Bush knew detainees were innocent

[bush_cheney2004]

Lies about :

Detainees

Domestic wiretapping

Renditions

Iraq's WMDs

All things from the prior administrations as well. You may as well arrest every US president whose policies are not to your Canadian liking.

But this seems to be typical of the US mentality. When it's deals with sex (Clinton Lewinsky) people will nail them to the wall (albeit for lying about something). When it comes to unchecked violence and basic rights of people in the US being violated, no one blinks.

President Clinton was impeached according to the US Constitution. Articles of impeachment were drafted and approved by the House. You're not expected to know such minor details about a foreign country.

What the hell is wrong with this picture?

Nothing at all....where is Parliament these days?

Edited April 15, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Come on, if that was true he would have been impeached, or at least hounded like Clinton was. They couldn't touch Bush on these things, they just didn't like his policies so accused him of 'lying'. Or 'stealing'. As in the 2000 election.

Correct....President Bush had the backing of the US Congress all along. He never "lied" under oath!

[bush_cheney2004]

They didnt lie to congress in a letter justifying going to war.

The US can "go to war" whenever it pleases according to established Congressional and Executive protocols.

[Born Free]

The US can "go to war" whenever it pleases according to established Congressional and Executive protocols.

Yes. yes. We all know that too well. The protocols invariably include a lot of bullshitting.

However, lying to Congress is a very very bad thing unless perhaps yer a Republican...

[Born Free]

Correct....President Bush had the backing of the US Congress all along. He never "lied" under oath!

Yes he did. He did it on inaguration day.

[Born Free]

President Clinton was impeached according to the US Constitution. Articles of impeachment were drafted and approved by the House. You're not expected to know such minor details about a foreign country.

Horespoop.

[GostHacked]

All things from the prior administrations as well. You may as well arrest every US president whose policies are not to your Canadian liking.

Well, it's your rights that were/are being violated, not mine.

Edited April 15, 2010 by GostHacked

[M.Dancer]

Horespoop.

In fact, Clinton was impeached. He was also aquitted....such is the dichotomy of the bicameral US system...

Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance in office, arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit. The trial proceedings were largely partisan, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 55 senators voted not guilty, and 45 voted guilty on the perjury charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of obstruction, with 50 votes cast as not guilty, and 50 votes as guilty.[1] It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

[Born Free]

In fact, Clinton was impeached. He was also aquitted....such is the dichotomy of the bicameral US system...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Not to worry. I watched the whole shebang on TV. If the dress doesnt fit..you must acquit!!!

My "horsepoop" comment was in reference to his assinine and derisive statement... "You're not expected to know such minor details about a foreign country."

[Moonlight Graham]

Correct....President Bush had the backing of the US Congress all along. He never "lied" under oath!

Congress backed Bush in 2002 based on a falsified NIE document full of complete bullcrap. Also based on tons of B.S. the admin said in the media and Bush said during the 2003 State of the Union address.

Many now-former CIA officers who were responsible for constructing the NIE have claimed that Cheney and his staff came down in person to the offices and pressured them into writing the NIE in a way that was favourable to the admin's claims even though they were bullcrap. Former CIA officer Melvin Goodman said that Cheney and Scooter Libby would come down and go over the document, and stated to to PBS Frontline:

"I was at the CIA for 24 years. The only time the vice-president came to the CIA building was for a ceremony, to cut a ribbon, to stand on the stage. But not to harangue analysts about finished intelligence."

View chapter 4 for this claim and interviews with CIA other officers: PBS Frontline

Whatever, the evidence has been well documented. Supporting the war is fine, but only a fool (and there seem to be a lot of them) would think that this war was not started due to lies, corruption, and ethically repugnant behaviours. Anyone who has little to no problem with the way the Bush admin handled the run-up to the invasion is either ignorant of the facts, in denial based on ideological lunacy, or is morally bankrupt. This isn't a question of ideology or pro-war vs anti-war, its a question of right and wrong.

Bush and the admin didn't lie under oath. But if the Democrats actually had any balls whatsoever they would have investigated why the reasons for war were completely false and would force Bush and his fools to testify, and if they did they would have been caught in their own lies. And i don't give a crap what Clinton believed, put him on the stand too them.

One of the biggest scandals in american history and very few in any position of power had the balls to risk re-election over doing what's right. Obama is to blame too, he never said anything about it during the campaign. Home of the brave my arse.

[Guest American Woman]

One of the biggest scandals in american history and very few in any position of power had the balls to risk re-election over doing what's right. Obama is to blame too, he never said anything about it during the campaign. Home of the brave my arse.

When we refer to America as "the home of the brave," we aren't referring to politicians.

[Moonlight Graham]

When we refer to America as "the home of the brave," we aren't referring to politicians.

lol, touche. My apologies to dissing the American national anthem, not cool.

[Shady]

Let's not forget that President Clinton was also disbarred.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, it's your rights that were/are being violated, not mine.

Then why are you so worried about it? Should I, in turn, worry about your lack of rights? (...No...)

[bush_cheney2004]

My "horsepoop" comment was in reference to his assinine and derisive statement... "You're not expected to know such minor details about a foreign country."

Yep...that was a shot expressly intended for you! Clinton was impeached....tell your friends.

[bush_cheney2004]

Congress backed Bush in 2002 based on a falsified NIE document full of complete bullcrap. Also based on tons of B.S. the admin said in the media and Bush said during the 2003 State of the Union address.

So what? Congress is an equal branch of government with responsibilites for and access to intelligence data. It is not based on crap in the media (maybe in Canada?)

Many now-former CIA officers who were responsible for constructing the NIE have claimed that Cheney and his staff came down in person to the offices and pressured them into writing the NIE in a way that was favourable to the admin's claims even though they were bullcrap. Former CIA officer Melvin Goodman said that Cheney and Scooter Libby would come down and go over the document, and stated to to PBS Frontline:

"I was at the CIA for 24 years. The only time the vice-president came to the CIA building was for a ceremony, to cut a ribbon, to stand on the stage. But not to harangue analysts about finished intelligence."

I guess VP Cheney had bigger balls than Goodman.

Whatever, the evidence has been well documented. Supporting the war is fine, but only a fool (and there seem to be a lot of them) would think that this war was not started due to lies, corruption, and ethically repugnant behaviours. Anyone who has little to no problem with the way the Bush admin handled the run-up to the invasion is either ignorant of the facts, in denial based on ideological lunacy, or is morally bankrupt. This isn't a question of ideology or pro-war vs anti-war, its a question of right and wrong.

And anyone who doesn't have an understanding of the continuum of US/UK policy for Iraq since 1991 is also in denial. I don't care if they are morally bankrupt, because that is the biggest bullshit of all.

Bush and the admin didn't lie under oath. But if the Democrats actually had any balls whatsoever they would have investigated why the reasons for war were completely false and would force Bush and his fools to testify, and if they did they would have been caught in their own lies. And i don't give a crap what Clinton believed, put him on the stand too them.

Clinton bombed Iraq for "WMD"....made the same speech as Bush. If you don't like American foreign policy that's fine, but don't parse this crap like you weren't even born in the 1990's.

One of the biggest scandals in american history and very few in any position of power had the balls to risk re-election over doing what's right. Obama is to blame too, he never said anything about it during the campaign. Home of the brave my arse.

They did what's right...you just don't like it. Normally I would echo back a Canadian scandal for fun, but frankly I can't think of one that anybody else in the world really gives a shit about.

[Moonlight Graham]

So what? Congress is an equal branch of government with responsibilites for and access to intelligence data. It is not based on crap in the media (maybe in Canada?)

Ya duh. Who do you think requested the 2002 NIE on Iraq? Congress.

And anyone who doesn't have an understanding of the continuum of US/UK policy for Iraq since 1991 is also in denial. I don't care if they are morally bankrupt, because that is the biggest bullshit of all

.

So you're cool with your government lying to you or making inaccurate claims based on knowingly garbage intelligence in order to start a war? They pulled the wool over your eyes so do you even care? Does that not bother the heck out of you?? I just don't understand how anyone who believes in government accountability and not being drilled in the ears with lies by gov can be even remotely ok with what happened during the run-up.

Even if you support the war that's fine i'm not talking about that, but the means by which it was started was dishonest and corrupt based on well-established evidence.

Clinton bombed Iraq for "WMD"....made the same speech as Bush. If you don't like American foreign policy that's fine, but don't parse this crap like you weren't even born in the 1990's.

Like i said, invite Clinton to the party also, i'm sure much of what he said was b.s. too

They did what's right...you just don't like it.

Whether the war and regime change was right or wrong is subjective. The crap that the Bush admin (and possibly Clinton) spewed pre-invasion was wrong, period. And no i don't like it, and anyone with a soul and some knowledge shouldn't either.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[bush_cheney2004]

Ya duh. Who do you think requested the 2002 NIE on Iraq? Congress.

Then...DUH...why did they still vote for war if it was an obvious "fabrication"? Maybe it had something to do with an earlier resolution for regime change in Iraq? Or expelled UNSCOM inspectors? Or maybe violations of Gulf War surrender instruments? Or.....

So you're cool with your government lying to you or making inaccurate claims based on knowingly garbage intelligence in order to start a war? They pulled the wool over your eyes so do you even care? Does that not bother the heck out of you?? I just don't understand how anyone who believes in government accountability and not being drilled in the ears with lies by gov can be even remotely ok with what happened during the run-up.

Don't be such a rube...our "governments" have been lying from the 'git go with the fine art of disinformation, deception, misdirection, omission, and information security. It's OK if you don't understand, but that doesn't mean I don't understand. "Lies" were told on D-Day too...imagine that!

Even if you support the war that's fine i'm not talking about that, but the means by which it was started was dishonest and corrupt based on well-established evidence.

No, it was a splendidly executed strategy to take advantage of post 9/11 anxiety and Saddam's historical transgressions. There was hue and cry about the land for "more inspections!"....but why were more inspections needed if such certainty about Saddam's lack of WMD? That's because the best "lies" have a smidgeon of truth. The vote in Congress was even better than the one for Gulf War I with a UN mandate.

Like i said, invite Clinton to the party also, i'm sure much of what he said was b.s. too

No, I think not. Americans presidents have better things to do than worry about your moral judgement. Start with your own Prime Ministers if you want to set such a righteous example.

Whether the war and regime change was right or wrong is subjective. The crap that the Bush admin (and possibly Clinton) spewed pre-invasion was wrong, period. And no i don't like it, and anyone with a soul and some knowledge shouldn't either.

Irrelevant...it was the policy of the United States to keep squeezing Iraq like a pimple until it popped. You don't have to like it.

Edited April 16, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

Then...DUH...why did they still vote for war if it was an obvious "fabrication"? Maybe it had something to do with an earlier resolution for regime change in Iraq? Or expelled UNSCOM inspectors? Or maybe violations of Gulf War surrender instruments? Or.....

Or maybe it was the fact that it was not publicly known pre-invasion that much that was in the NIE or what the admin was saying was inaccurate or plain fabrication? Do you think support for the war would have been the same in Congress or with the general population if they knew there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, Iraq had no nuclear program, no chem/bio weapons etc.?

Don't be such a rube...our "governments" have been lying from the 'git go with the fine art of disinformation, deception, misdirection, omission, and information security. It's OK if you don't understand, but that doesn't mean I don't understand. "Lies" were told on D-Day too...imagine that!

So basically your argument is that governments have always lied and its a fact of politics so you're ok with that, no matter how big the lie? Ok then. Broken election promises are one thing, but when hundreds of thousands of people start dying as a result of some lies then it crosses the line.

No, I think not. Americans presidents have better things to do than worry about your moral judgement. Start with your own Prime Ministers if you want to set such a righteous example.

Yeah not like a didn't howl like mad over the Sponsorship Scandal, or some of Harper's recent idiocy. However, its all a matter of proportionality. Bush etc. lying to me and my government about WMD's and the like for the purposes of starting a war where 100,000+ civilians are dead and wanting Canada to join in deserve a little bit more of my time and energy.

[bush_cheney2004]

Or maybe it was the fact that it was not publicly known pre-invasion that much that was in the NIE or what the admin was saying was inaccurate or plain fabrication? Do you think support for the war would have been the same in Congress or with the general population if they knew there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, Iraq had no nuclear program, no chem/bio weapons etc.?

The "support" would have been less, but still a majority of Americans and still far more Congressional support than for the UN sanctioned Gulf War I. The "Axis of Evil" speech had already been delivered to the American public....Saddam was going down one way or another.

So basically your argument is that governments have always lied and its a fact of politics so you're ok with that, no matter how big the lie? Ok then. Broken election promises are one thing, but when hundreds of thousands of people start dying as a result of some lies then it crosses the line.

Election promises are the weakest form of bullshit....many citizens do not take them seriously. Governments with reason to do so have always lied....it's not just an American thing. Why does it "cross the line", and what line would that be? They didn't die because of a lie, they died for a at least a dozen reasons going back to 1990:

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

- Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

- Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

- Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

- Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

- Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

- Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

- Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

- The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

- The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

- Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement

Yeah not like a didn't howl like mad over the Sponsorship Scandal, or some of Harper's recent idiocy. However, its all a matter of proportionality. Bush etc. lying to me and my government about WMD's and the like for the purposes of starting a war where 100,000+ civilians are dead and wanting Canada to join in deserve a little bit more of my time and energy.

That's a topic for another thread...Bush was not your president or political leadership. Canada did not invade Iraq (mostly because it couldn't....too busy in Afghanistan). When you start "howling" about Haiti, or Kosovo, or East Timor, then you will have elevated you game above rinky dink domestic politics....people died!

Edited April 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

Saddam was a bad dude and his dangerous actions are well-established. Yes he was a security concern no doubt. The Iraq Liberation Act on regime change was by the means of mostly supporting other competing parties in Iraq in taking control of the gov from Saddam. Hell i'm probably in favour of that, Saddam is an idiot.

Covert support of competing parties and sending in a few cruise missiles is a lot different than invasion and occupation, however. Sure Clinton wanted the guy gone, but would he have invaded according to Bush Doctrine ideals given the chance after 9/11? I doubt it, but hey who knows.

The scary thing is that Bush and co. believed half the garbage they spewing even though the intelligence on it was mostly weak or non-existent.

As i keep saying, supporting the war and regime is a whole different issue. The means by which it was sold to Congress, the U.S. public, and the global community, either by lying, skewing the facts, or by sheer blind faith is what disturbs me, as it should everyone. The worst thing about everything that went down is not that it happened, or even that nobody was held accountable, but that there's nothing to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

[bush_cheney2004]

Saddam was a bad dude and his dangerous actions are well-established. Yes he was a security concern no doubt. The Iraq Liberation Act on regime change was by the means of mostly supporting other competing parties in Iraq in taking control of the gov from Saddam. Hell i'm probably in favour of that, Saddam is an idiot.

Saddam was a useful counterbalance against Iran until he began to believe his own press. Then he had to go.

Covert support of competing parties and sending in a few cruise missiles is a lot different than invasion and occupation, however. Sure Clinton wanted the guy gone, but would he have invaded according to Bush Doctrine ideals given the chance after 9/11? I doubt it, but hey who knows.

The Clinton and Bush policies for Iraq were nearly identical....with sanctions and military operations. Bush and two other PMs decided to invade Iraq and topple Saddam for good.

The scary thing is that Bush and co. believed half the garbage they spewing even though the intelligence on it was mostly weak or non-existent.

The "garbage" was plenty good enough as a pretext for war. That's all it had to be. Just like broken baby incubators in Kuwait. Or half baked stories about genocide in Kosovo.

As i keep saying, supporting the war and regime is a whole different issue. The means by which it was sold to Congress, the U.S. public, and the global community, either by lying, skewing the facts, or by sheer blind faith is what disturbs me, as it should everyone. The worst thing about everything that went down is not that it happened, or even that nobody was held accountable, but that there's nothing to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

It has happened many times...I don't know why anyone considers Bush special in this regard. He did his job and led his nation to war in an effort to reduce a threat, real or perceived in the context of post 9/11 attacks. Saddam and Iraq were already in the US/UK dog house for many years....it's not like they up and attacked some "innocent" nation out of the blue one day.

As for the "global community", some supported the action while many others did not. Would it make it any better had that opinion been switched in favor of invasion? Nope....it was not their decision in the end either way. The US/UK and NATO learned that they could do pretty much whatever they wanted to and nobody had the power to stop them (Kosovo). This has not changed based on current military engagement.

Edited April 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

The US/UK and NATO learned that they could do pretty much whatever they wanted to and nobody had the power to stop them (Kosovo).

You'd think such power, while it exists, would be put to "better use". 21 years of the US and its allies being the unopposed global superpower and what do we have to show for it? A few toppled dictators in some worthless wastelands~

[Born Free]

You'd think such power, while it exists, would be put to "better use". 21 years of the US and its allies being the unopposed global superpower and what do we have to show for it? A few toppled dictators in some worthless wastelands~

.... and now unaffordable health care.

[GostHacked]

I seriously doubt regime change would have happened in Iraq if there were no terror attacks on the US in NY.