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

[Makalakumu]

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

 

[elder999]

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]

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

 

[Twin Fist]

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]

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 Bu[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. BuSh 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. BuSh 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 BuSh 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.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said.

The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.

[/FONT]

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

In sum, BuSh, 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]

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]

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:

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?"

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

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

 

[Twin Fist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[elder999]

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 chatter. 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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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

 

[FearlessFreep]

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]

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.