jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (66 posts)

Swiss want to arrest George Bush for torture!

  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    (Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.

    Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on February 12 in Geneva. But pressure has been building on the Swiss government to arrest him and open a criminal investigation if he enters the Alpine country.

    Criminal complaints against Bush alleging torture have been lodged in Geneva, court officials say.

    Human rights groups said they had intended to submit a 2,500-page case against Bush in the Swiss city on Monday for alleged mistreatment of suspected militants at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. naval base in Cuba where captives from Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts in the so-called War on Terror were interned.

    1. Stump Parrish profile image59
      Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I wondered how long he and Cheney would remain above the law. Self admitted war criminal sure was enjoying the super bowl. I wonder how much it cost our government for zbush to attend the superbowl and why we should be footing the bill for it. He could have watched it on tv and saved the country 42 million dollars at least.

      1. Smkmdb11 profile image60
        Smkmdb11posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Obama himself has been called for contempt of court by a Federal District Court Judge and he ignores it. A Federal Judge deems Obamacare un-constitutional and he just responds that the man is wrong. And seeing as how Bush actually went to congress before launching a raid on Iraq, something that not many presidents before him took the time to do, should congress be obtained as war criminals as well?

        Saddam Hussein was a long-time threat to the well-being of his surroundings. It's amazing how you liberals fight for the rights of everything from poverty stricken citizens of third world countries to the polar bears "loosing ice and hunting ground" - a myth disproven by fact by the way - to trees in the forest, yet when it comes to the people that this murderer tourtured and humiliated on a daily basis, you sympathize and blame the big bully, America.

        Saddam deserved a glass bottle shoved into his reproductive organs - a common tourture that he administered on females for his enjoyment - unfortunately it would have been politically incorrect.

        1. Mark Ewbie profile image84
          Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Was Saddam a threat for the first twenty years while the US supported him and sold him weapons to fight the Iranians?  Was there a little falling out which led to war in Iraq?  Maybe he couldn't make a golf date with George and that led to a bust up.

          Isn't there a picture of Cheney in Iraq sucking up to Saddam and selling him arms?  Who sold him the gas to kill the Kurds with?

          Funny how democracy and human rights only works in certain directions, don't you agree?

          Guantanamo is a stain on America throughout the whole world.  A war on terror, but without soldiers.  Call them 'enemy combatants' with no rights.  Pity Obama couldn't stick to his pre election promise.  Oh well.

          Thanks to the internet and communication it gets more difficult to cover up and lie to the people. 

          Am I a Liberal?  No.  I'd like to see Bush and Blair strung up, and have the genital thing you refer to. 

          Funny how Blair the peace envoy couldn't manage a trip to Egypt last week. Wonder how he'd be received in Tahrir square.

        2. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Torture is against American and International Law. We don't live in Iraq...we live here. These are OUR criminals.
          Dennis Kuchinich had 35 articles of impeachment drawn up against Bush and Cheney.
          Google it and read it. It is despicable!
          The Republicans in charge refused to even hear it.

          Now that you want to get Obama.....I say: GET IN LINE!!! Firt comes first. Deal with Bushco, or forever hold your tongue.

        3. brimancandy profile image83
          brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Stop bringing Obama into all the Bush screw ups. He had absolutely nothing to do with all the crap that Bush did while he was president. There is a huge difference between being on trail for war crimes, then going to court over something that hasn't even taken effect. The whole Obama care idea may not ever happen.

          Second of all this Obama care is a bunch of political BS. Does everyone really think that he sat down and wrote up this entire bill on his own? It is a joint effort by many people to get health care reform passed, in whatever form it eventually ends up in. The only reason the Republicans are bitching about it, is because their rich insurance pals, might have to cut back on their contribrutions to make up for the money they might lose on this bill. They have not built a safety net for them in the bill, and that is what the republicans are trying to get.

          Bush attacked a country with lies, only to remove someone from power that he didn't like, in an effort to have possibble control of a portion of that countries oil. Thousands of people died, and many were tortured. And, you bring up Obama care? Who gives a rats ass. Bush and Cheney and all his pals need to be punished. It is actually cool to see that a country has enough balls to do what is right.

          1. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Absolutely brim!! Like comparing an ant to Tyrranosaurus Rex.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How long will you, like most anti-Bush activists, continue to bite the hand that protected you?

      You want sympathy for the devil, basically, when you champion for the "rights" of terrorists and enemy suspects.

      Go figure. 

      I suppose you wanna give 'em flat-screen tvs and caviar every night and the right to vote in another tyrant like Obama.

      Heck, if I was Bush I'd probably cancel the event too.  Not so much from fear from Swiss authorities, but because the Lefties in his own country are out for his blood and refuse to back his historic ever-so-gallant fight against terrorism (at their own eventual peril, I will add, which is even being illustrated already.  Already we have numerous terrorist plots and actions perpetuated  upon American soil and airlines, upon Americans!  Heck, what good does it do to even try to protect the Lefties in America when all they wanna do is lash out condemning the very leaders who tried to save their butts time after time?)
      The problem is, EVERYONE's life is in greater danger now that liberals tout sympathy for the terrrorists,  not just the lives of the foolish people who'd rather cut down a good man than to actually stand against terrorism.

      It's actually a travesty that anyone even has the right to voice sympathy for terrorists!  McCarthy was right.

      1. Daniel Carter profile image92
        Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's not a very Christian view on your part, Brenda.
        What about love your enemy, turn the other cheek, etc.?

        No wonder religious folks look like hypocrites, when comments like these are made.

        I'm not saying I would forgive terrorists, but your religion says you must. I just think it's hypocritical to call for justice as you do and yet say that "god loves everyone and so do I." And if you don't love everyone, your religions says you should.

        Just sayin'.

      2. brimancandy profile image83
        brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Once again, you are blinded by all the Bush lies. There were no weapons in Iraq, and Iraq had nothing to do with 911. All this treat of terrorism exploded in fear as America stupidly listened to all the Bush scare tatics.

        Did you know that the first bush administration was actually on friendly terms with the Bin Ladens? Did you also know that George bush junior actually had the taliban leaders as gusets in the United States?  Did you also know that the Bin Laden family was on the only plane that was the only one allowed to fly out of the United States, while air force one was ground on 911?

        This country has had plenty of chances to go after terrorists, and, they sat back and did nothing, and they knew which groups were involved in terrorists acts and did nothing. It wasn't until 911 that they realized that they should have done something. And, what better excuse to attack a country then saying they are involved with terrorists.

        The Bush administration duped the world. And now we are all paying for his mistakes. So, you keep on believing that he made us safe. Not true at all, he opened the door for a flood of hatred toward America, and now there are 100 times more groups out to get us.

        Go back before he was president. I think we were 100 times safer.

        1. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Did you know that the first bush administration was actually on friendly terms with the Bin Ladens?"

          Carlyle Group.

          "Exposed: The Carlyle Group

          Shocking documentary uncovers the subversion of Americas democracy.

          I defy you to watch this 48 minute documentary and not be outraged about the depth of corruption and deceit within the highest ranks of our government."

          http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … le3995.htm

    3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image96
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The levels of Swiss Awesomeness are so epic in this instance that they are . . . .super epic!!!!

      1. 60
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And yet an American who won the Nobel Peace Prize promised to close the facility....Its still open.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You know that democrats in  congress were instrumental  in blocking the closure.

    4. Mr Tindle profile image86
      Mr Tindleposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm no fan of Bush, but its kind of funny to me that the Swiss are acting so High-and-Mighty about this, when their country is a notorious safe haven for many brutal dictators all over the world to stash their wealth "tax free".

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's a fair point.

      2. 0
        ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Whao there! Hold your horses!

        This is just media speculation, don't ya know?

        All that has happened is that certain left wing groups, not political parties or neither government officials, have proposed protests. These groups are global organisations with factions in Switzerland as well as pretty much any other country in the world, e.g. Amnesty International.

        Some minor human rights groups called for him to be arrested, do you really think that the Swiss authorities will rush into something like that? Or even listen to them at all?

        At no stage have the Swiss authorities or the wider Swiss public called for Bush's head on a plate. The Swiss aren't getting high and mighty, you imagined that bit.

        I think it is safe to say that Bush would face protest in pretty much any world in the country, such is the disdain in which he is held in the eyes of the global population.

        I suspect that a public visit by Bush in the UK would be met with protest too, that's your ideology right? freedom of speech? I would happily go and hurl abuse at him in London, especially if we have to pay for his security.

        1. brimancandy profile image83
          brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          We have to pay for his security even if he goes to BF highschool in the backwoods of nowhere. Not only pay for him, but all of the people associated with him whenever he travels. I'll bet he probably has more security than Obama, since so many people are not happy with him.

          But, his family made so much money when the price of oil sky rocketed after 911, that he has nothing to worry about. I wouldn't be surprised if he also has private security watching the backs of the public security. Oh well.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Well the SB was in Texas, so at least it wasn't a real long trip for him....

    I do find it quite interesting that Bush wrote his Decision Points late last year -- he obviously thinks enough time has elapsed that America would forget the pain (sort of like women are supposed to forget the pain of childbirth).
    Now even Rumsfeld has a book out.
    Waiting to complete the axis of evil -- I wonder how Cheney's memoire will jibe with the other two?

  3. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Yes, every time an American citizen is arrested and thrown in jail, it's a farce. The biggest criminals BAR NONE. are walking free...on our dime, in our name.
    And their supporters and followers now set the agenda for this country.

    And people wonder why I'm mad?   It's an OUTRAGE, and we are such big cowards, it's not even funny.

    No one is above the law? Think again. Is this Constitutional? Errrr, no--it isn't!

  4. Dale Nelson profile image29
    Dale Nelsonposted 5 years ago

    I,m confused.

    Will we miss him ?

  5. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    The actions of President George W. Bush did not make America safer from terrorists.
    He invaded the wrong country on trumped up charged later proven to be false. Meanwhile, he used precious military resources to fight a war with Iraq while bin Laden was safely hidden away in Afghanistan.
    We could have cut off the head of the beast anytime between 2001 and 2008. But we did not. We sacrified American lives as well as innocent Iraqi lives for a bogus war.

    Many Americans feel Bush and Cheney should be tried for treason. But this article isn't even about us. It's Switzerland -- the most neutral country in the world -- recognizing the extreme torture tactics used at Guantanamo.
    I mean really. It takes a LOT to get Switzerland's dander up.
    Probably best the W stays put in Crawford....

  6. 0
    ryankettposted 5 years ago

    Most of us Brits want Tony Blair to be put down for war crimes, for playing his poodle. We are currently having a public enquiry into the Iraq war and Tony Blair has been required to effectively stand trial, the commission can conclude that he is guilty of war crimes but can not punish him in any way.

    If we find Tony Blair guilty of war crimes then the conclusion will ultimately be that British system also considers George Bush guilty of war crimes, seeing as they went to war using the same "intelligience". It was a 'war' that very few in this country supported from the very start, we had 1 million people put on the streets of London within days of the start protesting.

    The US under Bush, and the UK under Blair, are without a doubt guilty of an illegal war and subsequently the illegal deaths of in excess of 6 million innocent people. I would happily see both charged with 6 million counts of murder. A proportion of our taxes are distributed under the pretence of a "defence budget", the reality is that neither the UK or USA have needed to defend themselves since WWII.

    Remember that our taxes are in those bullets and in those bombs, we have every right to object to our money being spent in such a fashion. My money has killed innocent Iraqi children, Afghan children, brothers and sisters, and that does sadden me deeply. If I were American I would also be saddened by the use of my hard earned cash being spent to persecute Palistinians.

    We have no choice but to pay taxes or face punishment, yet we also have no choice when we do pay as to how they are spent. I object to my money being spent on wholesale murder, yet we have no choice but to contribute. I would sooner the British military be in Uganda and other such countries attempting to restore civil order and ending the use of child soldiers, at least that would leave a worthwhile legacy.

    The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is seen by the wider world, the entire world, as a persecution. I have no shame in stating these opinions of mine, I don't care who objects to them.

    1. 60
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      6 Million? BTW didn't the "intelegence" originate with Tony Blair's Administration?

      1. habee profile image92
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I thought it was more like 100,000?? Not that 100,000 is acceptable.

        1. 60
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I believe thats the standard number that is thrown around. I doubt that number as well.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            100,000 at a minimum, plus half the Christians have been run out of the country thanks to Bush's folly.

        2. Mark Ewbie profile image84
          Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I think the US counted 100,000 in their figures, although they originally said they weren't counting.  The averages I've seen have said 500,000 attributable to the 'war on terror' or 'illegal invasion of sovereign country'.

          For me, just one civilian death would be pause for thought, but the word collateral damage seems to be fig leaf enough for the consciences of Christians Tony and George.

          I won't bother going on.  So much is wrong.

          One silly little thing.  The US Egyptian ambassador - he has business interests with the military and Egypt?  How absolutely perfect.  Good to see morality flourishing and the right sort of democracy.

          I will stop.  Should write a hub really.

        3. 0
          ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          As per my post above, that figure is nicely spun in the favour of coalition forces. The true figure is much higher, everybody was fed and medicated pre-invasion.... the same cannot be said now.

          1. 60
            C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Built what straw man? I questioned your numbers, simple as that. I do not support either war.

            1. 0
              ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I assumed that you were one of those lets-just-blow-a-big-f*cking-crater-in-the-whole-world-and-just-keep-glorious-America types, admittedly.

              1. 60
                C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Nope, not at all.

            2. lovemychris profile image79
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Now, or back when they were being manipulated?
              Because the time to not support them is before they start! Once you get in them....it's a morass.

              THAT is why they were so desperate to sell it. That is why that guy (can't remember him now) got a Medal of Honor or something from Bush for coming up with the "Slam Dunk."

              And the man who reported the "sexed up" document from 10 Downing Street was murdered, IMO.

              This is such a huge crime, it's mind-boggling.

              If it goes un-punished, the thin thread that Liberty and Justice hangs on will snap.

              1. 60
                C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And yet we are still there..... More have died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush.....

                http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike- … under-bush

                1. lovemychris profile image79
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Obama always said Afghanistan was his war......we knew that before hand. We were not lied into it. And BTW--we are actually PAYING for it. And at least there are plans to get out.

                  He SAID we don't torture anymore....THAT would be his big crime in my view, if it were still going on.(Bagram AFB.  ??) Or renditions...which I read to be on-going. (?)

                  However, those on the right seem to want to string Obama up on a rope, while letting the Neo-Cons from Hell totally off the hook.

                  Maybe you forget the absolute horror that was Bushco....I don't.
                  And it is not ancient history...it is present tense.

                  If we don't deal with them, we have NO moral ground to do anything about anyone else whatsoever, IMO.  Ever.

                  And all arrests and prosecutions of ordinary American citizens should halt pronto, until we deal with it.

                  No one is above the Law in the Constitution of the United States....or did you all forget that part?

                  1. 60
                    C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    All your rhetoric wont change the facts Chris. Iraq is Korea and Afghanistan is Vietnam. Time will prove that.

                  2. 60
                    C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    We have no moral ground to address this?

                    http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-07/n … estigators

                    We have no moral ground to address the Tucson shooter?

      2. 0
        ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are counting only the direct combat deaths, as of early 2009 there were well over 2 million "excess deaths". In other words, 2 million more people died in the 6 year period from 2003 to 2009 than would have died under the Saddam regime in the same period.

        You may count the deaths as the number caused by our bullets and bombs, the true number accounts for those who have died from disease and lack of nutrition following the collapse of the advanced Iraqi social care and welfare system. There are said to be 6m to 10m refugees in Iraq, effectively living in shanty towns, they didn't exist pre-invasion.

        600,000 of those deaths are infant deaths, under 5's. I count those, and so should you. Post-invasion excess deaths in Afghanistan are over 4 million. Two million + four million = 6 million. That is the figure that I accept as the human cost of our invasion, 6 million deaths, effectively Chicago being wiped out twice.

        You can post your strawman arguments if you wish, I consider the invasions to effectively be a genocide. Deaths are not just caused by bombs, they are also caused by the complete destruction of health and welfare systems.

      3. 0
        ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And nope, you are thinking about something else.

        George Bush specifically emailed Tony Blair and asked for his support in an invasion of Iraq.

        Blair, like the puppy dog that he was, happily jumped up Bush's arse.

        1. 60
          C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nope, not thinking of something else.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 … axi-driver

          1. 0
            ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            America had already decided to go to war, MI6 were under pressure to gather their own intelligience on WMD in order to join your invasion. Which they failed to do. I have been watching hours and hours of the Iraq war enquiry.

            Bush requested Blair's support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Blair stupidly agreed. The result was a shit president and a shit prime minister instructing invasion with no intelligience whatsoever.

            Our lack of intelligience had no relationship to your lack of intelligience, the WMD dossier was compiled after the request for support.

            1. 60
              C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It has typically been framed on this side of the pond that the inteligence was UK based...Funny huh?

              1. 0
                ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That doesn't really surprise me.

                I'm sure that America invests enough in "intellegience" to make their own 'informed' decision.

                The truth is that Bush and Blair decided to go to war and THEN looked for reasons, that is the problem, they didn't find any valid ones.

                The Iraq war was Bush settling a score for his dad, why a supposed centre-left politician would pally up with him is beyond us Brits, other than to assume that he wasn't particularly left at all.

                This says all that you need to know:

                http://www.france24.com/en/20110121-ton … ar-inquiry

                1. lovemychris profile image79
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Only people who refuse to see it are Americans ryan....and that includes the murderous treason that was 9/11.

                  For Gods' sakes...this is REAL!
                  Sometimes I feel like we're in some sort of Twilight World here......

                  Have we all been brain-washed? Had a big Psy-op done on us all? How is it that we don't DO something?

    2. Uzdawi profile image33
      Uzdawiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you 100%.

  7. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Hi Ryankett,
    The US has the most backward and upside down viewpoint of presidential culpability, I must say.
    Today the whole country is worshipping at the altar of Saint Ronnie Reagan (100th birthday). I have been reading up on his "legacy" and frankly don't see a whole lot, other than he was a glib communicator, to celebrate. Unless, of course, you are a member of that elite minority who own the wealth in this country (thanks to tax policies of Reagan, Bush Sr. and W).

    I do disagree with you somewhat that the UK and USA have not needed to defend themselves since WWII. Both have suffered bombings from terrorists. The problem is that "terrorists" are not a unified enemy. It's not like you really can declare war on a country, as terrorists are not a country. They don't wear uniforms. They don't abide by rules of engagement... but we do need to defend ourselves against them. Having said that, however, I agree that Iraq was a collosal mistake and Afghanistan is proving almost as big of a fiasco.

    In addition to the innocents killed abroad, I count the death toll from Hurricane Katrina as more blood on Bush's hands. Had our reserves not been deployed overseas we could have -- and had an obligation to -- help our own citizens. We did not. Or I should say, our government did not.

    1. 60
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The responsibility for the death toll associated with Katrina lies at the feet of then Govenor Blanco. The President had NOTHING to do with that. Louisiana's Government has had institutionalized corruption for decades. This disaster only exposed that on the national stage.

    2. 0
      ryankettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      None of the 9/11 bombers were Iraqi, none of the 9/11 bombers were Aghan. The London tube bombers were British citizens.

      I don't attribute those terrorist attacks in any way to the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

  8. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Weren't the levees that broke in Lousiana built by the Army Corps of Engineers (federal agency)?
    Regardless, if the US national guard reserves had been available to assist with disaster relief instead of tied up on a fool's errand in Iraq there would have been fewer American deaths.
    Bush and FEMA director "Brownie" have been shown to have dropped the ball on federal assistance to New Orleans.

    1. 60
      C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The FED does not deploy troops on the civilian population. The govenor has that authority. Federal dollars are issued to the state for levees. FOR DECADES the State has allowed those dollars to be squandered. Four years of Bush didn't cause the levee to fail.

    2. habee profile image92
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think the governor is responsible for calling in the NG.

  9. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,[1][2] that forbids the United States from granting titles of nobility and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress

    Yet Mr. Obama accepted the UN Head of the Security Council, and was there permission given from congress?

    Barack Obama is set to become the first-ever U.S. president to chair the United Nations' 15-member Security Council when it meets later this month.

    Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics … z1DJ6hPidH


  10. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I did not say Bush was responsible for the levees failing. I said that the federal government's response when New Orleans was declared a disaster area was inadequate and slow. My point is, help Americans FIRST. We should have the reserves (monetary and troops) to deal with disasters that occur on our own shores. We were caught with our pants down on Katrina.
    I do agree that Louisana and New Orleans are both notorious for government corruption. That is not under dispute.

    Smkmdb11 -- a federal districts court judge in Florida has rule the health care law unconstitutional. Other judges at the same level have ruled that one part of it is unconstitutional or that it is constitutional. The case next needs to be heard by the court of appeals. Depending on how that goes, it may be heard by the Supreme Court. So it's a little premature to be calling for Obama's head on this one. Given that the man taught Constitutional Law I think he might know a little about what the document says and how to ensure that laws enacted on his watch will not be tossed out based on unconstitutionality.
    You might also want to look into the background of that Florida judge and see who is buttering his bread... Hint: tea and jam, tea and jam with bread....

    It is true that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. He definitely deserved to be taken out. However, the US had no factual basis for invading Iraq in 2002. Whether we got faulty intel or whether the WMDs were trumped up (as intimated by Rumsfeld in his new book), it's now clear that Bush went to Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein, not for any other reason. You can't just go around declaring war on other countries unless they are posing an imminent threat to us or our allies. Saddam at the time was not. So where is that justification?

    In this case the ends did NOT justify the means!

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Even if Iraq had had WMD it would have made no sense to invade. The mistake of the MSM and the U.S. foreign policy establishment was to frame the invasion question in terms of if Iraq had WMD we had no choice but to invade and if not, no need to invade. Iraq had neither the motive nor the means to use WMD against the US. We lived for 60 years with nuclear weapons aimed at us 24-7 from Russia and China. And we were worried about "mobile germ warfare labs" in a little pissant country like Iraq? Rumsfeld said that Bush was more interested in Iraq than Afghanistan. Shortly after 9-11 he asked Rumsfeld to prepare an imaginative plan for regime change in Iraq. Our needless, foolish, costly invasion screwed up the country and pushed it into the arms of Iran.

      1. 60
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Agree, yet there are still 48,000 US Troops in Iraq.

        Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)

  11. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Somebody should apply rendition to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their top henchmen.

  12. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "This is a new development for the GOP."

    Yes, funny that. What gives?
    Not enough monetary gain to be had? Not enough contracts over there...what?

  13. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    The Swiss Foreign Ministry says Bush would have immunity against any charges.

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How could he have immunity when he was numero uno in charge???

      He is above the law, plain and simple. That is un-Constitutional.....for those of you who throw the Constitution around Constantly...(Tea-P'ers. Bachmann/Palin etc)

      Let's see if the Republicans are so kind to Obama when they go after him.  This "above the law" thing is a double-edged sword isn't it?

      How, with any sense of any decency-- and with a straight face, can they say ANYTHING about ANYBODY after Bush?

      1. habee profile image92
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm just quoting what they told the Wahington Post.

  14. Iontach profile image89
    Iontachposted 5 years ago

    Wow that would be the day...hopefully karma comes and bites him back in the ass.