Some call for Bush administration trials

[steve_spackman]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/02/03/some_call_for_bush_administration_trials/?page=full

[Easy Drifter]

Trying to make Mt. Everest out a mole hill are we Steve?

[steve_spackman]

Trying to make Mt. Everest out a mole hill are we Steve?

not at all..i saw this and was wondering on peoples thoughts on it

[Tazio]

I've been a registered voter in the U.S since 1972!
GWB is the only Prez I ever *fantasized about assassinating!
I'm content in the knowledge that he is a "Dead Man Walking"
Surprised he is still with us to be honest!

*Yes Homeland Security I said "F-a-n-t-a-s-i-z-e-d" :rolleyes:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yet another fantasy being unfulfilled.....

Some people never give up. The man is RETIRED. GET OVER IT!!!

[Tazio]

Yet another fantasy being unfulfilled.....

Some people never give up. The man is RETIRED. GET OVER IT!!!

The man was a menace
Canada, worry about your leaders!
I had to refer to that miserable piece of crap as my President.
A real patriot. I think the most interesting adventure of his life was when he went missing from the Air National Guard between Texas and Bama.
Ends up he was enjoying some all-American fun snorting coke off the bellies of fine Alabama whores. Having a daddy that is the head of the CIA can make little shenanigans like that seem like they never happened. Finding the Lord is also helpful. His constituency of Bible Belt Southern Baptist’s got Sodomized by him.
Yes Mark let us forget history! That solution has been proven to be the best course of action since the beginning of civilization!
My god! What a gullible breed!

[Mark in Oshawa]

The man was a menace
Canada, worry about your leaders!
I had to refer to that miserable piece of crap as my President.
A real patriot. I think the most interesting adventure of his life was when he went missing from the Air National Guard between Texas and Bama.
Ends up he was enjoying some all-American fun snorting coke off the bellies of fine Alabama whores. Having a daddy that is the head of the CIA can make little shenanigans like that seem like they never happened. Finding the Lord is also helpful. His constituency of Bible Belt Southern Baptist’s got Sodomized by him.
Yes Mark let us forget history! That solution has been proven to be the best course of action since the beginning of civilization!
My god! What a gullible breed!

First off Taz. The man is retired. He is no longer your president. You can hate him all you want but give us all a rest from the hysterical rantings of how you want him tried.

Second of all I do worry about my leaders. That said I realize there are two or three different views of looking at the issues in my nation and I know I wont agree with 2 of the parties but at least I can respect that not everyone in the nation will ever agree on ANYTHING. What I find so repugnant is the bile and hatred this poor b@stard had heaped on his head right from the moment he announced he was even RUNNING. What the left in America hasn't grasped (or the left in Canada for that matter) that being "open minded" and "bi-partisan" usually means being JUST that. In the US, the people who hate Bush with such a passion often then turn around and say it is the Republicans that are small minded bigots who are NOT open minded. Funny...pot meet kettle....

Bush was a crappy President pal, I am not going to out right out on the limb and try to defend everything he did. That said..give Obama about one term and people will think of Jimmy Carter with fondness if this last 2 weeks are much to go by. Bush sucked at communicating and he shouldn't have invaded Iraq because he had not a clue what to do after he took out Saddam but I can tell you that most of the Dem's in Congress were quite willing to be on board the invasion train as long as it stayed on the rails. "I voted for the war until I voted against it" is a quote that will go down as one of the most assine things ever said in an election anywhere and it is the proof I need to say to those who hate Bush you couldn't find ONE guy better than THAT jerk?

No...to those of you who hate Bush, you have bigger fish to fry now. Your wallets are under attack and your Congress is blowing the next generation's money down the tubes on an attempt to bring socialism to the USA. Good luck with that......we had a dumb@ss Prime Minister in Canada who didn't go half as far as Obama is going this week and we still are paying for it.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh ya...Bush in his party days didn't do one thing different than Bill Clinton proabably didn't try except Bush didn't get as much "bush". You guys worship Clinton yet think it is a crime Bush did drugs.....

Ya he was a rich kid with a dad with power. Sorta like Kennedy without the Charisma. OH well....chalk that one up to experience.
Still, you want to use all that bile on something useful? How about Barney Frank for encouraging banks to loan money to poor families who couldn't afford it? How about Senator Dodd heading up the financial oversight committee with his dirty connections to a few banks caught up in this mess? THose two jerks did more to hurt the US economy than anything Bush did or didn't do.......because they let the financial shennigans go on while being in a position to put a stop to it as their roles as watchdogs for the government.

Face the reality, if the people of the US wanted to put on trial every politician that screwed up, you wouldn't have one member of the Congress NOT on trial.....

[Tazio]

I don't want him tried! I never even read the link! Being disgraced is what I want him to be
I haven’t forgotten that when he was running for office he said he wanted to run the country like corporation! He failed to mention that he meant one like Enron! You don’t have a vote here! So let me give you two cents worth of free advice. Stop comparing our politics with Canada's! We already had a constitution that worked until the Bushies whiped their @sses with it! You are convinced that I'm a bleeding heart liberal. What are you basing that on?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't want him tried! I never even read the link! Being disgraced is what I want him to be
I haven’t forgotten that when he was running for office he said he wanted to run the country like corporation! He failed to mention that he meant one like Enron! You don’t have a vote here! So let me give you two cents worth of free advice. Stop comparing our politics with Canada's! We already had a constitution that worked until the Bushies whiped their @sses with it! You are convinced that I'm a bleeding heart liberal. What are you basing that on?
You sounded like all the other bleeding heart libreals who want Bush nailed to a cross somewhere. The ranting and raving was likely what gave me that impression.

AS for my opinion, I spend more time in the US doing my job than I do up here, so it isn't like I am not informed nor aware of what is going on down there. Furthermore, your 1st amendment doesn't say "this doesn't count if you are not a citizen" so forgive me for tossing in my 10 cents.

As for the Consititution and how Bush "wiped his @ss" with it, I suppose his sworn duty to defend the nation was something he felt he should ignore? If he broke the law ( and this is one that will be argued about long after you and I are gone ) then it was a real gray area and there was more lawyers telling him he could do it then there was saying don't do it. Hey, I think he sucked as a President on a lot of levels but spare me the bile and hate towards the guy. It sounds irrational and silly and it is a trademark of the silly left, not from a guy who purports to not be a bleeding heart libreal. Your arguments could have come straight off the Daily Kos website.....

[Eki]

"I voted for the war until I voted against it" is a quote that will go down as one of the most assine things ever said in an election anywhere and it is the proof I need to say to those who hate Bush you couldn't find ONE guy better than THAT jerk?


How is it a bad thing to correct your ways after noticing you've been wrong? Would you go to an AA meeting and tell people there that they are pathetic flip-floppers, since first they were drinkers and now the try to stop drinking? In that sense Bush is a flip-flopper too. He has (supposedly) kicked the habits of alcohol and cocaine use.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh yes...if you are not a bleeding heart libreal, thank god for that. We have enough of those around here.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

How is it a bad thing to correct your ways after noticing you've been wrong? Would you go to an AA meeting and tell people there that they are pathetic flip-floppers, since first they were drinkers and now the try to stop drinking?

Eki, if the war in Iraq truly ended 4 seconds after Bush landed on that carrier, that blowhard John Kerry would have been the guy waving the pom poms trying to get some of the magic dust off of Bush. Kerry was only "against" the war when it was clear it might get him votes. The first hallmark of a scoundral in politics is to change one's mind to suit the direction the wind is blowing. Here is a novel concept, have a set of princples and stick to them. John Kerry and most of the Democrats in the US Congress had no problem giving Bush the blank check to invade wherever he chose and the top members of both parties all saw all the intelleigence data (as per US law for oversight) that drove the US down that path. Yet the second things went a little off for the US military in Iraq, all the sudden all those geniuses couldn't pin this on Bush fast enough. Gutless wonders they are.....

Talk about not admitting to mistakes. Kerry, Hillary Clinton and the rest of them all voted for that war because they were scared to death of being voted out of office if they didn't vote for it. At least Dennis Kuchinich had the balls to be against the war when almost no one else was.....when they first authorized it...

[jim mcglinchey]

not at all..i saw this and was wondering on peoples thoughts on it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqRLxuQt7VA

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jim...thank you. If I am going to watch/read about left wing thought, at least let me be entertained by it. I always enjoyed the Clash....

[steve_spackman]

Oh yes...if you are not a bleeding heart libreal, thank god for that. We have enough of those around here.....

whats wrong with being a libreal?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Steve...remember what Winston Churchill once said (and I am paraphrasing) If you are 20 and you are not a libreal, you have no heart. If you are 40 and you are a liberal you have no brains.

Now I am a libertarian for the most part. I can be libreal on personal freedom ( in that I believe in the concept of it being good AS long as you understand the consequences for your actions) but I am a conservative on a lot of fiscal and political matters. That doesn't mean I haven't agreed with libreals on some individual matters but the die-hard knee jerk librealism that seems to be in the political arena is just sad and hasn't worked for the most part.

[Mark in Oshawa]

as for the proposed trail of George W. Bush, to quote a certain leftwing lobby group in the US, "Move on"

[chuck34]

Taz, if the last week and a half is any indication I think that maybe you should hold on to those type of thoughts until we see where "your guy" goes. He's off to one hell of a start, don't you think?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck...Taz claims Obama isn't his guy...or not. I am not sure who his guy ever was actually.....

[anthonyvop]

Some call for Bush administration trials
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/02/03/some_call_for_bush_administration_trials/?page=full


It seems the only ones asking for trials are a bunch of silly wannabee Hippies.

[Tazio]

Taz, if the last week and a half is any indication I think that maybe you should hold on to those type of thoughts until we see where "your guy" goes. He's off to one hell of a start, don't you think?




Chuck...Taz claims Obama isn't his guy...or not. I am not sure who his guy ever was actually..... ?


My comments were direct personal attack on George W Bush, and the policies of his tenure, I feel pretty comfortable that history will never view his term as anything other than disasterous!
Of course this is only my opinion! If I wanted you to state my opinion I would put in a request ;)

[leopard]

Yep Taz, it would be gentleman behavior :up: ;)

[Roamy]

Taz
It seems to me that you and many here think Bush had the power to do all the wrongs all by himself. I am sorry to tell you that ain't so. We have a congress and while he had a majority some of the time still many actions require more than a 51% favor. Also many of the problems we are coping with came for the democrats and Not the repubs. Yes perhaps influence but quite frankly we need a major overhaul of both parties..

[Garry Walker]

whats wrong with being a libreal?

Mostly admitting to being a liberal is like admitting to being intellectually challenged.

[Lousada]

Steve...remember what Winston Churchill once said (and I am paraphrasing) If you are 20 and you are not a libreal, you have no heart. If you are 40 and you are a liberal you have no brains.


Wrong, from Wikiquote:

If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.

According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot when he observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. This quote has been attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, and others.

Furthermore, the Churchill Centre, on its Falsely Attributed Quotations page, states "there is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this." Paul Addison of Edinburgh University is quoted as stating: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

[Lousada]

As for the Consititution and how Bush "wiped his @ss" with it, I suppose his sworn duty to defend the nation was something he felt he should ignore? If he broke the law ( and this is one that will be argued about long after you and I are gone ) then it was a real gray area and there was more lawyers telling him he could do it then there was saying don't do it.

There is no gray area about him breaking the law. The man waged an illigal war and allowed torture. The gray area is whether a president is allowed to break the law or not.
There is no precedent, since Nixon got pardoned before his case ever went to trial. That is why Bush and his associates should be put on trial, to settle this dispute for once and for all. Although I doubt anyone will dare to do it.

[chuck34]

My comments were direct personal attack on George W Bush, and the policies of his tenure, I feel pretty comfortable that history will never view his term as anything other than disasterous!
Of course this is only my opinion! If I wanted you to state my opinion I would put in a request ;)

That's why I put "your guy" in quotes. I suspected that you would not claim the big 'O as yours. And that's not really the point anyway. You are claiming that GWB is going to be the worst president in history. I'm saying O is starting out worse so let's see where he goes before we start making SWAGs OK?

[chuck34]

There is no gray area about him breaking the law. The man waged an illigal war and allowed torture. The gray area is whether a president is allowed to break the law or not.
There is no precedent, since Nixon got pardoned before his case ever went to trial. That is why Bush and his associates should be put on trial, to settle this dispute for once and for all. Although I doubt anyone will dare to do it.

Those are some pretty big words there fella. Want to back them up?

It is not illeagal to go to war on mistaken inteligence. That is the worst thing I can see he did. Followed mistaken inteligence. And remember CONGRESS went along with it, right up until it became a politically untenable position to have. Then they fliped over like they always do.

And what is torture? Water-boarding is not defined as torture. It may be wrong, and something that we should not be doing, but it is not torture.

This is why GWB will never be tried, he did nothing illegal. Remeber, it's not a crime to be stupid (not yet at least, I'm sure they're working on that).

[Tazio]

You are claiming that GWB is going to be the worst president in history. I am? Where? :confused:
If your looking for my opinnion my choice would be W.G Harding, with W.H. Taft finishing a close second!
GWB will slot in closer to the bottom then the top :dozey:

[555-04Q2]

The man is RETIRED. GET OVER IT!!!

I'm sure the fact that he is now retired is a comfort to all the widows, widowers and orphans he created while in office.

[Tazio]

Taz
It seems to me that you and many here think Bush had the power to do all the wrongs all by himself. I am sorry to tell you that ain't so. We have a congress and while he had a majority some of the time still many actions require more than a 51% favor. Also many of the problems we are coping with came for the democrats and Not the repubs. Yes perhaps influence but quite frankly we need a major overhaul of both parties..My profound criticism of Bush stems mainly from my opinion of what a poor statesman he was.
His public machinations such as "Bring it on” and "I'm the Decider" are not the comment of a benevolent, democratic leader
willing to engage openly with those who disagree with his policy decisions/opinions.
He projected a public persona of a facist, tactless, Fire, and Brimstone preacher, with a large helping of a cowboy swagger.

[555-04Q2]

Taz
It seems to me that you and many here think Bush had the power to do all the wrongs all by himself. I am sorry to tell you that ain't so. We have a congress and while he had a majority some of the time still many actions require more than a 51% favor. Also many of the problems we are coping with came for the democrats and Not the repubs. Yes perhaps influence but quite frankly we need a major overhaul of both parties..

I get what you say fousto, but George Dubblya bullsh!tted your Congress to get the votes. That in itself is a criminal act, let alone the people whose deaths he is responsible for.

[Knocker69]

It seems the only ones asking for trials are a bunch of silly wannabee Hippies.

. . . and a lawyer that has successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, including 21 of 21 murder convictions.
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/

[Mr Peppermill]

I liked George W Bush and im sure history will prove him being one of the greatest presidents ever.

[ioan]

The man was a menace
Canada, worry about your leaders!

What stuff are you on? It sure is something strong.

[chuck34]

My profound criticism of Bush stems mainly from my opinion of what a poor statesman he was.
His public machinations such as "Bring it on” and "I'm the Decider" are not the comment of a benevolent, democratic leader
willing to engage openly with those who disagree with his policy decisions/opinions.
He projected a public persona of a facist, tactless, Fire, and Brimstone preacher, with a large helping of a cowboy swagger.

Yep, "I won" is a heck of a lot better. That sure says benevolence from a democratic leader to me. But I know he's not "your guy".

Just tone down the rehtoric a bit, or go back to Daily Kos.

[chuck34]

I liked George W Bush and im sure history will prove him being one of the greatest presidents ever.

Not sure I would go that far. But I do think he'll move up a bit over time, much the same way Truman, Ike, and even Nixon has.

[ioan]

I get what you say fousto, but George Dubblya bullsh!tted your Congress to get the votes. That in itself is a criminal act, let alone the people whose deaths he is responsible for.

Did he breach the USA Constitution?!
I doubt he did it, otherwise the Democrats would have hung him.
As long as he did everything within his constitutional rights and powers he can laugh in the face of everyone.

[ioan]

My profound criticism of Bush stems mainly from my opinion of what a poor statesman he was.
His public machinations such as "Bring it on” and "I'm the Decider" are not the comment of a benevolent, democratic leader
willing to engage openly with those who disagree with his policy decisions/opinions.
He projected a public persona of a facist, tactless, Fire, and Brimstone preacher, with a large helping of a cowboy swagger.

I bet you would change your mind in a blink of an eye as soon as you met with some real fascist leaders of WWII.

Honestly, you're behaving like a French communist pussy, cause a Russian one would have said: "Good on ya Mr. President, the country needs to be led my a Man, not by a ballerina!".

PS: I'm afraid that according to your own constitution he is the "Decider".

[ioan]

I'm sure the fact that he is now retired is a comfort to all the widows, widowers and orphans he created while in office.
Military service is not compulsory in the US, as far as I know.

[steve_spackman]

Those are some pretty big words there fella. Want to back them up?

It is not illeagal to go to war on mistaken inteligence. That is the worst thing I can see he did. Followed mistaken inteligence. And remember CONGRESS went along with it, right up until it became a politically untenable position to have. Then they fliped over like they always do.

And what is torture? Water-boarding is not defined as torture. It may be wrong, and something that we should not be doing, but it is not torture.

This is why GWB will never be tried, he did nothing illegal. Remeber, it's not a crime to be stupid (not yet at least, I'm sure they're working on that).

still living in your bubble?

[Tazio]

I bet you would change your mind in a blink of an eye as soon as you met with some real fascist leaders of WWII.

Honestly, you're behaving like a French communist pussy, cause a Russian one would have said: "Good on ya Mr. President, the country needs to be led my a Man, not by a ballerina!".
Reality is that a The Russian government opposed the Iraq Invaion!
And its leader, As well as the Pussified leaders of the countries on this following list.
African Union
Arab League
Argentina
Austria
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Croatia
Cuba
Dominica
Ecuador
France
Germany
Greece
India
Iran
Indonesia
Liechtenstein
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
North Korea
Norway
Pakistan
Russia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
Venezuela
Vietnam

That alot of pussies.

You talk tough!
Pussies come from all political persuations.

What form of one are you?

[Tazio]

Yep, "I won" is a heck of a lot better. That sure says benevolence from a democratic leader to me. But I know he's not "your guy".

Just tone down the rehtoric a bit, or go back to Daily Kos.You still haven't answered my question Chuck
Not a very good evasive maneuver
I am? Where? :confused:
If your looking for my opinnion my choice would be W.G Harding, with W.H. Taft finishing a close second!
GWB will slot in closer to the bottom then the top :dozey: Well I'm Waiting :dozey:

[ioan]

Reality is that a The Russian government opposed the Iraq Invaion!
And its leader, As well as the Pussified leaders of the countries on this following list.
African Union
Arab League
Argentina
Austria
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Croatia
Cuba
Dominica
Ecuador
France
Germany
Greece
India
Iran
Indonesia
Liechtenstein
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
North Korea
Norway
Pakistan
Russia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
Venezuela
Vietnam

That alot of pussies.

You talk tough!
Pussies come from all political persuations.

yeah, way to many pussies ruling the world.



What form of one are you?

I'm no pussy! :p :

[steve_spackman]

Reality is that a The Russian government opposed the Iraq Invaion!
And its leader, As well as the Pussified leaders of the countries on this following list.
African Union
Arab League
Argentina
Austria
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Croatia
Cuba
Dominica
Ecuador
France
Germany
Greece
India
Iran
Indonesia
Liechtenstein
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
North Korea
Norway
Pakistan
Russia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
Venezuela
Vietnam

That alot of pussies.

You talk tough!
Pussies come from all political persuations.

What form of one are you?

Bush is no pussy, but he is a dick!!

[anthonyvop]

I'm sure the fact that he is now retired is a comfort to all the widows, widowers and orphans he created while in office.
Actually the members of our military voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Even those stationed in Iraq.

[steve_spackman]

Actually the members of our military voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Even those stationed in Iraq.

why did they vote for him?

[Tazio]

Actually the members of our military voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Even those stationed in Iraq.I think 555 is referring to Iraqi's orphans
:dozey: As there are no children orphaned in the US as a result of the military operation in Iraq!

[555-04Q2]

Military service is not compulsory in the US, as far as I know.

I was talking about the innocent people in Iraq etc.

[555-04Q2]

Actually the members of our military voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Even those stationed in Iraq.

See post #50.

[555-04Q2]

I think 555 is referring to Iraqi's orphans
:dozey: As there are no children orphaned in the US as a result of the military operation in Iraq!

Thats correct Taz.

[ioan]

As there are no children orphaned in the US as a result of the military operation in Iraq!

:?:

[chuck34]

You still haven't answered my question Chuck
Not a very good evasive maneuverWell I'm Waiting :dozey:

Sorry you didn't expressly say that. How could I have ever gotten that impression after you said that you fanticised about killing him, that he was a menace, wanting him to be disgraced, and wiped is @ss with the Constitution. You're right how could I have ever thought you thought he was the worst President?

But please chastise me for this. I'm sure I'm not being "bipartisan" right?

And you are entitled to have your opinion of the man. Just as I am entitled to have my opinion of "the new guy". And I'm saying that when you compare the two at this stage in their presidency's that "the new guy" is off to a worse start. So you may have to slide 'ole Bushie up a slot on your list.

[Tazio]

Sorry you didn't expressly say that. And I'm saying that when you compare the two at this stage in their presidency's that "the new guy" is off to a worse start.. And I'm saying I don't give a rat's @ss, because its too early to draw any distinctions
So you may have to slide 'ole Bushie up a slot on your list. I would never be so presumptuous as to rate a President until his tenure is over!

[chuck34]

And I'm saying I don't give a rat's @ss I would never be so presumptuous as to rate a President until his tenure is over!

So you don't care that this new President is using the same tactics that you are chastising the last one for using? Interesting.

And you are right, you shouldn't rate a President until his tenure is over. Just as of right now he's not off to too good a start. But I'm sure you don't give a rats @ss because he's not "your guy".

[Tazio]

So you don't care that this new President is using the same tactics that you are chastising the last one for using? Interesting.
Which ones are those?


And you are right, you shouldn't rate a President until his tenure is over. Just as of right now he's not off to too good a start. But I'm sure you don't give a rats @ss because he's not "your guy". You keep refering to him as my guy! Not that it is any of your bussiness, but I voted for McCain!
I went with the experience. It was a decision I made the day of the election!

[chuck34]

Which ones are those?


I would say that "I'm the Decider" and "I won" are pretty close. Although, in my opinion (which I know you don't want, but I'm gonna give you anyway) "I'm the Decider" is a slightly better phrase.

I think "I'm the Decider" is an un-elegant way of saying, I take in all the information and make a decision that I have to live with.

"I won" means, to me anyway, I won shut up go away I don't care what you think.

I'm sure you don't see it that way, and that's fine. All I'm pointing out is that some people would see both of these as "strong arm" tactics. You criticize Bush for this, and yet you don't seem to care that O is doing about the same thing. To me that is telling.

And I'm glad you voted for McCain.

[Tazio]

:?: It is the US governments policy to take a member of the military on active duty if his/or her spouse are killed out of hostilities! There has also been no reports of a single-parent that died in Iraq having his/her offspring put in an orphanage, or foster-care

[Tazio]

I would say that "I'm the Decider" and "I won" are pretty close. Although, in my opinion (which I know you don't want, but I'm gonna give you anyway) "I'm the Decider" is a slightly better phrase.

I think "I'm the Decider" is an un-elegant way of saying, I take in all the information and make a decision that I have to live with.

"I won" means, to me anyway, I won shut up go away I don't care what you think.

I'm sure you don't see it that way, and that's fine. All I'm pointing out is that some people would see both of these as "strong arm" tactics. You criticize Bush for this, and yet you don't seem to care that O is doing about the same thing. To me that is telling.
And I'm glad you voted for McCain.. That one may be a wash! How about the other example I gave?


And I'm glad you voted for McCain. As I said It matters not to me if you approve of who I cast my vote for

[chuck34]

That one may be a wash! How about the other example I gave?

What other example? Do you mean "Bring it on"? Not sure there is a parallel there yet.

However, if you watched the press conference last night you would have seen O basically praise what Bush did in Iraq. That's right I said what I said. O was praising the fact that Iraq just had free, fair, and safe election. That happened because of Bush not Obama. He also said that he can not allow Afganistan to be a hide out for Al-Qeda or Bin Laden. He could have been quoting Bush there too. So maybe "Bring it on" isn't the best choice of words, but the sentiment is being expressed by Obama too.

[Tazio]

What other example? Do you mean "Bring it on"? Not sure there is a parallel there yet.

However, if you watched the press conference last night you would have seen O basically praise what Bush did in Iraq. That's right I said what I said. O was praising the fact that Iraq just had free, fair, and safe election. That happened because of Bush not Obama. He also said that he can not allow Afganistan to be a hide out for Al-Qeda or Bin Laden. He could have been quoting Bush there too. So maybe "Bring it on" isn't the best choice of words, but the sentiment is being expressed by Obama too.It was a very poor choice of words. But more than that it was the arrogance inwhich he expressed them that is one reason I consider him such a poor Statesman!

[chuck34]

It was a very poor choice of words. But more than that it was the arrogance inwhich he expressed them that is one reason I consider him such a poor Statesman!

Ok that's fine. He may have been arrogant. The man could not talk to save his life, I don't dispute that. But in my opinion Obama is every bit as arrogant in a lot of the things he has said. And a lot of the things that Bush gets bashed for being arrogant on, Obama has seen the real world now and is taking many of the same positions.

[Tazio]

Ok that's fine. He may have been arrogant. The man could not talk to save his life, I don't dispute that. But in my opinion Obama is every bit as arrogant in a lot of the things he has said. And a lot of the things that Bush gets bashed for being arrogant on, Obama has seen the real world now and is taking many of the same positions.
It is my opinnion that there were negative cosequences to GWB gaffe
The jury is still out on Obama. I suspect in his dealings on such important matters he will be asertive, not antagonistic. I guess we'll have to wait and see!

[airshifter]

still living in your bubble?

Still haven't read the UN Resolutions or the weapons reports?

Spew on your dislike all you want, Mr Bubble!


:laugh:

[steve_spackman]

Still haven't read the UN Resolutions or the weapons reports?

Spew on your dislike all you want, Mr Bubble!


:laugh:

and what UN Resolutions or the weapons reports are you on about?

The Un weapons inspectors said that Saddam was no threat to the west...If they indeed did then i would imagine that they was 'sexed up'

[Zico]

Bush was nothing other than in the pocket of what was effectively a high level crime syndicate consisting of arms manufacturers, oil companies and various contractors.

Im no 'libreal' nor do I identify with any particular political leaning.. but label me how you wish because I really dont give a Damn. At the end of the day, Bush was a menace to peace and humanity and the whole world knows it, other than the few gullable who believed the propoganda bull**** or are still in denial... usually spotted quite easily by their defensiveness when even a hint of this subject arises.
How anyone can even attempt to belittle his actions and choose to ignore history and his shamefull legacy is beyond me.

He is responsible for the many hundreds of thousands of human lives lost in Iraq. Should he and his administration face trial?.. yes, absolutely. Will it ever happen? No.

[airshifter]

and what UN Resolutions or the weapons reports are you on about?

The Un weapons inspectors said that Saddam was no threat to the west...If they indeed did then i would imagine that they was 'sexed up'

Apparently your answer is no, as you are clueless to what the reports contain. The reports of the inspectors report facts, not opinions. The UN Security Council were the ones that considered Saddam a threat to international peace in the region.

Try reading some of them, facts are often hidden in books and now are also available on the internet.

Does the tin foil hat often pop the bubble?

[chuck34]

Bush was nothing other than in the pocket of what was effectively a high level crime syndicate consisting of arms manufacturers, oil companies and various contractors.

Im no 'libreal' nor do I identify with any particular political leaning.. but label me how you wish because I really dont give a Damn. At the end of the day, Bush was a menace to peace and humanity and the whole world knows it, other than the few gullable who believed the propoganda bull**** or are still in denial... usually spotted quite easily by their defensiveness when even a hint of this subject arises.
How anyone can even attempt to belittle his actions and choose to ignore history and his shamefull legacy is beyond me.

He is responsible for the many hundreds of thousands of human lives lost in Iraq. Should he and his administration face trial?.. yes, absolutely. Will it ever happen? No.

Ok big boy, I'll bite. I must be that gullable. What exact charges are you going to bring him up on?

The man may have been dumb and mis-informed (I don't believe that, but I could see that), but for the life of me no one can explain how that is a crime????

[Mark in Oshawa]

and what UN Resolutions or the weapons reports are you on about?

The Un weapons inspectors said that Saddam was no threat to the west...If they indeed did then i would imagine that they was 'sexed up'

Steve, Saddam kicked the inspectors out and then let them back in about 3 times. The resolutions for the inspections and a lot of terms for the cease fire from the first Gulf War were still in effect when Bush came to power. Two more resolutions demanding full and open access to Iraq for the UN were more or less ignored.

The penalty for ignoring the sanctions was never spelled out specifically but I do remember at the time one of the options that the UN had specified was a resumation of armed combat. That is your legal pretext for invasion. You may not like it, and call it BS, but it would be very plausable in a court of law. Saddam didn't have to lose his country. He did it because he wanted the world to THINK he actually had something up his sleeve. He was playing poker with a 2 -7 offsuit as his hole cards. Not smart.

Does this in any way make Bush a criminal? Nope. Naive maybe. Not smart? yup..I can buy that but a whole lot of really smart and clever people bought into this which is why I did also. I never took Tony Blair to be a fool and I still don't. If he led the UK into this, he saw something from his intelligence networks that said to him there was a probable threat there.

As for Saddam not being a threat? Naive to think he never would be again...and I guess the people of Iraq who had to live in the jail cell that was Saddam's Iraq were not to count for those suffering? (Yes..I know they suffered worse with Bush's invasion, but 90% of THAT was only because outside agitators and Sunni clans started a needless guerilla war to hopefully get the Americans to leave the country in shambles. THAT is the true crime)

[Eki]

I never took Tony Blair to be a fool and I still don't. If he led the UK into this, he saw something from his intelligence networks that said to him there was a probable threat there.

Or not. Maybe he just believed he would gain something by being on Bush's side. Blair's son was an intern in Bush's White House. That's small potatoes, but he or Britain might have gotten some bigger rewards for being on Bush's side. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Most countries in Bush's coalition against Iraq were rather small and poor, so it's likely he bought or intimidated most of them to be on his side.

[Easy Drifter]

Eki: Prove your last statement.

[Eki]

Eki: Prove your last statement.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of August 23, 2006, there were 21 non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).

Then we categorize them:

Small and poor Central American countries economically and militarily dependent on the US:

El Salvador
Honduras
Nicaragua
Dominican Republic

Poor East European countries and former Soviet or Yugoslavia states who seek protection against Russia and Serbia from the US and probably also money and trade:

Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Georgia
Kazakhstan
LatviaLithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Mongolia
Poland
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
Slovakia

Members of the NATO whose defence relies largely on the US:

United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Norway
Italy
The Netherlands

Countries with US troops on their soil to take care of their defence:

South Korea
Japan
Philippines

Whats left:

Australia
Thailand
New Zealand
Tonga
Singapore

I'm not sure what their motives were, but it probably wasn't that they really felt Iraq was threatening them.

If Iraq really had been a global threat or there had been a humanitarian crisis, we would have seen countries like Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland there too, ie. countries who are not that dependent on the US.

[Easy Drifter]

A list of countries. Wow.
And you know why they supported an UN action.
Like it or not the UN had previously set out conditions Iraq had broken that allowed for action
Some proof!
You really are reaching again to show your dislike for the US.

[Eki]

A list of countries. Wow.
And you know why they supported an UN action.
Like it or not the UN had previously set out conditions Iraq had broken that allowed for action
Some proof!
You really are reaching again to show your dislike for the US.
The UN didn't, the UN Security Council did. The Security Council only has 15 countries with only the US, the UK, China, France and Russia permanent members with a veto right. Most of the members of the Security Council said the earlier resolutions wasn't enough to allow an invasion to Iraq. The US and the UK were going to draft a new resolution, but when they realized it wouldn't go through even without a veto from Russia, China and France who were against an invasion, they decided to invade without it. Kofi Annan later said the invasion was against the UN Charter and was therefore illegal, like it or not:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm


Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally

[Easy Drifter]

I have yet to see anything in the way of proof to back your wild fanciful accusation.
Close to 40 countries sent troops and the US bribed them all one way or another! Get real.
Out of curiousity have you ever travelled ? Have you ever been outside of Finland?

[Eki]

Out of curiousity have you ever travelled ? Have you ever been outside of Finland?
Yes. I have even been twice to the US. On the first trip I was even in Canada, but only for about 10 minutes in the Canadian customs at Niagara Falls. We decided to turn back to the US side because a Chinese collegue with us would have needed a visa and we didn't want to leave her behind. We were just going to have lunch on the Canadian side and about 200 dollars for a visa was a bit steep for just a lunch.

By the way, the fact that also Canada decided not to take part in the war against Iraq showed that they thought the war was not just. And Canada's trade is quite dependent on the US.

[Easy Drifter]

Still no proof.
Your point about Canada staying out actually contradicts your pressure theory as Canada's largest trading partner is the US.
Our current PM was for Canada participating at the time. He wasn't in power then.
Too bad you didn't get to Canada as there are a few excellent restuarants in the Falls area and in Niagara on the Lake.
Mind you there are some good ones in the Buffalo area too, one in particular that I remember. Best liquor store in NA too.

[Eki]

Close to 40 countries sent troops and the US bribed them all one way or another!
Bribed or intimidated:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/22/AR2008032201020_pf.html


U.S. Pushed Allies on Iraq, Diplomat Writes
Chilean Envoy to U.N. Recounts Threats of Retaliation in Run-Up to Invasion

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 23, 2008; A11



UNITED NATIONS -- In the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pressed for the recall of U.N. envoys that resisted U.S. pressure to endorse the war, according to an upcoming book by a top Chilean diplomat.

The rough-and-tumble diplomatic strategy has generated lasting "bitterness" and "deep mistrust" in Washington's relations with allies in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, Heraldo Mu¿oz, Chile's ambassador to the United Nations, writes in his book "A Solitary War: A Diplomat's Chronicle of the Iraq War and Its Lessons," set for publication next month.

"In the aftermath of the invasion, allies loyal to the United States were rejected, mocked and even punished" for their refusal to back a U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein's government, Mu¿oz writes.

But the tough talk dissipated as the war situation worsened, and President Bush came to reach out to many of the same allies that he had spurned. Mu¿oz's account suggests that the U.S. strategy backfired in Latin America, damaging the administration's standing in a region that has long been dubious of U.S. military intervention.

Mu¿oz details key roles by Chile and Mexico, the Security Council's two Latin members at the time, in the run-up to the war: Then-U.N. Ambassadors Juan Gabriel Vald¿s of Chile and Adolfo Aguilar Zinser of Mexico helped thwart U.S. and British efforts to rally support among the council's six undecided members for a resolution authorizing the U.S.-led invasion.

The book portrays Bush personally prodding the leaders of those six governments -- Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan -- to support the war resolution, a strategy aimed at demonstrating broad support for U.S. military plans, despite the French threat to veto the resolution.

In the weeks preceding the war, Bush made several appeals to Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and Mexican President Vicente Fox to rein in their diplomats and support U.S. war aims. "We have problems with your ambassador at the U.N.," Bush told Fox at a summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation in Los Cabos, Mexico, in late 2002.

"It's time to bring up the vote, Ricardo. We've had this debate too long," Bush told the Chilean president on March 11, 2003.

"Bush had referred to Lagos by his first name, but as the conversation drew to a close and Lagos refused to support the resolution as it stood, Bush shifted to a cool and aloof 'Mr. President,' " Mu¿oz writes. "Next Monday, time is up," Bush told Lagos.

Senior U.S. diplomats sought to thwart a last-minute attempt by Chile to broker a compromise that would delay military action for weeks, providing Iraq with a final chance to demonstrate that it had fully complied with disarmament requirements.

On March 14, 2003, less than one week before the invasion, Chile hosted a meeting of diplomats from the six undecided governments to discuss its proposal. But then-U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell moved quickly to quash the initiative, warning them that the effort was viewed as "an unfriendly act" designed to isolate the United States. The diplomats received calls from their governments ordering them to "leave the meeting immediately," Mu¿oz writes.

Aguilar Zinser, who died in 2005, was forced out of the Mexican government after publicly accusing the United States of treating Mexico like its "back yard" during the war negotiations. Vald¿s was transferred to Argentina, where he served as Chile's top envoy, and Mu¿oz, a Chilean minister and onetime classmate of Condoleezza Rice at the University of Denver, was sent to the United Nations in June 2003 to patch up relations with the United States.

In the days after the invasion, the National Security Council's top Latin American expert, John F. Maisto, invited Mu¿oz to the White House to convey the message to Lagos, that his country's position at the United Nations had jeopardized prospects for the speedy Senate ratification of a free-trade pact. "Chile has lost some influence," he said. "President Bush is truly disappointed with Lagos, but he is furious with Fox. With Mexico, the president feels betrayed; with Chile, frustrated and let down."

Mu¿oz said relations remained tense at the United Nations, where the United States sought support for resolutions authorizing the occupation of Iraq. He said that small countries met privately in a secure room at the German mission that was impervious to suspected U.S. eavesdropping. "It reminded me of a submarine or a giant safe," Mu¿oz said in an interview.

The United States, he added, expressed "its displeasure" to the German government every time they held a meeting in the secure room. "They couldn't listen to what was going on."

Mu¿oz said that threats of reprisals were short-lived as Washington quickly found itself reaching out to Chile, Mexico and other countries to support Iraq's messy postwar rehabilitation. It also sought support from Chile on issues such as peacekeeping in Haiti and support for U.S. efforts to drive Syria out of Lebanon. The U.S.-Chilean free trade agreement, while delayed, was finally signed by then-U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick in June 2003.

Mu¿oz said that Rice, as secretary of state, called him to ask for help on a U.N. resolution that would press for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. The United States had secured eight of the nine votes required for adoption of a resolution in the Security Council. Mu¿oz had received instructions to abstain. "I talked to [Lagos], and he listened to my argument, and we gave them the ninth vote," he said.

[Eki]

Too bad you didn't get to Canada as there are a few excellent restuarants in the Falls area and in Niagara on the Lake.

But I have to say that the Canadian customs officials there were friendly and polite compared to the US customs officials at the JFK airport in New York City. They stamped our passports and gave us all a little pin with the Canadian flag although we didn't go further than the customs building. And that was the US customs before 9/11/2001. I've also noticed that the British customs officials are friendly and polite too. I went through London Heathrow airport a day after the July 2005 terror attacks in London and the security check was very thorough. I went through two luggage X-ray checks, had to open my briefcase because of a metal bottle opener there, had to take of my shoes and my belt and they confiscated my pocket knife, but they were polite all the time and apologized for the inconvenience.

[airshifter]

I have yet to see anything in the way of proof to back your wild fanciful accusation.
Close to 40 countries sent troops and the US bribed them all one way or another! Get real.
Out of curiousity have you ever travelled ? Have you ever been outside of Finland?

Don't forget, they were all poor countries that needed the help of the US. Dirt poor, like Austalia, the UK, and Saudi Arabia. :laugh:

The simple fact that the wealthy countries in the region allowed the US to use them as air and staging bases says a lot, considering most aren't too fond of US influences overall.

The Saudi princes were also in need of money, no doubt!

[555-04Q2]

The simple fact that the wealthy countries in the region allowed the US to use them as air and staging bases says a lot, considering most aren't too fond of US influences overall.

I think they did it more out of fear than willingness to the "cause".