Down with George Bush!

[redbuddha]

There`s only one Goerge Bush, one Goerge Bush! Thank feck for that!

[PigDogg]

(geezer @ May 31 2008,09:30) If your fighting a war would you prefer to break every "rule" and win. Or play the boyscout follow the rule book and lose?

Americans lableled Japs as sneaky for their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. But it was a smart move. It would have been absurd for them to declare war and have their enemy better equipped to defend herself.

of war, always seemed strange to me.

[strocube]

This ass-clown McClellen is not saying anything millions of us, the world-over did not already know. He is a cunt and a coward. Fuck him and all the war criminals who enabled the shrub machine. That goes double for that toady, lap-dog Blair.

"How many times are we going to have a key Bush administration official try to wash the blood off his hands -- and add a chunk of change to his bank account -- by writing a come-clean book years after the fact instead of when it actually could have made a difference?"
-The Huffington post

It never fucking ends.

[Torurot]

"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 [USA] 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.€

Bush and his toady crew are quite simple WAR CRIMINALS

"ccording to the former press secretary, in going to war on Iraq Bush misled the nation, hyping dubious intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. But he did so, McClellan declares, out of a naive commitment to the ideal of democracy in the Middle East. And he didn€™t deliberately lie. He was merely the victim of bad advice, his own intellectual limitations, his disinclination to ask questions and his belief that being a wartime president was his ticket to greatness. McClellan states repeatedly that he continues to feel €œaffection€ for the man responsible for perhaps a million Iraqi deaths and over 4300 American and other €œCoalition€ ones.

McClellan attributes Bush€™s relentless push for war on €œan ambitious and idealistic post-9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom.€ So his worst sin was a naïve effort at do-good-ism! McClellan doesn€™t note the Bush administration€™s rejection of the results of free democratic elections in Palestine, consternation at relatively €œfree€ electoral results in Egypt and Lebanon, or continued intimacy with Saudi Arabia€™s theocratic absolute monarchy. He doesn€™t mention the more plausible reasons for Bush€™s assault on a sovereign country described by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as €œillegal.€ He doesn€™t mention oil, the administration€™s push for the privatization of Iraq€™s oil industry (which will result in U.S. control), or the geopolitical importance of controlling the flow of oil from Iraq in future crisis situations including war. He doesn€™t mention the advantages to U.S. imperialism of permanent military bases in the heart of the Middle East.

McClellan in one recent interview cited Paul Wolfowitz€™s remark in July 2003 that €œfor bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason that people could agree upon.€ In that interview Wolfowitz added that an €œalmost unnoticed but huge€ additional reason was the prospect of being able to withdraw U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia, where their presence was highly unpopular. (In 1990 U.S. officials lied to the Saudis, claiming Saddam was amassing forces to attack them, and persuaded them to accept a U.S. military presence in the country. By 2003 the Saudis were urging a withdrawal of the 5000 U.S. troops.) For the neocons there is no question but that the U.S. should have bases in the Middle East, and Cheney is known to favor their establishment preparatory to a future confrontation with China. McClellan doesn€™t discuss these matters."

[seamus]

(azza33 @ May 30 2008,23:37) hey Seamus take a look at my countdown clock

   

Azza, feck off & go eat ya pies LOL
Have a good one man & tell Me all about it when you get back

[azza33]

Americans labeled Japs as sneaky for their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. But it was a smart move.

Ummm... i understand your point, but didn't this give the US the chance to enter the war?

And without the US participation in the pacific, Australasia wouldn't quite be the same... ne hong jin dess kaa? anyone?

[azza33]

(geezer @ Jun. 01 2008,00:30) Ok I didn't post on this thread for a long time because it is a very difficult issue. Good thing for me is I'm now totally shitfaced and have no inhibitions

Trying not to get too far involved but what the fuck is a legal war? Whoever thought of the term should be forced to lead the action in the next war and see how far their law books get them.

A war is the absence of law. Who ever wins then gets to wright the laws to say how right they were and how bad the enemy were. Law in War is the biggest lie there is and if your a soldier will do nothing but get you killed.

If you disagree let me ask you this. If your fighting a war would you prefer to break every "rule" and win. Or play the boyscout follow the rule book and lose?

I'll give all you who think there is a legal war out there a hint. Whenever people talk about the infamous "PC mafia" wrecking our civilization who no one knows how to define. They are talking about you.

Good post Geezer...

In this case "legal war" is nothing more than the right to go into Iraq and forcibly search for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons...

Only problem they all disappeared

[azza33]

(seamus @ Jun. 01 2008,08:10)

(azza33 @ May 30 2008,23:37) hey Seamus take a look at my countdown clock

Azza, feck off & go eat ya pies LOL
Have a good one man & tell Me all about it when you get back

I'm off the pies, guts are getting too large... although that will make someone happier don't you think LOL

I should forward you more of these emails... some funny shit in them i tell you...

I'll try and get lots of pics and stories this time around...

[Lefty]

(PigDogg @ Jun. 01 2008,05:55)

(geezer @ May 31 2008,09:30) If your fighting a war would you prefer to break every "rule" and win. Or play the boyscout follow the rule book and lose?

Americans lableled Japs as sneaky for their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. But it was a smart move. It would have been absurd for them to declare war and have their enemy better equipped to defend herself.

of war, always seemed strange to me.

Some of the Jap higher ups were smart. Yamamoto was probably the smartest military man they had. Tojo was Prime Minister, but Japan would have been better off if Yamamoto had been. While he carried out the Pearl Harbor attack, he had serious reservations personally about doing anything to draw the US into war.
After the Pearl Harbor attack was successfully concluded, his prophetic quote is one of the most famous from WWII:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

IMO, the Japs made a huge mistake by attacking Pearl Harbor. We would have remained on the sidelines for much longer if they had not done so, and it would have given them time to control more area in the western Pacific.
I find it interesting that all the battleships damaged or sunk at Pearl except the Arizona and Utah were repaired and back in action before the end of the war and that every Jap ship that was part of the attack on Pearl was sunk by the end of the war.

[Lefty]

(Torurot @ Jun. 01 2008,08:05) "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 [USA] 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.€

Bush and his toady crew are quite simple WAR CRIMINALS

Bravo Torurot. You are right on and anyone looking for rationale to defend or justify anything Bush did in regards to Iraq, post 9/11, make me want to puke.
The very fine writer and brilliant former DA who got Manson convicted has written another book that IMO will make very good reading if anything else he has written is an indicator. I love Bugliosi and truly believe that if he had been the DA in the Simpson case that OJ would be locked up for murder, where he should be, today.

The following is an excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's new book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder:

"With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment. I mean, in America, we apparently impeach presidents for having consensual sex outside of marriage and trying to cover it up. If we impeach presidents for that, then if the president takes the country to war on a lie where thousands of American soldiers die horrible, violent deaths and over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, even babies are killed, the punishment obviously has to be much, much more severe. That's just common sense. If Bush were impeached, convicted in the Senate, and removed from office, he'd still be a free man, still be able to wake up in the morning with his cup of coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice and read the morning paper, still travel widely and lead a life of privilege, still belong to his country club and get standing ovations whenever he chose to speak to the Republican faithful. This, for being responsible for over 100,000 horrible deaths?* For anyone interested in true justice, impeachment alone would be a joke for what Bush did.

Let's look at the way some of the leading liberal lights (and, of course, the rest of the entire nation with the exception of those few recommending impeachment) have treated the issue of punishment for Bush's cardinal sins. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about "the false selling of the Iraq War. We were railroaded into an unnecessary war." Fine, I agree. Now what? Krugman just goes on to the next paragraph. But if Bush falsely railroaded the nation into a war where over 100,000 people died, including 4,000 American soldiers, how can you go on to the next paragraph as if you had been writing that Bush spent the weekend at Camp David with his wife? For doing what Krugman believes Bush did, doesn't Bush have to be punished commensurately in some way? Are there no consequences for committing a crime of colossal proportions?

Al Franken, on the "David Letterman" show, said, "Bush lied to us to take us to war" and quickly went on to another subject, as if he was saying "Bush lied to us in his budget."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, condemning Bush, said that "Bush's distortions misled Congress in its war vote" and "No president of the United States should employ distortion of truth to take the nation to war." But, Senator Kennedy, if a president does this, as you believe Bush did, then what? Remember, Clinton was impeached for allegedly trying to cover up a consensual sexual affair. What do you recommend for Bush for being responsible for more than 100,000 deaths? Nothing? He shouldn't be held accountable for his actions? If one were to listen to you talk, that is the only conclusion one could come to. But why, Senator Kennedy, do you, like everyone else, want to give Bush this complete free ride?

The New York Times, in a June 17, 2004, editorial, said that in selling this nation on the war in Iraq, "the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11 €¦ inexcusably selling the false Iraq-Al Qaeda claim to Americans." But gentlemen, if this is so, then what? The New York Times didn't say, just going on, like everyone else, to the next paragraph, talking about something else.

In a Nov. 15, 2005, editorial, the New York Times said that "the president and his top advisers €¦ did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections." But if it's "obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans" in taking them to a war that tens of thousands of people have paid for with their lives, now what? No punishment? If not, under what theory? Again, you're just going to go on to the next paragraph?

In early December of 2005, a New York Times-CBS nationwide poll showed that the majority of Americans believed Bush "intentionally misled" the nation to promote a war in Iraq. A Dec. 11, 2005, article in the Los Angeles Times, after citing this national poll, went on to say that because so many Americans believed this, it might be difficult for Bush to get the continuing support of Americans for the war. In other words, the fact that most Americans believed Bush had deliberately misled them into war was of no consequence in and of itself. Its only consequence was that it might hurt his efforts to get support for the war thereafter. So the article was reporting on the effect of the poll findings as if it was reporting on the popularity, or lack thereof, of Bush's position on global warming or immigration. Didn't the author of the article know that Bush taking the nation to war on a lie (if such be the case) is the equivalent of saying he is responsible for well over 100,000 deaths? One would never know this by reading the article.

If Bush, in fact, intentionally misled this nation into war, what is the proper punishment for him? Since many Americans routinely want criminal defendants to be executed for murdering only one person, if we weren't speaking of the president of the United States as the defendant here, to discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous.** But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.

On the other hand, the intensity of rage against Bush in America has been such (it never came remotely this close with Clinton because, at bottom, there was nothing of any real substance to have any serious rage against him for) that if I heard it once I heard it 10 times that "someone should put a bullet in his head." That, fortunately, is just loose talk, and even more fortunately not the way we do things in America. In any event, if an American jury were to find Bush guilty of first-degree murder, it would be up to them to decide what the appropriate punishment should be, one of their options being the imposition of the death penalty.

Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting -- that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom -- many have argued that "Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes" (mostly for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. But for all intents and purposes this cannot be done.


*Even assuming, at this point, that Bush is criminally responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in the Iraq war, under federal law he could only be prosecuted for the deaths of the 4,000 American soldiers killed in the war. No American court would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the one hundred and some thousand Iraqi deaths since these victims not only were not Americans, but they were killed in a foreign nation, Iraq. Despite their nationality, if they had been killed here in the States, there would of course be jurisdiction.

**Indeed, Bush himself, ironically, would be the last person who would quarrel with the proposition that being guilty of mass murder (even one murder, by his lights) calls for the death penalty as opposed to life imprisonment. As governor of Texas, Bush had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history: He was a very strong proponent of the death penalty who even laughingly mocked a condemned young woman who begged him to spare her life ("Please don't kill me," Bush mimicked her in a magazine interview with journalist Tucker Carlson), and even refused to commute the sentence of death down to life imprisonment for a young man who was mentally retarded (although as president he set aside the entire prison sentence of his friend Lewis "Scooter" Libby), and had a broad smile on his face when he announced in his second presidential debate with Al Gore that his state, Texas, was about to execute three convicted murderers.

In Bush's two terms as Texas governor, he signed death warrants for an incredible 152 out of 153 executions against convicted murderers, the majority of whom killed one person. The only death sentence Bush commuted was for one of the many murders that mass murderer Henry Lucas had been convicted of. Bush was informed that Lucas had falsely confessed to this particular murder and was innocent, his conviction being improper. So in 152 out of 152 cases, Bush refused to show mercy even once, finding that not one of the 152 convicted killers should receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. Bush's perfect 100 percent execution rate is highly uncommon even for the most conservative law-and-order governors."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/86232/

http://www.powells.com/biblio/9781593154813?&PID=32513

[pacman]

       This article goes to the heart of the man. Just what the world didn't need was the term of office of George W.

I can't see him ever being executed for his crimes against humanity but if ever a world leader deserved it .........

[That's a democratically elected leader in the West, I don't include the African & Asian [& others] despots who should all be shot.]

Soon we will learn who gets to fix the mess he has left the US in, dear god that the next POTUS can't be as bad.

[azza33]

(Torurot @ Jun. 01 2008,08:05)
QUOTE
"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 [USA] 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.€

Bush and his toady crew are quite simple WAR CRIMINALS

Bravo Torurot.

Does anyone else here see the irony in using a CIA document as the basis of argument?


You cant have an argument saying one minute CIA documents were used to mislead USA into a war and then the next use another set of CIA documents to prove that the US mislead the US people - that's BS people.

IF one bit of CIA info that related to Iraq was shite, then all must be considered shite.


I also think people here are giving GW too much credit... there is no way he's as bright as your allegations suggest.

[alan1chef]

All this talk about war crimes is based on Democratic Party political rhetoric designed to persuade the electorate to vote for the Democratic Party candidate in an election year. The US military invasion of Iraq was not a decision made soley by Bush. The Democrats in Congress say they were misled...so what. What else would you logically expect them to say in an election year? The Democrats are trying to make the Republican Party look bad. How else can the Democrats win the White House with an African American candidate?

If you think Bush should be lined up and shot for this, then you should line up the leaders of your country as well and every other leader along with them because they are all worse than Bush ever was.

[pacman]

(alan1chef @ Jun. 01 2008,14:07) If you think Bush should be lined up and shot for this, then you should line up the leaders of your country as well and every other leader along with them because they are all worse than Bush ever was.

  Are you serious ??

I chose not to buy into your dispute with JaiDee but I can't let your latest quote go unchallenged.

All other leaders are worse than George W ??

Whatever we may choose to believe, whichever side of this rational discussion you wish to take, fine ... but don't start turning it into a mockery with such outrageous comments.

George W Bush has been a disaster for the world, his policy of invading Iraq has been the worst policy disaster since Johnson authorised the bombing of Hanoi.

As bad as he has been for the Iraqis, he has harmed the American cause much more.
He has single-handed destroyed America's moral authority & when the next crisis arrives that requires a co-ordinated international effort, no-one will be listening to what America wants.

While it is admirable you defend the idiot, Alan remember he represents you & all other American citizens to the world & he has done you no favours at all.

[azza33]

He has single-handed destroyed America's moral authority & when the next crisis arrives that requires a co-ordinated international effort, no-one will be listening to what America wants.

I agree with the sentiment and as the figurehead the ultimate blame does rest with GW. Had they found anything meaningful then of course the outcome would be viewed differently.