# Indict BuSh, and/or Cheney, and/or Rumsfeld



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2008)

I wish we could vote for more then one option.  I would have indicted all three.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I wish we could vote for more then one option. I would have indicted all three.


 

yeah, I meant to do that. Maybe we can hold off on voting until someone in authority changes it, if possible?


----------



## tellner (Jun 3, 2008)

Hang 'em all so high that the crows get nosebleeds.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 3, 2008)

it never ceases to amaze me that anyone can say anything they want on here about the president, with NOTHING factual to back it up, and it is ok because the president is a "public figure" but I cant reply with "partisian hack" because that would be "rude, dis-respectfull conduct"

sometimes the world just doesnt make sense


Never say die, huh Elder? doesnt matter that you have been PROVEN wrong, it doesnt matter that, you know actual LAWYERS could have acted on this over the last 6 years and havnt cuz there is no case, none of that matters

 just keep repeating it

BTW, this habit you have of selective use of capitals? it is pretty childish


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2008)

Firstly, here is the case law that applies:




> TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001Prev | Next § 1001. Statements or entries generally





> (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.



George *B*u[bD[/b]h, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld made prewar statements to Congress that they asserted as true but that they knew either were not true or might not be true. They made these statements with the intent to mislead Congress; these acts are covered under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 371, which makes it a crime to interfere with or impede the war-making powers of Congress. 

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said in the buildup to war:_* We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They are north, south, east and west.*_ Rumsfeld did not know. He knew that he was guessing. He did not tell the American people about the doubts that had been raised by his own defense intelligence advisors within the Pentagon. He asserted as true a fact that he had been advised was not at all certain and did so with the purpose to intentionally mislead the American people and Congress. 

During this same time frame, Vice President Cheney told audiences without equivocation that Saddam Hussein was renewing his weapons programs. Cheney knew that his sources were uncertain; he did not, however, reveal these uncertainties. Instead, he told the people, intending that Congress hear and be influenced, that the new weapons program was unequivocally true. Mr. Cheney did not tell Congress that he had motives of his own for invading Iraq  that his energy task force had secretly been poring over maps of oil resources in Iraq since early 2001, well before 9/11. He did not, that is, reveal facts that suggest a strong motive for intentional misrepresentation, which is the legal term for lying, and lying to Congress is, again, a crime under Section 371. 
Rumsfeld and Cheney are two, and that is enough under Section 371 to prove a conspiracy.
What about the president? In the winter of 2003, he solemnly proclaimed to Congress that he had not made up his mind whether to invade Iraq, a statement intended to induce Congress to believe that he would continue to review the facts with them. 
But there is substantial evidence that Mr.* B*u*S*h had no doubt whatsoever. Nine months earlier, in May 2002, he had ordered the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare battle plans for the invasion of Iraq. In June, he declared a policy authorizing preemptive war, allowing himself to choose war against any country he considered dangerous. In June/July he shifted $700 million from Afghanistan to operations in Iraq. In July he indicated to the British prime minister that it was only a matter of time until the United States invaded Iraq; his staff even explained to the British that intelligence providing justification for war would be shaped to make the case. In the autumn, he orchestrated a public-relations campaign repeatedly warning Congress against an Iraqi mushroom cloud, although in October the CIA had told him that such an event was unlikely. In October, he told Congress that his facts were sure and that they should rely upon him. 
Mr.* B*u*S*h had been carefully planning war against Iraq throughout 2002. His denials of any such intention misled Congress into believing that it would be asked to support war only if Saddam Hussein did not cooperate or upon facts yet to be determined. In fact, as the above recitation makes clear, the presidents decision seems to have been made many months before, and nothing Hussein might have done would have changed that decision. The effect of presidential assertions to the contrary was to delude Congress into believing that its opinion mattered and that its war-making powers were still relevant. Unknown to them, congressional intentions had been irrelevant for over a year. 
Additionally, in his 2003 State of the Union address, prior to the invasion of Iraq, President *B*u*S*h asserted that Iraq (Saddam Hussein) had tried to obtain uranium from Niger. This assertion was later attributed to faulty intelligence, but there is an ample evidence that the President and his staff had been made aware that the intelligence might be less than accurate. 



> [FONT='Arial','sans-serif']CIA officials warned members of the Presidents National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.
> 
> The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and thats how it was delivered.
> 
> ...


[/FONT]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']As seen on  CBS.[/FONT]

In sum, *B*u*S*h, Cheney and Rumsfeld, during the course of 20022003, spoke and acted in ways that the law considers fraudulent. They were asserting as true facts that they either knew were not true or knew that they did not know the truth thereof. These misrepresentations were intended to, and did, interfere with Congress in the fair performance of its constitutional duty to declare and support war. An indictment, therefore, under 18 USC 371, charging a criminal conspiracy to throw Congress off track, intentionally impeding its rightful function, would appear to have a substantial legal and factual foundation.
So, Ill put it to you, the MartialTalk Grand Jury: do we have a true bill for indictment of the individuals in question?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 3, 2008)

I would say that there was certainly a hefty dose of deliberate 'politicisation of the facts'.  

Particularly in light of the fact that whatever WMD's Iraq had got vapourised in Gulf War Part 1, along with so much of the countries infra-structure that it would be very unlikely that a weapons program could've been resuscitated in time to give an excuse for Gulf War Part 2.  

If you're wondering what evidence there is for the destruction of the chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, it's called Gulf War Syndrome.  If you think that that is baseless, just ask any Gulf War ground forces veteran what their opinion is of why their chemical/biological attack sensors kept alarming when they were downwind of air-strikes (and why they were ordered to disregard same as 'false alarms').

I don't have enough legal knowledge to say whether such deceit on behalf of your government officials is indictable or not but it's certainly reprehensible.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> it never ceases to amaze me that anyone can say anything they want on here about the president, with NOTHING factual to back it up, and it is ok because the president is a "public figure" but I cant reply with "partisian hack" because that would be "rude, dis-respectfull conduct"
> 
> sometimes the world just doesnt make sense


 
Well, no-again. You're forgetting your basic civics. In order to hand down an indictment, two of the people in this poll would first have to be impeached, which simply isn't going to happen because of the Republicans in Congress.....talk about "_partisan_ hacks." :lol:



TwinFist said:


> Never say die, huh Elder? doesnt matter that you have been PROVEN wrong, it doesnt matter that, you know actual LAWYERS could have acted on this over the last 6 years and havnt cuz there is no case, none of that matters


 
"PROVEN" wrong, where. exactly? Which actual "LAWYERS?" 




TwinFist said:


> BTW, this habit you have of selective use of capitals? it is pretty childish


 
So's your "shouting....."


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 3, 2008)

you are equating my emphasis on certain words to your habit of capitalizing EVERY "b" and "s" in the presidents name?

your posts are a waste of time to anyone that doesnt already agree with you


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> your posts are a waste of time to anyone that doesnt already agree with you


 

*<snark mode "on">* Don't you mean that my posts are a waste of time to anyone that already disagrees with me?*<snark mode "off">* :lol:


----------



## crushing (Jun 3, 2008)

Twin Fist,

While I don't agree with you on many (if not most) things, I do agree that the whole "BuSh" thing does make the posts that use them appear adolescent.  How does one take seriously posts that use "BuSh", or for that matter Dumbya, Klinton, Chimpy, Hitlery, etc.?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 3, 2008)

crushing said:


> Twin Fist,
> 
> While I don't agree with you on many (if not most) things, I do agree that the whole "BuSh" thing does make the posts that use them appear adolescent.  How does one take seriously posts that use "BuSh", or for that matter Dumbya, Klinton, Chimpy, Hitlery, etc.?



I must concur


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 3, 2008)

indict these people too:

Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He [Saddam] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." 

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [here]but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." 

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, September 1999: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." 

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, December 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."



I mean, if you are into the TRUTH, then it shouldnt matter that these are dems, you will want to indict them to, since they said the EXACT SAME THING

or are you only into bust republicans?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 3, 2008)

As there is no statute of limitations for murder, should Ted Kennedy be indicted for the death of Mary Jo?
Should we indict Senator Clinton for hiding the Rose Law Firm records from investigators? 
Should we prosecute Al Gore for his conflicts of interest?
Should Bill Clinton be held responsible for bombing the Chinese embassy? 
Should Jimmy Carter be tried for Desert One?
Should we posthumously try Jack and Bobby Kennedy for wire tapping Martin Luther King Jr?
Oh, nevermind, I forgot, the only crimes that exist in your little world are committed by Republicans...


----------



## arnisador (Jun 3, 2008)

I don't see what's indictable here. Poor judgment? You can't prosecute for that.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2008)

crushing said:


> Twin Fist,
> How does one take seriously posts that use "BuSh", or for that matter Dumbya, Klinton, Chimpy, Hitlery, etc.?


 
&#8220;Seriously?&#8221;


*Seriously?!*

I mean, short of the occasional plea for help, genuine distress, sharing of emotion, what in the world makes you think that I take any of this seriously? Or, more importantly, that I expect to be taken seriously?

I mean, my avatar is some sort of mutated great white shark with a keyboard, fer chrissakes!

It&#8217;s the _Internet_, already-I don&#8217;t take it seriously; I view almost everything I have to say here as a diversion, and so should you-for the record:I&#8217;m not being serious. I hardly even care-America is on a rocket-powered sled to hell, and it&#8217;s taking the rest of the world with it, and it doesn&#8217;t matter at all who&#8217;s in the Oval Office.

In all seriousness, BuSh, Cheney and Rumsfeld aren&#8217;t ever going to be indicted-whether they committed crimes, we can prove they committed crimes, or they continue to commit crimes or not. In all seriousness,if  Obama gets elected to the White House (as if!), and the balance of power in the House and Senate goes well over 70%  Democratic, and Obama initiates some sort of sweeping investigation into the previous regime, nothing will happen, because the corporate masters whom Obama and BuSh both serve, won&#8217;t allow it&#8230;.

At least, that&#8217;s what I seriously think-I also seriously think that a real LAWYER could make the case for the terrible trio&#8217;s indictment under the statute-it&#8217;ll never happen, though.

I mean, _seriously_-(emotional sharing, genuine distress mode &#8220;on&#8221 someone recently commented to me that they don&#8217;t understand how I can reconcile what I do with myself, and how they couldn&#8217;t. 

Frankly, it&#8217;s not easy. I did grow up in the age of &#8220;duck and cover,&#8221; and I kind of fell into the work I do in steps-and, to be able to _undo_ you gotta learn how to *do*, very often, and that&#8217;s where I am. 

I can tell you the best way to guarantee results from a car bomb, tell you how to poison an entire office building full of people, look at the results of a car bomb and forensically determine (or at least help to) the trigger mechanism, type of explosive and country or perhaps even factory of origin. I can disassemble a variety of devices, tell you how to make a WMD (or five!) from a trip to True Value hardware. I can perform all sorts of emergency medical procedures, defuse bombs, operate an accelerator, operate a nuclear power plant,operate a diesel locomotive (don&#8217;t ask, because I won&#8217;t tell) tear apart a vintage engine and rebuild it, but I can&#8217;t even properly post a goddam internet poll, and you think I&#8217;m being serious?

You want me to be serious? Oookay-My first wife died when I was 33, leaving me to raise two small children to adulthood,My 40 year old sister died, right before  this past New Year&#8217;s,after a short illness. My job requires a lot of travel, and I developed a blood clot in my leg driving back and forth while my sister was sick. I&#8217;m raising my teenage nephews, now-after raising my own kids into adulthood and getting a taste of child-free life. I've had nothing but stressful and dangerous jobs for my entire career-my job currently causes me an _inordinate_ amount of stress, not only because of its content, the constant threat it poses to my life, the constant threat it poses to other people&#8217;s lives, the fact that on a regular basis I&#8217;m required to make decisions that might lead to a colleague&#8217;s death or injury-or, at least make decision like that during drills, which is even worse-but it causes me stress because of the stupid, stupid people at the head of the organization, starting with the current administration and going back through the Clinton administration to the first Bush administration-every one filled with bureaucratic know-nothing, corporate dunderheads. 

Whew!-*that's* serious, and I'm sorry for _boring_ you with it.

All of this-including this post, this very one you're reading now-is not meant to be taken seriously. It&#8217;s a diversion. Sure, I&#8217;ll tell the truth, as I see it, and sure, I&#8217;ll expect some &#8220;serious discussion&#8221; from time to time, but it&#8217;s a diversion, and not meant to be much more than that, most of the time. 

I mean, &#8220;Indict BuSh?&#8221; I&#8217;ve met the man more than once-seems nice enough, but I don&#8217;t take HIM that seriously-he can&#8217;t even _pronounce_ &#8220;nuclear.&#8221;:lol:'

A wise woman once gave me some advice about all of this "Internets"  (that's a BuShism, for those of you who don't know)-she said not to take it seriously. TwinFist, I'm genuinely glad for youn that you're teaching in your own dojo-that's serious. Don't take _this_ seriously. It's just *chat*ter. Chat away, then go play with your kids, vote, go to work, go grocery shopping-live in a bunker and horde food like I do, even.....:lol:

Oh, and go ahead an post your responses, and vote in the poll, and I'll respond, etc., etc., etc., but try to remember that I don't take any of this seriously, for the most part, and don't think that you should, either.....


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 3, 2008)

if you are joking, SAY you are joking

but here is the rub, I dont think you are joking i think you really are just that partisan. i dont think anyone else thinks you are joking either, not if they have ever read any of your posts.

But, since you have just told us that we shouldnt take you or your posts seriously, trust me, i wont make that mistake again.

have a nice life bro. Try not to stress out.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> if you are joking, SAY you are joking
> 
> but here is the rub, I dont think you are joking i think you really are just that partisan. i dont think anyone else thinks you are joking either, not if they have ever read any of your posts.
> 
> ...


 

I'm not partisan at all. I think Barack Obama has the potential to be another Jimmy Carter, only worse-doesn't make him a bad guy, just a bad president. 

I think McCain is basically a decent person, and somewhat non-partisan. I hope he wins. Especially since then the Democrats won't be blamed for the even worse mess we're in come 2014......:lol: He's going to restore the pathway to nuclear disarmament, and non-proliferation, and that's enough to get _my_ vote.

And,, yeah, I seriously think that BuSh, Cheney and Rumsfeld broke the law-so what? People get away with murder every day......

I have a *very* nice life, all things considered-it's my job that sucks, and that's changing....hell, I can always quit......
.....and, uh-_don't call me "bro"_:lol:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 3, 2008)

Well, he could have called you "miss"....

I did so hate working drive through when I had (long) hair. :rofl:


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 3, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, he could have called you "miss"....
> 
> I did so hate working drive through when I had (long) hair. :rofl:



You know how many times I've had the waitress ask my wife and I "are you ladies ready to order?" ?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 3, 2008)

I can imagine. Course I had a beard too at the time.... 



Ok, I'm tangenting this bad, I'll shut up so it can go back on topic.


My vote - Indict em all. make it a visual vote where they line up all the yes, no and abstaining voters on stages and show the vote live on TV. No hanging chads, no hacked buggy machines, etc. 

Then we let em go or make em dance on air, then move on with life, and trying to decide if we eat this week or buy a gallon of gas.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My vote - Indict em all. make it a visual vote where they line up all the yes, no and abstaining voters on stages and show the vote live on TV. No hanging chads, no hacked buggy machines, etc.


 
Any chance of your making it so we could vote that way?


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 3, 2008)

You can freaking indict a ham sandwich, right?   This mess in Iraq is not going to end very well.  The English know that you can invade Iraq, but you cannot occupy it.  It is not possible.  I have been reading about this.   Winston Churchill was in charge of trying to occupy Iraq during WW2 -- to try to keep the Nazis from getting to that oil.    It was the same mess then.  

The Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shias ended up fighting each other then, too!  Just like now!  

If there are indictments to be made, that's one thing, but, there needs to be a resolution to this mess, one way or the other way!  General Powell said to the President, "If you break it, you buy it."  BUT no one listened to Powell!


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 3, 2008)

And yes, I know that he was part of all of this "they have the weapons of mass destruction" argument, but he must have certainly been doing what he was told to do.  He tried to put the brakes on it before it got out of hand. 

He has more sense than any of the bunch involved.  He should be the one as President -- a Ranger.  It might be just a bunch of "fruit salad" on his uniform, but I don't think so.  He went to the Ranger School, even if he got off easy because he was an officer, who knows?  

He wanted the footprint of the forces in Somalia to be lightweight, and look what happened there.  He knows from that mistake though what a mess can happen.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 4, 2008)

"This mess in Iraq is not going to end very well."

uh, have you missed the news for the last 6 months?

the surge WORKED

violence is down, the wild areas are tamed, the iraqi government is working, street opinion of the terrorists has gone negative for the first time ever, opinion of US has gone positive

try to keep up, the opinion that 'this is going to fail" is sooooo last year

as far as getting indictments, you notice the overwhelming silence when it is pointed out that if you wanna do that you need to start in the mid 90's with democratic officials? 

that lets you know it is just a partisan move, not a search for the truth.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> "This mess in Iraq is not going to end very well."
> 
> uh, have you missed the news for the last 6 months?
> 
> ...


More people were murdered last month in NYC than American troops were killed in Iraq. 
Oh, and, just by the way... CLICK HERE


----------



## Big Don (Jun 4, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I don't see what's indictable here. Poor judgment? You can't prosecute for that.


If you could, we'd have to get JFK for the Bay of Pigs,  Carter for  89% of his presidency,  etc


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Seriously?
> 
> 
> *Seriously?!*
> ...


 
To use an Americanism "WAY TO GO ELDER! "

Loved the post, couldn't give you rep again though so here's it in public.
It *is* just the internet, it's sitting writing tongue in cheek while people have a sense of humour failure at what you write. It's gently pricking pomposity, making light of serious subjects like politics because let's face whatever we think or write, the truth is we can do little to change things so better to laugh than cry. It's being accused of being angry when you're sitting at your computer with a big grin on your face, it's replying to childish posts with adult humour ( I don't mean smutty humour btw) it's also having people read far more into what you write than you meant when you posted that throwaway line. It's funny, it's amusing and it's not real!
 The martial arts posts are great, informative and great sharing information, views and techniques with some great people but the rest, that's just as Elder says, a diversion.
Keep posting Elder!


----------



## Big Don (Jun 4, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I'm not partisan at all.


:lol:





> I think Barack Obama has the potential to be another Jimmy Carter, only worse-doesn't make him a bad guy, just a bad president.
> 
> I think McCain is basically a decent person, and somewhat non-partisan. I hope he wins. Especially since then the Democrats won't be blamed for the even worse mess we're in come 2014


 But, you're not partisan at all...





> ......:lol: He's going to restore the pathway to nuclear disarmament, and non-proliferation, and that's enough to get _my_ vote.
> 
> And,, yeah, I seriously think that BuSh, Cheney and Rumsfeld broke the law-so what? People get away with murder every day......


  Mary Jo Kopechne... 





> I have a *very* nice life, all things considered-it's my job that sucks, and that's changing....hell, I can always quit......
> .....and, uh-_don't call me "bro"_:lol:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2008)

Big Don said:


> But, you're not partisan at all... ..


 
Bush and the Republicans smashed the pottery barn (Iraq) and wrecked the family station wagon (the economy). It's not going to get any better any time soon, and it'll be a shame if Democrats get blamed for what's to come.....Republicans broke it, and bought it, they should fix it, and buy us a new car, too....:lol:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2008)

http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf

Some light reading. The Butler report on the British Intelligence reports leading to the Iraq war.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 4, 2008)

ADMIN NOTE:

Okay folks. After some trial and error, this poll is assuredly a multiple-answer poll so you can choose more than one answer when responding.  

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator


----------



## tellner (Jun 4, 2008)

elder999 said:


> A wise woman once gave me some advice about all of this "Internets" (that's a BuShism, for those of you who don't know)


 
Can't you libruls ever get your facts straight? 

He called them "The Interwebs".


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 4, 2008)

tellner said:


> Can't you libruls ever get your facts straight?
> 
> He called them "The Interwebs".



just a series of Tubes


----------



## crushing (Jun 4, 2008)

tellner said:


> Can't you libruls ever get your facts straight?
> 
> He called them "The Interwebs".


 
Was he a Babylon 5 geek?



FearlessFreep said:


> just a series of Tubes


 
It's funny the nomenclature people come up with to un-techify complex mechanisms.  Remember when the term was 'superhighway'?  That one even caught on in the media!  LOL!


----------



## Big Don (Jun 4, 2008)

crushing said:


> Was he a Babylon 5 geek?
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny the nomenclature people come up with to un-techify complex mechanisms.  Remember when the term was 'superhighway'?  That one even caught on in the media!  LOL!


Al Gore claiming to have invented it shot that term all to hell.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2008)

Bush misused Iraq intelligence: Senate report 



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and his top policymakers exaggerated Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism and ignored doubts among intelligence agencies about Iraq's arms programs as they made their case for war, a Senate committee reported on Thursday.
> The Senate intelligence committee said in a study that major Bush administration statements that Iraq had a partnership with al Qaeda and provided it with weapons training were unsupported by intelligence, and sometimes contradicted it.
> It also said statements on Iraq's weapons before the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion were substantiated in most cases by available U.S. intelligence, but that they_ failed to reflect internal debate over those findings._
> The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration's main case for war -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- was inaccurate and deeply flawed.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 5, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> "This mess in Iraq is not going to end very well."
> 
> uh, have you missed the news for the last 6 months?
> 
> ...


 
Thats the point isnt it...god damn it we cant let W WIN this one!!! So we will just keep repeating the mantra of defeat.

We will "loose" is we all believe that wars can be won in a matter of months with light losses and and an immediate withdrawal of troops leaving a happy and free society behind.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Jun 7, 2008)

8 years ago, we had a surplus and cheap gas, and low prices.
Today, we're in debt, gas is at record highs, and prices are skyrocketing.

Can we add the rest of the government to the hangmans list too please?


----------



## brianhunter (Jun 8, 2008)

Edmund BlackAdder said:


> Today, we're in debt, gas is at record highs, and prices are skyrocketing.
> 
> Can we add the rest of the government to the hangmans list too please?



You mean hold the Democratic controlled congress and senate (2 years now by the way) responsible for something as well? NO WAY! It is all Bush's fault!


----------



## elder999 (Jun 9, 2008)

brianhunter said:


> You mean hold the Democratic controlled congress and senate (2 years now by the way) responsible for something as well? NO WAY! It is all Bush's fault!


 
Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to 2006, pretty much. During that time no departments of government have been abolished, no pork-barrel spending has been curtailed, federal spending was not reduced.

IN 1993, the federal debt stood at "just" $4 trillion.When Bush was first inaugurated it stood at about $5 trillion, by his second inauguration it was over $7 trillion, and in 2006 it topped $8 trillion. 

Wanna know where it is now? See  here. It's over $9 trillion, and climbing at about $1.6 billion a day. That means that each of us tax payers, and our children, and our children's children's children owes the world about an extra $30,000 in taxes.(Note that the "debt clock" does not include the interest we're being charged by foregin governments like China....)

Oooh, yeah, let's blame the Democrats-they'e been in control for two whole years...


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 9, 2008)

Congress spends money, and controls the collection of taxes.

not the President. He can only propose.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 9, 2008)

Edmund BlackAdder said:


> 8 years ago, we had a surplus and cheap gas, and low prices.
> Today, we're in debt, gas is at record highs, and prices are skyrocketing.
> 
> Can we add the rest of the government to the hangmans list too please?




uh, no, we didnt.

the surplus never was

it was a "projected" surplus, it was never actually REAL

and what does that mean anyhow? a surplus would mean the government was collecting more taxes than it needed to run the government. Thats isnt a good thing.

We were also in debt then too, but the Clinton friendly press just didnt make noise about it.

The president has zero control over the price of gas. or of much of anything else either.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2008)

Indictment of Cheney and Gonzales to move forward



> A Texas judge has set an arraignment for Vice President Dick Cheney, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other officials accused of involvement in prisoner abuse.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 20, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Indictment of Cheney and Gonzales to move forward


Yeah, this guy sounds really stable:NY Times story


> Mr. Guerra was under indictment on charges of theft and tampering with records for more than a year and a half, until a judge dismissed them last month. During that time, Mr. Guerra, a Democrat who has been in office 12 years, lost a re-election bid. He leaves office on Dec. 31.
> He also has been acting rather oddly since his arrest in March 2007. At one point, he camped outside the county jail in a trailer with a horse, three goats and a rooster, daring the sheriff to arrest him. Convinced that local law enforcement officers had aided the investigation against him, he threatened to dismiss hundreds of criminal cases in retaliation.


The guy is a disgraced loon.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 20, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The guy is a disgraced loon.


 
Maybe, but the _judge_ apparently doesn't think so.....:lfao:


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 21, 2008)

lying about the war
abu graib
declaring the end of hostilities a few years early
mishandling of Katrina
shooting a Lawyer in the face
using a dummy corpoation to do business with Iran (Cheney)
war profiteering in Iraq through haliburton (Cheney)
the Tanking of the economy

just getting warmed up


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2008)

I dunno....is shooting a lawyer really all that bad? I can think of a few who I'd feed to lions if the SPCA wouldn't get so mad.


----------



## Frostbite (Nov 21, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I dunno....is shooting a lawyer really all that bad? I can think of a few who I'd feed to lions if the SPCA wouldn't get so mad.



I'm sure the SPCA wouldn't mind as much as long as you were sure the lions had their immunizations up to date.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 21, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I dunno....is shooting a lawyer really all that bad? I can think of a few who I'd feed to lions if the SPCA wouldn't get so mad.




It's bad cuz Cheney did it, yes, I'm biased....


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 21, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> lying about the war
> abu graib
> declaring the end of hostilities a few years early
> mishandling of Katrina
> ...



should I bother showing how every single one of those is false?

or is it worth the trouble when in all likelyhood, the mind behind them is already made up and wont care anyway...........


----------



## Big Don (Nov 21, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> lying about the war


 So then, we should have indicted Clinton and Gore for Bosnia? They said the troops would be home for Christmas about ten years ago (we still have some troops there...)





> abu graib


 Hmmm, so, we should indict Clinton for Ruby Ridge and Waco?





> declaring the end of hostilities a few years early
> mishandling of Katrina
> shooting a Lawyer in the face
> using a dummy corpoation to do business with Iran (Cheney)


 So we should indict Pelosi, McDermot, etc for usurping the Executive branch's job of foreign policy by travelling to and negotiating with Assad, Hussein, etc? Wait, a "dummy corporation?" What dummy corporation? Haliburton is a HUGE company...





> war profiteering in Iraq through haliburton (Cheney)


 You do understand Cheney's finances are in a blind trust, oh, nevermind, you don't understand that.





> the Tanking of the economy


 So, we should have indicted Carter, Hoover, and FDR?





> just getting warmed up


----------



## crushing (Nov 21, 2008)

> Hmmm, so, we should indict Clinton for Ruby Ridge and Waco?



The Ruby Ridge Massacre happened in 1992 during the elder Bush's presidency, so it wouldn't make sense to indict Clinton for it.


----------



## Frostbite (Nov 21, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> should I bother showing how every single one of those is false?
> 
> or is it worth the trouble when in all likelyhood, the mind behind them is already made up and wont care anyway...........



I wouldn't mind hearing.  Please continue.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 22, 2008)

Yeah, he's really stable.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 22, 2008)

Perhaps at the end of every politicians term of office there ought to be a sort of trial or enquiry where all their decisions have to be justified and explained. It's not always possible at the time for them to explain due to national security issues but afterwards they should be made to explain everything they have done and the country can give it's verdict on them! In the cases where the country doesn't approve of the actions the politician loses his pension and is banned from working in such jobs that profit on their previous service ie writing autobiographies, giving talks, working for defence companies, the UN etc!
If politicians knew there was going to be a 'job review' when they'd finished and they'd suffer financially and with their reputation in tatters doomed to live out of the limelight if they had failed the test would they, I wonder, be more circumspect in their decisions?
I don't mean just presidents and prime ministers I mean all ministers of state and their equivelants.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> should I bother showing how every single one of those is false?
> 
> or is it worth the trouble when in all likelyhood, the mind behind them is already made up and wont care anyway...........




or they're not false, Cheney is one of biggest scumbags in office ever, serving under a Fratboy.... yes, my mind is made up, and the reagan revolution is quite dead thanks to them.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 22, 2008)

On Ruby Ridge and Waco, definately.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 22, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> or they're not false, Cheney is one of biggest scumbags in office ever, serving under a Fratboy.... yes, my mind is made up, and the reagan revolution is quite dead thanks to them.



every single thing you posted is FALSE

flat out wrong, not even with a GIANT game of semantics can any of them be said to be true

*lying about the war*
there is only two options.Either he thought he was right, or he knew he wasnt right. Your way, he had to lie, he had to get EVERY other intelligence agency in the world to lie too, and he even had to get Clinton to lie, SIX YEARS BEFORE BUSH RAN FOR PRESIDENT, since they ALL said the same thing.

*abu graib*
that was a violation of military law. Please show ANY indication that what happened there was by order of the president. Was Johnson impreached or indicted for my lai? no.

*declaring the end of hostilities a few years early*
wrong answer. Bush never declared hostilities over. The mission accomplished banner you are referring to was in regard to the defeat of the iraqi army. Which was in fact beaten. Plus, please show how the mission accomplished banner is either a "high crime or misdemeanor" which is the standard for impeachment. For that matter, show how it is a violation of ANY law

*mishandling of Katrina*
So, it is a crime on Nush's part that the governor of Louisiana refused to allow federal assistance to go in in a timely mannor? That IS required by the way, the local government HAS to formally request help BEFORE the federal people can step up.


Should I go on or do you just wanna admit that your Bush Derangment Syndrome is acting up?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> every single thing you posted is FALSE
> 
> flat out wrong, not even with a GIANT game of semantics can any of them be said to be true
> 
> ...


 


The problem is of course that the ultimate responsiblity for many things lies with the President/head of government or state. This is implicit and tacitly understood when the incumbent takes over the job. such things as Abu Ghraib are the Presidents responsibilty whether or not he gave the orders, though it seems highly unlikely he didn't. 
As for the intelligence reports, the British ones were made up from a students thesis, Blair lied about them. Others countries intel reports differed from the American and British ones.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 22, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> The problem is of course that the ultimate responsiblity for many things lies with the President/head of government or state. This is implicit and tacitly understood when the incumbent takes over the job. such things as Abu Ghraib are the Presidents responsibilty whether or not he gave the orders, though it seems highly unlikely he didn't.
> As for the intelligence reports, the British ones were made up from a students thesis, Blair lied about them. Others countries intel reports differed from the American and British ones.






uh, yeah

the fact that SADDAM himself claimed to have the things that we claimed he had, that doesnt matter a bit I guess............


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> uh, yeah
> 
> the fact that SADDAM himself claimed to have the things that we claimed he had, that doesnt matter a bit I guess............




wrong.... all these things are Buh and Cheney's fault.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 23, 2008)

wow, overwhelmingly logical, rational, and totally based in fact............

one last time, whats more important to you:
The Truth?
Hitting the "Bush is da Debil" button?


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 23, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> wow, overwhelmingly logical, rational, and totally based in fact............
> 
> one last time, whats more important to you:
> The Truth?
> Hitting the "Bush is da Debil" button?



The truth is Bush/Cheney bear responsibility for all things named, you've offered spin or denial.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 23, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> The truth is Bush/Cheney bear responsibility for all things named, you've offered spin or denial.


Immutable facts now = spin


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 23, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> The truth is Bush/Cheney bear responsibility for all things named, you've offered spin or denial.



prove me wrong, dont just CLAIM i am wrong, THATS spin.


or just admit that you cant prove a single thing you said, and go back to dailyKOS


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2008)

My prediction.  The economy deteriorates.  We have a full blown depression and currency crisis.  A lynch mob shows up in Texas.  Bush didn't "cause" any of these things, but he will be the scapegoat.

That's how he's being painted.  The history books will not be kind regardless.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 24, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> My prediction.  The economy deteriorates.  We have a full blown depression and currency crisis.  A lynch mob shows up in Texas.  Bush didn't "cause" any of these things, but he will be the scapegoat.
> 
> That's how he's being painted.  The history books will not be kind regardless.


You left out how Obama will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and lauded as a great thinker even though his policies lead to sky high inflation, unemployment, etc. (oh, was I channeling the Carter admin? They are awfully hard to tell apart)


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2008)

Big Don said:


> You left out how Obama will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and lauded as a great thinker even though his policies lead to sky high inflation, unemployment, etc. (oh, was I channeling the Carter admin? They are awfully hard to tell apart)



I don't know how Obama is going to be viewed.  He doesn't have any more power then Bush did.  Presidents are just figureheads.  As far as our current economic position, you need to go back almost 100 years before you get to the root of where our economic problems stem from.  Banking and monetary policy are the root of these difficulties, not democrat or republican.  

When it comes to banking and monetary policy, there has always only been one party.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 24, 2008)

not really.

Here is the thing, pretty much ALL th eeconomic trouble right now comes from the democrats and thier social engineering.

Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac

With the liberals policy of "a house for everyone, wether they can pay for it or not" literally FLOODING the financial market with crap mortages, and with those being used to back mortage backed securities.

That explosion cased the crisis in Sept, where the nation lost confidance in the market.

that loss of confidance caused massive drops in value.

then the election happened.

And Since the Obamasiah wont shut the hell up about "WE GONNA RAIIIIISE US SOME TAXES, and some CAPITOL GAINS tax too!!!"

everyone is getting the hell out of the market.

Everything happening right now in the market is a DIRECT result of far left liberal policy.

Bush cut capitol gains, the market SOARED, Obama promises to RAISE capitol gains, the market tanks

figure it out.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> prove me wrong, dont just CLAIM i am wrong, THATS spin.
> 
> 
> or just admit that you cant prove a single thing you said, and go back to dailyKOS



No, you made the spin.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> prove me wrong, dont just CLAIM i am wrong, THATS spin.
> 
> 
> or just admit that you cant prove a single thing you said, and go back to dailyKOS



Right wing denial, you can't accept that it's over. Oh well...


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> not really.
> 
> Here is the thing, pretty much ALL th eeconomic trouble right now comes from the democrats and thier social engineering.
> 
> ...



All Bushie's fault, and you havent addressed Cheney's war profiteering.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 24, 2008)

your debate "style" reminds me of elementary school.

you IGNORE what is posted, make blanket statements and refuse to back them up.

You just pulled the internet version of "i know you are but what am I?"

prove what I posted wrong, or admit that you cant, and ......

you know what, skip it, just go back to reading the dailyKOS


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> your debate "style" reminds me of elementary school.
> 
> you IGNORE what is posted, make blanket statements and refuse to back them up.



Wrong answer, I just don't care to humor your Texas born rightie denial. You choose to believe that Cheney divorced himself from haliburton, yet we go into Iraq, for the oil and to avenge Frat Boy W's dad, because there was an alledged plot to kil him (It was later found out the Iraqi sercret service had no such records of any such operation, just like they don't seem to have had any nukes, we have yet to find pesky weapons of mass destruction. Because the premise of going to war was based on lies. Every life lost, blood on their hands. Under armored Humvies and the like, lack of initial numbers, etc, Rumsfeld's incompetence.)



> You just pulled the internet version of "i know you are but what am I?"
> 
> prove what I posted wrong, or admit that you cant, and ......



Make me. 



> you know what, skip it, just go back to reading the dailyKOS



I dont read dailyKOS, I just wrong you're wrong. You're a fellow Texan, they're arent family are they?


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 24, 2008)

And for the record, I PROVED, not asserted, not claimed, PROVED that Cheney doesnt make a dime from halliburton is THIS thread:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61852&page=2

that war profiteering?

it's crap, it is a LIE , it is FALSE

for god's sake man, his tax returns are PUBLIC record.

ANY income he makes is available for review

AGAIN

what is more important to you?

the truth?
or blind, mindless hate?

cuz right now you and the truth are not on a first name basis


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> And for the record, I PROVED, not asserted, not claimed, PROVED that Cheney doesnt make a dime from halliburton is THIS thread:
> 
> http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61852&page=2
> 
> ...



yer an angry lil' elf


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 24, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Wrong answer, I just don't care to humor your Texas born rightie denial.



wow, insulting someone based on where they live. Thats CLASSY, and sooooo intelligent.




zeeberex said:


> You choose to believe that Cheney divorced himself from haliburton,



no, i LOOKED IT UP and found the TRUTH, then I PROVED it on this very board.



zeeberex said:


> yet we go into Iraq, for the oil



oh, that old lie. Ok, WHERE'S THE OIL THEN??

the price of gas did nothing but GO UP, if we were stealing thier oil, our price would go DOWN.

not to mention this little piece of TRUTH
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61854

thats right, america soldiers were paying TWICE what locals were for gas. Gas we were supposedly trying to steal? 

DUH

pull your head out and think for JUST a second dude, the truth IS out there if you bother to LOOK for it



zeeberex said:


> just like they don't seem to have had any nukes, we have yet to find pesky weapons of mass destruction. Because the premise of going to war was based on lies.




WRONG ANSWER, once again, those pesky facts are beating your butt.

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64224

"But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements *"were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."*
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements *"were substantiated by intelligence information."*
On chemical weapons, then? *"Substantiated by intelligence information."*

YOU are just flat out WRONG



zeeberex said:


> I dont read dailyKOS, I just wrong you're wrong. You're a fellow Texan, they're arent family are they?




like i said, kindergarden reply

just admit it, you are WRONG

grab the truth, it will set you free


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

Again, as elves go, yer quite angry...


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 24, 2008)

there you go ladies and gents, facts versus blind irrational hate

I tried. 

I tried so very hard, but some people just dont have any interest in the truth


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> there you go ladies and gents, facts versus blind irrational hate
> 
> I tried.
> 
> I tried so very hard, but some people just dont have any interest in the truth



No we know the truth, you're just a bit cranky is all. There's no hate here. It's so easy to hide behind the hater label when you don't get your way. This been the worst administration in modern history and they won't be missed. And you really might deal with the anger thing.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 24, 2008)

prove anything i said wrong

prove it


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> prove anything i said wrong
> 
> prove it



Okay, I was wrong, you're obsessive AND angry


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Okay, I was wrong, you're obsessive AND angry



and wrong


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 24, 2008)

keep on digging. You aint making ME look bad here buddy.


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 24, 2008)

*mod voice on*
This thread is quickly turning into a childish "Yes, huh!" "Nuh-uhn!" argument.  Provide facts, links to facts or at the least intelligent argument.  The name calling on all sides (be that leftie or rightie) WILL cease or this thread will cease to be open for discussion.  Attack the message not the messenger is more than just a little ditty that Bob cooked up to humor folks visiting the Study... it's a rule we have every intention of following throug on.

Now, I return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
*mod voice off*


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 24, 2008)

I posted FACTS

I got insults over where I live in return...........


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Here is the thing, pretty much ALL th eeconomic trouble right now comes from the democrats and thier social engineering.



It's definitely part of the problem.  Deficit spending is also part of the problem.  But it's not the whole picture.  Our financial policies are flawed.  These decided upon almost 100 years ago.  You can't blame Bush for that...although I'm sure some people would try.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I posted FACTS
> 
> I got insults over where I live in return...........



Rightie isn't an insult


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 24, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> It's definitely part of the problem.  Deficit spending is also part of the problem.  But it's not the whole picture.  Our financial policies are flawed.  These decided upon almost 100 years ago.  You can't blame Bush for that...although I'm sure some people would try.



very insightful.


----------

