of the Boston Massacre.

[Costau D]

I think the problem with that one, is that most of us don't confuse guerilla tactics with terrorism. At the end of the day, say what you may of the unmanly rebellious soldiers, they were still shooting redcoats and not their wives and children.

If you were looking for a comparison to terrorism, I think you'd be more apt to invoke the contemporary US account of the Boston Massacre.

Yes that is actually better. But, it doesn't have a funny Whitest Kids you Know sketch to go with it. Anyway, I was purely talking about tactics, and the similarities. Not saying we killed innocents back then, but if today you took out the suicide bombings of civilians, you'd have crazy radicals shooting or blowing up our soldiers under the cloak of civilian disguise. not too mention we have quite a cultural impact with countries we come into conflict with since we have better business deals so our corporations pretty much get dibs on influencing them. Can't wait to see another person wearing a coca cola t shirt, and holding an i pod.

Our bases that are located in countries influence the culture and people there so much they change everything they did in order to make money off of soldiers coming from off base so they could make good wages. South Vietnam was a Good example on how they did everything to service GI's. South Korea is another good example, although we are still technically at war with North Korea. Sure we also could have positive influence by giving jobs, but it seems like we are just taking advantage of cheaper labor. Even Germany has a hard time with wanting to preserve what they got, but when we do leave at least they won't have to deal with as many people now who ask where ausfahrt is.

I know we may have good intentions, but we still put nails in countries then take them out and leave holes.

[Anid Maro]

Yes that is actually better. But, it doesn't have a funny Whitest Kids you Know sketch to go with it.

Touché.

Anyway, I was purely talking about tactics, and the similarities. Not saying we killed innocents back then, but if today you took out the suicide bombings of civilians, you'd have crazy radicals shooting or blowing up our soldiers under the cloak of civilian disguise.

If you want to approach it from that angle, sure, there can be some comparison in that there is a drastic change in how war is being waged.

When I said I'd like for us to be somewhat better than the terrorists we fight though, I meant more in the manner of minimizing the involvement of non-combatants both in the physical and psychological senses and less so in regards of some misplaced idea of machismo.

Although, to give credit where it's due, I doubt the Redcoats would've felt their idea of honorable battle could've been properly described as "misplaced machismo".

Our bases that are located in countries influence the culture and people there so much they change everything they did in order to make money off of soldiers coming from off base so they could make good wages. South Vietnam was a Good example on how they did everything to service GI's. South Korea is another good example, although we are still technically at war with North Korea. Sure we also could have positive influence by giving jobs, but it seems like we are just taking advantage of cheaper labor.

I know we may have good intentions, but we still put nails in countries then take them out and leave holes.

You'll hardly find disagreement from me there. When I belabored that we weren't subjugating people quite as efficiently as we used to, I was being somewhat glib. Though I value competence, I'd much rather we just didn't do such things at all.

Honestly, I see our problems with terrorism as sort of a "you reap what you sow" situation. Maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't want to crash planes into our cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks) or blow up our trains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings) if we Westerners would stop fucking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#British_Mandate_.281920.E2.80.931948.29) around with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq) their homes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) or at the very least back up some of our sweet talk about democracy and human rights instead of just doing what'd give us the most profit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4624578.stm). Just a thought.

Note: Yes, I know, Wikipedia is an iffy source. But it's 11:40PM right now, so that's all I'm willing to look up at the moment. Short of it is, the West has a history of dicking around the indigenous peoples of the Middle-East, as well as Africa, as well as Asia, as well as South America... et cetera.

[TASmith]

I'm just glad none of the regular contributers have bothered to touch this.

[Elam]

So YES Elam it is similar with today.
Well, it's similar in that human nature is pretty constant. But other than that, you fail.

Comparing Iraq to Colonial America is about as silly a comparison as can be.

And there's how you fight a war(strategy, tactics) and how you behave when you fight a war(rights, rules etc). You have a deep misunderstanding of the Revolutionary war and how it was fought. Which doesn't suprise me because apparently, you don't even know what's going on in Iraq right now. They're losing. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/06/15/IN9A116TJ7.DTL)

Just a thought.
And a poor one at that.

Modern Islamic terrorism loathes democracy and human rights. They've made that pretty clear, if you would have ever actually read anything they've written about the subject. As for the Western Colonialism gripe, well, that's a bit rich, considering the rich Colonial past of Muslims themselves.

They blow stuff up because their culture is backwards and retrograde, not because Britain partitioned the Middle East.

[eskanto]

I'm just glad none of the regular contributers have bothered to touch this.
They will, just wait.

Well, it's similar in that human nature is pretty constant. But other than that, you fail.

No Elam, you fail. I find the only thing you seem to do is make mildly agressive posts in threads with political topics.

[eskanto]

They blow stuff up because their culture is backwards and retrograde, not because Britain partitioned the Middle East.

...and WTF?!:wtf: They are blowing up stuff because they are pissed off.

[Elam]

Well, there's a lot of pissed of people in the world, right? Your not making a point as I can see. Sri Lanka aside, modern day terrorism is overwhelmingly an Islamic phenomenon.

Again, read what they write. They're not so angry about the West, but rather, their lack of stature next to it. 'Colonialism' is a product of that weakness, not a cause, according to them.

[Duq]

Well, there's a lot of pissed of people in the world, right? Your not making a point as I can see. Sri Lanka aside, modern day terrorism is overwhelmingly an Islamic phenomenon.



You dont know what you are talking about.

Terrorism caused by Marxist/Leftist and Nationalist/Separist terrorism is way more then terrorism caused by Islamic extremists. Islamic extremists just operate around the entire world, and gets alot of media attention, making it look big.

Hell most terrorist acts in Iraq arent even islamic extremists, they are performed from two different political views. But guess what, you dont hear that, you just get to hear its terrorism.

[eskanto]

Yes Dug, I agree, and even the word terrorism becomes a sort of blanket statement that hides the actual reason people commit these acts.

[Anid Maro]

Modern Islamic terrorism loathes democracy and human rights. They've made that pretty clear, if you would have ever actually read anything they've written about the subject. As for the Western Colonialism gripe, well, that's a bit rich, considering the rich Colonial past of Muslims themselves.

They blow stuff up because their culture is backwards and retrograde, not because Britain partitioned the Middle East.

Haha... only a matter of time before an Islamo-phobe bit here. "Actually read anything...", heh, okay buddy. Go watch something other than Fox News, you'll find that Bill O' ain't actually that good of a news source.

I'll just let you keep digging and step out myself, I don't think you need the help and I've said my bit. Though you might want to look up a little something called "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling, the way you talk it just might be right up your alley.

[Costau D]

I'm just glad none of the regular contributers have bothered to touch this.

Haha yeah. I'm stepping out.

[Elam]

Yes Dug, I agree, and even the word terrorism becomes a sort of blanket statement that hides the actual reason people commit these acts
No it doesn't. These people tell us why their doing it. It's right in front of your face.

Haha... only a matter of time before an Islamo-phobe bit here
Knee jerk much? Godwin is around the corner, no doubt. You haven't said much of anything, rather than boilerplate leftists nonsense. There's no WMB here, unless you count the fact that I don't think it's a cultural asset to blow yourself, and other people up for God, or virgins, or money for that matter. Stop confusing culture with race.

You ever wonder why India, which was subjugated for 200 years by Britain and partitioned up into Pakistan and India, just like the Middle East, and has arguably a greater population problem and all the same potential grievances, doesn't produce Hindu's who fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up among civilians?

You think culture might have something to do with that?

Terrorism caused by Marxist/Leftist and Nationalist/Separist terrorism is way more then terrorism caused by Islamic extremists
Way more? Like totally way more? Spicole (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uf5rIuJPTt0) lives.

[Izi]

it's all the same bullshit...Islamic just have access to bigger weapons and a crazier excuse - religion....

Communist China sucks shit too, but at least they're not fighting for god...they actually do something constructive with their lives the other 10% of the time since they don't actually have a bunch of virgins waiting for them in their imagination.

The point really is that war or not - whether you APPROVE of war or not it was mishandled at the cost of lives. The army's budget was in bed with Dick Cheney and some of the cheap products they produced actually endangered US soldier's lives - I don't know if there is a resource I can point you too but alot of what was produced for profit did the soldiers no good at all.

Not only was it a greedy war, it was a grossly mishandled disaster.

Many people believe we went to war for a just cause, only to discover those causes were lies from the Bush Administration. Others believe we should never go to war for any reason whatsoever. BOTH have reasons to be pissed off. Why is Bush still in office? I don't know...something's brewing...

I'm going to get that book today, DEEP or not...XD

I think what's going to happen is Bush will be impeached and we'll have the same problems with Obama...

[Costau D]

lol bush is not going to be impeached.

[Elam]

Naomi,

if Bush is such an obvious liar and crook, why isn't he in jail or being impeached? You think it's because people who are far more educated and versed in the law don't think any laws were broken? Just a hunch.

I don't know...something's brewing...
Coffee? No, an election. When politicians make bad decisions, they get tossed from office by voters.

[Costau D]

Nixon was a liar and a crook, and before anything could happen he resigned, was not put in jail, but he would've been impeached. Still that was a difficult case, even with glaring evidence.

[kev ferrara]

This thread's all smart n'shit with all fresh political genius and whatnot. You guyz must read a lot of, whattayacallit, television or like, advertising or something. Law says prez gotta be peached in the constitutional amendment and no doubt. We should make a petition and send it to some House of Representates and forget all the other bullshit. Just get the ball rolling and keep Boogliosi's book on the New York Time bestseller list so he can win a Prolitzer prise like Al Gore. Hope somebody makes a moview out of the book so I can read it.

dupu6Y1DIJ4

[Costau D]

This thread's all smart n'shit with all fresh political genius and whatnot. You guyz must read a lot of, whattayacallit, television or like, advertising or something. Law says prez gotta be peached in the constitutional amendment and no doubt. We should make a petition and send it to some House of Representates and forget all the other bullshit. Just get the ball rolling and keep Boogliosi's book on the New York Time bestseller list so he can win a Prolitzer prise like Al Gore. Hope somebody makes a moview out of the book so I can read it.

dupu6Y1DIJ4

Wait, this thread was about a book?

[bat]

Not being a fan of either most humans or civilization, I will refrain from partaking anymore in this bizarre thread. Had I been president I would have just pushed the button years ago and reset the planet.

[tomwaits4noman]

Very few presidents in recent years have their hands free of blood

was the war in Iraq unjust yes by common consensus but also by common consent so was Vietnam by common consensus.

If Kennedy was still alive would Vincent Bugliosi be calling him a war criminal?

It would be good to see a president held accountable for their actions in such a regard but when is war ever actually justified?

[Justice Von Brandt]

Everyone write their congress people in support of kucinich's impeachment papers and stop whining
:) actually work to make change, not just write about it

392420


http://kucinich.house.gov/spotlightissues/documents.htm




392421

[kev ferrara]

Totally awesome opinion man. The 60s totally changed everything, y'know? Peopel took drugs and it opened up their minds to how free everything should be. Now we all totally realize that everybody except artists and progressives are total Nazis who want to take over the world for kill brown people and make Haliburton (Cheney Nazi) rich. These people don't even read books. Just a bunch of fucktards who want to own your soul because they hate themselvf.

We totally need change change and more change. Unfortunately Obama's is turning into a total conservative. So I'm voting for Ralph Nader or Sean Penn if he runs.

If you read history you realize that Ghandi got like millions of people killed and shit and if I were Bugliosi I'd take a lawsuit out against India on behalf of Pakistan, because Hindu's and Zoroastrians are more terrorist than Isalmists and shit.

[Costau D]

Well I for one believe in changing and controlling things around me for my benefit. I don't want to bother realizing it's me and how I perceive things. Too much work. Responsibility is some hard shit when your on LSD...

Give me free money!!!

[kev ferrara]

Like Haliburton's all criminals and shit so they should pay me or go to jail. They're all fucktards anyway.

[Peter Coene]

Well, here I go again, I'll try to keep this as non-offensive as possible. I don't really think of us as being any better than them (our enemies.) We have our goals, they have theirs. We have been using unconventional ways to attack the middle east for more than half a century now, and honestly I can hardly blame them for being a bit pissed off.

However, this has already developed into something that we can't walk away from and has been that way since a long time before W was in office. The fact that he has been a bit more gung-ho about it makes him no worse than Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, or just about any President going back for as long as we've had a choke-hold on the mid-east.

We will still be hated by influential groups in that area even if we are being nice and giving them asspats. While I don't like the way things have turned out I am honestly sick of the way we try to turn everything into a drama tiff with "atrocities" and "war crimes." When at war we kill, if ever there was a place for that shit its in war. If you want to point the finger at someone then point the finger at the ones who do that stuff while they aren't in a war, or the ones who fail to kill when they are in a war.

As for the "terrorists" on the other side; the only reason that I want to see them brought down is that they are the enemy. I don't care what their views are, they can hate jews all they want, heck, they can hate me if they want to and it won't make me think any less of them. To tell the truth I respect the enemies of my nation, if for no other fact than that they have the balls to stand up against my nation. However, that does not make them any less my nation's enemies and as such my enemies. When thought of in that light I feel no need to act like they or their leaders have done anything criminally wrong, nor do I feel that way about my own leaders.

Now lets just hurry up and blast the hell out of each other untill everyone gets bored with it and limps home.

[Costau D]

I'm offended.

[kev ferrara]

All I'm saying is, if the world don't get run by the UN its all going to hell in a global warming handbag. Tuna is already getting overfished and pollution in the arctic and the ozone. So the first thing we should do is give all the oil to the people in brussels for the EU so they have all the power. And then we should get out all the countries in the world because we're the ones causeing all the problemz in the world. We even created AIDS in a labradory to kill peoples in the inner city because we're all racist.

Saddam Hussein was innocent. Bush is the real guy pulling the strings. Al Quaeda was defeated like, 10 years ago. Its all made up so they can scare you into buying McDonalds and T-shirts and soap made out of human obesity tissue. Naomi Wolfe was too conservative. This is 1937 all over again, just like in France when DeGaulle believed Hitlr and they broke through the Marginot Line and took Poland without anybody noticing.

[Duq]

All I'm saying is, if the world don't get run by the UN its all going to hell in a global warming handbag. Tuna is already getting overfished and pollution in the arctic and the ozone. So the first thing we should do is give all the oil to the people in brussels for the EU so they have all the power. And then we should get out all the countries in the world because we're the ones causeing all the problemz in the world. We even created AIDS in a labradory to kill peoples in the inner city because we're all racist.

Saddam Hussein was innocent. Bush is the real guy pulling the strings. Al Quaeda was defeated like, 10 years ago. Its all made up so they can scare you into buying McDonalds and T-shirts and soap made out of human obesity tissue. Naomi Wolfe was too conservative. This is 1937 all over again, just like in France when DeGaulle believed Hitlr and they broke through the Marginot Line and took Poland without anybody noticing.

Didnt you hear, the EU has been stockpiling oil since the 70's. If we cant beat the world with military power, we do it economicly! Why do you think we dont buy SUV's. Its a trap!

[Costau D]

Fuck the PO PO!!!

[Mike Frank]

What bothers me about US foreign policy is that Saddam Hussein wasn't an innocent person at all, the guy was a monster. But according to some sources he was backed by the U.S. before he ever came to power in Iraq in the 1950's. Then when in power, we had no qualm whatsoever with assisting him in a war against Iran. We played him in this way until we could use his agression against Kuwait as a precursor to get a stronger foothold in the ME.

We overthrew Iran's government also, and dozens of others. Then we have the gall to call these secret operations "ancient history", its just preposterous and insulting to the citizens of these countries. Do we intervene in these countries to spread democracy or not??

[Mike Frank]

You guys seen Charlie Wilson's War? In reality the guy telling the Mujahadeen that "God is on your side" was former National Security Adviser and foreign policy guru Zbigniew Brzezinski. And he's got no regrets with that because it was a successful way of catching the Russians into their own vietnam.. and I can't really argue with that.

But at the same time wasn't this the birthplace of Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden? I guess it is a better policy to keep your citizens in the dark about foreign policy because this stuff just gets too grey area for me.

We are always doing some grey area stuff like that, with Saddam or installing Shah of Iran, or helping create the foundation for the jihadi movement. Is it justified??

WaiJtLrEwVU

[Izi]

I went to Barnes and Noble today - just a random note - their membership is just a sleazy way of getting you to pay them $30.00 to get the prices amazon.com gives everyone. I already planned on buying that sexy lady book made by that Thelemic weirdo on this site so I'm going to just wait a few days to have it shipped from Amazon.com. Furthermore they use their own version of the "bestseller list" I said "Is it the New York Times?" and the clerk goes "It's close" but not close enough to give me the 40% discount on this one. BS....

Yes, please read the title, this topic has a subject and it's an important one. Vincent Bugliosi is one of the biggest names in law and that's what makes this significant.

I did skim the book and noted one sentence which seems obvious, yet striking - if we can attempt to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob why isn't Bush being impeached when the public has sent a CLEAR message that it feels betrayed by the Bush administration?

Crazy.

[Elam]

But at the same time wasn't this the birthplace of Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden?

No and no.

Actually, the two are the same. The ideology that motivates them both is largely attributed to Sayyid Qutb. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb) who begat the Muslim Brotherhood, which begat Al Qaeda.

Among Qutb's many hatreds of the West, he disapproved of American women(and women in general): "the American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it, obviously wanting a man to penetrate her till she is red and sore."
Agreed! Well, I don't know about the red and sore part.

and Jazz:
"Jazz is his preferred music, and it is created by Niggers to satisfy their love of noise and to whet their sexual desires."

He spent 2 years in Greely, Colorado in the late 40's, long before Iraq and Iran. But Hey! Whatevs.

[Izi]

muslims, ew....

they're so gross

I hate sexually repressed people

[Peter Coene]

if we can attempt to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob why isn't Bush being impeached when the public has sent a CLEAR message that it feels betrayed by the Bush administration?

that wasn't for getting a blowbob, it was for lieing while under oath.

If you really feel that betrayed by Bush then you should also notice that while he was getting his blowjob Clinton attacked Iraq for the exact same WMD reason as Bush. The only difference is that when Bush attacked Iraq Saddam got taken out of power and there was an actual search for the WMDs to show that they aren't there. When Clinton attacked Iraq nobody even looked for the things. If nobody even suggested impeaching Clinton for attacking Iraq then why should we make a big deal about it with Bush?

[kev ferrara]

Movies tell the truth, yo. Like so not. Switzerland's Oerlikon paid up Charlie Wilson for givin' them the missle biz, but they sucked and nobody used them, and later he wrote that book to fix his rep and then sold it to his dem peeps in hollywoodland to make $$$ bank. Irkle put the stinger up in the Afghan's house and that's what won it up and kicked ass USSR style on those copters and shit. Aaron Sorkin needs believes that Dem's beat russia, not reagan, pope and bush and shit, because he hates dem racist fascist jackboots. Course brezinski says he baited the Russkies into Ganistan, so maybe 9/11 happend 'cause of Jimmy Carter.

Tru dat!

'O8LAMA

kev

[TASmith]

Man, I want to watch that film! Maybe I'll rent it when I'm back in the states... If and when the kid ever sleeps.

[James Kei]

Kev, have you been drinking?

[Mon Chat]

Not being a fan of either most humans or civilization, I will refrain from partaking anymore in this bizarre thread. Had I been president I would have just pushed the button years ago and reset the planet.

theres a little hole somewhere that you have to poke a pencil into.

probably in Indonesia.

[kev ferrara]

Kev, have you been drinking?

Oh, snap. You burned me, G!

Nah, shit, I'm cold sober. Just changed up... turn around jumper from the key, hit the politics from the back door, you know? LIke Doctor Lexus is all up in here talkin' F'ganistan and world history n' shit. Cause its all idiocracy... I'm all "peach peach peach dem bushies!" now, right? That's shit's flyphatdope, all down with the Constitutions and the hippy chicks and marchin' hard on that Gitmo bull-shit. Say NO WAy to torturz! We need CHANGEling!

'O8AMA GUEVERA!!

kev

[Hexokinase]

Oh, snap. You burned me, G!

Nah, shit, I'm cold sober. Just changed up... turn around jumper from the key, hit the politics from the back door, you know? LIke Doctor Lexus is all up in here talkin' F'ganistan and world history n' shit. Cause its all idiocracy... I'm all "peach peach peach dem bushies!" now, right? That's shit's flyphatdope, all down with the Constitutions and the hippy chicks and marchin' hard on that Gitmo bull-shit. Say NO WAy to torturz! We need CHANGEling!

'O8AMA GUEVERA!!

kev

The Fuck? :\

[Silvertone]

Can't argue with that kinda logic!

[kev ferrara]

~bows~

[TASmith]

Kev I'd complain about your sarcasm if it weren't so damn funny.

[Mike Frank]

Here is the article on Saddam I mentioned. Original story was in United Press International.

U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.


http://www.hawaiireporter.com/storyPrint.aspx?f6bddc01-3dcd-42c9-915e-fc07e8babbf2

[Mike Frank]

"There are serious questions to be answered. "

Eh , really? Like what?


How about when did the administration know that Saddam was not a threat, and how much involvement was there from the administration in fixing the intelligence in order to sell the case for war to the american public?

According to the Downing Street Memo and the Manning Memo the decision to take military action was made well before the case was presented to the public and Congress.

Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html




During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?pagewanted=1

[Mike Frank]

Very few presidents in recent years have their hands free of blood

was the war in Iraq unjust yes by common consensus but also by common consent so was Vietnam by common consensus.

If Kennedy was still alive would Vincent Bugliosi be calling him a war criminal?

It would be good to see a president held accountable for their actions in such a regard but when is war ever actually justified?



The Iraq War and the Bush Doctrine have set a precedent for a policy of pre-emptive war. If the intelligence weren't so faulty and the threat so miscalculated it might be more agreeable, but to me it seems unjustified to attack a country that doesn't pose an immediate threat to our country.

Both the Iraq war and the Vietnam war were never declared also, that also seems dangerous to me given that it's vested all the power over war completely to the whim of the executive.

The war in Afghanistan I would say was justified. We were attacked by an enemy who was being harbored by their government. I would have liked to see us call the Taliban's bluff of offering up OBL if we supplied the proof we had that he was responsible for the attack. But that's just me.


If Kennedy was still alive would Vincent Bugliosi be calling him a war criminal?


Well Johnson got us involved in the conflict and to go on another tangent.. the National Security Archives released classified information from the Gulf of Tonkin incident that demonstrate that the attack on the USS Maddox never happened, it seems less conspicuous than the intelligence fixing going on in Iraq.. but who knows?



Washington, D.C., 4 August 2004 - Forty years ago today, President Johnson and top U.S. officials chose to believe that North Vietnam had just attacked U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, even though the highly classified signals intercepts they cited to each other actually described a naval clash two days earlier (a battle prompted by covert U.S. attacks on North Vietnam), according to the declassified intercepts, Johnson White House tapes, and related documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/index.htm

[Blahm]

Congressman Dennis Kucinich has drafed 35 articles of impeachment for Bush, read this a see what has been carried out in your name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZ8seg4Nr4

http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf



..

[Justice Von Brandt]

Everyone write their congress people in support of kucinich's impeachment papers and stop whining
:) actually work to make change, not just write about it

392420


http://kucinich.house.gov/spotlightissues/documents.htm




392421

I already posted it on page 2
No one cared ;0

[Blahm]

oh damn sry.


but i would also like to add that blaming bush for all of this is pointless. he is a low level minion for the real authority in the world. Everyone that we see in government that deals with the people are just puppets. Like for instance when you go to a rally or somthing where one of these elite polititions are speaking. You are not alloud to ask any real questions because all of the questions and answers are pre written by speach writers and advisors. That is why these people appear to be so stupid. BECAUSE THEY ARE. They sit around and wait for the script before they say anything. The devils greatest trick was to convince the world he doesnt exist.