Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

republicans will defend Bush to the death and non-republicans will condemn him forever. this won't change for a long time i'm afraid.

Not quite true. I know many Republican unhappy with Bush.

[VivaMexico 0]

The whole "Bush lied" game is really tired.

If a U.S. President can't believe or use the intelligence he receives from the CIA or British intelligence, how is he supposed to decide when to act?? Which leads to the interesting questions of Iran and N. Korea. If we are suddenly attacked, I predict we will quickly hear the same people that now complain about the war in Iraq saying that Bush didn't do enough to stop Iran and N. Korea!!!

[Ban Hammer 13,633]

The whole "Bush lied" game is really tired.

If a U.S. President can't believe or use the intelligence he receives from the CIA or British intelligence, how is he supposed to decide when to act?? Which leads to the interesting questions of Iran and N. Korea. If we are suddenly attacked, I predict we will quickly hear the same people that now complain about the war in Iraq saying that Bush didn't do enough to stop Iran and N. Korea!!!

bingo we have a winner

[Fuzzness 2]

republicans will defend Bush to the death and non-republicans will condemn him forever. this won't change for a long time i'm afraid.

Not quite true. I know many Republican unhappy with Bush.

you mean there are republicans out there with a conscience?

The whole "Bush lied" game is really tired.

If a U.S. President can't believe or use the intelligence he receives from the CIA or British intelligence, how is he supposed to decide when to act?? Which leads to the interesting questions of Iran and N. Korea. If we are suddenly attacked, I predict we will quickly hear the same people that now complain about the war in Iraq saying that Bush didn't do enough to stop Iran and N. Korea!!!

bingo we have a winner

hmmmm.... funny, i always thought the captain had to go down with the ship...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The whole "Bush lied" game is really tired.

If a U.S. President can't believe or use the intelligence he receives from the CIA or British intelligence, how is he supposed to decide when to act?? Which leads to the interesting questions of Iran and N. Korea. If we are suddenly attacked, I predict we will quickly hear the same people that now complain about the war in Iraq saying that Bush didn't do enough to stop Iran and N. Korea!!!

It's not about the President blindly (but well meaning) following the advice of intelligence that turned out to be bogus. The issue is that intelligence was 'cherry-picked' to provide the best possible case to support a pre-determined strategy for war. Essentially - intelligence for political purposes (propaganda).

From a poster on another forum. With regards to GWB:

He is both puppet and puppet master. He has has ultimate authority, particularly when the other branches of government put party ahead of duty. However, he is beholden to too many people, particularly special interests like oil, which keep him from doing anything he wants. More importantly, he is so hands-off with many things, letting others do his work, that it is almost shocking when he takes a stand on something relatively mundane.

Perhaps the best example of all of his contradictions was in his ill-fated Supreme Court nomination of his personal counsel.

He is a cowboy. In the worst way. Take glory. Act tough. Deny responsibility when it doesn't play well or jurts your cowboy image. Yee haw!

Edited July 10, 2006 by Fishdude

[VivaMexico 0]

It's not about the President blindly (but well meaning) following the advice of intelligence that turned out to be bogus. The issue is that intelligence was 'cherry-picked' to provide the best possible case to support a pre-determined strategy for war. Essentially - intelligence for political purposes (propaganda).

Ahhh, yes...the great conspiracy theory. And you know all this because you were there and personally saw them "cherry pick," or because you listen to the likes of Al Franken and Michael Moore?

The other post that you quoted doesn't even deserve the time involved in responding. I suppose any politician that takes money from an energy company is "beholden" to the "evil" oil companies. Not sure why the President would be beholden to them when he is never again running for public office.

Edited July 10, 2006 by VivaMexico

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not about the President blindly (but well meaning) following the advice of intelligence that turned out to be bogus. The issue is that intelligence was 'cherry-picked' to provide the best possible case to support a pre-determined strategy for war. Essentially - intelligence for political purposes (propaganda).

Ahhh, yes...the great conspiracy theory. And you know all this because you were there and personally saw them "cherry pick," or because you listen to the likes of Al Franken and Michael Moore?

The other post that you quoted doesn't even deserve the time involved in responding. I suppose any politician that takes money from an energy company is "beholden" to the "evil" oil companies. Not sure why the President would be beholden to them when he is never again running for public office.

You know it never ceases to amaze me how whenever someone disagrees with an opinion that there are some people who take it personally and act towards you almost as you'd stolen their family bible, or had sex with their underage daughter. Just plain weird... At some point you have to engage your brain, along with your mouth. Listen to what is said before you dismiss it out of hand.

There is significant (sorry conclusive) evidence that not only was this war pre-determined (as several other posters have already suggested) - as opposed to a last resort which the president said it was, but that the government fixed the intelligence around the policy. Happy to discuss it if you are.

As to your other comment - the people that run for the presidency are, in the main fabulously wealthy (you can't be up for a nomination and not be), they all have siginificant interests in large corporations. If you think those interests don't come into play when policy is being decided, and that politicians aren't influenced by them - you have a very jaded view of how government works. The corporate and political elite, such as they are, are largely unrepresentative of the people as a whole. Power corrupts, and all that.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fandango 1,440]

VivaMexico...lovin your work here today

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As to the central question. No Bush can't (and won't) be prosecuted. That doesn't mean he has no case to answer for Iraq.

At the end of the day he's no Milosevic. He's a cowboy. In the worst way

[VivaMexico 0]

It's not about the President blindly (but well meaning) following the advice of intelligence that turned out to be bogus. The issue is that intelligence was 'cherry-picked' to provide the best possible case to support a pre-determined strategy for war. Essentially - intelligence for political purposes (propaganda).

Ahhh, yes...the great conspiracy theory. And you know all this because you were there and personally saw them "cherry pick," or because you listen to the likes of Al Franken and Michael Moore?

The other post that you quoted doesn't even deserve the time involved in responding. I suppose any politician that takes money from an energy company is "beholden" to the "evil" oil companies. Not sure why the President would be beholden to them when he is never again running for public office.

You know it never ceases to amaze me how whenever someone disagrees with an opinion that there are some people who take it personally and act towards you almost as you'd stolen their family bible, or had sex with their underage daughter. Just plain weird... At some point you have to engage your brain, along with your mouth. Listen to what is said before you dismiss it out of hand.

There is significant (sorry conclusive) evidence that not only was this war pre-determined (as several other posters have already suggested) - as opposed to a last resort which the president said it was, but that the government fixed the intelligence around the policy. Happy to discuss it if you are.

As to your other comment - the people that run for the presidency are, in the main fabulously wealthy (you can't be up for a nomination and not be), they all have siginificant interests in large corporations. If you think those interests don't come into play when policy is being decided, and that politicians aren't influenced by them - you have a very jaded view of how government works. The corporate and political elite, such as they are, are largely unrepresentative of the people as a whole. Power corrupts, and all that.

Hmmm, not sure when I took it personally and acted as if you had sex with my underage daughter. Just posting some valid opinions which you apparently have chosen not to listen to before you dismissed them out of hand. It cuts both ways.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not about the President blindly (but well meaning) following the advice of intelligence that turned out to be bogus. The issue is that intelligence was 'cherry-picked' to provide the best possible case to support a pre-determined strategy for war. Essentially - intelligence for political purposes (propaganda).

Ahhh, yes...the great conspiracy theory. And you know all this because you were there and personally saw them "cherry pick," or because you listen to the likes of Al Franken and Michael Moore?

The other post that you quoted doesn't even deserve the time involved in responding. I suppose any politician that takes money from an energy company is "beholden" to the "evil" oil companies. Not sure why the President would be beholden to them when he is never again running for public office.

You know it never ceases to amaze me how whenever someone disagrees with an opinion that there are some people who take it personally and act towards you almost as you'd stolen their family bible, or had sex with their underage daughter. Just plain weird... At some point you have to engage your brain, along with your mouth. Listen to what is said before you dismiss it out of hand.

There is significant (sorry conclusive) evidence that not only was this war pre-determined (as several other posters have already suggested) - as opposed to a last resort which the president said it was, but that the government fixed the intelligence around the policy. Happy to discuss it if you are.

As to your other comment - the people that run for the presidency are, in the main fabulously wealthy (you can't be up for a nomination and not be), they all have siginificant interests in large corporations. If you think those interests don't come into play when policy is being decided, and that politicians aren't influenced by them - you have a very jaded view of how government works. The corporate and political elite, such as they are, are largely unrepresentative of the people as a whole. Power corrupts, and all that.

Hmmm, not sure when I took it personally and acted as if you had sex with my underage daughter. Just posting some valid opinions which you apparently have chosen not to listen to before you dismissed them out of hand. It cuts both ways.

If you say so. As I said, happy to discuss it if you are.

[*Robert* 2]

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa ... you are trying to overrule emotion with facts. I'm not sure that was expected.

We've discovered since that time just how the events unfolded. This Administration made the case for war by manipulating the intelligence to fit their agenda. That's fact, not emotions.

Was that intelligence, or lack therof?!

Why is it that the "Golf of Tonkin" incident comes to mind?!

hmmmmmm...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa ... you are trying to overrule emotion with facts. I'm not sure that was expected.

We've discovered since that time just how the events unfolded. This Administration made the case for war by manipulating the intelligence to fit their agenda. That's fact, not emotions.

Was that intelligence, or lack therof?!

Why is it that the "Golf of Tonkin" incident comes to mind?!

hmmmmmm...

Unfortunately they are very intelligent, they are also very self-serving.

[Fandango 1,440]

And yet, STILL no discussion on pre-Bush prevailing opinion on Iraq and WMDs....

I love selectivity!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And yet, STILL no discussion on pre-Bush prevailing opinion on Iraq and WMDs....

I love selectivity!

Bush isn't doing anything that hasn't been done by previous presidents. It is business as usual. He is however, doing it less transparently and with less regard for public opinion (and he is not as good at concealing it)

Iraq was built on lies, and the 'war on terror' is little more than an excuse to 'kick over the anthills' - essentially free licence for military action with the barest modicum of justification.