Bush was not "forthright" on Iraq says

[Dr. D]

That is just the way it is, Kofi made the most damage here by dirtying the credibility of the UN.

Your viewpoint of the U.S. violating the right of Iraq to submit their weapons report intact is no less than astonishing.

It echoes the unbelievable naivity and ruthlessness of Bush himself.

[AROCES]

Your viewpoint of the U.S. violating the right of Iraq to submit their weapons report intact is no less than astonishing.

It echoes the unbelievable naivity and ruthlessness of Bush himself.

Fine, I believe in Bush and you believe in Kofi.

[AROCES]

you could try slamming your head into your desk..

LOL, you have no answer.

[Dr. D]

Fine, I believe in Bush and you believe in Kofi.

Again a Bushism . . . avoiding the issue with the same smoke screen comments that has personified his administration.

I do not believe in Kofi as you worship Bush. I believe in justice and fairness. Those words and their meanings have been silenced during the past eight years of corruption, deceit and betrayal of the American people.

To suggest that a criminal act is acceptable because it occurred in an organization headed by someone you do not like is absurd.

[AROCES]

Again a Bushism . . . avoiding the issue with the same smoke screen comments that has personified his administration.

I do not believe in Kofi as you worship Bush. I believe in justice and fairness. Those words and their meanings have been silenced during the past eight years of corruption, deceit and betrayal of the American people.

To suggest that a criminal act is acceptable because it occurred in an organization headed by someone you do not like is absurd.

And who is suppose to investigate and be responsible of it?

[acidhead]

The fact that Scott McClellan is being attacked for pointing out the blindingly obvious is another indictment of the corporate media's ploy of whipping up a phony controversy in an attempt to make people forget the true gargantuan scale of the lies they were told to sell the invasion of Iraq.

[AROCES]

The fact that Scott McClellan is being attacked for pointing out the blindingly obvious is another indictment of the corporate media's ploy of whipping up a phony controversy in an attempt to make people forget the true gargantuan scale of the lies they were told to sell the invasion of Iraq.

What lies?

[acidhead]

What lies?

you can't be serious?

[AROCES]

you can't be serious?

I thought you were? Tell us then what lies?

[acidhead]

Former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's new book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" is not just a particularly good addition to the ten-foot high stack of rants against Bush's crimes and abuses of power. It's also an argument that state and local prosecutors have the necessary jurisdiction to try Bush for murder and for conspiracy to commit murder, at least once he's out of office.

This is not a scheme based on some harebrained theory that Bush faked the suicide of a former staffer. In fact, this scheme is based on nothing more than universally accepted facts. Bush chose to send US troops into Iraq. He did not do so in self-defense or as a last resort or under an international mandate, but rather went out of his way to concoct false motives for war and to rush its launching. By sending troops into war, Bush was knowingly and needlessly but certainly condemning some of them to death. The Iraqis who killed those soldiers in predictable and legally justifiable defense of their country fall into the legal category of "third-party innocent agent." This does not mean they are innocent, but rather that their actions do nothing to lessen the guilt of George W. Bush as murderer of those soldiers. Bugliosi calls this the "vicarious liability rule of conspiracy." Bugliosi explains:

"In other words, if Bush personally killed an American soldier, he would be guilty of murder. Under the law, he cannot immunize himself from his criminal responsibility by causing a third party to do the killing. He's still responsible. George Bush cannot sit safely in his Oval Office in Washington, D.C., while young American soldiers fighting his war are being blown to pieces by roadside bombs in Iraq, and wash his hands of all culpability. It's not quite that easy. He could only do this if he did not take this nation into war under false pretenses. If he did, which the evidence overwhelmingly shows, he is criminally responsible for the thousands of American deaths in Iraq." In addition, Bugliosi argues, Bush could be found guilty of murder under the rule of "aiding and abetting," because he instigated the killing of American soldiers by ordering the invasion of Iraq.

There is direct evidence that President George W. Bush did not honorably lead this nation, but deliberately misled it into a war he wanted. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress and to the American public — lies that have cost the lives of more than 4,000 young American soldiers and close to $1 trillion.

A Monumental Lie

In his first nationally televised address on the Iraqi crisis on October 7, 2002, six days after receiving the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a classified CIA report, President Bush told millions of Americans the exact opposite of what the CIA was telling him -a monumental lie to the nation and the world.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

Edited May 30, 2008 by acidhead43

[acidhead]

Also Bugliosi said that the homicide prosecution against Bush can be brought by the U.S. Attorney General, any of the U.S. Attorneys, any of the 50 state Attorneys General, or any of the hundreds of district attorneys – if a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq is from their districts.

At the center of Bugliosi’s indictment of Bush is a October 7, 2002 speech to the nation in which Bush claims that Saddam Hussein was a great danger to this nation either by attacking us with his weapons of mass destruction, or giving these weapons to some terrorist group.

“And he said – the attack could happen on any given day – meaning the threat was imminent,” Bugliosi says.

“The only problem for George Bush – and if he were prosecuted, there is no way he could get around this – is that on October 1, 2002, six days earlier, the CIA sent George Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified top secret report. Page eight clearly and unequivocally says that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country. In fact, the report says that Hussein would only use whatever weapons of mass destruction he had against us if he feared that America was about to attack him.”

[acidhead]

Vincent Bugliosi received his law degree in 1964. In his career at the L.A. County District Attorney's office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 murder convictions without a single loss. His most famous trial, the Charles Manson case, became the basis of his classic, Helter Skelter, the biggest selling true-crime book in publishing history. His forthcoming book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder.

[acidhead]

“We know that Bush was telling millions upon millions of unsuspecting Americans exactly the opposite of what his own CIA was telling him,” Bugliosi said. “We know that George Bush took this nation to war on a lie. Who is going to pay for all of this? Someone has to pay. And the person who has to pay obviously is directly responsible for all of the death horror and suffering. And that person is George W. Bush.”

“The majority of the American people probably are going to find it difficult to accept that the President of the United States, the most powerful man on earth, would engage in conduct that smacks of such great criminality. You just don’t expect something like this from an American president. However, I’m very confident that once they read the book, they will be overwhelmed by the evidence against Bush. They will be convinced that he is guilty of murder and should be prosecuted. In the book, I lay out the legal architecture for the case against Bush, all of the evidence of the guilt against Bush and the jurisdiction to prosecute him. I even set forth proposed cross-examination questions of him if he takes the witness stand at trial.”

[AROCES]

Who was the Head of the CIA then? George Tenet, now why did he not do anything when Bush was saying all those suppose to be lies and now that he is a Civilian why not stand up as witness against Bush?

Why did the CIA feed the Clinton Administration and the US Senate and Representatives the same lies?

[acidhead]

Who was the Head of the CIA then? George Tenet, now why did he not do anything when Bush was saying all those suppose to be lies and now that he is a Civilian why not stand up as witness against Bush?

Why did the CIA feed the Clinton Administration and the US Senate and Representatives the same lies?

you'll have to ask George Tenet.. not me.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

Try and stay on topic.. the facts are that Bush was briefed more than once about Iraq.. its admitted.. regardless who else is implicated that's not the topic other than he distorted the information given to him and purposely misled the public to gain support for the future invasion of Iraq.

[Dr. D]

And who is suppose to investigate and be responsible of it?

And who is responsible for the action itself?

Truman had the dignity to say that "The buck stops here." Bush is where it starts and where nothing stops.

The fact is that Kofi did accuse the U.S. and there was no official response. The event was not covered in the news except in Europe and like most of the Bush Administration crimes, it was hidden from public view.

[AROCES]

And who is responsible for the action itself?

Truman had the dignity to say that "The buck stops here." Bush is where it starts and where nothing stops.

The fact is that Kofi did accuse the U.S. and there was no official response. The event was not covered in the news except in Europe and like most of the Bush Administration crimes, it was hidden from public view.

There we go, an accusation that has no backing.

And with the world wide web, don't give us that hidden from public view excuses anymore when your accusations gets nowhere.

I't all you have really, an accusation.

[AROCES]

you'll have to ask George Tenet.. not me.

On the evening of October 7, 2002, the very latest CIA intelligence was that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the U.S. This same information was delivered to the Bush administration as early as October 1, 2002, in the NIE, including input from the CIA and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies. In addition, CIA director George Tenet briefed Bush in the Oval Office on the morning of October 7th.

Try and stay on topic.. the facts are that Bush was briefed more than once about Iraq.. its admitted.. regardless who else is implicated that's not the topic other than he distorted the information given to him and purposely misled the public to gain support for the future invasion of Iraq.

George Tenet already wrote a book and been interviewed hundred of times.

All intelligence came from the CIA and George Tenent has the final say on what to release to any official.

How can you say Hussien was not an imminent threat when no one knows for sure if there were WMD and the UN weapons inspector can't complete their job for Saddam been monkeying with them?

No one was misled for the same intelligence was presented to the Senate and house of Congress. George Tenet stood by there and didn't do anything to correct or express anything when the vote to go to war was made.

Now explain that.

[*Quinn*]

You don't need an "insider" writing a book to let you know this whole Iraq war was planned before 9/11 and that what was used to "sell" Americans and others on it was misleading.

Look at recent history over the last 7-10 years and you'll figure it out on your own.

[AROCES]

You don't need an "insider" writing a book to let you know this whole Iraq war was planned before 9/11 and that what was used to "sell" Americans and others on it was misleading.

Look at recent history over the last 7-10 years and you'll figure it out on your own.

You on the wrong forum then. Try the conspiracy and fairy tales.

[HollyDolly]

Well, I guess this is the famous SYOA policy.... Nobody wanted the war in Iraq...not Rumsfeld, not Bolton, not Rice, not Powell and especially not Dubya. It just happened...and nobody did it...nobody planned for it and nobody authorized it.

The whole thing makes me want to chunder.

Of course it was planned from the get go. When he took office i knew that he was going to get invovled in Iraq,to show his daddy that he could take care of Big Bad Sadam Huesin,because daddy,Bush Sr. didn't get rid of Sadam when they had a chance during the first Gulf War.

That was my late father's opinon,that bush Sr. should have gotten Sadam at the time. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

I thought he mentioned something about Sadam's activities if continued on their present course could destablize the region possibly,not that he was a threat to America,but a possible threat in the Middle East.I always remember him saying if WW3 starts,it's going to start in the Middle East.What ever my dad told me he had valid reasons,.

Was GBJr. feed misinformation by Cheney or others,sure,it happens, but he was too stupid to listen to those without an axe to grind or money to be made.

he had his own agenda to get us into the war.I plain to read the book,and will draw my own conculsions.

[acidhead]

Of course it was planned from the get go. When he took office i knew that he was going to get invovled in Iraq,to show his daddy that he could take care of Big Bad Sadam Huesin,because daddy,Bush Sr. didn't get rid of Sadam when they had a chance during the first Gulf War.

That was my late father's opinon,that bush Sr. should have gotten Sadam at the time. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

I thought he mentioned something about Sadam's activities if continued on their present course could destablize the region possibly,not that he was a threat to America,but a possible threat in the Middle East.I always remember him saying if WW3 starts,it's going to start in the Middle East.What ever my dad told me he had valid reasons,.

Was GBJr. feed misinformation by Cheney or others,sure,it happens, but he was too stupid to listen to those without an axe to grind or money to be made.

he had his own agenda to get us into the war.I plain to read the book,and will draw my own conculsions.

I think you missed questionmark's sarcasm.

[Homer]

When he took office i knew that he was going to get invovled in Iraq,to show his daddy that he could take care of Big Bad Sadam Huesin,because daddy,Bush Sr. didn't get rid of Sadam when they had a chance during the first Gulf War.

That was my late father's opinon,that bush Sr. should have gotten Sadam at the time.

All through the Clinton years everyone always questioned why Bush Sr didn't go all the way to Baghdad and finish Saddam.

It's amazing that you don't hear that argument anymore. If anything, Bush Sr seems like a genius for not going to Baghdad and getting into the whole occupational mess we're in now.

[Dr. D]

There we go, an accusation that has no backing.

And with the world wide web, don't give us that hidden from public view excuses anymore when your accusations gets nowhere.

I't all you have really, an accusation.

There are news sources from Europe and I gave you a reference to them. Do we believe the European press has no validity?

The only newspaper in the U.S. that carried the story was the Baltimore Chronicle . . . not a bit strange? http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/media_om...ons_jan03.shtml

The event was so offensive to Europeans that Hans von Sponeck, former Assistant General Secretary of the UN said, "This is an outrageous attempt by the US to mislead.”

The intent was to conceal the names of the U.S. corporations supplying arms to the Iraqis. A Scottish newspaper later revealed some of the missing pages content.

In the meantime, however, the international rights of Iraq to present the true situation of its arsenal was denied by these thieves and as serious as the offense was, your idol Bush remained silent and condoned the entire crime that he probably orchestrated from the beginning.

So, with the Secretary General and the former Assistant General Secretary issuing protests, it is only an accusation, right? That ranks right up there with "We know where the WMDs are," and "Mission accomplished."

[acidhead]

George Tenet already wrote a book and been interviewed hundred of times.

All intelligence came from the CIA and George Tenent has the final say on what to release to any official.

How can you say Hussien was not an imminent threat when no one knows for sure if there were WMD and the UN weapons inspector can't complete their job for Saddam been monkeying with them?

No one was misled for the same intelligence was presented to the Senate and house of Congress. George Tenet stood by there and didn't do anything to correct or express anything when the vote to go to war was made.

Now explain that.

George Tenet is just as responsible as the President for misleading the public.

Vincent Bugliosi concludes his book with an excellent analysis of what happened on 9-11 and how the media and the public have responded.

His account of how often Bush was warned prior to 9-11 and how little (nothing) he did in response is very well done, but includes at least one glaring error (at least glaring to those of us privileged to get our own briefings on these things from Ray McGovern).

George Tenet did indeed, as Bugliosi recounts, tell the 9-11 Commission on April 14, 2004, that he did not speak with Bush for the whole month of August, 2001. But a CIA spokesperson called reporters that same evening to claim that Tenet had "misspoken" and that Tenet had briefed Bush on August 17th and 31st. In his book, At the Center of the Storm, (2007) Tenet refers to the August 17th meeting as a follow-up to the August 6th memo on Bin Laden. A White House press release suggests that Tenet was also in Crawford a week later, on August 24th. President Bush, addressing a group of visitors to Crawford on August 25, told them: "George Tenet and I, yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon."

George Tenet, in his book, seems to blame the war on everyone but Bush (who gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom) and former secretary of state Colin L. Powell. Powell, who if you recall had difficulties reading the fake intelligent reports to Congress.(yellow cake and aluminum tubes ring any bells?)