arma virumque cano (et alia)
Just when you think he couldn't be more shameless, President Bush charged $100,000 for a speech to wounded veterans....Posted by US Uncut on Thursday, July 9, 2015
Just when you think he couldn't be more shameless, President Bush charged $100,000 for a speech to wounded veterans....
Who voted for and funded this atrocity?What about the last 7 years?orlin sellers
Obama's a piker compared to this guy.
What do you mean by "incomparable". Are you suggesting that he's the worst war criminal in the history of mankind?Look, I'm no fan of Bush or the Iraq war. So much so that I voted for Obama in 08- yeah, that should tell you something. But I don't buy this whole notion that he manufactured false intelligence and conned America into a war so that he and his buddies could make some money. What evidence is there to support that? It sounds like left wing exaggeration in order to separate him from Hillary who also supported going to war based on the same intelligence.
Incomparable when talking about how bad Obama is.
I would pay big bucks to see him swinging in the wind.
Evidently whomever paid Bush the 100k didn't think he was war criminal. And, the veterans showed up. What does this say?
There is no basis to the idea of him being a war criminal. The International Criminal Court was presented with many trumped up, fake cases. And it found no evidence in any of them.
If he lied about "mushroom clouds" and WMD's to start a war which killed way over 100,000 people, that's reason enough to call him a war criminal. Bush himself admitted there were no WMD's, and a two year study by the American Army searching Iraq came to the conclusion that there were no WMD's.
"Bush himself admitted there were no WMD's, and a two year study by the American Army searching Iraq came to the conclusion that there were no WMD's."Which is different than saying he knew there were no WMDs before starting the war. What evidence is there that he is a war criminal for lying about WMDs. Was Hillary Clinton lying about WMDs when she supported the war and voted for it? Is she a war criminal?
BS, TSThe Army did a 2 year search and found there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time Bush said it and certainly were no atomic weapons. Enjoy your delusion.
Uh huh, and what evidence is there that Bush knew there were no WMDs before the two year search?
Bush said himself, there were no WMD's. It's part of the factual record.
Before. Before. That's the word you are ignoring. Did Bush say he knew there were no WMDs before invading Iraq? No. That's the part you are making up, along with this post. There is no "factual record" supporting your accusation.
That was the lie TS. Why did Bush go out of his way to publicly destroy Amb. Wilson? Because Amb. Wilson wrote to president Bush that Iraq had no atomic weapons and there was no yellow cake sale. It was Bush that asked Amb. Wilson to find out. When Wilson's evidence did not back up Bush's accusations, Bush went out of his way to destroy his own Amb. Please show the evidence Bush claimed he had that Iraq would shower us with "mushroom clouds."
Of course he knew there were no WMDs before starting the war. Were you asleep during that transparent government conspiracy to trump up war fever against Iraq? Do you really think the whole effort was in good faith? Whether or not he ever admitted it is off track. He's a war criminal for what he and his cronies cooked up.
Wilson said there was no yellow cake sale in Niger. That is not a confirmation that Saddam has no atomic weapons or other WMDs of chemical/biological variety. You spoke of the army's two year search after Saddam was toppled. Obviously that has nothing to do with Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger. Your claim (as well as Mike's claim) is that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before going to war, thus making him a war criminal. I ask what evidence you have, or is this just something that you want to believe because you don't like the guy?Look, as I said, I don't like the guy either. I didn't support the war even if Saddam did have WMDs. Maybe your problem is that you did support the war, and now you feel icky about it, so you cook up this "we were lied to" justification. Is that it? And what of Hilary? Can we just as easily assume she knew there were no WMDs but voted for the war anyway? The alternate is that she was duped by Bush (someone who you probably consider to be an idiot). I'm not sure I want to hand power to someone so easily fooled by a fool, do you?
TS, I can't believe you were such a dupe that you swallowed all the war-fever hype prior to the invasion. That means you're just being stubborn in this argument not wanting to admit that you knew Bush et al were lying all along.
BS TS,You didn't read Amb. Wilson's complete report, or the Army's report after a two year search of Iraq, or maybe like many Republicans you don't believe in Science, or facts.
What the hell are you talking about? I just got done telling you that I didn't support the war (never have) regardless of whether or not Saddam had WMDs. I am not the type to want to aggressively disarm people simply for having weapons. That's your bag.MikeB: "That means you're just being stubborn in this argument not wanting to admit that you knew Bush et al were lying all along."How would I know that Bush was lying or not, given that there is no evidence he manufactured false intelligence? Again, throwing out accusation of "lying" willy-nilly is your bag.Let me ask you this. Did you support the war in 03?
"You didn't read Amb. Wilson's complete report, or the Army's report after a two year search of Iraq..."Again, what does a two year search after wiping out Saddam have to do with what Bush knew before going to war? I never wanted war regardless. Did you at one time support the war, which is why you are so conflicted now? Do you support Hilary? You keep dodging my questions regarding her support of the war. Plus, you are all for taking armed aggression against citizens carrying guns, so it's not a stretch to think you'd apply the same principles on an international scale.
"Let me ask you this. Did you support the war in 03?"I can't believe you asked me that. I'll quote a great film, can you name it?"That's a sick fucking question and you're a sick fuck."
And why didn't you support the war? Is it because you knew Bush was lying using those psychic powers of yours? Or is it that you don't consider Saddam Hussein to be an unfit WMD owner? I'm trying to figure out why you're so gung-ho for disarmament as long as we are talking about civilians, but would call me a "sick fuck" for even asking you if you apply that principle to foreign policy.I had to look up the quote. I'm not sure I've seen "Raging Bull". If so it's been a while.
Yes, that happened BEFORE Bush went to war.
I usually assume politicians are lying, but those lies in the aftermath of 9/11 were transparent.
That they are mind screwed dumb fucks who listened to Big Whore Media in the lead up to the invasion of Irak - that's what!
Obama calls them heroes. orlin sellers
Bush, Cheney, and other Bush administration officials are literally war criminals in many countries throughout the world and could be arrested if they step in to those countries.
Name one country that would arrest Bush and Cheney for war crimes that never occurred.
Read. Educate yourself.
I've often heard this but I don't know if it's true. I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
Malaysia, just one. Read, to further your education.
Just one? Are there any others? Despite a complete lack of evidence of Bush war crimes, and in spite of the International Criminal Court finding there is no evidence of any, the kangaroo court in Malaysia did indeed fund some. A kangaroo court which was like a middle school Model UN at best, and a Stalin show trial at worst.This indicates problems with Malaysia, and not Bush. Malaysia is famously antisemitic, with the same government that falsely accused Bush of war crimes supporting the murder of all Jewish Israelis. Very ironic.
Malaysia specifically supports training of Hamas, a terrorist organization whose specific "job one" is killing every Jewish person on the planet.There's far more evidence that Malaysia is committing the war crime of genocide than there is any evidence of war crimes against Bush and Cheney.
Yes, but you obviously can't read.
I read a lot further than you did.Perhaps you can find another country that would arrest them. Would it not be an antisemitic, genocidal terror state like Malaysia or even worse? Doubtful. The company you keep....
You get defensive and insulting when you are proven wrong. Something you have in common with the resat of the dishonest gun loons on this site. Sorry, you are wrong, now go cry to mommy.
You didn't prove anything. In fact you said very little at all. When asked to list all the nations that would arrest George W Bush for war crimes that never occurred, you just came up with Malaysia, a country with a lunatic anti-semitic government to begin with. and based on a conviction in a fake court. go ahead and talk about gun loons. you obviously know nothing about this particular subject.
All the Malaysia situation means is that if George W Bush wete ever to go there, any current US presidential administration would put an extra secret service security detail along with the former president in order to ward off and kill any who engage in a terrorist attack against Bush. Even if the terrorists claim that this assault against an innocent US citizen were justified because it was an "arrest" according to an amateur "judicial" body with no standing anywhere in the world.The only "insult" in this discussion is to our intelligence, by those who fabricate claims of Bush war crimes from whole cloth.Because, that is all you can do when the International Criminal Court has resoundingly ruled that there was no evidence whatsoever of Bush war crimes. Arguing with you is like arguing with a birther. if that makes you whine about mommy and gun loons, so be it.
You didn't even know there was a country that made Bush a war criminal and even refused to check it out. Arguing with idiot, lying gun loons like you is a waste, except it proves your dishonesty. You claim to know what you are talking about, but the facts prove you wrong. Back to your 1st grade research skills.
You are coming across as belligerent and adled: not a good combination. With repeated distracting "gun loon" references for no reason.I did read the article. The description of "arrest Bush fir war crimes" is false: there were no war crimes, and terrorists kidnapping an innocent US citizen without any regard to law does not count as an "arrest".Besides, the claim is rather old. Good reason to see if Malaysia would still do this. Are you the loon the said that "many countries" would arrest them? That loon is the biggest liar here.
Amazing, prove the insulting gun loon wrong and he still thinks he won the point. Keep living in your delusion.
1) You have no evidence of gun lunacy. Perhaps the gun loon is you, since you keep throwing our non sequiturs about guns when proven wrong about Bush and Cheney.2) You claimed "many countries". You proved yourself wrong. And even your example of Malaysia is incorrect: there were no war crimes involved according to the ICC, and taking Bush and Cheney into custody as was proposed there years ago was not an "arrest" but more a criminal act of kidnapping.... since the act would not be performed with any legal authorization or authority.
Your lies are laughable Anon. It's YOU who claimed you knew what you were talking about, and I proved you wrong. Now back to your 1st grade research. HA HA HA HA HA
The International Criminal Court is my authority, not 'first grade research". You are using their own imagination. The International Criminal Court has resoundingly rejected any claims of Bush "war crimes". It is thus impossible for anyone to arrest Bush for "war crimes", because no one has any legal authority to do so, and the body that determines such things has reject any claims that any have occurred.Malaysia in the past might have threatened to assault and kidnap an innocent American citizen while calling this aggression an "arrest for war crimes", but this does not mean they would do this now. The facts say one thing. Your imagination says something else entirely. Go ahead and laugh, amateurish armchair attorney. Laugh all you want.
The facts say you were wrong. I proved you wrong, but like all dishonest gun loons you can't accept facts. Enjoy your delusion.
The actual accurate Iraq body count stands at 160,000 civilians. Which, based on the average deaths per year over the conflict, and compared to the average deaths per year when Iraq was ruled by Saddam's socialist regime, means that the death count is lower than had Saddam remained in control over this period.And yes, TS. the stuff you claim is all made up.
I've never heard such nonsense. You're making that up, right - either that or you're getting your facts from Blaze media.
I went to Iraq Body Count, which counts actual deaths. I avoid "Blaze". I prefer actual counting to made up numbers. I guess you haven';t done much research into this, and you are probably one of those who is so angry with Bush for daring to win the election in 2000 that you make up new reasons to hate him over the years.