What to Do with G.W. Bush?

Objective Voice · Apr 23, 2013

German guy said:
A general answer:

I feel the American people should hold their Presidents legally responsible for violations of the Constitution, of treaties the US have signed and for violations of basic human right standards. I think everybody in his right mind will agree that no politician and not even the President is above the law. If we didn't believe that, we could as well get an absolutist king.

Maybe I don't know enough about the situation in America, but my first reaction is that the Supreme Court should have been responsible doing that when these laws were first enacted. If it can't or does not, the system is obviously flawed. Not sure how this can be fixed.

My two cents.

Paschendale said:
I think there's a wide gap between "mistake" and "intentionally lied to the American people and the whole world for several years in order to justify an unnecessary war." Also the torture of prisoners in Gitmo. I know of no definition of war criminal that includes the Middle Eastern dictators that we've been going after that excludes GWB.

These two dynamics are what I'm wrestling with concerning this poll issue. I can't help thinking of how America and the world all but demanded the heads of the surviving German government officials/military brass for war crimes and crimes against humanity after WWII. Or how America and the Iraqi people celebrated after the capture and subsequent execution of Saddam Hussein for the crimes against humanity he committed. The only difference between the actions of the GWB Administration and those of Hitler and Saddam is GWB acting as this nation's Commander-in-Chief didn't issues direct orders to commit genocide against a people. It's for this reason I don't put GWB on the same plain as the aforementioned dictators.

However, he did violate international law. And for that, IMO, he doesn't deserve a pass. Nonetheless, I'm unsure of what should be done about it.

Paschendale · Apr 23, 2013

Ikari said:
Should be prosecuted? Yes. Will be? No.

It's a long way since Nixon, who only lied about knowing something and had no actual involvement in other criminal activity. But then we held Presidents responsible, now we do not.

But... but... we held Clinton responsible for a blow job! That's so much more important than a war!

Moot · Apr 24, 2013

APACHERAT said:
You need to pick up a dictionary unless you have evidence that Bush didn't believe that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

When you have Saddam Hussein telling the UN before we went to war that he lost track of 450 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and sarin gas and has no idea where they were. That's not good enough, the UN cease fire agreement required that Iran account for every milligram of chemical that could be used as a weapon.

But we did eventually found 400 mustard and sarin artillery shells buried in the desert. Is anyone concerned with the 50 that are unaccounted for ?

For one to be lieing that person must be aware he's lieing. If Bush even believed there was a 1 % chance that Saddam had WMD's then he wasn't lieing.

Yes, they found 400 EMPTY artillery shells buried in the desert. woop de doo.

In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."[61]....

Interview with Scott Ritter

It was very clever how the US and the UK manipulated the UN and set Iraq up.....

Nicholas Arons: Let's begin with current developments and work our way
backwards in time. What are your impressions of the recent developments on
the Security Council. What do you think of the British proposal, which the
US appears to support?

Scott Ritter: All the new resolution shows is that the United States and
Great Britain have no serious position. The US is not a sponsor of this
resolution; they are in the background. They are putting an awful lot of
pressure on people to put this resolution forward. It is strongly flawed for
a number of reasons. One, it's illegal. It is a huge step backwards from [UN
Resolution] 687 in that 687 says that if Iraq complies, the sanctions are
lifted. This one basically ensures sanctions in perpetuity. With its 120-day
blocks Iraq will never regain control of its economy.
There are two steps in the economic rehabilitation of Iraq and the Iraqi
people. One is the lifting of sanctions and the second is the reconstitution
of the economy. The economy cannot be reconstituted from the outside, it has
to be reconstituted from within. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people
have to take control of their economy and their way forward. This resolution
gives no hope for that.

Having said that you now understand where the US is coming from. They know
that this resolution is not going to pass. This is an effort for the US to
be seen as moving forward on the issue when in fact all it does is put
something on the table that they know Iraq will reject, and Iraq has already
rejected it. This gives the US continued justification to pursue its regime
removal policy, which is the major factor in US foreign policy towards Iraq
today.

I just wish people would see the transparency of this effort. It's not
serious arms control; it's not serious anything. This is hypocrisy at the
highest levels...read

Personally, I don't think Bush knew or saw the real intelligence until long after the damage was done. I think he was manipulated just like the UN and Saddam were and by the very same people.

Shortley after Bush took office the US was supposed to ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty. He was advised by John Bolton not to sign it....

"...Bolton worked as the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, sworn into this position on May 11, 2001. In this role, a key area of his responsibility was the prevention of proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Bolton also led the Bush administration's opposition on constitutional grounds[35] to the International Criminal Court, negotiating with many countries to sign agreements, called Article 98 agreements, with the U.S. to exempt Americans from prosecution by the court, which is not recognized by the U.S.; more than 100 countries have signed such agreements. Bolton said the decision to pull out of the ICC was the "happiest moment" of his political career to date.[36]

John R. Bolton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, GWBush can't be tried as a war criminal by the ICC. Nor can John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Paula Dobriansky, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick and the Neocon list goes on.....

APACHERAT · Apr 24, 2013

Moot said:
It was very clever how the US and the UK manipulated the UN and set Iraq up.....

Personally, I don't think Bush knew or saw the real intelligence until long after the damage was done. I think he was manipulated just like the UN and Saddam were and by the very same people.

....

Interesting, your one of the few I have seen on the DP who got the UK intelligence connection right.

Saddam Hussein said the same thing after his capture when he was interrogated by the FBI. Saddam blamed all of the faulty intelligence on British intelligence on setting him up.

Have you read this yet ? -> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI

Saddam Hussein said that he also was almost convinced he had WMD's.

Ray410 · Apr 24, 2013

Bush should be criticized for actions that set us up for the Obama disaster, however a larger issue that needs to be immediately considered is the future prosecution and incarceration of Obama. Hopefully they have empty cells at Gitmo.

Moot · Apr 24, 2013

APACHERAT said:
Interesting, your one of the few I have seen on the DP who got the UK intelligence connection right.

Saddam Hussein said the same thing after his capture when he was interrogated by the FBI. Saddam blamed all of the faulty intelligence on British intelligence on setting him up.

Have you read this yet ? -> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI

Saddam Hussein said that he also was almost convinced he had WMD's.

Thanks, Apacherat. That was a very good link and wow, what a plethera of information. Guess what I'm going to be reading tonight?

cpwill · Apr 24, 2013

Paschendale said:
I think there's a wide gap between "mistake" and "intentionally lied to the American people and the whole world for several years in order to justify an unnecessary war."

I would agree. The second would be impeachable. That is why GW Bush was not.

But not prosecutable.

DaveFagan · Apr 24, 2013

Paschendale said it clearly. "Blowjobs are bad and torture is OK." Paraphrased. There seems to be something partisan about that statement, even though the statement is clearly un-political. Is it bad to castigate an American icon with a fake ranch and folksy homilies a.k.a., Teddy Roosevelt and his Brooks Brothers buckskin suit? I generally think that the American public is a disjointed group of morons from a political perspective and always give credence to the quote that "You cannot underestimate the intelligence of the USA electorate."

notquiteright · Apr 24, 2013

APACHERAT said:
You need to pick up a dictionary unless you have evidence that Bush didn't believe that there were no WMD's in Iraq. When you have Saddam Hussein telling the UN before we went to war that he lost track of 450 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and sarin gas and has no idea where they were. That's not good enough, the UN cease fire agreement required that Iran account for every milligram of chemical that could be used as a weapon. But we did eventually found 400 mustard and sarin artillery shells buried in the desert. Is anyone concerned with the 50 that are unaccounted for ? For one to be lieing that person must be aware he's lieing. If Bush even believed there was a 1 % chance that Saddam had WMD's then he wasn't lieing.

'We' found 400 chem arty projos??? I can't find anything supporting that, some reports of 36 mortar bombs, a few 155's leaking a substance off and on 'verified' as or not a chem weapon... but no cache of any size, more like the slop all armies have- 'We' still count account for thousands of AKs and millions of bucks we sent to Iraq.

Now who with any sort of personal honor or integrity thinks if a statement has a 99% chance of being a lie it can still be uttered as the truth??? :roll:

BushII clung to the lie that a 1% chance to a threat gives us permission to attack anyone we see fit in 'defense' of 'freedom'.

THAT theory would have the entire planet glowing for decades if any President had applied it to the Soviet Union. (and 'we' should all note that theory wasn't used with North Korea or Iran by President BushII....

clownboy · Apr 24, 2013

Look, there was also the missing tons of VX. How do we know he had VX, we had given it to him (NOT during Bush's terms). Never did find that. Not to mention the Al Samoud II, with the illegal range, even blind old Blix saw that as a violation.

So what's next, gonna indict Clinton for the aspirin factory bombing?

DaveFagan · Apr 24, 2013

clownboy said:
Look, there was also the missing tons of VX. How do we know he had VX, we had given it to him (NOT during Bush's terms). Never did find that. Not to mention the Al Samoud II, with the illegal range, even blind old Blix saw that as a violation.

So what's next, gonna indict Clinton for the aspirin factory bombing?

Yes! Analyze the intel on that as well. If indictments are indicated, do it. No more political bullcrap regarding any of them. Bush for torture and over 100,000 dead Iraqis. Obama for the Libyan debacle and the deaths associated with that. Then some honest "Media" for a change. This "War is good business" economy has to be dealt with. We seem to suffer from a National case of Optical Rectumitis. As regards the Samoud II and VX, you are reaching for straws. Iraq was no threat and did not deserve to have inumerable citizens killed by the USA. War is a serious last alternative, not a business option.

Ikari · Apr 24, 2013

Paschendale said:
But... but... we held Clinton responsible for a blow job! That's so much more important than a war!

Yes, but what we didn't hold Clinton responsible for was all of his wars.

Gipper · Apr 24, 2013

Bush was held accountable for his decisions.

He was re-elected.

Damn, that just has to piss some liberals like the OP off.

justabubba · Apr 24, 2013

Gipper said:
Bush was held accountable for his decisions.

He was re-elected.

Damn, that just has to piss some liberals like the OP off.

[emphasis added by bubba]

if you had used "reasonable people" instead of "liberals" you would have been accurate

Gipper · Apr 24, 2013

justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]

if you had used "reasonable people" instead of "liberals" you would have been accurate

I stand by what I said. If life has taught me anything, it's that the vast majority of liberals are not reasonable.

Paschendale · Apr 24, 2013

Ikari said:
Yes, but what we didn't hold Clinton responsible for was all of his wars.

Did any of his violate international law?

Ikari · Apr 24, 2013

Paschendale said:
Did any of his violate international law?

Who knows, we blew the **** out of so many places with him. Though he didn't quite bog us down in an area for over 10 years. So I guess that's something.

Gipper · Apr 24, 2013

Paschendale said:
Did any of his violate international law?

No such thing as "international law", as far as I'm concerned.

Paschendale · Apr 24, 2013

Ikari said:
Who knows, we blew the **** out of so many places with him. Though he didn't quite bog us down in an area for over 10 years. So I guess that's something.

I'm all for prosecuting him if an investigation turned something up. Our leaders should not be above the law. And the United States acting with unilateral military power only makes the world more chaotic, not less.

Gipper said:
No such thing as "international law", as far as I'm concerned.

Good thing it's not up to you.

Gipper · Apr 24, 2013

Paschendale said:
Good thing it's not up to you.

It's not up to anyone else either, unless you want to travel to the Hague and hang out in kangaroo court.

International "tall poppy syndrome" runs rampant, evidenced in the fact that everyone has all the answers for the United States...and nobody has the balls to put up or shut up.

Must be fun to be comfortably snarky behind the weeds.

justabubba · Apr 25, 2013

Gipper said:
No such thing as "international law", as far as I'm concerned.

well there you have it
don't want to be compliant with a law
voila! simply pretend that such law does not exist
see how easy that was
too bad it doesn't work that way

paris · Apr 25, 2013

Punish Bush!

American · Apr 25, 2013

Moot said:
Yes, they found 400 EMPTY artillery shells buried in the desert. woop de doo.

Interview with Scott Ritter

It was very clever how the US and the UK manipulated the UN and set Iraq up.....

Personally, I don't think Bush knew or saw the real intelligence until long after the damage was done. I think he was manipulated just like the UN and Saddam were and by the very same people.

Shortley after Bush took office the US was supposed to ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty. He was advised by John Bolton not to sign it....

John R. Bolton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, GWBush can't be tried as a war criminal by the ICC. Nor can John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Paula Dobriansky, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick and the Neocon list goes on.....

Hussein set himself up. He was more scared of Iran than us, so he made sure we all were convinced he had WMDs. He said so himself.

American · Apr 25, 2013

paris said:
Punish Bush!

Why don't you punish the Chinese for their treatment of the Tibetans? How about the way blacks are killed in the Congo? I don't see you there.

American · Apr 25, 2013

Paschendale said:
Did any of his violate international law?

He had the support of UN resolutions.

What to Do with G.W. Bush?

Should G.W. Bush be prosecuted?

YES!

NO!

This is a partisan thread.

No, just hang him.

No, everybody is doing it.

The GOV'T should tell us the truth, unvarnished.

Uncanny

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

long standing member

Uncanny

Uncanny

long standing member

Trump Grump Whisperer

Trump Grump Whisperer

Trump Grump Whisperer

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency