King George W. Bush

[alphamale]

Can at least one Bush basher state with precision how he thinks Bush violated the law?

 

[nkgupta80]

Can at least one Bush basher state with precision how he thinks Bush violated the law?

i dunno, there seem to be threads on this debate. Both sides think they're right.

The all-defining reason to go to war in Iraq was WMDs. that was the clincher. Everyone, including most bush haters believed that Sadaam did have WMDs. Why? becuase the BUsh administration used intelligent reports as evidence.

all the other reasons were secondary -- freeing the Iraqi people, Al queda. (the miniscule ties between sadaam and alqueda that the administration uses are laughable).

So we go in to Iraq and we suddnely find out there are no WMDs. That clinching reason is proven false. Someone has to be held responsible. Bush, representing the people of the US, pretty much brought shame to a lot of us. Regardless of whether it was directly his fault or not, Bush and the administration have yet to take responsibility for their mistake.


This is the argument on the left. The right doesn't seem to get it, so we're at a stalemate.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by alphamale
Can at least one Bush basher state with precision how he thinks Bush violated the law?

Here's one link that will spell it out.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

 

[KCConservative]

Here's one link that will spell it out.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html

What Really Happened: The History the Government Hopes You Don't Learn

Today's lead story on What Really Happened is : Mystery Blob Eats Downtown


Come on, Robodoon, what have you done with Billo? :lol:

 

[Goobieman]

The all-defining reason to go to war in Iraq was WMDs. that was the clincher. Everyone, including most bush haters believed that Sadaam did have WMDs. Why? becuase the BUsh administration used intelligent reports as evidence.

The claim that the Bush administration "misled" everyone with "negligent" intel is the conerstone of your argument -- without it you have nothing.

Explain how, if the Bush administration 'fixed' the intel, the Clinton administration, the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Israelis all came to the same conclusion -- that Iraq had WMDs.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Goobieman:
The claim that the Bush administration "misled" everyone with "negligent" intel is the conerstone of your argument -- without it you have nothing.

Explain how, if the Bush administration 'fixed' the intel, the Clinton administration, the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Israelis all came to the same conclusion -- that Iraq had WMDs.

DSM proved that he already had decided to attack. Richard Perle said after 9/11, all Bush wanted to talk about was Iraq. Wake up and smell the coffee little Suzie, guided missiles don't do you any good when you have mis-guided leaders.

 

[Goobieman]

DSM proved that he already had decided to attack. Richard Perle said after 9/11, all Bush wanted to talk about was Iraq. Wake up and smell the coffee little Suzie, guided missiles don't do you any good when you have mis-guided leaders.

As per your usual M.O., you didn't address the post.

One would think that if this are as obvious as you make them out to be, you could knock this one out of the park.

Instead, you troll.

 

[ludahai]

Billo - First of all, David Michael Green is an EXTREME leftist, but let's look at his comments.

Bush is at war with Americanism
By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN

Consider:

Once, America stood as a proud beacon for human rights. Now we are known for the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition and torture.

Abu Ghraib was wrong, but those responsible have been punished. The "evidence" about gitmo is scant and besides, those people, as unlawful combatants, do not get Geneva Convention protections.

Once, we stood foursquare for the rule of law. Now we demolish inconvenient agreements we once promoted -- the Geneva, nuclear nonproliferation and ABM treaties, the International Criminal Court -- and thereby encourage others to follow suit.

How have we violated the Geneva Conventions? How have we violated nuclear nonproliferation? China and Pakistan are guilty of that, NOT the US. The ABM treaty was a BILATERAL treaty that is null and void as the other signatory has ceased to exist. Besides, it had a withdrawal provision anyway. Anyone who things we should NOT explore BMD is living in a fantasy world.

The U.S. hasn't acceded to the ICC, nor should it as it is nothing more than a political tool.

Once, America's word was good. Today -- after deceits ranging from WMD, to promised but withdrawn U.N. votes, to shameful lies about former football star Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan -- we are distrusted.

The intelligence we had led us to believe Saddam had or was pursuring WMDs, He has used them in the past and the Israelis once had to destroy an Iraqi nuclear site.

Once, America stood tall against colonialism. Today, with invasion excuses falling like dominoes, most of the world sees us as just another old-fashioned imperialist predator.

Yeah, right. We are bringing democracy to these countries and the extreme left calls us imperialist predators.

Once, we stood for due process of law. Now our President creates his own prisons and courts and denies the accused long sacred rights -- to habeas corpus, an attorney, a speedy trial judged by peers, knowledge of the crime charged, and more.

Those rights are guaranteed to people on US soil. Those at gitmo are NOT on U.S. soil.

Once, we were a model for civil liberties. Now, Mr. Bush authorizes himself to conduct illegal wiretaps on Americans while his government monitors everyone from vegans to Quakers, then snoops in libraries to see what we're reading.

Only international calls are being monitored. Remember a program called enigma during the Clinton administration?

Once, we stood for press freedom. Now our tax dollars pay to plant stories and buy off journalists, here and abroad, while our President plots to blow up al Jazeera, all in the name of bringing freedom to the Mideast.

Has the al jazeera charge been proven? Last I heard, it was another unsubstantiated allegation. The U.S. still has among the highest standards of press freedom in the world.

Once, we were a good neighbor. Today, our 5 percent of the world population produces 25 percent of global warming emissions, while the President scuttles the Kyoto Protocol.

Hmmm. Clinton never brought Kyoto to the Senate! A treaty that doesn't include China and India is a bad treaty.

For all these reasons and others, world opinion of the United States has sunk precipitously -- as well it should, for this is not the America our Founders had in mind.

All through history, people have hated the biggest power in the world. Europeans hated the US in the 1980s, who should it be any surprise that it is any different now? BTW, in several Asian countries, the US is still very well regarded because unlike Europe, there is still a communist threat in this part of the world.

And so we must ask, just what will be left of Americanism after George Bush is through with America? And, if the goal is not only preserving our lives, but also our way of life, just who is the true enemy of America and Americanism?

What would be left of America had Sore/Loserman been running the show?

Surely al-Qaida is. Too bad, therefore, that the President doesn't think very much anymore about the folks who brutally attacked us on 9/11.

Surely Saddam Hussein -- who never attacked the United States and never threatened to do so -- was no such enemy, however brutal a dictator he certainly was.

Hussein certainly did wish to do America harm. He tried to have a former president assassinated! He invaded his neighbors. He paid families of suicide bombers who did kill Americans. Given the chance, he would have attacked us. Only a fool would have given him that chance.

But what of Mr. Bush himself? However counterintuitive, it is hard to reach but one conclusion about a President who has bankrupted America morally, fiscally, and militarily, who has alienated the world and deeply divided his own country, and who has trampled roughshod over our most sacred traditions and liberties, as if he were some sort of self-anointed king.

After eight years of Clinton and four years of Carter in the 1970s, to see the Leftists rant on like this is sickening. Carter is the greatest traitor to freedom in history and Clinton lied his way through eight years in office. Nice role models Leftists!

 

[ludahai]

There is nothing in International Law that allows a country to attack another country simply for a regime change without UNSC approvel.

Except that there WAS UNSC approval. SCRes 678 gave authority for all necessary means (including the use of force) if that or any other subsequent relevant resolution were violated. Saddam violated several of those resolutions, including 1441, ALL of which SPECIFICALLY referenced 678 as a relevant resolution! There WAS approval. The French were just suckers and apparently can't read resolutions very well before they vote for them.

 

[ludahai]

easyt65 - Keep telling us the truth about what is happening in Iraq. My cousin was over there last year and his stories about what he saw and experienced are far more in like with what you are reporting than what I have seen from CNN reporters stuck inside the "Green Zone."

 

[ludahai]

.

Tell me something, did you go to school on a long bus or a short bus? When you were a kid, did you have to wear hockey equipment, but you weren't on a team?

Right out of the leftist playbook. Debate by personal character assasination. This is the precursor to playing "Politics of Personal Destruction." I think you have passed the 101 version of the Democratic Debate Strategy class with flying colors.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ludahai
Right out of the leftist playbook. Debate by personal character assasination. This is the precursor to playing "Politics of Personal Destruction." I think you have passed the 101 version of the Democratic Debate Strategy class with flying colors.

I was just asking the question. There's no law against questions, are there?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ludahai
Abu Ghraib was wrong, but those responsible have been punished. The "evidence" about gitmo is scant and besides, those people, as unlawful combatants, do not get Geneva Convention protections.

I disagree. The link below will explain my position.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ludahai
Except that there WAS UNSC approval. SCRes 678 gave authority for all necessary means (including the use of force) if that or any other subsequent relevant resolution were violated. Saddam violated several of those resolutions, including 1441, ALL of which SPECIFICALLY referenced 678 as a relevant resolution! There WAS approval. The French were just suckers and apparently can't read resolutions very well before they vote for them.

678 was only in reference to Kuwait. And 1441 did not contain the words "all necessary means." Were going to have to agree to disagree on this. I think you and I have already had this discussion quite a few times.

 

[ludahai]

678 was only in reference to Kuwait. And 1441 did not contain the words "all necessary means." Were going to have to agree to disagree on this. I think you and I have already had this discussion quite a few times.

And I showed you wrong then, I will show you wrong again.

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

It doesn't limit it solely to Kuwait, but to "peace and security in the area."

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Pretty clear to me.

 

[ludahai]

I disagree. The link below will explain my position.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

How are the prisoners in Gitmo being abused or mistreated? It seems that we have to FORCE FEED them because they want to starve themselves to death! Many of them are in far better health NOW than when they were taken into custody.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ludahai
How are the prisoners in Gitmo being abused or mistreated? It seems that we have to FORCE FEED them because they want to starve themselves to death! Many of them are in far better health NOW than when they were taken into custody.

Stuff a 1/4" diameter tube up your nose without any anesthetic and don't stop until you hit your stomach, then come back and ask that question again.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ludahai
Pretty clear to me.

I think I told you before that you cannot post one comment from an International Lawyer that would back you up on this interpretation. Kofi Anan has already publically admitted that the US did not act in concert with these resolutions.

I noticed you conveniently left out the fact that at the time, we were bombing the crap out of them while telling the world we were enforcing the no-fly zone. I guess that didn't matter.

 

[ludahai]

I think I told you before that you cannot post one comment from an International Lawyer that would back you up on this interpretation. Kofi Anan has already publically admitted that the US did not act in concert with these resolutions.

I noticed you conveniently left out the fact that at the time, we were bombing the crap out of them while telling the world we were enforcing the no-fly zone. I guess that didn't matter.

Did you read the resolutions? What part of them don't you understand? Annan is nothing more than a glorified spokesperson. His word does NOT have the authority of International Law, the Security Council does.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ludahai
Did you read the resolutions? What part of them don't you understand? Annan is nothing more than a glorified spokesperson. His word does NOT have the authority of International Law, the Security Council does.

He's more of an authority on the UN's position than you or I.

 

[ludahai]

He's more of an authority on the UN's position than you or I.

How about commenting on the actual resolutions. I know you are able to read and form your own opinions. Actually comment directly on the resolutions, if you are able. It is pretty clear cut. Why not take the US to the ICJ if these opponents are so adament that the invasion was illegal? You know why? Because they know in their hearts of hearts that it was LEGAL and they are merely making POLITICAL, not legal statements.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ludahai
How about commenting on the actual resolutions. I know you are able to read and form your own opinions. Actually comment directly on the resolutions, if you are able. It is pretty clear cut. Why not take the US to the ICJ if these opponents are so adament that the invasion was illegal? You know why? Because they know in their hearts of hearts that it was LEGAL and they are merely making POLITICAL, not legal statements.

Here's an excerpt from 1441. How is telling inspectors that we are going to attack and "we can't guarantee their safety" providing support to their mission in Iraq?

Resolution 1441 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on
8 November 2002 The Security Council,

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

 

[ludahai]

Here's an excerpt from 1441. How is telling inspectors that we are going to attack and "we can't guarantee their safety" providing support to their mission in Iraq?

Once they reported that Saddam was once again in material breach of this resolution, the right to use force was tiggerred. Saddam FAILED to meet his international obligations. The US and other UN members were authorized to enforce the resolution with force (carried over from 678) and that is EXACTLY what the US, Britain and a host of other countries did!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ludahai
Once they reported that Saddam was once again in material breach of this resolution, the right to use force was tiggerred. Saddam FAILED to meet his international obligations. The US and other UN members were authorized to enforce the resolution with force (carried over from 678) and that is EXACTLY what the US, Britain and a host of other countries did!

678 was all about enforcing 660. Which was about getting Iraq out of Kuwait. And then there's this:

Resolution 1441 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on
8 November 2002 The Security Council,

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Looks like to me that they want to be informed in order to decide the necessary action to be taken. This does not give the US the right to unilaterally decide this issue for the UNSC. It is their decision alone. From what I understand, that is what they mean when the say "seized on the matter". But I guess we thought that "didn't matter".

 

[ludahai]

678 was all about enforcing 660. Which was about getting Iraq out of Kuwait. And then there's this:

Looks like to me that they want to be informed in order to decide the necessary action to be taken. This does not give the US the right to unilaterally decide this issue for the UNSC. It is their decision alone. From what I understand, that is what they mean when the say "seized on the matter". But I guess we thought that "didn't matter".

BUT 678 also applies to subsequent resolutions, it specifically says so. 1441 was specifically identified as a subsequent resolution. Once Iraq was in breach of the resolution, as was reported by Hans Blix, the right to use force was activated.