RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated...

RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (Full Version)

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

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 6:41:10 PM)
Useful, if only for justice to be done. Have you noticed how readily some are to ask for blood when a crime is committed? Why should some people be above the law? shrug - and there I thought that this was a populist country, terrified of any association with eliticism [:D] .

Level -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 6:44:12 PM)
Who will put Bush, Cheney, etc on trial? Enough people believe there was enough of a question regarding WMDs to prevent there ever being any sort of trial.

kittinSol -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 6:50:42 PM)
Ha! You don't want to do it, Level. But you're not alone, not enough people think it's possible. Therefore, it never will happen. But if enough people gathered the political and popular support they could do it. They did it for a sperm stain, remember?

Level -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 6:58:19 PM)
Not enough thinks it's possible, and not enough think it would be right, kittin. Now... are you talking about Mizzz Lewinksy's dress? [:D]

kittinSol -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 7:05:55 PM)
Yes, of course I was talking about the dress, what else could I have been talking about :-p ? What a laugh that was... another occasion for the rest of the world to enjoy the circus. As for thinking it isn't right to prosecute you know who...If it was right to impeach over the spunk splash, it's right to impeach over the WMD lies.

kdsub -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 7:11:30 PM)
Myself I always wondered if he smoked that cigar...

Level -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 7:12:25 PM)
I didn't think Clinton should have been impeached. [>:] If Bush or whomever knew that there were no WMDs, then yes, that's worthy of legal action. I don't see a degree of evidence saying that, though.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 7:14:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It will be hard enough to beat McCain with out looking vindictive in attacking Bush…That may just get 4 more years of a Republican President. I just think Bush should be tried for war crimes. I don't care about pretend collateral issues. What I think of the future of this country may turn up in another thread... [:-]

kittinSol -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 7:18:27 PM)
Evidence or not, that's up to the lawyers to determine. Quite a few of them are looking into this possibility. I think I saw a poll about a year ago that showed close to 40% of American voters supported the impeachment of Bush/Cheney. Not bad, all in all: the numbers can grow. Time will tell...

Owner59 -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 7:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren (...) I never thought I'd be getting into debates in this country on whether torture should be legal or not. That saddens me deeply Understandably. It feels like a massive regression, like a lot of progress has just been obliterated. A real shame. Until Bush and Friedo,the USA was one of the world`s leaders against torture and other human right`s abuses. We lead after WW II in Geneva and later in the UN.We were not only signatory to,but the authors of many of the treaties and conventions outlawing torture. So yes,it`s sad and unfortunate that were even discussing the subject,let alone doing it. If Gore had taken office,we wouldn`t be discussing the merits of torture. To the phony baloneys who say there`s no difference between partys,there`s a difference on this issue. ~~~~~~~~~~ About Abu-Ghraib,there were no terrorist there to torture info from.There was no connection with them and 9/11 or any other terrorist group. Any poor slob who ended up there was fucked b/c he was going to get tortured anyway. Stress positions,all that naked play and underwear fun. Water boarding,peeling off fingernails,beatings,doused with water and put in a freezer. Electric shock to the genitals, nipples and mouth. Hands tied overhead naked,w/ a snarling dog biting at his dick,of course he`s going to sign zee paperzz or confess to whatever.There`s a frick`n mad dog biting at his balls! Torturing family members in front of other family members.Sexually molesting and assaulting family members in front of other family members. And WTF was with all the BD/SM stuff going on.I kept seeing scenario after scenario of bondage,humiliations,D/S,sexually charged games of naked pyramid , pony play and puppy play. There are some sick fucks in the bushies. The argument that we needed to torture the Iraqis to stop terrorists is dubious and cowardly. These sick fucks just want to torture and kill for the fuck of it.The 9/11/terrorism rational is just a cover story and excuse for their devilish, criminal behavior.

DomAviator -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 7:56:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Until Bush and Friedo,the USA was one of the world`s leaders against torture and other human right`s abuses. We lead after WW II in Geneva and later in the UN.We were not only signatory to,but the authors of many of the treaties and conventions outlawing torture. So yes,it`s sad and unfortunate that were even discussing the subject,let alone doing it. If Gore had taken office,we wouldn`t be discussing the merits of torture. To the phony baloneys who say there`s no difference between partys,there`s a difference on this issue. ~~~~~~~~~~ About Abu-Ghraib,there were no terrorist there to torture info from.There was no connection with them and 9/11 or any other terrorist group. Any poor slob who ended up there was fucked b/c he was going to get tortured anyway. Stress positions,all that naked play and underwear fun. Water boarding,peeling off fingernails,beatings,doused with water and put in a freezer. Electric shock to the genitals, nipples and mouth. Hands tied overhead naked,w/ a snarling dog biting at his dick,of course he`s going to sign zee paperzz or confess to whatever.There`s a frick`n mad dog biting at his balls! Torturing family members in front of other family members.Sexually molesting and assaulting family members in front of other family members. And WTF was with all the BD/SM stuff going on.I kept seeing scenario after scenario of bondage,humiliations,D/S,sexually charged games of naked pyramid , pony play and puppy play. There are some sick fucks in the bushies. The argument that we needed to torture the Iraqis to stop terrorists is dubious and cowardly. These sick fucks just want to torture and kill for the fuck of it.The 9/11/terrorism rational is just a cover story and excuse for their devilish, criminal behavior. WOW, so Bush was in power when we established the school of the americas to teach torture and assasination in latin america???? Silly me I thought TRUMAN established that in 1946??? Gee wasnt he a democrat???? (All Bush did with the SOA was to rename it...) Know all those latin american death and torture squads prowling the streets? THEY TRAINED IN FORT BENNING GA! By US.. Also - CLINTON, NOT BUSH , CLINTON started the policy of "Extrordinary Rendition" which is "torture by contract". Hence we can truthfully say "No US Intelligence Agents tortured any prisoners" Nope they didnt, they just loaded them on a CIA owned Gulfstream Jet and flew them to a black site in Eastern Europe and listened to the answers while an independant contractor did the torturing. THANK SLICK WILLY FOR THAT! As for Abu G'Raib STANDARD SERE stuff. Quite mild actually. All US pilots and aircrew, military intelligence officers, special forces operators, and other likely to be captured behind enemy lines have been through a SERE Level C class. Do a little research between the Abu G'Raib incident and SERE. Its all by the book. SO, if it is good enough to do to me and to a substantial portion of officers and Non Coms in the US Military, its good enough for a bunch of foreign terrorists..... Fuck them, I didnt like it either when they did it to me, and its something the recruiter neglected to mention, but thats life.

Owner59 -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 8:00:06 PM)
blah blah blah You would have fit right in, at Abu Ghraib.

DomAviator -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 8:07:15 PM)
Blah blah blah is the best you can come up with when informed that the US has been in the torture business since 1946??? I would think that would shock you... Bush was still in his daddys balls when we opened the School of the Americas and started training torturers and assassins? He had a lot of power for a sperm I guess.... Meanwhile here is something else to chew on: Use by the Clinton Administration The procedure was developed by CIA officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda [15]. According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke: “ 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'[16] ” In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally — including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea... 'What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,' Scheuer said. 'It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.' Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek 'assurances' from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was 'not sure' if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed."[17] However, Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received.[18] He further acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been "up to U.S. standards." However, he stated, This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes.[19] Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian mukhabarat. Hmmmmm ISNT THAT FUNNY!!!! Clinton, NOT BUSH, started the torturing.... Isn't that just amazing - something NOT being Bush's fault!!!

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 9:16:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol ...impeachment... A point of clarification: As the seconds tick away, it's worth noting that impeachment is becoming both unlikely and immaterial. That doesn't mean we have to let it go at that. I think the take-down of an ex-prez would prove just as useful.

farglebargle -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 9:32:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level I didn't think Clinton should have been impeached. [>:] If Bush or whomever knew that there were no WMDs, then yes, that's worthy of legal action. I don't see a degree of evidence saying that, though. Not just "knew", but "Should have been expected to know, based on the prevailing evidence". It's about DUTY. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. had a DUTY to present all the evidence in a clear and straightforward way. By choosing to cherry pick the intel presented, they prevented Congress and The People from performing their oversight duties -- in violation of 18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1001, just for starters. e.g.: Aluminium Tubes, asserted by Rice to only be usable for centrifuges. Which were known to not be used for centrifuges. Good thing the Loyal Bushies replaced all the "Few, Good Men" at the DOJ with other Loyal Bushies, eh? Now there's no-one who isn't a Loyal Bushie in a position to actually bring this to a grand jury.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 9:47:05 PM)
Ok folks, please dial back the vitriol. XI

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 9:51:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 blah blah blah You would have fit right in, at Abu Ghraib. Yeah, well, I personally think I could accomplish more in the ME with 100 grams of Lysergic that all the ordnace the morons have fired off playing with their deathtoys.

DomAviator -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/25/2008 10:10:05 PM)
All partisan debate aside - a president does not NEED a reason to deploy forces or to start a war. Nowhere in the presidential powers listed in the constitution does it require a valid reason. Much less what "some" consider to be a valid reason. Legally, the president of the united states could have invaded iraq because saddam farted at the UN... There is nothing to charge him with... He is CINC of the armed forces and can use them as he sees fit.... He could have nuked every man woman and child in Iraq simply by telling the officer following him to open the nuclear football. Bush was 100% right in that HE is "the decider"...

farglebargle -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/26/2008 8:14:18 AM)
NOTHING gives George Bush the authority to break US Law. Lying to Congress is a violation of both 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 371.

FullCircle -> RE: Lies repeated and repeated and repeated... (5/26/2008 8:37:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomAviator All partisan debate aside - a president does not NEED a reason to deploy forces or to start a war. Nowhere in the presidential powers listed in the constitution does it require a valid reason. Much less what "some" consider to be a valid reason. Legally, the president of the united states could have invaded iraq because saddam farted at the UN... There is nothing to charge him with... He is CINC of the armed forces and can use them as he sees fit.... He could have nuked every man woman and child in Iraq simply by telling the officer following him to open the nuclear football. Bush was 100% right in that HE is "the decider"... Then if true that is a problem. How can any society without checks and balances claim other countries around the world have unreasonable dictators? You just painted your president as having the same unreasonable powers as a dictator. This is all beside the point because everyone is subject to the global economy and can feel the pinch when nations decide to opt out of unreasonable discussions that a nation such as the US may promote. No man is an island and no nation can go it alone anymore. You tax internet gambling to help your Las Vegas casinos to the detriment of European interests and Europe looks down the list of major US imports and puts high tax levies on those. We could all go on forever like this and therefore we need some common objectives and part of that is wars being fought for good reasons that there is consensus about. Anyone that doesn't understand that such as Bush wouldn't be a very good leader in my opinion. If you only look after your own interests then why would anyone else around the world want to be a part of that? The technology will become old soon enough, the methods are already outdated so there is nothing positive about an inward looking country. You'll be overtaken by the rest of the world because the rest of the world will be the ones co-operating with one another to meet shared key objectives. When new technology come out it spreads like wildfire and you are only as good as the last invention because the rest of the world gets their hands upon it takes it apart and improves it. It’s a losing battle to think having a technological advantage gives a nation power. How many generic drugs are being produced in India against the patents of US drug companies?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875