All the Presidents Lies

[BoredShirtless]

There are so many comedians in this thread:

1. The Democrat's back flips postdates Bush's lies. I wonder what's the next distraction from the bleating sheep; the quality of ice cream in Dakota? And did it occur to you sheep that they are back flipping now because many of them had formed their opinions from what Bush told us? Is it not ok to back flip after realising you were fed a steady diet of bullshit?

2. To all those who think it's necessary for the United States to be a ratifier of the ICC before Bush can be tried at the ICC; you're an idiot. If Bush went voluntarily [not that he would], he would be tried for breaching, amongst others, the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal. In particular, Principle VI:

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Before the sheep start wondering if the US falls under the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal, Resolutions 3 and 5 of 13 February and 11 December 1946 of the United Nations General Assembly confirm the "principles of international law recognised by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and by the judgment of the Tribunal".

The next question the sheep would ask is "well then does the US fall under the U.N. Charter?" The US Senate ratified the U.N. Charter under the Truman Presidency, 1945. Chapter 7, Article 51 of the UN Charter states that the only legal justification for engaging in military action without Security Council authorisation is self-defense.

Suck it down, little sheep.

[Sarevok]

The legal justifications do not really matter since no one has the power to enforce international law on the US.

[Zac Naloen]

The legal justifications do not really matter since no one has the power to enforce international law on the US.

so.... because your the most powerful nation on hte planet your free to do whatever the hell you want simply because you say so?

your not helping the worlds opinion of your country with comments like that.

[theski]

Zac Naloen wrote

so.... because your the most powerful nation on hte planet your free to do whatever the hell you want simply because you say so?

NO.... its because our constitution comes first.... our sovereign laws come before any International court.... SOrry no world UN government..

[theski]

BoredNutless wrote

blah blah blah

are you evening going to try and address why all of those poeple knew Iraq had WMD before Bush came into office... or just post more raving Title confirming shit....

[Patrick Degan]

I see the persistent fallacy of bringing up the statements of democrats (who obviously did not feel that the evidence was strong enough to merit military invasion of iraq) persists, as if anyone besides partisan-minded Americans gives a fuck if the democrats were wrong too. You think BoredShirtless is a democrat? Argue the damn thread properly.

It's part-and-parcel with the "Two Wrongs Make A Right" defence for the Golden Child —nevermind that, unlike the aforementioned Democratic senators who also thought Iraq had WMD's, none of them went before Congress and the nation and repeated the aluminium tubes myth and the Niger Yellowcake myth after those myths had been publicly exploded. Nor did they send a Secretary of State to make the case for war at the U.N. backed by such "evidence" as plagerised college term papers, forged documents, inaudible tape recordings of phone conversations, and other such material so vague as to have zero evidentiary value. It also ignores the fact that none of the CIA dossiers described Iraq as an Imminent Threat to the United States nor made any sort of policy recommendation for war.

[Stormbringer]

And did it occur to you sheep that they are back flipping now because many of them had formed their opinions from what Bush told us? Is it not ok to back flip after realising you were fed a steady diet of bullshit?

Except you realize that half those are from people in the Clinton Adminstration while he was the president?

[Nathan F]

There are so many comedians in this thread:

1. The Democrat's back flips postdates Bush's lies. I wonder what's the next distraction from the bleating sheep; the quality of ice cream in Dakota? And did it occur to you sheep that they are back flipping now because many of them had formed their opinions from what Bush told us? Is it not ok to back flip after realising you were fed a steady diet of bullshit?

Actually, no, they don't. If you'll notice, much of the information was said by Clinton, which says that the information was thought well before Bush.

2. To all those who think it's necessary for the United States to be a ratifier of the ICC before Bush can be tried at the ICC; you're an idiot. If Bush went voluntarily [not that he would], he would be tried for breaching, amongst others, the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal. In particular, Principle VI:

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

What war was committed against treaties? It was fought under the pretenses of deposing a violent dictator and enforcing the UN Resolution 1441. It wasn't conspired, it is clear that the information predated Bush's election by years. No go put your little aluminum foil hat back on and read through your Noam Chomsky collection to make sure the Secret Service hasn't stolen any of it.

Before the sheep start wondering if the US falls under the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal, Resolutions 3 and 5 of 13 February and 11 December 1946 of the United Nations General Assembly confirm the "principles of international law recognised by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and by the judgment of the Tribunal".

The next question the sheep would ask is "well then does the US fall under the U.N. Charter?" The US Senate ratified the U.N. Charter under the Truman Presidency, 1945. Chapter 7, Article 51 of the UN Charter states that the only legal justification for engaging in military action without Security Council authorisation is self-defense.

Suck it down, little sheep.

It was presumed to be self defense. It was thought that Saddam had WMDs, and was a threat to world peace. Also, Saddam was supporting Palestinian terrorism, so we could have, by proxy, been waging a war of self defense in the form of helping an ally. Suck it down, little anti-war propaganda whore. No laws were broken by deposing Saddam.

[BoredShirtless]

There are so many comedians in this thread:

1. The Democrat's back flips postdates Bush's lies. I wonder what's the next distraction from the bleating sheep; the quality of ice cream in Dakota? And did it occur to you sheep that they are back flipping now because many of them had formed their opinions from what Bush told us? Is it not ok to back flip after realising you were fed a steady diet of bullshit?

Actually, no, they don't. If you'll notice, much of the information was said by Clinton, which says that the information was thought well before Bush.

Nathan if you would have comprehended what you read, you'd have realised I was talking about the Democrat's who supported the war during the Bush Administration. But you're an imbecile, so you're excused.

2. To all those who think it's necessary for the United States to be a ratifier of the ICC before Bush can be tried at the ICC; you're an idiot. If Bush went voluntarily [not that he would], he would be tried for breaching, amongst others, the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal. In particular, Principle VI:

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

What war was committed against treaties?

Moron, it says “in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”. The U.N. Charter is an agreement.

It was fought under the pretenses of deposing a violent dictator and enforcing the UN Resolution 1441.

That's exactly what Bush said! You're a good little sheep aren't you ooo look at the cute little sheep doing impersonations of the President! Baaa-a-a-a-a!

It wasn't conspired, it is clear that the information predated Bush's election by years.

Some of the intel predated Bush. And your point isssssss....Clinton would have invaded too? News flash: he didn't. [And even if he had, so? Notice how this thread is about Bush's lies and bullshit, not a Clinton “what if?”]. Or is your point that because some of the intelligence came from the Clinton era, he is partially responsible for Bush's war? Dipshit. Even your red herrings don't make sense.

No go put your little aluminum foil hat back on and read through your Noam Chomsky collection to make sure the Secret Service hasn't stolen any of it.

This is the part where I'm meant to laugh, right? Ha ha ha...bbbaaa-a-a-a-a-a!

Before the sheep start wondering if the US falls under the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal, Resolutions 3 and 5 of 13 February and 11 December 1946 of the United Nations General Assembly confirm the "principles of international law recognised by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and by the judgment of the Tribunal".

The next question the sheep would ask is "well then does the US fall under the U.N. Charter?" The US Senate ratified the U.N. Charter under the Truman Presidency, 1945. Chapter 7, Article 51 of the UN Charter states that the only legal justification for engaging in military action without Security Council authorisation is self-defense.

Suck it down, little sheep.

It was presumed to be self defense.

A preemptive war without provocation and in response to no immediate threat is not self defense you fucking idiot. Passing 13 grades of education without knowing what “self defense” means is a Guinness World Record quality feat.

It was thought that Saddam had WMDs, and was a threat to world peace.

George, is that you?

Also, Saddam was supporting Palestinian terrorism, so we could have, by proxy, been waging a war of self defense in the form of helping an ally.

LOL! So sad.

Suck it down, little anti-war propaganda whore. No laws were broken by deposing Saddam.

Sooooo so sad.

[The Dark]

The following are statements made by former President Clinton, members of his former administration, and Democratic leaders in Congress about Iraq. You will see that they blend very nicely with what the Bush administration has been telling us. The reality is we have unanimity between the two parties and administrations on this matter, regardless of what you might be hearing right now.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Devotion to preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction...perhaps (though not likely) talking about invading, probably an excuse to continue the embargo and put pressure on returning the inspectors.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Diminish the threat," not "demolish the country." Additionally, this quote reads "if Hussein rejects peace (i.e. becomes non-peaceful, i.e. becomes violent), then we will eliminate his WMD programs." There is nothing in here about preemptively striking and deposing the ruler of a nation.

"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."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Probably the closest to anything churned out by the PNAC boys. However, this holds up Iraq as a specific example of a general group (rogue states that may use WMDs). At a different time, that same phrase could have just as easily been used for North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, or half a dozen other nations. The only reason Iraq is specifically in that quote is due to it being the day after the previous quote.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

This is an obvious reference to the tactical chemical and biological weapons used during the Iran-Iraq war (which we sold to Iraq) and used against the Kurdish rebellion caused by the demagoguery of the first President Bush. Additionally, all of these quotes were right after Hussein threw out the weapons inspectors. The current war was ramped up to while the inspectors were still investigating (and less than a quarter of the way through any reasonable expectation of search length).

(Note: I cut all the quotes after this, as they were during the Bush administration, and the main area of argument seems to be over the Clinton-era quotes)

[Vympel]

Nitpick: Hussein never threw out the inspectors, Richard Butler pulled them out unilaterally (right before 'Desert Fox') the end of inspections in 1998 was the US' own fault.

[The Dark]

Nitpick: Hussein never threw out the inspectors, Richard Butler pulled them out unilaterally (right before 'Desert Fox') the end of inspections in 1998 was the US' own fault.

My mistake. I was reading newer sources (should've known to read the ones from 1998). I'd forgotten (or never knew, I was barely in high school at the time) that the UN ordered the inspectors out after claiming Hussein was not cooperating with the mandate.

[Nathan F]

There are so many comedians in this thread:

1. The Democrat's back flips postdates Bush's lies. I wonder what's the next distraction from the bleating sheep; the quality of ice cream in Dakota? And did it occur to you sheep that they are back flipping now because many of them had formed their opinions from what Bush told us? Is it not ok to back flip after realising you were fed a steady diet of bullshit?

Actually, no, they don't. If you'll notice, much of the information was said by Clinton, which says that the information was thought well before Bush.

Nathan if you would have comprehended what you read, you'd have realised I was talking about the Democrat's who supported the war during the Bush Administration. But you're an imbecile, so you're excused.

WTF are you blathering on about, brainless? The Dems who supported the war during the Bush administration were also playing off info purported by your Saint Bill. I'm not psychic, you know, I read what I see, and what I saw was your typical irrational ranting and raving. You didn't make it clear who you were talking about, you said 'the Democrats.' Are you so dumb as to not realize that many of the democrats were elected under Klinton's term? The information developed during the Klinton era was often the same info put forth during the Bush era.

2. To all those who think it's necessary for the United States to be a ratifier of the ICC before Bush can be tried at the ICC; you're an idiot. If Bush went voluntarily [not that he would], he would be tried for breaching, amongst others, the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal. In particular, Principle VI:

What war was committed against treaties?

Moron, it says “in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”. The U.N. Charter is an agreement.

And that has to do with what? Did we violate the UN charter? No. We're not the UN's little bitch. Prove that the war was intentionally fought as an aggressive war and not as a preemptive defensive action. Are we supposed to dick around and let dictators get away with flipping off the UN, when the UN won't even enforce it's own resolutions?

It was fought under the pretenses of deposing a violent dictator and enforcing the UN Resolution 1441.

That's exactly what Bush said! You're a good little sheep aren't you ooo look at the cute little sheep doing impersonations of the President! Baaa-a-a-a-a!

Who gives a frell if Bush said it or not? Is it untrue? I love how you can carry on a nice debate...oh, wait, you can't. You must resort to third-rate juvenile ad hominems.

It wasn't conspired, it is clear that the information predated Bush's election by years.

Some of the intel predated Bush. And your point isssssss....Clinton would have invaded too? News flash: he didn't. [And even if he had, so? Notice how this thread is about Bush's lies and bullshit, not a Clinton “what if?”]. Or is your point that because some of the intelligence came from the Clinton era, he is partially responsible for Bush's war? Dipshit. Even your red herrings don't make sense.

That would be a good argument if your pea-sized brain could grasp what a red herring is. It was stated saying that the information couldn't be pegged on Bush by your moronic conspiracy theories seeing as though the information predated Bush.

No go put your little aluminum foil hat back on and read through your Noam Chomsky collection to make sure the Secret Service hasn't stolen any of it.

This is the part where I'm meant to laugh, right? Ha ha ha...bbbaaa-a-a-a-a-a!

Gah, I love how you make yourself look like a blithering idiot blinded by your own delusions of grandeur. Man, you keep up the good work of proving that VI!

Before the sheep start wondering if the US falls under the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal, Resolutions 3 and 5 of 13 February and 11 December 1946 of the United Nations General Assembly confirm the "principles of international law recognised by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and by the judgment of the Tribunal".

The next question the sheep would ask is "well then does the US fall under the U.N. Charter?" The US Senate ratified the U.N. Charter under the Truman Presidency, 1945. Chapter 7, Article 51 of the UN Charter states that the only legal justification for engaging in military action without Security Council authorisation is self-defense.

Suck it down, little sheep.

It was presumed to be self defense.

A preemptive war without provocation and in response to no immediate threat is not self defense you fucking idiot. Passing 13 grades of education without knowing what “self defense” means is a Guinness World Record quality feat.

And your being able to pass 13 grades of education while being mentally deficient is something that should be noted, too. It was thought by almost every world intelligence agency that Saddam had WMDs. He couldn't prove that he had destroyed his WMDs. Then there's the fact of him supporting terrorism...

It was thought that Saddam had WMDs, and was a threat to world peace.

George, is that you?

I shant even honor that with a reply.

[quote[
Also, Saddam was supporting Palestinian terrorism, so we could have, by proxy, been waging a war of self defense in the form of helping an ally.

LOL! So sad.[/quote] Nice retort, moron.

Suck it down, little anti-war propaganda whore. No laws were broken by deposing Saddam.

Sooooo so sad.

[/quote] Now, go return to wanking off to your wall-sized portrait of Saddam.

[Durandal]

You realize that a good portion of those quotes are actually from the Clinton Administration? That pretty much puts some pretty big nails in the notion that Bush pulled the whole thing out of his ass.

Bush is the one who pulled the weapons inspectors out and refused to give them more time, not Clinton. Bush was the one who thought the intelligence was solid enough to launch an invasion, not Clinton. After finding nothing, Bush assumed that his intelligence had to be true (even though the same intelligence agencies failed to foresee the September 11th attacks), never considering the possibility that there just might be absolutely nothing there.

Sorry, but when you're talking about sending our boys off to die and then spending billions on nation-building, there'd better be something concrete, regardless of which party is in office. The bottom line is that Bush said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and no solid evidence to support that conclusion ever existed, and it is now known to be completely false. People were dissecting and taking the administration's claims apart well before the invasion was launched. The administration completely ignored this criticisms. They fucked up. You're just trying to get Bush's description changed from "liar" to "bad decision maker" or "incompetent." Frankly, I don't care which it is, because either means that he shouldn't be the one in charge.

[JME2]

Just a comment: All politicians lie its in their nature,noone honest has ever been elected in office in the US or any other country.

Well f****ng duh!!

[Vympel]

Nitpick: Hussein never threw out the inspectors, Richard Butler pulled them out unilaterally (right before 'Desert Fox') the end of inspections in 1998 was the US' own fault.

My mistake. I was reading newer sources (should've known to read the ones from 1998). I'd forgotten (or never knew, I was barely in high school at the time) that the UN ordered the inspectors out after claiming Hussein was not cooperating with the mandate.

hehe. Nitpick again : the UN didn't order them out, Richard Butler did himself, without asking the UN. Reason being he was in the pocket of the US and knew there was an attack coming. This was right after he produced an uber-critical report of the Iraqis- right after the Iraqis found out he had connived in allowing spies into UNSCOM (thanks to Kofi Annan finding out about it and leaking it like crazy). Needless to say, their cooperation wasn't the best after that.

[GySgt. Hartman]

And that has to do with what? Did we violate the UN charter? No. We're not the UN's little bitch. Prove that the war was intentionally fought as an aggressive war and not as a preemptive defensive action.

Preemptive defensive action? Against Iraq? There is no way someone could take the spiced-up reports of intelligence no-goods over reports from weapons inspectors who actually have been there. Powell made a fool out of himself in front of the UN with these intel reports. Mobile weapons labs my ass.

Are we supposed to dick around and let dictators get away with flipping off the UN, when the UN won't even enforce it's own resolutions?

Do you know how many unenforced UN resolutions there are on Israel? Why didn't you invade them? Hint: Military enforcement of resolutions is not decided on by a single member, but by the UN council. The US wanted to ask for a vote, but didn't when they realized they wouldn't get it.
The rest of the world, was against this for two reasons:
(1) The weapons inspectors asked for more time. They were confident that there were no "WMDs ready to deploy within 30 mins."
(2) UN resolutions were enforced through embargoes and with diplomatic means.
(3) The mess that an invasion would leave of Iraq, disposing of the only secular government in that area. And don't give me human rights BS. The US doesn't care about human rights violations in other countries, they have brought dictators into power, toppling democracys because they were too "left".

[Oddysseus]

...Powell made a fool out of himself in front of the UN with these intel reports. Mobile weapons labs my ass...

That is one sad thing about these events. Among the victims of this admin are many of its mmebers. Remeber Powell pre-Bush? Respected. Admired. Both political parties wanted him to run for prez. That is over. Now he's seen as either weak or a yesman. Too bad. Then there is also Whitman. Considered by many to be a staunch enviromentalist, she led the EPA. But she kept getting tripped up, making statements, then having the WHite House call and curse her out about it, and then she'd retract her plans. At least, she left early on, either unwilling to work that way, or too much of pain in their backside over her opinions to be kept. I can respect that. Powell will most likely exit at the end of this term, but he stayed long enough to due permanent damage to his image and record (IMO). And will have to wait and see, will the WH be leaking rumors blaming him for certain problems afterward (they seem to spring leaks at the darnest times - and they can't keep just blaming everything on Clinton...oh wait, yes they can, and will)?

[Durandal]

You're right on the money about Powell. He used to be respected and admired; now he's Bush's fall man. Whenever Bush fucks up, Powell's out there taking the heat from the press.

[The Kernel]

You're right on the money about Powell. He used to be respected and admired; now he's Bush's fall man. Whenever Bush fucks up, Powell's out there taking the heat from the press.

I guess the arument is that he has either has too many skeletons in his closet already or he just isn't interested in furthering his political carrer, so he makes a convenient fall guy.

[Oddysseus]

Still, it's sad. He seems like such a stand up guy. I have to imagine he joined this administration to make a difference and use his clout. But they squandered the clout, and ususally don't really give a damn about what he thinks. Heck, either they go to the DOD or Dr. Rice on issues. And then their are also his underlings who have friends in the WH and can go over his head. He's even worked back up the ladder, go Bush to the UN, but he jsut used it as a pulpit to make demands. After war, glory, and service, he's going out impotent. Sad.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also, why have you yet to provide that list of war crimes committed by Bush and breaking of international laws that we have signed to.

Ass.

No Bush Senior is on Military record for straffing lifeboats.....
And he was the awknowledged black ops head for south america for years.

oh, wait were there any other war crimes relating to the Bush family?

[theski]

The Yosemite Bear wrote

No Bush Senior is on Military record for straffing lifeboats.....
And he was the awknowledged black ops head for south america for years.

Got any linkys.......???????????

[The Yosemite Bear]

I could probably dig up the Hearst family (pot calling kettle black) article about that, The south american stuff comes from Rafael Quinteros and G. Gordon Liddy's autobios. The won't say what happened, they just say that Bush was their boss in South America, although Quinteros says he (bush) was there for the torcher and execution of Che Guevarra.

[Joe]

The won't say what happened, they just say that Bush was their boss in South America, although Quinteros says he (bush) was there for the torcher and execution of Che Guevarra.

Really? Damn, I wish I could travel back in time and vote for Bush in 1992 then.