Bush's Lunacy?

[Rat Faced]

No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.

Assasination is against the Law... make your mind up

Secondly President Bush was not on vacation when the attacks happened. The President was out of Washington D.C. at an Elementary school reading books to children not on a golf course. He was kept up to date on things that were happening by the secret service not clueless.

Actually read it, before commentating

He was on Vacation when he was warned, he was at the Elementary school when it happened

And on the impeachment: I guess that we were supposed to just sit back and let Clinton do whatever the hell he wanted to do. I guess that laying your hand on the Bible and swearing to the truth carries less weight in the UK but here in the US we call that perjury. No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.

The Impeachment wasnt the point...

The point i was making was that the Republicans were calling him for doing something "To Distract the public"..and that doing this was unimportant.

He lied, he should be impeached... I agree. He was stupid to lie, he should have just said.."Yes, I had a Blow Job... so what?"

Bush has lied too....how come he isnt being impeached?

No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.

Ive been saying this for the last 18 month at least.

Bush/Blaire have both broken International Law...when you gonna do something about it?

[BigBank_Hank]

Assasination is against the Law... make your mind up

I guess your referring to the Iraq war. Well if killing terrorist and removing a brutal dictator is assignation I guess that we are guilty of that.

He was on Vacation when he was warned, he was at the Elementary school when it happened

I did misunderstand that point. He might have been on vacation but again the threats were non specific wasn’t clear cut.

Bush/Blaire have both broken International Law...when you gonna do something about it?

No laws were broken with the invasion of Iraq. We had resolutions against them and they knew the circumstances of not complying with them. They had 12 years to comply and didn’t do so.

[Rat Faced]

Wrong.

Its up to the Security Council to interpret Resolutions, not individual Countries.

The Security Council specifically DID NOT interpret Military Intervention, despite everything that Blair/Bush tried... ergo, They broke International Law.

Irrespective of this, a certain Camp in Cuba has been breaking the Geneva Convention since Afganistan...and even the UK Government is outspoken on that, despite going along with everything else.

We had resolutions against them

So have you, re: Cuba.

6 UN Resolutions outstanding.

So have Israel....god knows how many now.

So, are you suggesting that the US and Israel should both have Military Intervention?


The fact is, that its a non-argument.

Everyone knows that it was against International Law.

Everyone knows that nothing will be done about it.

What is pissing the whole world off, is the Hypocracy involved.... especially everyone in the Middle East (inc a substantial proportion of the population of Israel)


Do you give the bratty, rich kid the keys to the sweet shop (candy store)?

Anyway you slice it, we still have nothing but an un-initiated frat-boy running the USA.

If one has no sense of history, let alone fell asleep in history class, one cannot learn from history.

If one has no understanding of consequences, one can have no conscience.

His family’s name and financial influence have bailed George W. out all of his life. He got into Yale because of his father, not his own academic merits. He was spared going to war in Vietnam; therefore, he has no sense of the realities of war. Any time he was in trouble for anything, daddy bailed him out. Drunken driving… Cocaine addiction… and all those other pesky peccadilloes that we conveniently don’t hear about anymore. There have been no consequences for him.

How can he be trusted to be a responsible leader?

As I’ve said before, the President of the United States is the leader of the civilized world. He or she cannot arbitrarily wage war, imprison people indefinitely, and torture them.

The President of the United States uses the military to protect us and our interests (not just the USA's..all of us..he doesnt just lead the USA, he's also the leader of the Free World, which is WHY we all take an interest), and to enforce international laws, if necessary, not break them.

If the president and/or his administration were to break them, there should be consequences. That is, unless the president is a bratty, rich kid wanting to have it both ways.

According to the Washington Post, "The Justice Department has advised the White House that President Bush (and those who follow his orders) may contravene treaties, U.S. law and international law under the broad doctrine of 'necessity.'"...and he has done just that.

The only trouble is that HIS definition of "necessity" differs from everyone elses.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@25 June 2004 - 21:12
No one should be allowed to get away with breaking the law.

I was never actually clear which law it was he broke. Other than the rather spurious obfustication over something that wasn't actually illegal (unless, like Afghanistan, adultery is still a stoning offence in the US)

He cheated on his wife who appears to have forgiven him. He said he didn't have sex (failing to identify that he did not count a blow job as sex). That hanky panky occured was as clear as a crystal to a blind bat prior to his second election. Nevertheless, he still won handsomely. It would seem that the American people cared less about his pecadillos than the somewhat purient Mr Starr.

I read somewhere that if Clinton could have stood for a third term he would have beaten Bush easily. Suggesting that they cared even less about the issue despite years of muck raking.

This is not to say I approve of his behaviour, but a loveable rouge is easier to like than a charmless bore. Indeed, the glowing words from Bush about Clinton at the recent unveiling of the latter's portrait suggests that Bush would like a little of that charm for himself.

With regards the Predators, I was given to believe that they were not originally armed with Hellfire missiles - hence the difficulties. Was it not the well known Security advisor (whose name escapes me) that pushed for the military to adapt them for this use?

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by {SHELL%SHOCKED}@24 June 2004 - 10:21
I'm voting for him like last time, my portfolia has increased quite a bit and that's the bottom line.

@ SHELL%SHOCKED

How can you be so sefish?!

[Biggles]

Originally posted by {SHELL%SHOCKED}@24 June 2004 - 16:21
I'm voting for him like last time, my portfolia has increased quite a bit and that's the bottom line.

That is where all those idiot pension funds have gone wrong! They have all invested in portfolios.

[BigBank_Hank]

Its up to the Security Council to interpret Resolutions, not individual Countries.

You are right. It was up to the UN to enforce those resolutions but did they? No.

The President of the United States uses the military to protect us and our interests (not just the USA's..all of us..he doesnt just lead the USA, he's also the leader of the Free World, which is WHY we all take an interest), and to enforce international laws, if necessary, not break them.

I think with this quote you summed it up yourself. It’s the President’s job to protect us against enemy’s that poised to strike against us. The UN has proven themselves impotent so the President did what he had to do to take out the threat.

@Biggles:

I was never actually clear which law it was he broke

Mr. Clinton committed perjury. The impeachment process that all the democrats were in such a fuss about were the same measures that they themselves put into place after Nixon left office.

[clocker]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@25 June 2004 - 20:57

I think with this quote you summed it up yourself. It’s the President’s job to protect us against enemy’s that poised to strike against us. The UN has proven themselves impotent so the President did what he had to do to take out the threat.

So far, the only thing that Sadam can be shown to have been "poised" to do was build yet another palace.

Still waiting on the proof of his capability to pose a direct threat to the US.
Care to provide it, or is this yet one more thing we must take on faith?

[BigBank_Hank]

Clocker we took the fight to the enemy. We took him out before he was able to strike us first.

Saddam had plenty of weapons that violated UN resolutions. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Bush all said the same thing. Everyone knew that he had WMD’s now it’s where he hid them that is the million dollar question. My best guess is that they are buried in the desert or in Syria.

On the subject of things being buried; we are find planes and tanks that were buried in the sand that we never knew were there. The only reason that we found them is because during a storm the wind blew the sand away and a tail from a jet could be seen poking out from the sand, there were also tanks discovered like this. So if the can bury tanks and jets don’t you think they can bury bombs and missles?

[vidcc]

Still doesn't add up in my mind.... if you have weapons why get rid of them at the time you need them most ? if he had such weapons that were so dangerous to us surely he would have used the ownership of those weapons to deter an invasion. We wouldn't go after north Korea or china because they openly have these WMD and we know they would use them. Perhaps someone knew that these weapons didn't exist so it was a sure win with minimum effort.
I know the arguement about the games he played with inspectors is going to crop up but if you are a dictator of a country like Iraq you have to show that you are fearless and in charge...not let the people you rule see the UN walk all over you.

I state again evidence is what you can prove, not finding evidence is not proof that he had them but hid them.

Saddam had plenty of weapons that violated UN resolutions. Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Bush all said the same thing

Did they have the same "flawed" intelligence that Bush admitted he had?