http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Prosecution-of-George-W-Bush-for-Murder/Vincent-Bugliosi/e/9781593154813/?itm=1

I just saw this arthor on TV talking about this book...He did the Manson Family Trails, etc..Its also a NY Times best selling book.

What do you think of this?

You know when you think of it, Id like to read it.

He is a big lawyer who backs up everything with evidence. He said some people find it so true that it makes them so mad they can only read 5 pages at a time.

I'd love to read it.

Me too, but Id check it out of a library, i dont think its something Id like to reread.

Gonna totally tell my friend about this book. She is a political science major so I know she would be interested... and send it to me when she is done. :lol

I think that is on my must read list.

Me too, but Id check it out of a library, i dont think its something Id like to reread.

Either that or buy it used.

I think that is on my must read list.


Definitely a must read for me too!!

:thinking I may shell out the dough for that one new. :lol

Me too, but Id check it out of a library, i dont think its something Id like to reread.

I think I'll check it out as well. But you're right about the rereadability. I think it's a library one for sure!

That does look interesting. I want to read. I'll probably wait a while and buy it off amazon for pennies.

That does look interesting. I want to read. I'll probably wait a while and buy it off amazon for pennies.

Oh yeah! LOL Thanks for reminding me.

It seems like an interesting book, so I guess I will try to find it but not so sure I would want to buy it.

i would read it, for sure. my mom's probably got an autographed copy (she's very anti-bush)..

I'd be interested to hear what he has to say. :yes

I think Bush is a criminal.

I have to bump this up because Adam bought me this book for my birthday!!! I am gonna start reading it today (first chance I have had to even sit down and read since then :lol) and I will probably post and let you know what I think as I go. Maybe I will even throw some quotes in. :giggle

When I am done you can borrow it and read it too if you want Heidi!

Every president that has been in office when we have been at war should be prosecuted as well then. I dont think I would read the book.

Eh, not every President started a pre-emptive war based on a lie... :dunno

I won't buy nor read the book.

I think the case wouldn't be very hard to make. I probably won't read it because its not actually going to happen, Trina I will listen to you tell me about it though, lol. I think Bush is a criminal. I just don't feel the overwhelming urge to have revenge against him. As far as I am concerned once he is out of office, I don't care anymore. We should have impeached him long ago, but we didn't. Too late now. The damage is done and prosecuting him won't repair it. I also think the country has to take responsibility for letting it happen and doing NOTHING.

So now I am just thankful that it is almost over and the "Conservative Revolution" is over. Hopefully now we can move on with much more centrist policies. I just hope we learned our lesson about radicalism. (wishful thinking, probably.)

I won't buy nor read the book.

:agree
The title is enough to turn me away.

Wow. This sounds like an interesting read. :yes

Eh, not every President started a pre-emptive war based on a lie... :dunno
Exactly.

i just read this from a page of excerpts "I have a very distinct impression that with the exception of a vagrant tear that may have fallen if he was swept up, in the moment, at an emotional public ceremony for American soldiers who have died in the war, George Bush hasn't suffered at all over the monumental suffering, death, and horror he has caused by plunging this nation into the darkness of the Iraq war, probably never losing a wink of sleep over it. Sure, we often hear from Bush administration sources, or his family, or from Bush himself, about how much he suffers over the loss of American lives in Iraq. But that dog won't run. How do we just about know this is nonsense? Not only because the words he has uttered could never have escaped from his lips if he were suffering, but because no matter how many American soldiers have died on a given day in Iraq (averaging well over two every day), he is always seen with a big smile on his face that same day or the next, and is in good spirits. How would that be possible if he was suffering? For example, the November 3, 2003, morning New York Times front-page headline story was that the previous day in Fallouja, Iraq, insurgents "shot down an American helicopter just outside the city in a bold assault that killed 16 soldiers and wounded 20 others. It was the deadliest attack on American troops since the United States invaded Iraq in March." Yet later in that same day when Bush arrived for a fund-raiser in Birmingham, Alabama, he was smiling broadly, and Mike Allen of the Washington Post wrote that "the President appeared to be in a fabulous mood." This is merely one of hundreds of such observations made about Bush while the brutal war continued in Iraq. "and it was enough to make me want to :club :voodoo :shakefist

i would love to read this book, but i would probably get so :angry that it would be bad for my health.
bush makes me want to :pukey

Just another opinion by someone who knows how to write. I probably wont read it because like someone said they would have to prosecute almost every president. Also, Bush made the decision to go to war based on info given him. Just another reason to hop on the blame it on Bush bandwagon lol. President Bush is not the only person who decides to go to war.

Just another opinion by someone who knows how to write. I probably wont read it because like someone said they would have to prosecute almost every president. Also, Bush made the decision to go to war based on info given him. Just another reason to hop on the blame it on Bush bandwagon lol. President Bush is not the only person who decides to go to war.

:hail

Just another opinion by someone who knows how to write. I probably wont read it because like someone said they would have to prosecute almost every president. Also, Bush made the decision to go to war based on info given him. Just another reason to hop on the blame it on Bush bandwagon lol. President Bush is not the only person who decides to go to war.

Exactly!

What's that saying? Opinions are like assholes...

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

The fact that he made the decision to go to war based on the info given him, and that he didn't give that same info to Congress, is the problem.

i'd love to read it.

I dont care what anyone says. I am extremely glad we went over there and found Saddam. If we can stop one person from attacking our country so be it. I hope we stay over there until we find Bin Laden. This is JMO and I expect no one to agree with me.

Just another opinion by someone who knows how to write. I probably wont read it because like someone said they would have to prosecute almost every president. Also, Bush made the decision to go to war based on info given him. Just another reason to hop on the blame it on Bush bandwagon lol. President Bush is not the only person who decides to go to war.

I pretty much love you :hail :hail

Yeah, I think I will start a new thread when I start talking about the book. :lol

Should every soldier that pulled a trigger and killed someone over there be prosecuted too? I mean they are the ones doing the actual killing not Bush.

Are you asking me?

Should every soldier that pulled a trigger and killed someone over there be prosecuted too? I mean they are the ones doing the actual killing not Bush.

Uhmmmmm no.

We should be prosecuting the people who put the soldiers in a position where they had to pull the trigger.

Uhmmmmm no.

We should be prosecuting the people who put the soldiers in a position where they had to pull the trigger.

I see what you're saying, but to play devil's advocate....

Signing up for the military puts you in a position to pull the trigger if there is a war. It comes with the job. This isn't the first war, and I doubt it will be the last.

I see what you're saying, but to play devil's advocate....

Signing up for the military puts you in a position to pull the trigger if there is a war. It comes with the job. This isn't the first war, and I doubt it will be the last.

:agree

Uhmmmmm no.

We should be prosecuting the people who put the soldiers in a position where they had to pull the trigger.
Exactly. I thought that would be... kinda apparent.

I see what you're saying, but to play devil's advocate....

Signing up for the military puts you in a position to pull the trigger if there is a war. It comes with the job.

Which is exactly why the truth is so important.

If you read the intelligence report it explains exactly why I think the Administration should be held accountable. Not only did they hold secret intelligence investigations to collect information hoping to find something to use in their case for war, but when they didn't get what they wanted they suppressed any information that would prove them wrong. They gave Congress false information, gave the American people false information, and did it knowingly.

The report says it all. Seriously. Read it if you haven't.

Exactly. I thought that would be... kinda apparent.

I was addressing the issue of prosecuting troops for doing their jobs. I was trying to defend them.

:dunno

Whatever I guess. :lol

Just another opinion by someone who knows how to write. I probably wont read it because like someone said they would have to prosecute almost every president. Also, Bush made the decision to go to war based on info given him. Just another reason to hop on the blame it on Bush bandwagon lol. President Bush is not the only person who decides to go to war.

Personally, I think that anybody capable of getting elected as president should, on no account, be allowed to hold that office.

With that being said, however, I have to ask how far our standards have fallen. When Nixon resigned, the impeachment process was starting based on him having his cronies raid a Democratic Party office, then covering it up. When Clinton was impeached, it was over an affair, then subsequently lying about it. In both cases, nobody died, and it effected the lives of very few people directly.

Those presidents who have been impeached, or the impeachment process has been started for, each did minor acts, and compounded it with lies after the fact. Bush, on the other hand, lied from the first day (see the Senate Intelligence investigation into the causes of the war in Iraq). In order to lie, you must know the truth, or at least enough of the truth to know that you're not speaking it. Yet, despite his lie, he was not impeached. On July 30th, 2008, James McHale died in Bethesda from injuries suffered from an IED. Mr. McHale would still be alive today, if Bush had told the truth. When Clinton lied about his affair, nobody died. Today, Mr. McHale's mother is crying because of the loss of her son. His father is comforting James' mother today, and if he had brothers and sisters, they are greiving as well. What if James had a wife? She is getting a visit from men dressed in their class A uniforms... a visit none of us want to get. If he had any children, they will grow up to forget his face, and would probably have only a flag hung in the living room to let them know that they had a father, and perhaps some of his old uniforms as memory of the service he lived and died for. When Nixon lied, nobody died. Yet today, James McHale will not be sitting as he is flown home, he will be flying home in a pine box, with a flag draped over him as he rests in the cargo hold of a commercial aircraft, most of the passengers quietly unaware of the hero flying with them, and unaware of the depth of the lie which killed James.

This isn't the first story which brought tears to my eyes... only the latest. On July 17th, Jackie Larson died in Balad, and she has a similar story. Perhaps her friends from high school had a reuinion at her funeral, and it is perhaps their first real look at death and at their own mortality.

Every name has a story behind it... at least 18 years worth of a story, and a story which does not end once the heart stops breathing, because the people who survive remember. Each name was known by other people in our military, and each person had a mother and a father who are now greiving. Each person had friends back home, who are shocked to see that name appear in their local newspaper, who are devestated as more officers put their uniforms on and drive to the house of a spouse or a parent.

And still Bush lies. 4125 people have been officially reported as dead, who would still be alive today if not for that lie... How many other presidents have lied, and the result of that lie has lead to people's deaths? Not many. Yes, presidents have lied. Yes, presidents have waged war. Very, very few, however, have put the two together and have caused the deaths of our troops needlessly.

I see what you're saying, but to play devil's advocate....

Signing up for the military puts you in a position to pull the trigger if there is a war. It comes with the job. This isn't the first war, and I doubt it will be the last.

:tu

I am honestly torn about Bush. I just don't know.

Personally, I think that anybody capable of getting elected as president should, on no account, be allowed to hold that office.

With that being said, however, I have to ask how far our standards have fallen. When Nixon resigned, the impeachment process was starting based on him having his cronies raid a Democratic Party office, then covering it up. When Clinton was impeached, it was over an affair, then subsequently lying about it. In both cases, nobody died, and it effected the lives of very few people directly.

Those presidents who have been impeached, or the impeachment process has been started for, each did minor acts, and compounded it with lies after the fact. Bush, on the other hand, lied from the first day (see the Senate Intelligence investigation into the causes of the war in Iraq). In order to lie, you must know the truth, or at least enough of the truth to know that you're not speaking it. Yet, despite his lie, he was not impeached. On July 30th, 2008, James McHale died in Bethesda from injuries suffered from an IED. Mr. McHale would still be alive today, if Bush had told the truth. When Clinton lied about his affair, nobody died. Today, Mr. McHale's mother is crying because of the loss of her son. His father is comforting James' mother today, and if he had brothers and sisters, they are greiving as well. What if James had a wife? She is getting a visit from men dressed in their class A uniforms... a visit none of us want to get. If he had any children, they will grow up to forget his face, and would probably have only a flag hung in the living room to let them know that they had a father, and perhaps some of his old uniforms as memory of the service he lived and died for. When Nixon lied, nobody died. Yet today, James McHale will not be sitting as he is flown home, he will be flying home in a pine box, with a flag draped over him as he rests in the cargo hold of a commercial aircraft, most of the passengers quietly unaware of the hero flying with them, and unaware of the depth of the lie which killed James.

This isn't the first story which brought tears to my eyes... only the latest. On July 17th, Jackie Larson died in Balad, and she has a similar story. Perhaps her friends from high school had a reuinion at her funeral, and it is perhaps their first real look at death and at their own mortality.

Every name has a story behind it... at least 18 years worth of a story, and a story which does not end once the heart stops breathing, because the people who survive remember. Each name was known by other people in our military, and each person had a mother and a father who are now greiving. Each person had friends back home, who are shocked to see that name appear in their local newspaper, who are devestated as more officers put their uniforms on and drive to the house of a spouse or a parent.

And still Bush lies. 4125 people have been officially reported as dead, who would still be alive today if not for that lie... How many other presidents have lied, and the result of that lie has lead to people's deaths? Not many. Yes, presidents have lied. Yes, presidents have waged war. Very, very few, however, have put the two together and have caused the deaths of our troops needlessly.

Well said, and it made me cry. Senseless loss all because of a lie.

Well said, and it made me cry. Senseless loss all because of a lie.
Not to mention all those affected. An infantryman I had a brief fling with (but later became a good friend of) was shot in Iraq, came home, thought he was fine, and .... a few months later.... he put a gun to his head.

He would get drunk and start screaming about how he couldn't save his friends, would be weeping about why he came home alive and they didn't.

This is something I will NEVER forget.

What about all the undue trauma? The families? The friends?

Not to mention all those affected. An infantryman I had a brief fling with (but later became a good friend of) was shot in Iraq, came home, thought he was fine, and .... a few months later.... he put a gun to his head.

He would get drunk and start screaming about how he couldn't save his friends, would be weeping about why he came home alive and they didn't.

This is something I will NEVER forget.

What about all the undue trauma? The families? The friends?

The wounds that can't be seen can cause a lot of devastation. We will have another generation scarred by a war that can not be won because the enemy is terrorism. Terrorism is something that has and will always exist we will never root out all terrorism and invading other nations (with the excuse of preemptive strikes) will not make OURS any safer.

The wounds that can't be seen can cause a lot of devastation. We will have another generation scarred by a war that can not be won because the enemy is terrorism. Terrorism is something that has and will always exist we will never root out all terrorism and invading other nations (with the excuse of preemptive strikes) will not make OURS any safer.
Fighting a concept will never make anyone safer.

I totally agree with you.

The above is something I've never mentioned on this board. It's hard... knowing the effect that had on us all.

:tears

It has always interested me that the military has supported Bush. Soldiers do sign up to fight for their country. But in so-doing I think they put their trust and faith in our leaders to do the right thing. As far as I am concerned Bush (and every American politician) has a responsibility to respect that service by being cautious about committing troops to any conflict or mission. It's a decision that should be made carefully because to make reckless decisions with peoples lives, particularly SOLDIERS lives is completely disrespectful.

IMO the military and everybody in it should be completely pissed that Bush used their lives so carelessly and recklessly. I know several soldiers who are now ashamed of their service and regretful that they ever joined. To me what Bush did was completely disrespectful to the service. He spit in the soldiers faces.

my thing is that malosovich is in jail for senseless and stupid acts, why is bush exempt?

Oh my this guy is a crock of poop! yep you heard me right poop. and to think people would take time out of their day and read this.

You know the sad thing is if the leaders before GWB had taken care of business Iraq wouldn't have been an issue for GWB. So lets take those who didn't do their job right on down with him.

i want to read this! I will have to tell the madre to get it :lol

You know the sad thing is if the leaders before GWB had taken care of business Iraq wouldn't have been an issue for GWB. So lets take those who didn't do their job right on down with him.

:no
Iraq wasn't an issue for Mr.Bush until he chose to lie and make it one for some unknown reason. Could it be something like oil &power hunger?

See I don't get that. I get a country that the leader was a ruthless leader that did unthinkable things to fellow countrymen, but people seem to forget that.

Or that the first WTC bombers came out of Iraq back in 1993.

I never forgot Sadaam was a prick. I just think we had more important fish to fry.

This war is a joke. It makes me sick that people still believe in it

You know the sad thing is if the leaders before GWB had taken care of business Iraq wouldn't have been an issue for GWB. So lets take those who didn't do their job right on down with him.

:hail
He did not do this alone. How many before him??

See I don't get that. I get a country that the leader was a ruthless leader that did unthinkable things to fellow countrymen, but people seem to forget that.

Or that the first WTC bombers came out of Iraq back in 1993.

I have not forgotten what kind of leader he was. I am more concerned with why Bush has publicly said that Bin Laden is no longer a priority. I am more concerned with why he and his administration felt the need to lie/omit information/mislead congress in order to bring us to where we are now.

Also Mr.Bush is JUST as ruthless and also approves of unthinkable things such as torture to get the answers he wants to hear, forcing CIA to change data to suit his needs, and currently trying to strong arm the CIA into saying inflammatory things about Iran in an effort to get us into yet another country before he leaves office. Not to mention illegal wire tapping, the patriot act, the homeland security directive, making things easier for big business while small business and the American people struggle, helping out his friends in big oil etc etc etc.

Sorry, Im not going to waste my time, money, gas to read something so stupid. JMO Who gives a rat's ass? This same thing is going to happen IF Obama is elected in 4-8yrs.(hopefully only 4) Someone is going to write a book about his fuck-ups... OMG, get the fuck over it. Bush will soon be out of office get off his ass.

Sorry, Im not going to waste my time, money, gas to read something so stupid. JMO Who gives a rat's ass? This same thing is going to happen IF Obama is elected in 4-8yrs.(hopefully only 4) Someone is going to write a book about his fuck-ups... OMG, get the fuck over it. Bush will soon be out of office get off his ass.

:yes

Sorry I just can't get the fuck over a war that has cost so very much in both lives and money.

Sorry I just can't get the fuck over a war that has cost so very much in both lives and money.

:tu:tu:tu:tu

WOW.

:no
Iraq wasn't an issue for Mr.Bush until he chose to lie and make it one for some unknown reason. Could it be something like oil &power hunger?

:agree

i dont think its our "job" (or anyone elses) to invade another country for absolutly no reason other than the fact that we can profit from their oil. We should have left as soon as it became apparent that the "weapons of mass destruction" :rolleyes were nonexistant. Who gave us the right to all of a sudden decide that because we dont like another countries government, that we can go in and try to overturn it. And all the "oh well its for the good of the civilians" crap is just that...its bs. they never wanted us there and they still dont. and our soliders, who signed up to PROTECT THEIR COUNTRY - NOT TO KILL INNOCENTS! are paying for an ignorant powerhungry mans mistake :no

You know the sad thing is if the leaders before GWB had taken care of business Iraq wouldn't have been an issue for GWB. So lets take those who didn't do their job right on down with him.

You know, I kinda agree. George Bush Sr. *should* be held accountable for starting a war with Iraq he could not finish, and convincing his son that it should be carried on at any cost. You're absolutely right that previous leaders should shoulder the blame, as well.

You know, I kinda agree. George Bush Sr. *should* be held accountable for starting a war with Iraq he could not finish, and convincing his son that it should be carried on at any cost. You're absolutely right that previous leaders should shoulder the blame, as well.

Hmmm....I was in the Navy during the first Gulf War and I don't seem to recall the US starting that war. I believe it was Iraq who invaded Kuwait and Kuwait who asked for US assistance.

In regards to the article/book:
I think if you want to prosecute one president for a war that didn't go the way you wanted it to, or for something you (and I am speaking in general terms here in regards to "you") don't think we had any business being involved in, then "you" need to go back and prosecute all those who were president when we went into a country we had no business in. Bosnia, Vietnam, Korea, The Balkans, etc........after all we should only worry about our own country and no other (Heavy sarcasm here). While you are at it, I maybe they should prosecute all the intel officers that provide the intel, the military generals making decisions and anyone in congress who voted "Yes". JMO.....

Hmmm....I was in the Navy during the first Gulf War and I don't seem to recall the US starting that war. I believe it was Iraq who invaded Kuwait and Kuwait who asked for US assistance.

In regards to the article/book:
I think if you want to prosecute one president for a war that didn't go the way you wanted it to, or for something you (and I am speaking in general terms here in regards to "you") don't think we had any business being involved in, then "you" need to go back and prosecute all those who were president when we went into a country we had no business in. Bosnia, Vietnam, Korea, The Balkans, etc........after all we should only worry about our own country and no other (Heavy sarcasm here). While you are at it, I maybe they should prosecute all the intel officers that provide the intel, the military generals making decisions and anyone in congress who voted "Yes". JMO.....

I 100% :agree.

Hmmm....I was in the Navy during the first Gulf War and I don't seem to recall the US starting that war. I believe it was Iraq who invaded Kuwait and Kuwait who asked for US assistance.

In regards to the article/book:
I think if you want to prosecute one president for a war that didn't go the way you wanted it to, or for something you (and I am speaking in general terms here in regards to "you") don't think we had any business being involved in, then "you" need to go back and prosecute all those who were president when we went into a country we had no business in. Bosnia, Vietnam, Korea, The Balkans, etc........after all we should only worry about our own country and no other (Heavy sarcasm here). While you are at it, I maybe they should prosecute all the intel officers that provide the intel, the military generals making decisions and anyone in congress who voted "Yes". JMO.....

As far as who else should be prosecuted... The CIA, FBI, NSA, and MI are safe, because Bush didn't ask them. Bush formed his own little group that suppressed any information that might contradict him, and exaggerated any rumors that supported him...

In other words, Bush lied. He had a brand new puppet that he put in charge of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and MI that prevented them from speaking the truth, in the form of his Gestapo... I mean, his Department of Homeland Security. Instead of the Intelligence community being splintered and specialized (therefor allowing them to disagree and, collectively, be more accurate), Bush united them, and appointed his cronies to dictate what each department could and should say, effectively destroying their ability to refute any lie Bush might tell.

As for prosecuting the presidents who waged wars in countries we had "no business in..." We were asked by the people in Kosovo (the Balkans) to help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. We were asked by the people in Bosnia to help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. We were asked by the people in Vietnam for help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and fought a losing war, so were unable to finish the job... but we did not lie. We were asked by the people of Korea to help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. We were asked by the people of Kuwait for help, the first time we fought against Iraq. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. In Kosovo, Bosnia, and Kuwait, it wasn't just us, it was all of NATO fighting.

And, for those who are wondering... My stance isn't that I hate Bush, so I'm pointing out his lies. I hate his lies, so I do not support Bush. Please read the Senate intelligence reports, so that you can know the truth of what was done. It will piss you off, no matter how much you like and support Bush. I did like Bush, and I did support Bush, but I simply can not support him now, because I can not support what he is doing and the way he is doing it. I'm sorry, but my definition of patriotism is based on my oath of enlistment... I swore to defend the Constitution, not blindly obey people in the government. I see our current president attacking the Constitution directly, in so many ways, starting with the Patriot Act which destroyed the Writ of Habeas Corpus, continuing on with extending his powers of war into Iraq (when the only war that is currently sanctioned by Congress is the one in Afghanistan) which violates Articles I and II, compounded by his warrantless wire tap program which contradicts Amendment IV, exacerbated by his use of torture which violates Amendment VIII.

I'm sorry, I swore a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Bush is an enemy of the Constitution, even if he is the president, and it is my duty, according to the oath of enlistment, to do all in my power to stop his attacks. I will not bear arms against him, because that goes against my personal convictions, but I will point out the truth to anybody who will listen, to ensure that not only does he leave office as quickly as possible, but that people like him are not elected again in the future.

As far as who else should be prosecuted... The CIA, FBI, NSA, and MI are safe, because Bush didn't ask them. Bush formed his own little group that suppressed any information that might contradict him, and exaggerated any rumors that supported him...

In other words, Bush lied. He had a brand new puppet that he put in charge of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and MI that prevented them from speaking the truth, in the form of his Gestapo... I mean, his Department of Homeland Security. Instead of the Intelligence community being splintered and specialized (therefor allowing them to disagree and, collectively, be more accurate), Bush united them, and appointed his cronies to dictate what each department could and should say, effectively destroying their ability to refute any lie Bush might tell.

As for prosecuting the presidents who waged wars in countries we had "no business in..." We were asked by the people in Kosovo (the Balkans) to help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. We were asked by the people in Bosnia to help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. We were asked by the people in Vietnam for help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and fought a losing war, so were unable to finish the job... but we did not lie. We were asked by the people of Korea to help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. We were asked by the people of Kuwait for help, the first time we fought against Iraq. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. In Kosovo, Bosnia, and Kuwait, it wasn't just us, it was all of NATO fighting.

And, for those who are wondering... My stance isn't that I hate Bush, so I'm pointing out his lies. I hate his lies, so I do not support Bush. Please read the Senate intelligence reports, so that you can know the truth of what was done. It will piss you off, no matter how much you like and support Bush. I did like Bush, and I did support Bush, but I simply can not support him now, because I can not support what he is doing and the way he is doing it. I'm sorry, but my definition of patriotism is based on my oath of enlistment... I swore to defend the Constitution, not blindly obey people in the government. I see our current president attacking the Constitution directly, in so many ways, starting with the Patriot Act which destroyed the Writ of Habeas Corpus, continuing on with extending his powers of war into Iraq (when the only war that is currently sanctioned by Congress is the one in Afghanistan) which violates Articles I and II, compounded by his warrantless wire tap program which contradicts Amendment IV, exacerbated by his use of torture which violates Amendment VIII.

I'm sorry, I swore a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Bush is an enemy of the Constitution, even if he is the president, and it is my duty, according to the oath of enlistment, to do all in my power to stop his attacks. I will not bear arms against him, because that goes against my personal convictions, but I will point out the truth to anybody who will listen, to ensure that not only does he leave office as quickly as possible, but that people like him are not elected again in the future.

:tu:tu:tu:tu

You know, I kinda agree. George Bush Sr. *should* be held accountable for starting a war with Iraq he could not finish, and convincing his son that it should be carried on at any cost. You're absolutely right that previous leaders should shoulder the blame, as well.

Well then take Clinton down with them, since he didn't take care of Iraq in 93, when the WMD still could be found whole.

Hmmm....I was in the Navy during the first Gulf War and I don't seem to recall the US starting that war. I believe it was Iraq who invaded Kuwait and Kuwait who asked for US assistance.

In regards to the article/book:
I think if you want to prosecute one president for a war that didn't go the way you wanted it to, or for something you (and I am speaking in general terms here in regards to "you") don't think we had any business being involved in, then "you" need to go back and prosecute all those who were president when we went into a country we had no business in. Bosnia, Vietnam, Korea, The Balkans, etc........after all we should only worry about our own country and no other (Heavy sarcasm here). While you are at it, I maybe they should prosecute all the intel officers that provide the intel, the military generals making decisions and anyone in congress who voted "Yes". JMO.....


thank you so much for pointing out the facts and truth here. I so agree with you statement.

I just don't see how people can think this war is all about oil!

and everyone keeps saying Bush Lies, um yeah can you tell me one politician that doesn't lie?

Well then take Clinton down with them, since he didn't take care of Iraq in 93, when the WMD still could be found whole.

and everyone keeps saying Bush Lies, um yeah can you tell me one politician that doesn't lie?

:yes

Well said, and it made me cry. Senseless loss all because of a lie.

I think the most absurd thing for me is that people will actually say "Well we HAVE to stay now, because if we go, all those soldiers will have died in vain."

Ummmm, what???? Hell-OOOO, their deaths were IN VAIN the moment they happened.

thank you so much for pointing out the facts and truth here. I so agree with you statement.

I just don't see how people can think this war is all about oil!

Of course it is.

If is was about something honorable like Human Rights, we'd be in the Sudan and Myanmar.

and everyone keeps saying Bush Lies, um yeah can you tell me one politician that doesn't lie?

Clinton lied... and was impeached... yet his lies didn't lead to the deaths of our heroes.

Nixon lied... and resigned at the beginning of the impeachment process... yet his lies didn't lead to the deaths of our heroes.

Many other presidents lied... I already conceded that point. My point remains that, because Bush's lies lead to over 4,000 American deaths, and an estimated 1 million Iraqi deaths, that he should be tried for murder and war crimes... not just impeached for lying.

Well good thing we are all allowed to have our own opinions.

B/c there are many of that know the war is about way more then Oil.

I just can't, oh never mind, let the terrosist come back and blow up the whole country, since this is all about oil.

Clinton lied... and was impeached... yet his lies didn't lead to the deaths of our heroes.

Nixon lied... and resigned at the beginning of the impeachment process... yet his lies didn't lead to the deaths of our heroes.

Many other presidents lied... I already conceded that point. My point remains that, because Bush's lies lead to over 4,000 American deaths, and an estimated 1 million Iraqi deaths, that he should be tried for murder and war crimes... not just impeached for lying.


Um yeah when was Clinton truly impeached, oh yeah only by the H of R and then he was aqcuitted.


But, see if Clinton had done his job back in 1993, Iraq wouldn't have been an issue now.

I just can't understand why people would blame Bush for the Deaths in Iraq. Do you just forget what Iraq/Sudam has done in the past???

And blame the Iraqi deaths on Americans, most of those deaths are at the hands of other Iraqis, not Americans!

Well good thing we are all allowed to have our own opinions.

B/c there are many of that know the war is about way more then Oil.

I just can't, oh never mind, let the terrosist come back and blow up the whole country, since this is all about oil.

OMG, this is going to be rich.

Tell me.... what, exactly, is the connection between "terrorist(s)... blow(ing) up the whole country..." and our reason for invading Iraq?

I can hardly wait for the answer to this one.

Do you realize that the vast majority of terroristic acts in this country have been domestically based and had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq or oil?

And blame the Iraqi deaths on Americans, most of those deaths are at the hands of other Iraqis, not Americans!

So, you've got empirical evidence that more Iraquis were dying (at the hands of other Iraqis, of course) BEFORE we invaded, than are dying today? Or that have died since we invaded?

Go ahead, take your time finding that information. I'll wait.

Of course it is.

If is was about something honorable like Human Rights, we'd be in the Sudan and Myanmar.
:yes

OMG, this is going to be rich.

Tell me.... what, exactly, is the connection between "terrorist(s)... blow(ing) up the whole country..." and our reason for invading Iraq?

I can hardly wait for the answer to this one.

Do you realize that the vast majority of terroristic acts in this country have been domestically based and had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq or oil?
Psst. They WEREN'T Iraqi. :giggle

I can't make multi quote work right now but I agree 1,0000% with Eelo and Trina's husband on this.

During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the regime implemented anti-Kurdish policies and a de facto civil war broke out. Iraq was widely-condemned by the international community, but was never seriously punished for oppressive measures such as the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the wholesale destruction of thousands of villages and the deportation of thousands of Kurds to southern and central Iraq. The campaign of Iraqi government against Kurds in 1988 was called Anfal ("Spoils of War"). The Anfal attacks led to destruction of two thousand villages and death of between fifty and one-hundred thousand Kurds.[30]

The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data. The estimate is for all excess violent and nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were estimated to be due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%). A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of those households asked to produce one).[15][16

So if this is still acurate today that is 31% of the 1 million reported to day due to coalition, but it isn't telling you if those Iraqi deaths due to coalition forces were part of the terrosisit activity taking place.

I could do more research, but I am sure I shouldn't bother, b/c I am not here to change your mind, We are all entitled to our opinions!

and everyone keeps saying Bush Lies, um yeah can you tell me one politician that doesn't lie?

It really bothers me that people are ok with ANY politician lying. :no

As far as who else should be prosecuted... The CIA, FBI, NSA, and MI are safe, because Bush didn't ask them. Bush formed his own little group that suppressed any information that might contradict him, and exaggerated any rumors that supported him...

In other words, Bush lied. He had a brand new puppet that he put in charge of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and MI that prevented them from speaking the truth, in the form of his Gestapo... I mean, his Department of Homeland Security. Instead of the Intelligence community being splintered and specialized (therefor allowing them to disagree and, collectively, be more accurate), Bush united them, and appointed his cronies to dictate what each department could and should say, effectively destroying their ability to refute any lie Bush might tell.

As for prosecuting the presidents who waged wars in countries we had "no business in..." We were asked by the people in Kosovo (the Balkans) to help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. We were asked by the people in Bosnia to help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. We were asked by the people in Vietnam for help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and fought a losing war, so were unable to finish the job... but we did not lie. We were asked by the people of Korea to help. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. We were asked by the people of Kuwait for help, the first time we fought against Iraq. We told the world up front what we would do. We told the world why we were doing it. We did what we said, and no more, and we did not lie about it. In Kosovo, Bosnia, and Kuwait, it wasn't just us, it was all of NATO fighting.

And, for those who are wondering... My stance isn't that I hate Bush, so I'm pointing out his lies. I hate his lies, so I do not support Bush. Please read the Senate intelligence reports, so that you can know the truth of what was done. It will piss you off, no matter how much you like and support Bush. I did like Bush, and I did support Bush, but I simply can not support him now, because I can not support what he is doing and the way he is doing it. I'm sorry, but my definition of patriotism is based on my oath of enlistment... I swore to defend the Constitution, not blindly obey people in the government. I see our current president attacking the Constitution directly, in so many ways, starting with the Patriot Act which destroyed the Writ of Habeas Corpus, continuing on with extending his powers of war into Iraq (when the only war that is currently sanctioned by Congress is the one in Afghanistan) which violates Articles I and II, compounded by his warrantless wire tap program which contradicts Amendment IV, exacerbated by his use of torture which violates Amendment VIII.

I'm sorry, I swore a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Bush is an enemy of the Constitution, even if he is the president, and it is my duty, according to the oath of enlistment, to do all in my power to stop his attacks. I will not bear arms against him, because that goes against my personal convictions, but I will point out the truth to anybody who will listen, to ensure that not only does he leave office as quickly as possible, but that people like him are not elected again in the future.

I could not agree with you more.

It really bothers me that people are ok with ANY politician lying. :no

People are ok with it? I know I am not.

During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the regime implemented anti-Kurdish policies and a de facto civil war broke out. Iraq was widely-condemned by the international community, but was never seriously punished for oppressive measures such as the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the wholesale destruction of thousands of villages and the deportation of thousands of Kurds to southern and central Iraq. The campaign of Iraqi government against Kurds in 1988 was called Anfal ("Spoils of War"). The Anfal attacks led to destruction of two thousand villages and death of between fifty and one-hundred thousand Kurds.[30]

The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data. The estimate is for all excess violent and nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were estimated to be due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%). A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of those households asked to produce one).[15][16

So if this is still acurate today that is 31% of the 1 million reported to day due to coalition, but it isn't telling you if those Iraqi deaths due to coalition forces were part of the terrosisit activity taking place.

I could do more research, but I am sure I shouldn't bother, b/c I am not here to change your mind, We are all entitled to our opinions!

Once again, when you quote someone else's work, it is common courtesy to cite your source. Clearly, you didn't get that information on your own.

Also, the question was, how do the deaths since the invasion compare to the deaths before the invasion.

I notice that you conveniently backed away from the possibility of appearing competent. It's nice to say you don't feel like doing research, and that this is "your opinion" *gag/choke/cough*, but if "your opinion" is based on incorrect/incomplete/deceptive information, then "your opinion" is only as good as the research you're willing to do.

Your choice.

This thread is amazing. I agree fully with eelo and Green~Mammy.

The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006

Well see, the thing about excess deaths is that all of them are caused by the person who started the hostilities, even if they're not the ones who pulled the trigger or placed the bombs.

So, the 31% attributed to the coalition is Bush's fault... because without Bush's lies, there would be no coalition forces. The 24% of "other" (i.e., Iraqi freedom fighters) is also Bush's fault... because without Bush's lies, they'd have no reason to kill. The 46% of unknown is... you guessed it, Bush's fault, because without his involvement and lies that started this whole mess, those deaths would have never had happened.

Statistics are really good at muddling people's understanding, if we don't take a careful look at the exact words used... In this case, look up the word "excessive" in a dictionary. It means that, if Bush had told the truth in the beginning, then as of June 2006, there would have been 654,965 fewer funerals.

And, if you're not here to change our minds, then I applaud your participation in the debate board. Far more debate forums need people who open-mindedly present their cases, consider the cases of others, and come to a consensus... unless your purpose of saying that you're not here to change people's minds is so that people stop debating with you... then I must ask, what do you think the purpose of debate is?

People are ok with it? I know I am not.

I'm definitely not okay with it, at all.

The way you worded it, made it sound like you were making an excuse for him.... I read it as "everyone else does it, why can't he?"

I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say... sorry.

People are ok with it? I know I am not.

In that case you should be all for holding Bush responsible.

In that case you should be all for holding Bush responsible.

touche'

Well then take Clinton down with them, since he didn't take care of Iraq in 93, when the WMD still could be found whole.

Should we try taking this all the way back to Reagan, then? Or, how about Carter for setting the modern precedent of dealing with terrorists in the Iranian hostage situation?

I know! We could trace it back and blame it on King George III for allowing a terrorist organization to succeed in creating their own new nation back in the late 1700s. What a BAD example for those of us today. Tisk, tisk...

Of course it is.

If is was about something honorable like Human Rights, we'd be in the Sudan and Myanmar.

I agree...When the riots happen in Myanmar in the Fall of 2007. Everyone made a big fuss about it for 2 weeks and then everything die down. Didn't see anyone jumping into the country to save the people. Why? Because they got nothing to gain. Oh and if they did, they would upset China which they have a great business relationship. And you know what's funny, they have an embargo on the country yet they spend 10 million dollars on building a new embassy. That money could have been spend on better things than on a bloody embassy.

And what about Rwanda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU

:giggle

I agree...When the riots happen in Myanmar in the Fall of 2007. Everyone made a big fuss about it for 2 weeks and then everything die down. Didn't see anyone jumping into the country to save the people. Why? Because they got nothing to gain. Oh and if they did, they would upset China which they have a great business relationship. And you know what's funny, they have an embargo on the country yet they spend 10 million dollars on building a new embassy. That money could have been spend on better things than on a bloody embassy.

And what about Rwanda?

Did you know that the United Nations actually pulled out its' UNMIR troops, who were there to keep the peace, because it got too dangerous?

And Clinton signed a presidential directive thingy which limited our involvement in foreign matters such as this unless it directly benefited American interests?

Yeah. I bet it would've been different if they had valuable resources to offer.