President BUSH PARDON's HIMSELF against POTENTIAL WARCRIMES

Will the real chickens come home to roost? Lol! Absolutely amazing!
Thanks, Amy.

Quote

Can I use this here too........ lol.

All this about Bush being "dumb"...... just a smokescreen methinks

Edited on July 11, 2008 at 1:47 PM Quote

CowGalDeb wrote:............All this about Bush being "dumb"...... just a smokescreen methinks

Quote

Well I've quit trusting our 'news' organizations..They are all so blatantly biased...CNN the guy who was reporting is so liberal..then you go over to FOX and people like Sean Hannity who are so conservative...I wonder if there is anywhere we the average citizen can go to read the actual bill that is up for vote in the House. I'm starting to think I would rather read the actual legislation instead of having our so called news organizations feeding me with their opinions.

Quote

grammatea4u wrote:Well I've quit trusting our 'news' organizations..They are all so blatantly biased...CNN the guy who was reporting is so liberal..then you go over to FOX and people like Sean Hannity who are so conservative...I wonder if there is anywhere we the average citizen can go to read the actual bill that is up for vote in the House. I'm starting to think I would rather read the actual legislation instead of having our so called news organizations feeding me with their opinions.

So true........ sad but true.

Quote

I agree, absolutely amazing! Unreal! Only for a different reason.

I watched the clip. Interesting to note this guy isn't even a real news reporter. He's a commentator. He makes comments like "stooges", "they are in trouble because they worked these guys over pretty good" as if Bush and his Admin were physically present with electric cattle prods and ripping thier fingernails out...not stating ONE crime. He also conveniently does not tell us what exactly the legislation says. These people at CNN must have read a book by Joseph Goebbels on how to promote propaganda. These are not even news orginizations. They mask as one. When you "report" a story and slant it like they do nowadays with opinions, it is no longer news. They need to take the "news" part out of CNN. I remember the days when there was a disclaimer saying something like "this is an opinion not unnecessarily shared by the news station". No longer. Now this crap is reported like it's real news.
You know, we have had some great investigative reporters, and they have did their' pieces and stated facts without judgment. These people at CNN, on the other hand, give real reporters a bad name.
You don't think that if a liberal REAL investigative reporter had this info with real meat to a story on this, it wouldn't be all over the REAL news networks?
They need to rename CNN and any of these programs that mask as news organizations to the National Enquirer.

Edited on July 12, 2008 at 12:07 PM Quote

This gal says pretty much what I just said;
Interview with Lubna Hussain on Press Treatment of Muslim Story.

http://revver.com/video/13394/cnn-compared-to-hitlers-propaganda-machine/

Edited on July 12, 2008 at 12:03 PM Quote

No....if the man is guilty of it, it should be reported. Where is the legislation that he's speaking of? What exactly are the specific crimes that he is accused of? I seen one blog where they called Bush a "felon". Even though he has not been convicted in any court, which is the requirement for being a felon. Well, you can go ahead and take the commentater posing as a reporter side. The fake reporter who likes to call others names. You can call it real reporting instead of propaganda.
Thank God we still live in an America where crap like the National Enquirer doesn't convict people.

Quote

I wonder how many supporters of this type of reporting (what a laugh) would be so understanding if their' neighbor, who hates them, suddenly started a rumor that they were child abusers with no proof other than innuendo? With no conviction by the law?
I thought it sucked when they accused the clinton's of crimes with no proof. Suddenly, people who screamed about that are quick to convict (as if they are suddenly judge and jury) others in the same sleazy way.
"Oh, we have proof that this person committed a crime. We ain't gonna share the proof which if we did the courts would convict them...but trust us, we have proof."

Edited on July 12, 2008 at 12:19 PM Quote

Ok, after extensive googling, the only thing I can find what this so called pardon is:

"but it does not contain prohibitions from Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions against ``outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.""

Huh? He's gonna pardon himself and those that maybe called these detainees of this???? Thats what they are reading into this? I cannot find anything that specifically says "And therefore the President and anyone who humiliated and outraged the detainees personal dignity shall be immune from prosecution".
Show us WHAT this legislation actually says. They won't because it does not. Innuendo.

Quote

Amymama wrote:BUSH IS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES! He lied about everything and got everyone killed. That's what i am talking about.

surely you know he lied about the WMD'S...

We have a DEMOCRATIC congress. You don't think that if they actually had some proof they would not have impeached him? If these far left bloggers have some proof, I wish they would share it. But seeing they don't, it's so easy to convict people without a trial. Geezus...this reminds me of the cold war Soviet Union.
He told the Americans exactly what the reports said, and acted on them.
HILLARY CLINTON SAID THE SAME THING!. Was she lying too when she voted to invade Iraq? She said herself she was going by the same intelligence reports that were domestic and foreign that Bush went by. So I guess she's guilty and is a co-conspirator too. Kerry....same.

Edited on July 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM Quote

This reminds me, as I said, of the Far Right blogs that kept screaming (and still do) of how the Clinton's are guilty of felonies and murder with no proof. Does that mean I support the Clinton's? Nope. It means I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty" which some don't. Thank God they don't run this country and are in a small minority.

Quote

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors”
- President William Jefferson Clinton 12/16/98

Would this be a War Crime, to attack another country. Bill Clinton himself said after we invaded Iraq that the common belief is that Iraq would spirit the WMD's to syria.

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Note: The evidence they all spoke of was not what Bush SAID (he wasn't president when Clinton ordered the attack on Iraq), but what the intelligence reports said WHEN CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE.

I guess they all lied and need to be arrested for War Crimes including Bill Clinton who also stated when he was president that Iraq had WMD's.

Edited on July 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM Quote