8 out of 10 Americans Want The Terrorists To Win

[sirs]

Ummmmmm....yea....right....whatever you say, Brass


 

[Brassmask]

Ummmmmm....yea....right....whatever you say, Brass
 

What's especially sad about all this is that even if that were to really happen, you will NEVER admit that they lied and/or committed a crime.  It will always be a slow creep of hair-splitting and denial.

You guys will are simply ideologues who have so intertwined your beliefs with the Bush "administration" to a point that if he is accused or maligned in any way, you rush to defend him by denying, denying, denying with a healthy splash of "what about this little smidge of nothing that insinuates that everyone is guilty?"

[sirs]

Ummmmmm....yea....right....whatever you say, Brass
 

What's especially sad about all this is that even if that were to really happen, you will NEVER admit that they lied and/or committed a crime.  It will always be a slow creep of hair-splitting and denial.

A) I think you're projecting yourself onto the Clinton Kool-aide drinkers all coming to support the various definitions of what "is" is.

B) I'd have to see the evidence  (Yours, Tee's, Xo's & Kucinich's BDS OPINIONS don't quite cut it, I'm afraid.  Unlike yourself, I'm not a cool-ade drinking sycophant, and could be persuaded by overwhelming evidence to the contrary)

C) There'd have to be a trial  (Ball in your court)

[The_Professor]

So you're NOT all bad, after all.  I am SO relieved.  Hanging out in this forum gave me the impression that guys like Rich, sirs, BT, plane, CU4 et al. somehow represented the vast majority of Americans today and that Lanya, Brass, XO & hnumpah were but a very tiny minority.  Whew.  God Bless America.  Maybe Obama will bring a little sanity to the body politic and restore America's good name in the world.  Well, at least we can hope.  Maybe this time the margin of victory will be so wide that no amount of Republican cheating can alter the final result.  And if Obama DOES win, and if he DOES mean to change the country, don't get taken in by the "all coming together as Americans" bullshit, which is just a slick way of winning amnesty for the crimes of this administration.

No, your first assumption is correct. You ARE in the minority...

[Brassmask]

Sorry, there won't ever be a tape of Bush saying, "Hey, let's just say that he might have a nuclear bomb and just invade whenever we want."  Nixon made sure that every president knew not to do that again.

[sirs]

Ok, then what do you have??  Surely you have some top military Generals on record citing the direct plan by the Bush administration to invade Iraq regardless the circumstances, right?  You have some eye-witness testimony of American Operatives planting WMD in Iraq for us to "find", right?  How about a "blue dress".....Cheney's fingerprints on a classified memo citing secret plans take over Iraq's Oil?  I mean, you have to have SOMETHING. 

Going to war is NOT the "smoking gun" I'm afraid, no more than going into WWII was some smoking gun proof that Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was about to happen

Ball back in yours and Kuscinich's court.  Let's see some actual EVIDENCE of these supposed war crimes

[Michael Tee]

<<No, your first assumption is correct. You ARE in the minority...>>

Actually the newest AP-Ipsos poll shows me in an 80% majority, with those who feel the country is going in the wrong direction.  Just read the post at the head of this thread, Professor.

[Michael Tee]

<<Talk about getting it bass-ackwards  >>

OK, let's.  You've STILL got it bass-ackwards because the facts are clear that he started the war without an overt attack on the U.S. from Iraq.  Those facts are the grounds for the impeachment.  Whatever his defence - - "well I really thought they were a threat," or "well, Congress authorized it after I proposed it," those are defences which he can raise.

But I'm with Kucinich.  Kucinich says there are grounds for impeachment and I've just shown a major one, plain as day.  You might confuse having a defence to the charges with there being no grounds to lay the charges in the first place, but as far as I can see, ample grounds for impeachment exist, and I'd be very surprised if the defences that you think Bush does have would stand up in any court of law.

[Michael Tee]

<<Ok, then what do you have?? >>

Read carefully.

<< Surely you have some top military Generals on record citing the direct plan by the Bush administration to invade Iraq regardless the circumstances, right?  >>

Wrong.

<<You have some eye-witness testimony of American Operatives planting WMD in Iraq for us to "find", right? >>

Wrong.

<< How about a "blue dress".....Cheney's fingerprints on a classified memo citing secret plans take over Iraq's Oil? >>

Wrong and wrong.

<< I mean, you have to have SOMETHING.>>

Yes, and in fact we do have something.

<<Going to war is NOT the "smoking gun" I'm afraid . . . >>

WRONG.  Going to war against a country that did not attack you (or an ally you are legally bound by treaty to defend) first is unfortunately very much a smoking gun.   Pre-emptive war is only justified in the face of an imminent attack.  Imminent means about to happen in the immediate future.   The prima facie conclusion that any court would draw from the start of a war that was not provoked by an actual attack from the victim is that the war was most likely one of aggression.  That is how almost all wars of aggression begin:  WWI by the Austrian attack on Serbia, WWII by the German attack on Poland, then by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, then by the German attack on Russia, Korean War by the North Korean attack on South Korea, the Falklands War by the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands.  In none of those wars was there any prior provocation.  Given the extremely rare nature of pre-emption as a casus belli, the odds are much more likely that a war begun without a prior attack from the victim is a war of unjustified aggression rather than a pre-emptive war.  If Bush and his fellow criminals wish to claim that they were acting in legitimate self-defence, it is up to them to make that defence during the course of their trial, if they can.

 <<no more than going into WWII was some smoking gun proof that Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was about to happen>>

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.  Whether Roosevelt knew or did not know of the coming attack, the attack itself was what constitutes the U.S.'s casus belli, not FDR's knowledge or ignorance of it.  You seem to be badly confused on two issues here:  (1) the difference between Pearl Harbor and Iraq is that there was an actual Jap attack on the U.S.A. preceding (and fully justifying) the U.S. declaration of war which followed immediately and (2) NONE of the pro-impeachment arguments depends on Bush knowing about 9-11 being about to happen.

<<Let's see some actual EVIDENCE of these supposed war crimes>>

Here it is:  While George W. Bush was President of the U.S.A. and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, U.S. military forces acting under his command invaded and occupied Iraq, a sovereign nation and member state of the UN, and, with the U.S. a co-signatory to the Charter of the United Nations.  Everything I just stated is FACT.  Every one of those FACTS is evidence against George W. Bush that he has committed the war crime of planning and waging a war of aggression.  Believe it or not, that's all the evidence that you need to justify an impeachment.  From those facts, it could be argued that a prima facie case exists that George W. Bush has waged a war of aggression, which is illegal under the UN Charter, which is binding upon the U.S. Government, including its agent, George W. Bush.

Q.E.D.

You say Bush has a valid defence.  Well, that's fine.  He can raise it once his trial has begun.  He wouldn't be the first guy to be charged on a strong prima facie case, defend himself in court and win an acquittal.  Grounds for impeachment doesn't mean an airtight case that can't fail at trial, otherwise there'd be no need for the trial, the bringing of the charges itself would be the conclusive event.  I say there are ample grounds for impeachment and the sooner it starts the better.  Failing impeachment, I would love to see a war crimes trial, also the sooner the better but in any event with the indictments handed down no later than the last week of January 2009.

[Plane]

Why would you say that Iraq was a sovereign nation in 2003?

Weren't they operating under the sufferance of the winners of the 1991 war and armistice?

Saddam was not maintaining his part of the deal and forfeited the armistice.

[Michael Tee]

<<Why would you say that Iraq was a sovereign nation in 2003?>>

Because it was a member state of the UN, where it maintained a seat at the General Assembly, it enjoyed  diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by most if not all of the world's sovereign states, including the U.S.A. and Great Britain, IIRC and no other state claimed the right to legislate for the people living within its territorial limits.

<<Weren't they operating under the sufferance of the winners of the 1991 war and armistice?>>

I don't even know what that means, "operating under the sufferance," but a sovereign state does not cease to be a sovereign state merely by the fact of its having entered into an armistice or being attacked by foreign enemies.

<<Saddam was not maintaining his part of the deal and forfeited the armistice.>>

That's pure bullshit.  The U.S. claimed that Saddam wasn't maintaining his part of the armistice.  Who says that the penalty for non-compliance with one or more parts of an armistice is the loss of the entire armistice?  What specifically was Saddam doing that violated the armistice?  And the bottom line is, even if the armistice were violated, that does not in anyway take away from the sovereignty of the alleged violator.

[sirs]

<<Talk about getting it bass-ackwards  >>

OK, let's.  You've STILL got it bass-ackwards because the facts are clear that he started the war without an overt attack on the U.S. from Iraq.  Those facts are the grounds for the impeachment. 

See?, that's the bass-ackwards part.  Going to war doesn't = intention to go to war regardless.  You need EVIDENCE of the latter for the "impeachement grounds"  Just because you OPINE it was unprovoked, uncalled for, irresponsible, wreckless, or whatever adjective you want to use, simply is describing your perception of the war.  I'm sorry to say, that's not going to hold up in a court of law.  Congress authorized force, Saddam was not in compliance with UN 1441, serious consequences then ensued.  THOSE are the FACTS, MINUS the color commentary

Going to war against a country that did not attack you (or an ally you are legally bound by treaty to defend) first is unfortunately very much a smoking gun

And as you've said, WRONG.  We had authorization by Congress, including a boatload of Dems.  Now, you can OPINE they were all hoodwinked (sad state of how dumb all those congress critters must be), but again, no EVIDENCE of such, outside of your blinding Bush hatred

But I'm with Kucinich.  Kucinich says there are grounds for impeachment and I've just shown a major one, plain as day.  

No, you 2 have both shown the accusation minus any evidence to support it, outside of your OPINIONS.  We all shall patiently await for the latter.

[Michael Tee]

<<See?, that's the bass-ackwards part.  Going to war doesn't = intention to go to war regardless. >>

Going to war is evidence of going to war.  In the absence of any evidence of an attack by Iraq on the U.S.A. that would serve as a casus belli, going to war is evidence of going to war without any APPARENT provocation.

<<You need EVIDENCE of the latter for the "impeachement grounds"  >>

THAT is exactly where you are confused.  I don't need evidence of an intention to go to war "regardless" because going to war in the absence of a direct attack is a prima facie case that the war was <<
Sorry, who's opining here, you or me?  Whether or not Saddam was in compliance with UN 1441 or was noncompliant with lawful excuses are matters of law, they most certainly are NOT facts.  Similarly what consequences flow from any particular non-compliance is also a matter of law for a court to determine after hearing all the facts. 

<<THOSE are the FACTS . . . >>

Absolutely they are not facts.  They are YOUR OPINIONS, pure and simple.  They are CONCLUSIONS that you believe a court will come to and that I believe they will not come to. 
==============================================================================
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on June 20, 2008, 10:36:29 PM
<<Going to war against a country that did not attack you (or an ally you are legally bound by treaty to <<defend) first is unfortunately very much a smoking gun

<<And as you've said, WRONG.  We had authorization by Congress, including a boatload of Dems.  >>

You are totally fucked up, I am sorry to say.  Going to war without justification is a crime.  Congress cannot authorize the commission of a crime, much less can "a boatload of Dems" - - any more than the German Reichstag could have "authorized" the invasion of Poland.  A crime is a crime is a crime.  What part of that don't you get?

<<Now, you can OPINE they were all hoodwinked (sad state of how dumb all those congress critters must be), but again, no EVIDENCE of such, outside of your blinding Bush hatred>>

What's the difference, hoodwinked or not?  Compliant and crooked or innocent and dumb?  The crime did not consist of invading Iraq without Congressional authorization.  The crime consisted of invading Iraq when Iraq had not attacked the U.S.A.

[sirs]

<<See?, that's the bass-ackwards part.  Going to war doesn't = intention to go to war regardless. >>

Going to war is evidence of going to war.  In the absence of any evidence of an attack by Iraq on the U.S.A. that would serve as a casus belli, going to war is evidence of going to war without any APPARENT provocation.

Your problem again are the FACTS keep getting in the way.  We had 911.  We had determined TIES (both direct & non-direct) between Militant Islamic Terrorists (including AlQeada) and Iraq.  We had AUTHORIZATION by OUR CONGRESS.  We had SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES that would befall Saddam if he did not FULLY COMPLY with UN 1441.  He didn't.....the rest is history

What you don't have is evidence that the moron Bush someohow managed to fool EVERYONE.  So, trying to lay claim that going to war is the defacto "smoking gun" is the height of transparent Bush hatred and ignorance of both history and reality, Tee

 

<

[Michael Tee]

<<Your problem again are the FACTS keep getting in the way.  We had 911. >>

That is one fact.  Certainly in itself does not provide a defence for the invasion of Iraq.

<< We had determined TIES (both direct & non-direct) between Militant Islamic Terrorists (including AlQeada) and Iraq. >>

Sorry, wrong!  Those are not facts.  Those are alleged facts that need to be judicially evaluated as to (1) reliability (2) extent, timing, significance or meaning.  I don't accept them as fact and I don't see any reason for you to, either.  Right now all you've got is hearsay at least two or three steps removed from source.

<< We had AUTHORIZATION by OUR CONGRESS. >>

I believe firstly that Congress authorized Bush to act at discretion, so he'd still be responsible for the actions he chose.  In any event, it's irrelevant whether Congress authorized it or not.  As I pointed out in another thread, Congress can no more "authorize" an illegal act or crime of war than the German Reichstag could have authorized the Nazi invasion of Poland.

<<We had SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES that would befall Saddam if he did not FULLY COMPLY with UN 1441.  >>

You are very badly confused here.  Consequences of non-compliance with laws or UN Resolutions are matters of law and conclusions to be drawn after all the facts are considered.  They are certainly not facts, as you claim.  There are serious legal issues at stake - - what WERE Saddam's obligations precisely, in what way did he allegedly not comply, who had the right to insist on compliance, what sanctions could legally be imposed for non-compliance, what procedure would have to be followed to enforce them, who would oversee the procedure and who would enforce it?

<<He didn't.....the rest is history>>

Gee - - could you possibly simplify that any more for us?

<<What you don't have is evidence that the moron Bush someohow managed to fool EVERYONE. >>

Well, actually, sirs, he DIDN'T "fool EVERYONE."  Didn't fool me.  Didn't fool Barak Obama.  Didn't fool Noam Chomsky.  Didn't fool Dennis Kucinich.  Didn't fool the Prime Minister of Canada.  Didn't fool the Prime Ministers of Germany, France, China and Russia.  Didn't fool most of the world, in fact.  So all this bunkum about "everyone" being on the bandwagon at the time is just pure bullshit.  Better give it a rest, sirs.  That horse is dead.  Starting to stink, in fact.

<<So, trying to lay claim that going to war is the defacto "smoking gun" is the height of transparent Bush hatred and ignorance of both history and reality, Tee>>

Yes, except that I DIDN'T "try to lay claim" that "going to war" is the de facto smoking gun.  Pay attention, sirs.  For christ sake.  This is probably the third or fourth time I've had to make the distinction for you:  The smoking gun is going to war without being first attacked.
Here.  I'll say it again, in case you missed it again:  The smoking gun is going to war without being first attacked.  Sorry, sirs, but clearer than that I cannot be.

There is almost no case in modern recorded history which I am aware of in which a genuinely pre-emptive attack ever happened.  ALL of the genuinely justified wars that I can think of occurred in response to actual, verifiable attacks.  So when Bush makes war without being first attacked, the odds are extremely high that this was not justifiable on genuine grounds of preemption.  Thus, the indictment.  This is NOT to say that no defences are possible.  Once charged, he can raise any defence he likes.  But the case for impeachment for war crimes and crimes against humanity is very strong.  It should be brought immediately, and if Bush wants to defend himself on all the bullshit grounds you have suggested, good luck to him.