RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


farglebargle -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/25/2007 5:32:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Farglebargle you are lazy or just wish to deny. I give you the actual section that has hyper links to what you want, and you cannot even look it up yourself. You are a waste of time.

Orion


What part of "I don't see the words 'Exempt', 'Indictment', or 'Grand Jury'", don't you understand?

Calling me "Lazy" because YOU ARE UNABLE TO SUPPORT YOUR ALLEGATION is pretty lame.

Just admit you are wrong: The Constitution does NOT immunize anyone from indictment by a Grand Jury. You have failed to prove it does. You are UNABLE to prove it does, because it doesn't say it anywhere!

If the CONSTITUTION doesn't SAY IT, then it's NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. Hyper-links don't count, do they? They're not in the original text, are they?

They say a Junkie can rationalize ANYTHING, can't they? Well Federal Junkies do, don't they?





OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/25/2007 6:10:03 AM)

May I ask for some specific information and points on your comparisons? How is homeland security like the Gastopo? How are the democratic Presidents different in this comparison? The education system, now mainly controlled by the feds seems alot like indoctrination, how does this compare? You mention surveilance being like nazi Germany, do you have any ideas on how to surveil for possible Islamic Facist or others that may strike within American borders or against Americans abroad? Are you anti-Republican or what exactly is your stance concerning the political climate in America? The US Congress voted to go to war, and those same politicians on both sides that voted for it could have asked for more intel but they did not, do they have any responsibilities concerning the current situation? Some of those politicians had access to more intelligence than others, are they more accountable?

Just curious if your opinions apply equally to all politicians that do not succeed in their responsibilities, or against just those that you label facist? I can find many faults within both parties, and I see the two party system as causing many of the problems. I see the root problem being career politicians that create laws and political theater just to keep their jobs.

Orion




farglebargle -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/25/2007 7:06:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

How is homeland security like the Gastopo?


Gestapo.

Both deprive people of basic, unalienable rights under color of law.

quote:


You mention surveillance being like nazi Germany


If Prescott Bush could have delivered to Hitler the level of Surveillance AT&T is performing in conjunction with NSA, Hitler would have paid through the nose for it, and loved it.

quote:

, do you have any ideas on how to surveil for possible Islamic Facist or others that may strike within American borders or against Americans abroad?


You don't do it by violating the 4th Amendment.

quote:


Are you anti-Republican or what exactly is your stance concerning the political climate in America?


The Republic has failed, some say since 1861. That aside, THANK G-D FOR THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE!

quote:


The US Congress voted to go to war,


Factually incorrect. The AUMF-Iraq is *not* a Declaration of War by Congress.

quote:


and those same politicians on both sides that voted for it could have asked for more intel but they did not, do they have any responsibilities concerning the current situation? Some of those politicians had access to more intelligence than others, are they more accountable?


Given the ACTIVE violation of 18 USC 371, by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et. al.? No. Congress was INTENTIONALLY DEPRIVED OF THEIR ROLE IN OVERSIGHT.

SPECIFICALLY:

The presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.

Don't do the CRIME, if you can't do the TIME.





SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/25/2007 7:06:30 AM)

fast reply.....

my thinking on voting changed a few years ago from "voting for the one i think will do a wonderful job" to "voting for the lesser of the 2 evils"

anyone who stays in politics long enough to make it to the national level is crooked in some way.....at least looking through my eyes.




dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/25/2007 7:52:11 AM)

Hello, Thank you for your response, most welcomed indeed. I do not wish to take the time to debate, or research anything to please your ego, understand that first off. You are simply not worth any effort, you sir; are a nobody. If you believe in all you say about america, then sir, you have not been paying attention to what is happening to this country. As far as me being on the side of the Democrates, no, I did not vote for Clinton, and fully believe any official elected to the highest office in the world, of any party should be there to make the lot of his subjects better, not worse, to facilitate commerce in a fair and equitible manner, to make sure jobs are available, for the subjects to persue their own destinies,  to provide for the well being of his subjects through adiquate and affordable health care,  housing, education and other social services to maintain a long and happy productive life even unto retirement. I believed this of whatever party takes the throne, also that military might should not be used as the private enforcer for greed's sake of a single person, or special group. That world situations should be resovlved through negotiations not intimidations, murders, invasions, espinoge, subversive activities to undermind soverign regimes. That these so-called elected officials of either party work for the subjects who are their charge, and not for their special interest groups, and line their own pockets with the proceeds of the sweat and blood of our hard labours.

Politicians are not susposed to be selling out their subjects for their own greed purpose and enrichment. If you seek arguement, and tidbit specifications, to please your ego; then please, YOU expend the effort to disprove what I say, YOU point specifically to article and prose to dispute what is commonly known, You explain the laws that have been passed;.....  the internet is FULL of documentation, YOU do a search, type in Bush, and read what others say, and the documentation they provide. Go to your local Borders Book store, research some political essays, read  Noame Chomsky's material, god knows you have enough of your own one sided narrow republican Rush Limbaugh views, try a little exploration, expand your horizons, see what others say about these events; go to the library,  try to educate yourself. Take a trip aboard. It is all in front of your eyes, take the blinders off, and see.

But for me to take hours to please your idiocy, ...but pardon me for my bluntness, you are not worth any one's time...in short...who the hell are you.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/25/2007 7:57:10 PM)

Greetings Dragone,

I try not to debate, but would rather discuss things. debate is to win points and often does not foster understanding. You do not know me so your comment about my ego, is not one founded in knowledge of myself. Actually I am not a nobody, I am just me.

I pay very close attention to things, in fact I agree with most of your opinions on things. The difference between us is that I try to actively change things by discussing and encouraging my fellow Americans to research for themselves, and reach their own decisions based upon what they feel is best for them and the ones they care about. Even if that opinion is contrary to my own, I can respect it.

I agree that elected officials should be servants of the people, and in such make things better for them. This is why I do not like the political cheerleaders, ones that tow just the party line and do not see that most politicians are there for themselves. The health care thing is a seperate issue, since the Federal government does not have a good track record on successful projects I am loathe to want them to provide me with healthcare, housing, or education. I also believe that my retirement should be my own affair to invest in as I see fit. I agree on the points of the military, but those waters get very muddied. Even when US forces have been a part of a UN mission, someone was making a profit somewhere and many dealings being done.

Negotiation should be a key to solving disputes among nations, but our history shows us that you must negotiate from a point of strength if you really wish a favorable result. Violence is the last step in dispute resolution, but it is often final and has been used throughout history for many good things. It depends on perception. I do not think we should be building an empire, but there are times the military is needed to do something, where negotiations failed. Our foreign policy has failed the people of the US and the world for a longtime.

You mention my ego again. Not sure why you keep refering to that. We all have ego's, it is part of human psychology. Disprove what? You have given opinions and not provide fact. I agree with most of your opinions. You seem hung up on Bush again. Bush will not be held accountable, that is a fact. What needs to be done is legislation that will prevent this again. If there were facts that supported enough for an impeachment, then the Dem's would have pushed for it, rather than rumor it. The internet is full of alot of factual information and unsubstantiated information. I try to use at least the 3 source rule, and even then it may not be correct.

You label me and make assumptions based upon a few posts here, so who is jumping to uninformed conclusions. Travel abroad? I was raised in Europe until I was 8, have friends all over the world, do quite a bit of traveling. What you call blinders, is a difference of opinion, but you would rather use insult. I see which party you belong to, the apathetic one. You do not know much about me, other than what is posted here. You do not know my political affiliations, yet you make those assumptions as well.

You really need to repeat the words you have told me, and look in a mirror when you say them. Bitching and moaning is easy, getting involved and coming up with viable solutions is difficult, but I understand that most people prefer it to be easy. Yeah you sound pretty jaded and bitter, I wonder how much that helps things. If you are not going to be a part of the solution, at least step out of the way so that those that want to give it a try can.

Live Free,
Orion

quote:

ORIGINAL: dragone

Hello, Thank you for your response, most welcomed indeed. I do not wish to take the time to debate, or research anything to please your ego, understand that first off. You are simply not worth any effort, you sir; are a nobody. If you believe in all you say about america, then sir, you have not been paying attention to what is happening to this country. As far as me being on the side of the Democrates, no, I did not vote for Clinton, and fully believe any official elected to the highest office in the world, of any party should be there to make the lot of his subjects better, not worse, to facilitate commerce in a fair and equitible manner, to make sure jobs are available, for the subjects to persue their own destinies,  to provide for the well being of his subjects through adiquate and affordable health care,  housing, education and other social services to maintain a long and happy productive life even unto retirement. I believed this of whatever party takes the throne, also that military might should not be used as the private enforcer for greed's sake of a single person, or special group. That world situations should be resovlved through negotiations not intimidations, murders, invasions, espinoge, subversive activities to undermind soverign regimes. That these so-called elected officials of either party work for the subjects who are their charge, and not for their special interest groups, and line their own pockets with the proceeds of the sweat and blood of our hard labours.

Politicians are not susposed to be selling out their subjects for their own greed purpose and enrichment. If you seek arguement, and tidbit specifications, to please your ego; then please, YOU expend the effort to disprove what I say, YOU point specifically to article and prose to dispute what is commonly known, You explain the laws that have been passed;.....  the internet is FULL of documentation, YOU do a search, type in Bush, and read what others say, and the documentation they provide. Go to your local Borders Book store, research some political essays, read  Noame Chomsky's material, god knows you have enough of your own one sided narrow republican Rush Limbaugh views, try a little exploration, expand your horizons, see what others say about these events; go to the library,  try to educate yourself. Take a trip aboard. It is all in front of your eyes, take the blinders off, and see.

But for me to take hours to please your idiocy, ...but pardon me for my bluntness, you are not worth any one's time...in short...who the hell are you.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/25/2007 7:59:22 PM)

I am not convinced on one side or the other of wrong doing. I know how things appear, but I have been deceived by appearances before. If someone has some proof of the wrong doings, rather than allegations, then they should present it so that people can be held accountable for their actions.


Orion




farglebargle -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/25/2007 10:03:26 PM)

Knock yourself out, here is Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's model indictment:

quote:


Introductory Allegations

At times relevant to this Indictment:

1. The primary law of the United States Federal Government was set forth in the U.S. Constitution ("Constitution"), which provides that the first branch of government is the Legislative Branch ("Congress"). Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Congress has certain powers and obligations regarding oversight of foreign affairs, including the powers to: (1) declare war; (2) raise and support the armed forces; and (3) tax and spend for the common good.

2. Article II of the Constitution establishes the Executive Branch. The Executive Power of the United States is vested in the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services.

3. Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH ("BUSH") has been employed as President of the United States since January 20, 2001. On that day, BUSH took a constitutionally mandated oath to faithfully execute the Office of President and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. BUSH is also constitutionally obligated to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

4. As Chief Executive, BUSH exercised authority, direction, and control over the entire Executive Branch, which includes the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Departments of State, Defense, and others, and the National Security Council.

5. Defendant RICHARD B. CHENEY ("CHENEY") has been employed as Vice President of the United States since January 20, 2001.

6. Defendant CONDOLEEZZA RICE ("RICE") was employed as the National Security Adviser from January 2001 to January 2005, when she became Secretary of State, a position she holds as of the date of this indictment. As National Security Adviser, RICE exercised direction, control, and authority over the National Security Council, which coordinates various national security and foreign policy agencies, including the Departments of Defense and State.

7. Defendant DONALD M. RUMSFELD ("RUMSFELD") has been employed as Secretary of Defense since January 2001.

8. Defendant COLIN M. POWELL ("POWELL") was employed as Secretary of State from January 2001 through January of 2005.

9. Before assuming their offices, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD and POWELL took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

10. As employees of the Executive Branch, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL were governed by Executive Orders 12674 and 12731. These Orders provide that Executive Branch employees hold their positions as a public trust and that the American people have a right to expect that they will fulfill that trust in accordance with certain ethical standards and principles. These include abiding by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests.

11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."

13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.

14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.

15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.

The Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

16. Beginning on or about a date unknown, but no later than August of 2002, and continuing to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,

GEORGE W. BUSH,
RICHARD B. CHENEY,
CONDOLEEZZA RICE,
DONALD M. RUMSFELD, and
COLIN M. POWELL,

and others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to defraud the United States by using deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, false and fraudulent representations, including ones made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, and omitting to state material facts necessary to make their representations truthful, fair and accurate, while knowing and intending that their false and fraudulent representations would influence the public and the deliberations of Congress with regard to authorization of a preventive war against Iraq, thereby defeating, obstructing, impairing, and interfering with Congress' lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations.

17. The Early Months of the Bush-Cheney Administration: Prior to January of 2001, BUSH, CHENEY, and RUMSFELD each demonstrated a predisposition to employ U.S. military force to invade the Middle East, including, specifically, to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein.

18. Since 1992, CHENEY has endorsed a "bold foreign policy" that includes using military force to "punish" or "threaten to punish" possible aggressors in order to protect the United States's access to Persian Gulf oil and to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ("WMD"), a term that is customarily used to describe chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

19. On or about January 26, 1998, RUMSFELD and seven other future BUSH-CHENEY administration appointees signed a letter sent by a conservative policy institute named "Project for a New American Century" ("PNAC") to then President William Clinton, which called for U.S. military action to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power.

20. In January 1999, BUSH named RICE and her future Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley ("Hadley"), as his presidential-campaign foreign-policy advisers, along with future Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ("Wolfowitz") and four others who had publicly advocated forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

21. On or before September 2000, 12 future BUSH-CHENEY administration appointees, including Wolfowitz, former Assistant to Vice President CHENEY, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Rumsfeld's long-term aide Stephen Cambone, participated in drafting "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a PNAC policy statement which asserted that the "need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." PNAC acknowledged that its goals would take a long time to achieve "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

22. Once BUSH became the Republican candidate in the 2000 presidential election campaign, he and CHENEY informed the general public that they would be reluctant to use military force and did not believe that the United States should engage in "nation-building."

23. On and after January 20, 2001, BUSH and CHENEY caused to be appointed as senior foreign policy advisors and consultants, at least thirty-four persons who had publicly endorsed the PNAC principles of United States global preeminence and use of force to "punish" or "threaten to punish" emerging threats from weapons of mass destruction ("WMD") or impediments to United States access to oil in the Middle East. Of those appointees, eighteen had also publicly advocated forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

24. In late December 2000, BUSH and CHENEY advised outgoing President William J. Clinton and others that, among potential foreign policy issues, BUSH's primary concern was Iraq.

25. On February 11, 2001, BUSH ordered the first airstrikes since 1998 to be conducted outside of the United Nations ("UN") agreed-upon No-Fly zones, to get Saddam Hussein's "attention."

26. The Attacks of September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four commercial airplanes. They crashed two planes into the World Trade Towers in New York City and another into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania. In total, nearly 3,000 people died as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks ("9/11").

27. Shortly afterward, United States intelligence agencies determined that 9/11 was the work of the terrorist organization al Qaeda, spearheaded by Osama Bin Laden. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from Yemen, and two from Lebanon. This information, along with the conclusion that no evidence linked Saddam Hussein to the attacks or al Qaeda, was immediately communicated to BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, and others.

28. BUSH-CHENEY administration members began discussing an invasion of Iraq immediately after 9/11. BUSH, RUMSFELD and others also assigned various subordinates, including former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet, and General Richard Meyers to look for intelligence that could justify attacking Saddam Hussein's regime.

29. On September 17, 2001, BUSH secretly ordered the formulation of preliminary plans for an invasion of Iraq, while admitting to his aides that no evidence existed to justify an attack.

30. On or about September 18, 2001, in response to BUSH's request, Clarke sent RICE a memo that stated: (a) the case for linking Hussein to 9/11 was weak; (b) only anecdotal evidence linked Hussein to al Qaeda; (c) Osama Bin Laden resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein; and (d) there was no confirmed reporting of Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons.

31. On September 20, 2001, BUSH informed British Prime Minister Tony Blair that after Afghanistan, the United States and Britain should return to the issue of invading Iraq.

32. U.S. Intelligence Community Assessments of Risk from Iraq in Effect on November 2001. On occasion, Executive Branch officials request assessments of current intelligence on risks posed by WMD in a given country. Although such assessments are coordinated by the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), the final product incorporates the analyses, including dissenting opinions, of the intelligence branches of the Departments of State, Energy, Defense, the National Security Agency, and others, which are collectively called the Intelligence Community ("IC").

33. As of November 2001, the most recent assessment on Iraq was a December 2000 classified Intelligence Community Assessment ("ICA") called "Iraq: Steadily Pursuing WMD Capabilities." This ICA was a comprehensive update on possible Iraqi efforts to rebuild WMD and weapons delivery systems after the 1998 departure of International Atomic Energy Agency ("IAEA") representatives and UN weapons inspectors, who are collectively referred to as the United Nations Special Commission ("UNSCOM").

34. Regarding Iraq's possible nuclear program, the December 2000 NIE unanimously concluded that:

(a) The IAEA and UNSCOM had destroyed or neutralized Iraq's nuclear infrastructure, but Iraq still had a foundation for future nuclear reconstitution;
(b) Iraq was continuing low-level theoretical research and training, and attempting to obtain dual-use items that cold be used to reconstitute its nuclear program;
(c) if Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year; if Iraq received foreign assistance, it would take five to seven years to produce enough weapons-grade fissile material for a nuclear weapon; and
(d) Iraq did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

35. Escalation of Military Activity and Planning for Invasion of Iraq. On November 21, 2001, BUSH secretly ordered preparation of a formal war plan for invading Iraq. Thereafter, for sixteen months, the BUSH-CHENEY administration expended substantial U.S. government funds in military activity and planning for invasion of Iraq, all without notice to, or approval by, the U.S. Congress.

36. BUSH did not receive an extensive briefing about possible WMD in Iraq before ordering a war plan, nor did he discuss the legitimacy of grounds for war with anyone. BUSH received no such briefing until December 21, 2002.

37. On or about November 27, 2001, RUMSFELD asked General "Tommy" Franks, head of Central Command, which supervises Middle East operations, to immediately prepare an Iraq war plan in response to BUSH's order.

38. Thereafter, Franks discussed numerous revised Iraq war plans with RUMSFELD. Between December 2001 and August 2002, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, and others held at least five lengthy meetings about Franks' plans. In August, BUSH ordered Franks to prepare to invade Iraq using the "Hybrid Plan," a combination of the "Running Start" and "Generated Start" plans developed previously.

39. During 2002, the United States and Great Britain increased air strikes in order to degrade Iraqi air defenses and began deploying troops to areas around Iraq.

40. On or about July 30, 2002, without approval by, or notice to, Congress, BUSH caused the diversion of $700 million from Afghanistan war funds into Iraq invasion preparations.

41. On September 5, 2002, without approval by, or notice to, Congress, BUSH caused approximately 100 United States and British aircraft to launch ballistic missiles at Iraq's major western air-defense facility.

42. By September 12, 2002, without approval by, or notice to, Congress, BUSH had caused the movement of 40,000 military personnel and over 350,000 tons of equipment to areas around Iraq. Franks also ordered Central Command to be moved to Al Udeid Air Base near Doha, Qatar.

43. Behind-the-Scenes Strategizing with British Officials: On or before March 2002, BUSH, RICE, Wolfowitz, and others secretly began discussing ways to persuade the public and foreign allies to accept Bush's goal of invading Iraq, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair ("Blair") and his advisers.

44. On March 12, 2002, in Washington, DC, RICE met with Blair's Foreign Policy Adviser Sir David Manning and informed him of BUSH's problems with persuading "international opinion that military action against Iraq was necessary and justified."

45. On March 17, 2002, in Washington, DC, British Ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer advised Wolfowitz that the two countries should "wrongfoot" Saddam Hussein by seeking a UN resolution that would require the readmission of weapons inspectors with the expectation that Saddam would create a justification for war by obstructing the inspections.

46. On April 6, 2002, in Crawford, Texas, BUSH and Blair discussed strategies to sway public opinion regarding military action in Iraq. Blair agreed to support a United States invasion if the two countries obtained a UN resolution first.

47. In mid-July, 2002, in Washington, DC, White House officials discussed Iraq with visiting British officials. Upon their return to London, these officials reported the talks to Blair in a meeting at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002. Among other things, Blair's advisers suggested that he urge BUSH to devise a more realistic political strategy for attacking Iraq, because a desire for "regime change" would not justify military action under international law.

48. In mid-July, 2002, in Washington, DC, CIA Director Tenet and others talked about the Bush administration's intentions regarding Iraq with Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British Intelligence.

49. On July 23, 2002, during the Downing St. meeting described above, Dearlove informed Blair that in the United States "Military action was now seen as inevitable. BUSH wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

50. On July 23, 2002, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also noted that BUSH had "made up his mind to take military action." Straw said he would urge POWELL to persuade BUSH to seek a UN resolution requiring Saddam Hussein to readmit weapons inspectors, in effect, suggesting the "wrongfooting" strategy that Meyer had described to Wolfowitz.

51. Behind-the-Scenes Efforts to Fix Intelligence Around the Policy. Within weeks after learning from Clarke, Tenet, and others that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no involvement with either 9/11 or al Qaeda, RUMSFELD caused Deputy Undersecretary for Defense Douglas Feith ("Feith") to secretly create the Counter Terrorism Group ("CTEG"), a small unit of political appointees whose mission was to find links between Iraq and al Qaeda by reviewing raw intelligence that previously had been discarded as unreliable. CTEG reported weekly to RUMSFELD's long-term associate Stephen Cambone, and occasionally presented information directly to Wolfowitz, thereby circumventing standard IC procedures.

52. At some time in 2002, Feith also designated political appointees to work under his supervision in the newly-created Office of Special Plans, whose purpose was to develop and package information for use in marketing the President's plan for an invasion of Iraq. In the fall of 2002, this group presented information directly to RUMSFELD, to RICE's office, and to CHENEY's office, thereby circumventing standard IC procedures.

53. In the spring of 2002, CHENEY and his former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, began visiting CIA headquarters to question CIA agents' assessments about Iraq. RUMSFELD and Deputy National Security Adviser Hadley also repeatedly pressed CIA Director Tenet and his subordinates to present a stronger case against Iraq.

54. Bush's Creation of the White House Iraq Group. By the summer of 2002, domestic and international support for BUSH's plan to invade Iraq was lukewarm. At the same time, Bush's chief political strategist and Senior Adviser Karl Rove and Kenneth Mehlman, head of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, were beginning to coordinate the President's involvement in the November 7, 2002, congressional election. Their overall goal was to gain Republican majorities in both houses of Congress so that the President would have the greatest possible support for his policies. Rove had specifically recommended that Republicans "focus on war" as a way to win elections. Consequently, in the summer of 2002, BUSH's efforts to win support for an invasion of Iraq and his efforts to assist Republican congressional candidates became inextricably intertwined.

55. In the summer of 2002, BUSH caused the creation of the White House Iraq Group, which was cochaired by BUSH's long-term political operatives Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, who remained BUSH's close associate even though she had resigned her position as Counselor to the President. This team, also called WHIG, was largely a political and public-relations entity that included RICE, Hadley, President's Chief of Staff Andrew Card, President's legislative liaison Nicholas Calio, CHENEY's key aide and veteran Republican political strategist Mary Matalin, CHENEY's senior adviser Libby, and James Wilkinson, another Republican campaign consultant.

56. On or about September 6, 2002, Rove and Card publicly announced that: (a) the BUSH-CHENEY administration was beginning to "roll out" its case for an invasion of Iraq; (b) its public-relations campaign was specifically directed at forcing Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Iraq; (c) BUSH wanted the resolution passed in about five weeks, before the 2002 election; and (d) in the end, it would be difficult for any legislator to vote against it.

57. The Defendants' Massive Fraud to "Market" an invasion of Iraq. On or about September 4, 2002, BUSH staged a photo opportunity with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, after which he falsely and fraudulently announced that Iraq posed a serious threat to the safety of the United States and the world, while concealing from Congress and the American people the material facts that: (a) he had no reasonable basis whatsoever for his assertion; (b) he had never discussed the legitimacy of the grounds for an attack against Iraq with anyone; (c) he had never extensively reviewed existing intelligence regarding any possible threat from Iraq; (d) he had not requested an updated intelligence assessment on Iraq; (e) the United States intelligence assessment then in effect stated that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a nuclear weapons program; and (f) the IC had consistently reported that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and no relationship with al Qaeda.

58. On September 4, 2002, BUSH also falsely and fraudulently claimed he was beginning an "open dialogue" with the American public, with Congress, and with United States allies to decide how to respond to Iraq, while concealing the material facts that he: (a) had requested a formal plan to invade Iraq nearly a year before; (b) had been conducting significant military and nonmilitary planning and attacks against Iraq for a year; (c) had directed significant military deployment to areas around Iraq; (d) was planning a massive air assault against Iraq's air defense facility for the next day; and (e) intended to work with the UN only to create a justification to use military force against Iraq.

59. Thereafter, the defendants and WHIG executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive Congress and the American people by making hundreds of false and fraudulent representations that were only half-true, or literally true but misleading; by concealing material facts; and by making statements without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, regarding, among other things:

(a) their true intent to invade Iraq;
(b) the extent of military buildup and force used against Iraq without notice to or approval by Congress;
(c) their true purpose in seeking a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq;
(d) their true intent to use their involvement in seeking a UN resolution requiring Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors as a sham; and
(e) their claimed justifications for invading Iraq, including but not limited to:
* The alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001;
* The alleged connection between Iraq and al Qaeda;
* The alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and any terrorists whose primary animus was directed towards the United States;
* Saddam Hussein's alleged intent to attack the United States in any way;
• Saddam Hussein's possession of nuclear weapons and the status of any alleged ongoing nuclear weapons programs;
* The lack of any reasonable basis for asserting with certainty that Saddam Hussein was actively manufacturing chemical and biological weapons; and
*The alleged urgency of any threat posed to the United States by Saddam Hussein.

60. Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Force Against Iraq. As a result of the defendants' false and fraudulent "marketing" of the President's plan to invade Iraq, on October 11, 2002, the U.S Congress, acting pursuant to its Article I constitutional authority to oversee and authorize use of military force, passed a Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Force Against Iraq ["the Resolution"] which stated:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(a) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(b) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

61. The Resolution required the President to, either before or within 48 hours after exercising the authority to use force, make available to the Senate and the House of Representatives his determination that:

(a) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (1) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (2) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(b) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

62. The Resolution also required the President to, at least every 60 days, present Congress a report on "matters relevant to this joint resolution."

63. In furtherance of the above-described conspiracy, the defendants and their coconspirators committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts:

Overt Acts

A. On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously.

C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.

D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts: (1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes; (2) there were at least fifteen intelligence reports written since April 2001 that cast doubt on the tubes' possible nuclear-related use; and (3) the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts had concluded, after analyzing the tubes's specifications and the circumstances of the Iraqis' attempts to procure them, that the aluminum tubes were not well suited for nuclear centrifuge use and were more likely intended for artillery rocket production.

F. On September 8, 2002, RUMSFELD stated on Face the Nation: "Imagine a September 11th, with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand, it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children," which statement was deliberately fraudulent and misleading in that it implied without reasonable basis and in direct contradiction to then prevailing intelligence that Saddam Hussein had no operational relationship with al Qaeda and was unlikely to provide weapons to terrorists.

G. On September 19, 2002, RUMSFELD told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein," which statement was, as Rumsfeld well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) Hussein had not acted aggressively toward the United States since his alleged attempt to assassinate President George H. W. Bush in 1993; (2) Iraq's military forces and equipment were severely debilitated because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War; (3) the IC's opinion was that Iraq's sponsorship of terrorists was limited to ones whose hostility was directed toward Israel; and (4) Iran, not Iraq, was the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

H. On October 1, 2002, the defendants caused the IC's updated classified National Intelligence Estimate to be delivered to Congress just hours before the beginning of debate on the Authorization to Use Military Force. At the same time, the defendants caused an unclassified "White Paper" to be published which was false and misleading in many respects in that it failed to include qualifying language and dissents that substantially weakened their argument that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

J. Between September 1, 2002, and November 2, 2002, BUSH traveled the country making in excess of thirty congressional-campaign speeches in which he falsely and fraudulently asserted that Iraq was a "serious threat" which required immediate action, when as he well knew, this assertion was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

L. In a February 5, 2003, speech to the UN, POWELL falsely implied, without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, that, among other things: (1) those who maintained that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for rockets were allied with Saddam Hussein, even though POWELL well knew that both Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts and State Department intelligence analysts had concluded that the tubes were not suited for nuclear centrifuge use; and (2) Iraq had an ongoing cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, when he well knew that no intelligence agency had reached that conclusion.

M. On March 18, 2003, BUSH sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate which asserted that further reliance on diplomatic and peaceful means alone would not either: (1) adequately protect United States national security against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" or (2) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that, as BUSH well knew, the U.S. intelligence community had never reported that Iraq posed an urgent threat to the United States and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that Iraq had either the means or intent to attack the U.S. directly or indirectly. The statement was also false because, as BUSH well knew, the UN weapons inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and wanted to continue the inspection process because it was working well.

N. In the same March 18, 2003 letter, BUSH also represented that taking action pursuant to the Resolution was "consistent with continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," which statement was entirely false and without reasonable basis in that, as BUSH well knew, Iraq had no involvement with al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

A TRUE BILL

[Note: This is not an actual indictment]


If you're going to disagree with individual points, please indicate in your response what numbered ( or lettered ) Alleged Fact or Act which you are replying to.





OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/26/2007 12:12:01 AM)

Thanks for the information. Will take a long while to research each of those points. If these points are indeed valid, then the servants of the public I have been voting for need to push for a full investigation and impeachment proceedings, and possible criminal prosecution.

On a side note, I have already noticed my districts congressman is in his second term and his voting record is starting to get inconsistant with his election platform and previous agreements he made with his constituancy. What he may not understand is that he got the job because we got tired of the business as usual politics of the last one, and he will be replaced just as quickly if he does not stay true to his word. The local people here are starting to get pretty adamant that the congressman works for us, and damn well better do what the democratic process put him there to do. We could care less if he feels like he is pissing in the wind on some issues, he better stick with them,

I may start it as another thread, but what do you think about www.fairtax.org ?




farglebargle -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/26/2007 6:41:25 AM)

Looks sorta like a VAT, I guess. Might be a good idea. I dunno. The implementation details are what matters.





dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/26/2007 9:27:19 AM)

Hello again, Orionthewolf; Thank you for your response, but please, let go of the anger. I realize your ego has been bruised; and you write from a position of hurt and anger. You approached me, challenged me to provide you with specific points to prove my statement and opinion.....a typical republican ploy to put me on the defensive, spend needless hours researching and justifing my opinions. I say typical republican ploy, because every political discussion I have ever had the misfortune to be invovled in with a republican mindset,... this has ALWAYS been the method of operation; while they sit back, enjoy their naps, while I'm spending all sorts of energy to prove my point...only to have the other party say, so what, and throw my research into the trash bin, without ever so much as a casual glance. If you want to compare the Gestapo, with Homeland security...then sir; please do so, do your research, but please, don't just go rent the video casablanca or something like that, and show me the comparison. Do some real research, see the operations, and the articles that attribute to the legitimacy of the Gestapo at that time in history, then compare to our own homegrown and recently created gestapo, and don't forget our Patriot Act in the research.

In part, the gestapo 'protected' Germany from it's enemies, contrived or real, protected the children of Germany, and had unbridled power to do so; all created by decree of the Furher and legitimized by said Furher, his underlings, and the people of Germany even to the precendent of the Reightstag fiasco. The Gestapo were welcomed by the German people, who supported and applauded it's creation.....until.

If you lived in Europe for 8 years, as a child, you would know nothing, except of being a child, taking all around you for granted as any child does, even as being raised in NYC. As an adult, you can only then appreciate Europe, and only if you've an interest in art, and other cultures and history. In this dreadful time we are living, seeing what has become of the US, only then can you appreciate other cultures. You know that, why bring it up. If your father was in the military,  stationed there, you have no concept of the cultures, political or otherwise, as you were the protected product of the US.

Being Hung-Up on Bush.........Mr Wolf; who is the president, and has been for awhile now? Who?.....do you, or rather would you have me discuss, 'Clinton' and his blow job which so terrorized the world, shaking the economies of every country on the globe and creating wars that has demolished this and another country, driving the US to a dept that can never be repaid; who has been.....(to quote another Bush) - out of the loop?  There is enough Clinton 'discussion'; truthful and otherwise, and not only of he, but his wife and daughter. That would suit you just fine, I suppose. However, since Bush is president, am I to overlook, all that he has done TO this country; just not mention the Bush name, keep silent, and just go on endlessly about a president, an era, that has been...out of the loop. Who sir, pray tell, has ruled this country for ...oh, the last week or two? Hung-up on Bush; please, give it a rest.

Being a NO_BODY; so, who are you? Will you give me a grade point on my essay? Do you pay my rent? Are you my Boss? Are you providing me with any sort of income?  Who the hell are you? Who do you think you are,....  challenging me, demanding an explanation? Who, What? As far as me, not knowing you, absolutely correct; and so, not to be redundent...Who the hell are you? What gives you the right, or justification to demand anything whatsoever of me?  You are not as wealthy nor as infulential as Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, Arnold 'The Fumigator', Steve Wynn, GW Bush; (opps, there I go again); do you make world infulencing decisions, like (opps, dare I write the name...Bush); Do you decide the fate of countries, effecting the economies of the world for at least, the very least, next hundred years. Are you a CEO of the Dubahi corporation, Haliburton, Chase Bank, or even Joe pasqualli's Italian eatery? Actually sir, you and I, yes, me, myself and I.....and the rest of the 98% of the world's population are ...nobody; and we do not matter. What you think, what mundain debate you engage in with your little ego, makes no difference to the world. So, stop acting like a hurt little child.

Now, if you choose to challenge, then provide the comparison's and disprove my statements. Show me where I am wrong in my judgement. Not that you have to; no, but for our mutual edification and education. Fargle in another post provided you with a huge amount of material, but I see nowhere you countering with like amount of material; thank god for Fargle for being in the know, and taking the time to share with us. Anyone is invited, if you agree with HomeLand Security litigitmazation, and the Patriot act, fine, now you sir, should provide the articles to show the benifit of having this gestapo, over me, and us all.

So, there.

It is the wise puppetmaster who gives his subjects the illusion of free will.













OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/28/2007 3:32:27 PM)

LOL!!! dragone, you are a riot.




zerosignal -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/28/2007 8:21:28 PM)

To add a brief response to the original post:

The actions of this Administration need to be placed in the context of recent political history.  The end of the Clinton administration brought about a marked decline in the influence of the Democratic party.  From 2000-2006, the Republican party, and more formidably still a united faction of the Republican party affiliated with the Project for A New American Century, controlled two branches of the United States government.  Of course the actions of a Republican President would go unchallenged under those circumstances-- where would such a challenge come from?  A Congressional minority unable to muster the votes for cloture?  A Supreme Court mired in political allegiances and a tortured jurisprudence on standing?  The entire point of Separation of Powers is to avoid situations like this where governmental control is consolidated in a single group. 

However, all is not lost.  Starting in 2005, the first big cracks in the armor of the Republican political machine began to show, and since then its influence has steadily waned.  First Donald Rumsfeld has to resign in order to help his party distance themselves from their biggest public failure to date, which didn't work.  Then Scooter Libby was convicted as the sacrificial lamb for Karl Rove's flagrant violation of the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982.  Then Alberto Gonzalez had Paul McNulty fall on his sword during the U.S. Attorney firing scandal.  All the while, the current Administration's mounting record of Constitutional abuses had finished winding their way through the courts and finally arrived for final adjudication before a Supreme Court that could only ignore so many misdeeds for so long.  And that brings us to what I think constitutes the real end of Bush's influence, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

For this to make sense, I'll need to add a little background to an already gargantuan post, but I'll try to be brief.  In the wake of 9/11 and during the height of the Republican Congress' power, Congress passed an act called the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was basically an ambiguous blank check of authority to President Bush to do whatever was necessary to protect America from terrorism.  Both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were initiated under the auspices of this power.  But then Bush pushed the envelope even further, creating for the first time a class of persons entitled to neither criminal due process nor military justice-- the so-called "enemy combatant."  Before the days of "enemy combatants," a prisoner of the United States was either a criminal entitled to due process in the civilian courts and all the associated procedures-- trial by jury, right to counsel, confrontation clause, etc-- or a prisoner of war subject to the Geneva Convention's human rights protections.  Bush attempted to deprive suspected terroists of rights under both civilian and military law placing them in the limbo of "enemy combatant" status, and therein lay his fatal mistake.

Many years before, during the Korean War, another Supreme Court sitting in another era faced a different question that dealt with limits on Presidential authority, called Youngstown Steel.  The facts of the case aren't important, but what is important is that the court left unanswered the question of what limits the courts could impose on Presidential authority when the President was acting pursuant to an ambiguous grant of Congressional authority-- such as the Authorization for Use Military Force, above.  That question went unanswered for decades, and allowed many subsequent Presidents to push the limits of their authority by acting along the fringes of what the Supreme Court said they could do with an ambiguous grant of power by Congress.  Bush would be the first to go too far in this, with his "enemy combatant" distinction.

A prisoner named Salim Ahmed Hamdan found himself in the legal limbo of "enemy combatant" status, and petitioned the courts for relief, saying that Bush lacked the authority to strip him of both civilian and military rights.  Bush responded that the ambiguous Authorization for Use of Military Force allowed him to create this new classification as a means of protecting America from terrorists and that he, rather than the courts, was the proper arbiter of what Congress meant to authorize.  Well, in 2006 the Supreme Court voiced its disagreement.  Saying for the first time that there are limits to Presidential authority when acting pursuant to an ambiguous grant of Congressional power, the Court added that it, and not the President, is proper judge of Congressional acts, rightly harkening back to the 18th century opinion Marbury v. Madison in which the first Chief Justice said that it was "the province and duty of the Court to say what the law is." 

In this, Bush was handed a major defeat.   Even as the Legislature slipped from his party's political control in the 2006 elections,  the Judiciary set one of the first firm limits on Bush's Constitutional abuses, and forever shifted the balance of powers between the President and the courts, reserving for itself the right to delineate the scope of Presidential power under ambiguous Congressional acts.  Was Bush above the law?  There was a time in recent history when the answer to that question was arguably yes.  Is Bush above the law?  Slowly but surely, the other branches of government and the American populace are aligning against the Bush Administration and providing an answer of an emphatic no.




dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/29/2007 6:17:17 PM)

Yes, of course I am; A riot to some, and a nightmare to others.

But, where is your data? Where? Do you want me to look it up for you?




dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/29/2007 6:24:57 PM)

Wow and double WOW!!!!! you said it all. I would like to add and suggest also, that regarding these bills and creations of security measures; terrorism; one should research, the Reichstag fire, and the surrounding events. The passage of 'The Emergency Decree' and the 'Enabling Act'. The trial data surround the event. Comparisons to 9-11 are startling indeed; Me thinks, Bush's cohorts are not original in scope. It's all been done before, only this time, they have the mistakes with which to correct.

This is a riot huh.




Sinergy -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (6/29/2007 8:07:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I am not convinced on one side or the other of wrong doing. I know how things appear, but I have been deceived by appearances before. If someone has some proof of the wrong doings, rather than allegations, then they should present it so that people can be held accountable for their actions.


Orion


What is curious about your posts, Orion, is that people provide constitutional quotes, references to source materials, etc., whereas you strike me as somebody who sits up in his/her/its ivory tower and simply refutes anything anybody else as being incorrect.

When questioned, you respond in a condescending "you are just getting emotional" manner without ever bothering to actually respond to any points the person made.

Is your approach to reasoned discussion to follow the Mark Twain approach of "It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak (post) and remove all doubt?"

I imagine it might feel lonely, knowing if one ever provides a source they will be attacked, ridiculed, and unable to coherently support their position.  Far better to simply trash the education, literacy and research of others without ever expressing what one thinks and being forced to draw a line in the sand about what position one is actually taking.

Hey, if it works for you, I figure go with it.  I just find it a trifle amusing to read.

Sinergy




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 5:54:40 AM)

I am still researching the post by farglebargle, he at least offered some points for me to research. As far as dragone goes, I care not to debate but discuss, maybe some do not see the difference. When I post, I try not to offer insult to the poster and keep my position open. I am not a republican, a democrat, or anything else really. If you need a party affiliation, then I might be described as a small "L" libertarian. Depending on the problem, sometimes a conservative approach is needed, and sometimes a liberal approach is needed. What I do not like seeing, is someone just bitching about the government without offering "meat", which farglebargle has done but dragone didn't really.

I suppose it comes down to whether you want to play party cheerleaders, and just debate points to win points, or do you want to have open discussion and foster an understanding.

Orion




dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 8:23:14 AM)

Hi Wolfie; If you want 'meat', then go to the googlie web; research it all for yourself; no one is stopping you from doing the searches. Again, why anyone has to provide you with the URLs, the book titles, the sources for comment, is not even reasonable discussion. I invited you to research it for yourself, you will have 'discussions' on a myirad of topical structures, both pro and con; and the already research will have references galore.

Where I have made a statement, it is, all common knowledge, and you know this very well.

It was not I who first countered with insult and dismissal, as 'riot'. It was you, who turned the discussion into an adversarial interaction.

If you want 'Meat'; then go for it; the internet awaits; if you want me, to do the legwork, to satisfy your whims....sorry, you'll not find it here; you'll have to do the work, I'll not do it for you.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 8:51:47 AM)

Went back and reread my initial post to you, and do not find an insult that I directed at you. I then read your reply to me and found several. My last one to you "riot" was a reflection of what you brought to me. I am glad you know what I am thinking though, it shows that you replace undefined areas with assumption. You provided in your post some good comparisons, included in with the insults, but avoided other direct questions. I am currently still researching the things that farglebargle posted, and will post a seperate thread on just that. Everyone has a right to voice their opinion, but exerting your rights is not always the right thing. Humans are advesarial by nature, so any interaction between us using the spoken or written word will be just that, but I seek to understand and you offer me no understanding.

I see boards such as this, as a way to exchange and discuss ideas, and in some way try to get others to believe as we do. If you disagree with this, then why do you post? Will these questions be seen as ego and such or as another way for me to foster discussion between us?

Be well,
Orion

quote:

ORIGINAL: dragone

Hi Wolfie; If you want 'meat', then go to the googlie web; research it all for yourself; no one is stopping you from doing the searches. Again, why anyone has to provide you with the URLs, the book titles, the sources for comment, is not even reasonable discussion. I invited you to research it for yourself, you will have 'discussions' on a myirad of topical structures, both pro and con; and the already research will have references galore.

Where I have made a statement, it is, all common knowledge, and you know this very well.

It was not I who first countered with insult and dismissal, as 'riot'. It was you, who turned the discussion into an adversarial interaction.

If you want 'Meat'; then go for it; the internet awaits; if you want me, to do the legwork, to satisfy your whims....sorry, you'll not find it here; you'll have to do the work, I'll not do it for you.




dragone -> RE: Is President Bush above the Law? (7/3/2007 4:20:00 PM)

Not to belabor this bit of nonsense...just exactly what did you mean by your 'Riot' statement. It was not a mockery to me then?

Like I said, I am not obligated to do your research for you. If you want to know, then look it up. Gestapo, SS, Patriot act, Homeland security, The Enabling Act, The Emergency Decree, The Reichstag. 9-11.

Why are you so arguementive? I made certain statements which you flately rejected, and with no evidence of your own to disprove nor argue my point. You instead challenged me to provide you with proof positive, as if you being some authoritative enity I must scape to;  yet, nothing from yourself. I suggested you to look up the specifics on the internet, and compare, that's it.

You subsequently give me your child history in Europe. Now you accuse me again of not fostering a discussion.

No Mas, No Mas. I retire the field.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.109375