 |
|
 |
|
On 11 Apr 2009 14:09:34 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
I read the interview.
If Bugliosi is correct and Bush is guilty of murder, it logically follows
that the Obama administration is complicit in these crimes, too. No
excuses. The Obamessiah is The World's Smartest Human, and together with
his advisors and trusty teleprompter, Team Hope 'n Change must know the
terrible truth about the Bush crimes leading to the genocidal war to
exterminate Islam and dethrone the popular and benevolent Saddam Hussein.
Obama's teleprompter could give him the word and *POOF*, just like that,
no more war. Alas, offensive operations continue in Iraq. Civilians are
sometimes caught in terrible circumstances and die inadvertently. Yes, war
sucks.
Obama is just as guilty now.
If Bush is a war criminal, so is Obama.
If you order someone to commit mass murder, and hand over the reins of
authority to someone else who knows the "truth" but continues the exact
same behavior, I'd say that the blood stains are now under someone else's
fingernails.
Barack Obama. War Criminal.
Hope 'n Change.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On 11 Apr 2009 23:42:09 -0400, David Von Pein <...@aol.com
Bullshit.
Bush is a murderer (via the strict legal sense of that word).
But Obama didn't lead the nation into war on a lie. Bush did that.
Oh, good Lord. Give it a rest, Chuck. You're talking silly here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 12 Apr 2009 20:58:04 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
On Apr 11, 10:42 pm, David Von Pein <...@aol.com
Who did he murder? Many of our Presidents have ordered men into battle,
and very few of these decisions were ratified by the traditional WW2 style
Declaration of War Roosevelt obtained. Think Korean War. Think Vietnam
War. Dust off a history book and look at the countless times American
citizens and interests have been directly attacked or threatened by other
countries or terrorist groups that resulted in America taking military
action to protect its citizens and itself, usually without the
Congressional support Bush received. I would dare say that using
Bugliosi's definition of murder, a flimsy case could be made that most of
our Presidents are guilty of murder, which is, of course, silly.
Sorry. that doesn't cut the mustard. Period. Congress had access to the
same intelligence the President looked at. No more passing the buck. Obama
has the power to snap his fingers and bring the troops home. It's his war
now, like it or not.
I understand you are a big fan of Vincent Bugliosi (okay...understatement
of the young century) and I happen to be a big fan of his writings--and
your writings for that matter--about the Kennedy assassination.
But Bugs is off the rails on this Bush Derangement Syndrome thing. He
exhibits the same unhinged craziness he accuses the off the rails CTs of
when it comes to the JFK assassination.
George Bush is not a murderer. Neither is Barack Obama, by the way. The
decision to go to war in Iraq, like it or not, was granted to Bush by
Congress. A summary from Wikipedia states:
"With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed
the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush Administration with
the legal basis for the U.S. invasion under US law. The resolution asserts
the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United
States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States violence.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it
should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and
promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and
"encouraged" diplomatic efforts by US President George W. Bush to
"strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action
by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of
delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with
all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution
authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as
he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the
national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed
by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq."
To put the above paragraph in JFK parlance, ignoring this resolution and
claiming Bush is a murderer is the equivalent of CT''s ignoring the
autopsy report, claiming shooters in the sewers, switched coffins,
Connally was shot in the front of his chest, the Z film is fake, etc.
The Congressional resolution is the mandate that allowed Bush to deal with
the fluid Iraqi situation as he saw fit. Bush handled the run up to
hostilities properly. The war was debated. The debate was contentious at
times, and many voted against it, but the resolution was passed. He got
Congressional permission to pre-emptively attack Iraq, if needed.
It's no secret that the war went poorly, and it's no secret that war
sucks. It would've been great if Saddam could've been enticed at the last
minute to flee to Jordan with his sons and riches, and somehow have turned
the country over peacefully to US/multinational forces. But that didn't
happen.
George Bush isn't a murderer.
And Barack Obama isn't a murderer, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Apr 2009 23:55:06 -0400, Coondog <...@live.com
On Apr 12, 5:58 pm, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
Well said.
Bill Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Apr 2009 23:47:38 -0400, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
Whom did he murder? Well, ignore any Skull and Bones initiation or drunk
driving homicides, or his acts as Governor, as this is just about his
actions as President. So yes his actions as President are war crimes, not
just simple cases of murder.
Do you really think that WWII was the ONLY time the US formally declared
war? Everyone knows how the US has avoided the responsibility of declaring
war after WWII.
Think Police Action. This International Intervention. Apologists have
often dreamed up euphemisms to avoid having to call them wars.
Think of the countless times that US vessels have been attacked and the US
found it convenient to NOT do a damn thing about it. USS Stark. USS
Liberty.
Not silly to those who oppose Imperialism.
No, it did not. I did not have access to the real intelligence. It was
fed a lie.
You know nothing about the military if you think all he has to do is snap
his fingers and the troops would be home tomorrow. Even JFK had a time
frame of 3 years to bring the troops home.
Hey, that's disloyal talk. Don't you know we already won the Iraq War?
So in your mind it was all over when Saddam was captured? No more
fighting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 14 Apr 2009 21:11:08 -0400, Coondog <...@live.com
On Apr 13, 8:47 pm, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
I always do.
You mean like calling a blockade a quarantine instead? Those pesky
apologist!
You date yourself with the old 1960s anti-imperialism slogans. Do try
to keep up.
Your arrogance at telling someone they “know nothing about the
military” continues to astonish me. Here you are with no experience
and no knowledge of the military yourself telling someone they know
nothing. I should be used to it by now but your condescension
continues to shock me.
Now, General, if Obama snaps his finger the movement begins. You
don’t move all those Abrams tanks overnight but the movement begins
immediately and in a matter of months we could be out of Iraq. If we
wanted to.
You are being devious here and I doubt you have fooled anyone. JFK
had a time frame of 3 years to win the war and bring the troops home.
Can you read, “To win the war”? With the equivalent of a heavy
Division in Vietnam in 1963 JFK could have left our equipment to the
ARVN, loaded our troops on the planes and had them home within a
months time if he had wanted too. Evidently, General, he didn’t want
to do that!
Bill Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 15 Apr 2009 22:22:40 -0400, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
Just plain stupid.
Evidently JFK did not want to leave Vietnam as we actually did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 16 Apr 2009 21:42:03 -0400, Coondog <...@live.com
On Apr 15, 7:22 pm, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
I’m not the one suggesting it would take three years to move 17,500
troops out of Vietnam in 1963 or that it would take years to move
100,000 plus troops out of Iraq. You are and that makes you the
stupid one. The draft dodger Paul Wolfowitz said the generals didn’t
know what they were talking about in estimating troop requirement for
Iraq. Well, guess who was stupid then? Another know-nothing no-
serving pseudo military expert.
I don’t know if you think the military still moves with horses and
mules but they could put a battalion in your front yard by close of
business tomorrow. They could remove them just as fast.
Bill Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 14 Apr 2009 21:09:05 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
On Apr 13, 10:47 pm, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
Jibberish.
No US war before or since WW2 has had the dramatic "...Yesterday, December
7th, 1941..." kickoff before a Congressional vote on war. Bush went to
Congress, as the constitution mandates, and received approval to act as he
saw fit. Don't pretend otherwise.
Um, I believe this one is called the Iraq WAR. Democrats Truman and
Kennedy/Johnson used euphemisms to call their wars something else.
What's your point?
The only land we've ever asked for is enough to bury our dead.
Aww...poor babies. More conspiracy, eh? The conspiracies never end
with you intellectual midgets.
I didn't mean Obama can literally snap his fingers like something from
I Dream of Jeannie. Even the Obamessiah isn't that powerful.
But he could order the troops home--NOW. I'm not in favor of it, but
he could do so. And he hasn't. It's his war now.
Yes, the war is won--to the extent that it was winnable. We won inspite of
people like you, Cindy Sheehan and Ward Churchill. I know victory is a
word liberals hate to hear, but I think a victory can be declared in Iraq.
Of course not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 15 Apr 2009 22:25:40 -0400, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
Well, that's the point. Roosevelt knew that he could not get a declaration
of war unless we were attacked. That is why they provoked Japan into
attacking us.
Um, I think they called it the Vietnam WAR.
Some people will always us the correct term, war, regardless of what the
politicians call it.
Just any attack does not qualify as a casus belli. We CHOOSE which one
to use as a pretext.
I can just visualize you out there today at the rallies teabagging and
ranting about how Obama is not really a US citizen.
We know you are never in favor of it. You want US troops occupying all
countries all the time.
Good to know the killing is over. Very comforting to the widows of the
soldiers being killed every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 16 Apr 2009 21:41:48 -0400, Coondog <...@live.com
On Apr 15, 7:25 pm, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
I hear the very Rev. Al Sharpton is claiming we murdered three Somalia
Coast Guard members in the recent pirate attack. You two make a fine
pair.
And just how, General, did we provoke Japan into attacking us? I know, I
know, we cut off their scrap metal and oil. But we did this because of
Japan atrocities in China (read the Rape of Nanking) and the Japanese
invasion of Vietnam. I assume you think we had an obligation to sell them
war materials while they chopped off fellow Asian heads.
Bill Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 16 Apr 2009 21:49:04 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
On Apr 15, 9:25 pm, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
<snip
Great. Marsh just blamed America for "provoking" WW2 in the Pacific.
Can't resist taking shots at the country you detest, huh Marsh?
<snip
Your use of the word 'pretext' pejoratively insinuates that we--the United
States--are somehow behind the events that lead us into war. More
conspiracy moonbat stuff.
You're on a roll tonight with your bar stool musings, Cliff Clavin.
<snip
I wish I could've attended a rally. I was too busy working to support
those who don't.
Conservatives generally don't protest, and I'm no exception. When we do
protest, we can usually be seen raising the American flag and not burning
it. And for the record, like all sane people, I believe Obama is a
full-blooded, US citizen, born in Hawaii. I'll leave the nutty "Obama
isn't a citizen" stuff to the kooky Hillary Clinton operatives who dredged
it up and spread it around during the Dem primary season.
I want the world to be full of America-like countries to ensure there
aren't any wars. War is terrible. My family knows this from personal
experience, and I have relatives that have served this country from the
rank of General right down to PFC.
I have a nephew headed over to Afghanistan this year. Try not to spit on
him and call him a baby killer when he passes through Boston.
<snip
I think we're sort of back where we started. Take it up with President
Teleprompter. It's his war now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Apr 2009 23:54:52 -0400, Coondog <...@live.com
On Apr 11, 8:42 pm, David Von Pein <...@aol.com
Actually this whole Bush is a war criminal thing is silly. Very silly.
While I deplore the group of draft dodgers (Bush, Chenny, and Wolfowitz)
that sent our young men and women into combat this war criminal tag is a
bit much and makes Bugliosi look like one of the radical nuts.
If you want to charge them with a crime then charge them with the most
inadequate planning for a war in our recent history. You would then get
my vote for guilty.
Bill Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 14 Apr 2009 21:06:18 -0400, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
It is not the sending men into battle which is the war crime. It is
waging aggressive war, invading another country, one of the charges at
the Nuremberg trials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 14 Apr 2009 21:06:31 -0400, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
The purpose of war is not to win the war.
The purpose of war is to waste resources, impoverish the people and
enslave them. The Neocons were very successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 15 Apr 2009 01:00:47 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
On Apr 14, 8:06 pm, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
What a bunch of horse manure. Sounds like somebody still has his
Country Joe & the Fish blacklight poster hanging up in his room--right
next to the Mark Lane autographed copy of Rush to Judgement, and the
collection of McGovern for Prez in '72 campaign buttons.
Is everything a conspiracy with you?
Wow, I'll bet you're a blast at the company Christmas party.
Hey, pop a Joni Mitchell tape in the eight-track player of your VW bus
next time you make a shopping trip to the co-op for your tofu, goat
milk and granola.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 15 Apr 2009 22:18:54 -0400, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
You have a vivid imagination, but some of your anti-Liberal ranting
references are a little too esoteric. I have a box of about 2 dozen Rush
to Judgment books which Mark Lane gave to me personally to hand out at our
CCI presentations. Of course I voted for McGovern. Our state was the only
state he won. You were proud to vote for that crook Nixon.
Your lack of education explains why you don't get the literary allusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 16 Apr 2009 21:51:43 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
On Apr 15, 9:18 pm, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
<snip
Keep your degree in *music*.
I'll keep the degree in common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 15 Apr 2009 23:25:25 -0400, Coondog <...@live.com
On Apr 14, 10:00 pm, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
The image of Marsh tooling around in his VW bus with a “Hell no I
won’t go” bumper sticker has given me a great laugh. Thanks for the
laugh but you forgot to mention his Jane Fonda poster of her sitting on
the communist AA gun. Hey Marsh, you can take the bumper sticker off now!
I believe Mr. Marsh expressed thoughts on the purpose of war clearly show
his grasp of war and the military in general. Not much of a grip.
Bill Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 16 Apr 2009 21:53:02 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
On Apr 15, 10:25 pm, Coondog <...@live.com
Well put.
Heck, I know we're not a perfect country, but to blame America for the
ills of the world is flat out kooky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:46:29 -0500, John McAdams <...@marquette.edu
On 11 Apr 2009 23:42:09 -0400, David Von Pein <...@aol.comwrote:
Dave, if you want to claim that Bush lied, you have to believe that he
was the most brilliant person in the world.
Everybody *else,* including intelligence agancies of the U.K.,
France, Russia, etc., top Congressional Democrats on the intelligence
committees, Hillary Clinton, the CIA, etc. believed that Saddam had
WMDs.
It's amazing the amount of sheer hate that Bush attackers show.
Ordinary policy disagreements can't account for it. It's basically
cultural. Bush is a conservative, a Christian and a Texan. That
pushes all the buttons of the secular cultural left.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 12 Apr 2009 00:02:10 -0400, David Von Pein <...@aol.com
buttons of the secular cultural left." <<<
I'm not "left" or "right"....and I can't stand those labels. Such stupid
labels are meaningless.
Bottom Line -- Evidence is evidence....whether it be in the JFK-
assassination case or when looking into the facts concerning the Iraq War
and how that war got started.
"THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER" (BOOK REVIEW):
http://www.amazon.com/review/R29B7NYHLKV3SH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:05:53 -0500, John McAdams <...@marquette.edu
On 12 Apr 2009 00:02:10 -0400, David Von Pein <...@aol.comwrote:
Anybody on this newsgroup should know that "evidence is evidence" is
not *nearly* so simple.
People view the "evidence" through very biased lenses.
The simple fact is that, before the Iraq War started, virtually nobody
who was anybody disputed that Saddam had WMDs. The debate was how to
deal with that, with the "doves" wanting sanctions (and more UN
resolutions) and the "hawks" wanting to depose Saddam.
So I stand by my statement: only cultural bias can explain the claim
that "Bush lied."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 12 Apr 2009 15:23:43 -0400, David Von Pein <...@aol.com
not *nearly* so simple." <<<
The above statement is certainly true when it comes to virtually all JFK
conspiracists, I'll grant you that. For most JFK CTers, the "evidence" is
supposed to be flushed down the nearest toilet bowl (along with Mr. Occam
as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 11, 10:46 pm, John McAdams <...@marquette.edu
We can quickly rule that out.
Paul Wellstone voted against authorizing the Iraq war. It's only
speculation now as to what Wellstone believed. Also, I recall Hans Blix
almost begging for more time to search. I'm not saying that Blix believed
he had WMD's, or that additional time would lead to discovery. Blix
clearly sensed the need for international verification prior to an
invasion, otherwise the consequences would be dire.
Respectfully, I find it amazing the amount of denial that Bush
supporters show.
Correct. It's much more than political idealogies clashing. If it was,
then the '06 and '08 elections would not have been lopsided.
These traits about Bush are not why the majority of americans and the
world population have their current opinion of him. It was his deeds and
misdeeds.
Respectfully,
~Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 12 Apr 2009 21:00:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
Not at all. Just that he was/is dishonest and was serving the neocon
agenda. That's why the neocons selected him. NOT because he was the most
brilliant person in the world. He had lost about half of his brains to
drugs and alcohol. But he would go along with whatever evil they wanted to
perpetrate and they would get very very rich.
Wrong. The ones you cited believed that ONLY because Bush and Cheney
ordered the CIA to lie.
Jeez, you'd criticize Jews for hating Hitler.
Not really. In private Bush would joke about how stupid the Evangelic
right-wing Christians were. At Yale Bush took an oath in the Skull and
Bones to worship Satan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 13 Apr 2009 00:55:47 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
On Apr 12, 8:00 pm, Anthony Marsh <...@comcast.net
So Bush was a brain dead, Satan worshipping Christian basher?
Have you called "Bush Lied and Kids Died" CTer Bugliosi up and offered
this well documented, hard-hitting information to him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:55 pm, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
Bush had no need to worship Satan. Surely his weekly meetings with Ted
Haggard gave him proper spiritual guidance.
Bugliosi is arguably one of the best lawyers there has ever been, with
attention to detail that is exhaustive and legally persuasive. There
is likely no doubt that Bugliosi is aware of Bush's history of Skull &
Bones, as well as the possible diminished mental faculties due to
prolonged cocaine and alcohol abuse.
~Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 15 Apr 2009 23:04:09 -0400, Chuck Schuyler <...@am-mtg.com
Bush didn't meet "weekly" with Ted Haggard.
What was the nature of the spiritual guidance you claim Haggard gave Bush,
what is your cite, and what problem do you/did you have with it? I'll bet
you're just fine with Obama sitting in a racist church for twenty years
listening to "G-d d*mn America!" and "America's chickens have come home to
roost!" after 9/11.
A first year law student could successfully defend Bush against "war
crimes" and murder charges...provided you weren't on the jury to 'hang'
it.
My understanding is that Bush has been sober for over 20 years. Maybe he
purchased drugs from Barry Obama when the racial identity-confused,
Absent-Father/Napoleon complex suffering Obama was a pot smoking/coke
using drug dealer back in the eighties, but come to think of it, the media
seems remarkably uninterested in Obama's drug use--or his rumored
girlfriends. Hmmm...sorta makes you wonder if there isn't some media bias
out there.
And what's the big deal with the whole Skull & Bones thing? More
conspiracy moonbat stuff to frighten you at bed time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 16 Apr 2009 21:54:01 -0400, "tomnln" <...@cox.net
MIDDLE POST;
"Chuck Schuyler" <...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Bush didn't meet "weekly" with Ted Haggard.
What was the nature of the spiritual guidance you claim Haggard gave Bush,
what is your cite, and what problem do you/did you have with it? I'll bet
you're just fine with Obama sitting in a racist church for twenty years
listening to "G-d d*mn America!" and "America's chickens have come home to
roost!" after 9/11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
chuck wrote;
A first year law student could successfully defend Bush against "war
crimes" and murder charges...provided you weren't on the jury to 'hang'
it.
I write;
What would it take to defend Bush against Bugloisi prosecuting him?
Wasn't it your Idol Bugloisi who suggested Bush be charged with War
Crimes?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that Bush has been sober for over 20 years. Maybe he
purchased drugs from Barry Obama when the racial identity-confused,
Absent-Father/Napoleon complex suffering Obama was a pot smoking/coke
using drug dealer back in the eighties, but come to think of it, the media
seems remarkably uninterested in Obama's drug use--or his rumored
girlfriends. Hmmm...sorta makes you wonder if there isn't some media bias
out there.
And what's the big deal with the whole Skull & Bones thing? More
conspiracy moonbat stuff to frighten you at bed time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|