Post by: Finch on January 20, 2008, 04:40:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc
Edit: After searching I found out that it was from 2006. Still stupid anyways.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 20, 2008, 07:07:12 PM
If Bush wanted pardon himself or his people, he wouldn't need to put it in a bill. Congress isn't necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if he did it before he left office given the attitudes of some people who hate him.
Post by: Paddy on January 21, 2008, 05:48:37 AM
Quote
If Bush wanted pardon himself or his people, he wouldn't need to put it in a bill. Congress isn't necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if he did it before he left office given the attitudes of some people who hate him crimes he committed while in office.
Fixed it for you.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 21, 2008, 06:15:39 AM
Post by: ilbob on January 21, 2008, 08:50:35 AM
It seems entirely fair to me that people who in good faith acted in ways they reasonably believed were lawful should have some protection from politically based prosecution at some future date.
In fact, if he so chose to do so, there is no prohibition from him issuing a secret pardon and not publishing it. I can't imagine it would in any way invalidate such a pardon.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 21, 2008, 05:26:09 PM
Bush can issue a pardon for any such crimes as he so choses. No need for it to be in a bill passed by congress. The tone of the piece was clearly pretty hostile and one sided, so I am inclined to think it may well have left out important facts.
It seems entirely fair to me that people who in good faith acted in ways they reasonably believed were lawful should have some protection from politically based prosecution at some future date.
In fact, if he so chose to do so, there is no prohibition from him issuing a secret pardon and not publishing it. I can't imagine it would in any way invalidate such a pardon.
It seems entirely fair to me that people who in good faith acted in ways they reasonably believed were lawful should have some protection from politically based prosecution at some future date.
In fact, if he so chose to do so, there is no prohibition from him issuing a secret pardon and not publishing it. I can't imagine it would in any way invalidate such a pardon.
I am pretty sure that torturing people, murdering innocent Iraqi people, and lying to the country are illegal and "W" knew they were illegal from the getgo. What a sad state of affairs when people refuse to see that our president is essentially a dictator.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 21, 2008, 06:02:53 PM
I am pretty sure that torturing people, murdering innocent Iraqi people, and lying to the country are illegal and "W" knew they were illegal from the getgo. What a sad state of affairs when people refuse to see that our president is essentially a dictator.
Sometimes you guys just make me laugh.
Post by: Boomhauer on January 21, 2008, 06:42:13 PM
Quote
that torturing people, murdering innocent Iraqi people
That would be one bitchin' prez if he was actually pulling out terrorist's fingernails and whacking Iraqis left and right himself...
Way I see it, we could do with quite a bit more of "torturing" Islamofacists and not worrying so much about looking politically correct and soft. We'd win the war faster, probably.
You do realize that our military is supposed to kill people and break things, right? So using the military for war is "commiting war crimes"?
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 21, 2008, 07:01:42 PM
"Win the war faster"
Post by: Boomhauer on January 21, 2008, 07:05:03 PM
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 21, 2008, 07:12:48 PM
And to say that we need to torture more and that the only reason NOT to torture is to appear "politically correct" seems pretty ignorant/bloodthirsty to me.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 21, 2008, 09:10:48 PM
Also, calling GW a dictator is just silly. Congress voted for war and has continuously voted to fund it for five years now.
Post by: Finch on January 21, 2008, 09:23:42 PM
I am pretty sure that torturing people, murdering innocent Iraqi people, and lying to the country are illegal and "W" knew they were illegal from the getgo. What a sad state of affairs when people refuse to see that our president is essentially a dictator.
The people who fail to see how horrible this president truly is are also the ones who believe that they "Hate us for our freedoms". Essentially scared into supporting Bush's trampling of the constitution.
Post by: Bigjake on January 22, 2008, 03:06:33 AM
I am pretty sure that torturing people, murdering innocent Iraqi people, and lying to the country are illegal and "W" knew they were illegal from the getgo. What a sad state of affairs when people refuse to see that our president is essentially a dictator.
The people who fail to see how horrible this president truly is are also the ones who believe that they "Hate us for our freedoms". Essentially scared into supporting Bush's trampling of the constitution.
This is rich. If HALF of what you paulians say is true, Bush would've had any bill he wanted on his desk for the signing, John Kerry would be in exile for daring to challenge our "fearless leader" in 04', and Teddy Kennedy would be waterboarded on a daily basis (which wouldn't be a Bad Thing), not hand plucked to co-author Education Bills!!
Oh, and the NYT staff would've been drug out and shot for leaking state secrets (also, not a Bad Thing, Treason, anyone??)
Hell, if you Paulians are correct, I'll punch Dubya's ticket for president for life right now, and he can get one being chummy with Chavez and Castro.
Edited because I don't have complete mastery of the automatic "quote" button
Post by: ilbob on January 22, 2008, 03:30:01 AM
Congress voted for war and has continuously voted to fund it for five years now.
The cowardly way in which the left side of the aisle pretends to be against the war but funds every nickle of it says all you need to know. Its just political posturing.War is ugly. All kinds of things get broken, including laws and moral codes that would normally apply. If you engage in war you must either win or lose. Those are your two choices. There is no middle ground. Congress voted to go to war. They knew the score, and happily went along with it. They also know the bleak consequences of the cut and run approach some are now advocating because the victory is coming slower than one might want.
Get used to it. No matter who is elected (even RP), terror will be with us indefinitely.
BTW, guess who controls congress? Guess who can take this out of the bill? Guess who is also at risk (think Bill - "Bomb the Balkans at Random" Clinton)? Maybe even Hillary. Who knows how much she was involved in some of the shenanigans of that administration.
Post by: HankB on January 22, 2008, 03:59:58 AM
But the only "just war" that leftists believe in is the "war against poverty"
No, for a long time the only "just war" has been one in which the US had NO national interest to protect, hence Korea and Vietnam. (Did you know there was actually one leftist in congress that voted AGAINST declaring war on Japan on 12/08/41?!?) That's why the left wishes we had had committed our military to overthrowing the white-majority governments of Rhodesia and South Africa a couple of decades ago, supported our escapade in Somalia and the bombing of Serbia, and would like to see our troops in Darfur today. The people who fail to see how horrible this president truly is are also the ones who believe that they "Hate us for our freedoms". Essentially scared into supporting Bush's trampling of the constitution.
Bush sucks . . . though not entirely for the reasons libs assert. The lesser evil is still evil, and a great many people who cast Bush ballots were holding their noses and suppressing their gag reflexes when they did so.But Algore and/or Kerry would have been worse . . . the only positive thing that may have resulted from those administrations would have been a GOP congress that actually adhered to GOP principles like fiscal responsibility . . . something sadly lacking for the last 7 years.
Finally, note that Bush's approval rating is hovering around 30%, meaning 7 out of 10 people don't like the job he's doing. But that doesn't mean they want a sharp turn to the left - note that the Democrat -controlled Congress has an approval rating that's flirting with single digits.
Post by: Paddy on January 22, 2008, 06:38:29 AM
Some of you guys seem to buy the hype. GW and the Dems are much closer and chummier than they appear. See his friendship with Slick Willy? They are all part of the same ruling class. All the rhetoric is for the benefit of the riling up the unwashed masses for the next election.
Also, calling GW a dictator is just silly. Congress voted for war and has continuously voted to fund it for five years now.
Also, calling GW a dictator is just silly. Congress voted for war and has continuously voted to fund it for five years now.
The end must be near, because CAnnoneer and I completely agree!
Post by: MechAg94 on January 22, 2008, 08:54:44 AM
Post by: Finch on January 22, 2008, 10:40:44 AM
Finally, note that Bush's approval rating is hovering around 30%, meaning 7 out of 10 people don't like the job he's doing. But that doesn't mean they want a sharp turn to the left - note that the Democrat -controlled Congress has an approval rating that's flirting with single digits.
That is one of the last things I want. I don't want to go left or right. I want to go in reverse. To times when we didn't arbitrarily invade nations, pull money out of thin air, and use warrants that a judge has never seen. I don't blame Bush as the sole reason for all that ails, but what he is doing is like pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out. He's not helping the situation and is just making it worse.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 22, 2008, 06:06:31 PM
Quote
that torturing people, murdering innocent Iraqi people
That would be one bitchin' prez if he was actually pulling out terrorist's fingernails and whacking Iraqis left and right himself...
Way I see it, we could do with quite a bit more of "torturing" Islamofacists and not worrying so much about looking politically correct and soft. We'd win the war faster, probably.
You do realize that our military is supposed to kill people and break things, right? So using the military for war is "commiting war crimes"?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 22, 2008, 06:09:05 PM
Quote
that torturing people, murdering innocent Iraqi people
That would be one bitchin' prez if he was actually pulling out terrorist's fingernails and whacking Iraqis left and right himself...
Way I see it, we could do with quite a bit more of "torturing" Islamofacists and not worrying so much about looking politically correct and soft. We'd win the war faster, probably.
You do realize that our military is supposed to kill people and break things, right? So using the military for war is "commiting war crimes"?
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 22, 2008, 06:36:53 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 22, 2008, 06:41:01 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 22, 2008, 07:53:32 PM
Post by: Boomhauer on January 23, 2008, 03:56:18 AM
The Japanese sure as hell didn't.
The Vietnamese didn't
The Germans treated our POWs the best, but they still lacked a lot of the "rights"- the Germans pilfiered Red Cross packages, forced marches in the cold w/o adequate clothing, transporting them crammed together in boxcars, etc. Stuff far beyond what we are doing to the terrorists in Gitmo.
Yet, we treated their forces pretty damn well when we captured them. The ARVN, however, would often torture the NVA/VC if we turned them over, and the ROK troops were worse...
Post by: MechAg94 on January 23, 2008, 04:29:49 AM
That is one of the last things I want. I don't want to go left or right. I want to go in reverse. To times when we didn't arbitrarily invade nations, pull money out of thin air, and use warrants that a judge has never seen. I don't blame Bush as the sole reason for all that ails, but what he is doing is like pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out. He's not helping the situation and is just making it worse.
If you count the Indian tribes, there has never ever been a time when our nation did not arbitrarily invade other nations (even counting colonial times).
I guess some might not call it arbitrary.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 23, 2008, 05:39:54 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study
Study: False statements preceded war
Quote
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 36 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.
"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.
"The cumulative effect of these false statements amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.
"Some journalists indeed, even some entire news organizations have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.
"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.
"The cumulative effect of these false statements amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.
"Some journalists indeed, even some entire news organizations have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.