Crimes against peace class action suit

[Luddly Neddite]

?Crimes against Peace?: Historic Class Action Law Suit against George W. Bush | Global Research

The case against Bush is based on the conduct of members of the administration prior to coming into office as well as conduct taking place on and after 9/11. Years before their appointment to the Bush Administration, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were vocal advocates of a militant neoconservative ideology that called for the United States to use its armed forces in the Middle East and elsewhere.

They openly chronicled their desire for aggressive wars through a non-profit called The Project for the New American Century (or PNAC). In 1998, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would personally sign a letter to then-President Clinton, urging the president to implement a “strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power,” which included a “willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.”

On 9/11, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz openly pressed for the United States to invade Iraq, even though intelligence at the time confirmed that it was al Qaeda, and not Saddam, that was responsible. Richard Clarke, former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism, famously told President Bush that attacking Iraq for 9/11 would be like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

We now know that the Bush Administration began a concerted effort to scare and mislead the American public in order to obtain support for the Iraq War. As alleged in the complaint, this included the famous phrase that “the smoking gun could not be a mushroom cloud,” which was used repeatedly by Administration officials on news shows as a way of equating non-action with the vaporization of a United States city. The Administration used bogus and false intelligence to make the case for weapons of mass destruction, and also falsely linked al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that there has never been any evidence of any operational linkages between the two. These were not simple mistakes: this was an intentional campaign by Administration officials to use faulty data to garner support for a war.

The crime of aggression was completed when these officials failed to secure proper authorization for the war. So concerned with their invasion, the Administration dismissed any need for a formal Security Council mandate. Today, Kofi Annan, an official Dutch inquiry, the Costa Rican Supreme Court, a former law lord from the House of Lords (Lord Steyn) and a former chief prosecutor from the Nuremberg Trials (Benjamin Ferencz) have all concluded the Iraq War was illegal under international law.

Yes, he's guilty but I agree with President Obama that bringing him and that dick of a veep to justice might well do more harm that good.

Whatcha think?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[boedicca]

Still blaming Booosshhhh in a lame "squirrel" attempt to divert attention from Obama's cascading failures....

 

[TemplarKormac]

What do I think? Bush was president a long time ago. I think Cheney was VP a long time ago, yet Democrats like you are still obsessed with trying them for war crimes. It's old quite frankly. And if anything, you have little room to talk with Obama, as he waited till 2011 to end the Iraq War, started a war in Libya, and droned American Citizens in the Middle East without due process, killed children in drone strikes.

No sir. What do I think? I think you need to lay off.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No one is "blaming" Bush and no, it was not a long time ago.

How about holding him responsible?

Why are RWs so afraid of that?

 

[Rozman]

?Crimes against Peace?: Historic Class Action Law Suit against George W. Bush | Global Research

The case against Bush is based on the conduct of members of the administration prior to coming into office as well as conduct taking place on and after 9/11. Years before their appointment to the Bush Administration, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were vocal advocates of a militant neoconservative ideology that called for the United States to use its armed forces in the Middle East and elsewhere.

They openly chronicled their desire for aggressive wars through a non-profit called The Project for the New American Century (or PNAC). In 1998, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would personally sign a letter to then-President Clinton, urging the president to implement a “strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power,” which included a “willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.”

On 9/11, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz openly pressed for the United States to invade Iraq, even though intelligence at the time confirmed that it was al Qaeda, and not Saddam, that was responsible. Richard Clarke, former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism, famously told President Bush that attacking Iraq for 9/11 would be like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

We now know that the Bush Administration began a concerted effort to scare and mislead the American public in order to obtain support for the Iraq War. As alleged in the complaint, this included the famous phrase that “the smoking gun could not be a mushroom cloud,” which was used repeatedly by Administration officials on news shows as a way of equating non-action with the vaporization of a United States city. The Administration used bogus and false intelligence to make the case for weapons of mass destruction, and also falsely linked al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that there has never been any evidence of any operational linkages between the two. These were not simple mistakes: this was an intentional campaign by Administration officials to use faulty data to garner support for a war.

The crime of aggression was completed when these officials failed to secure proper authorization for the war. So concerned with their invasion, the Administration dismissed any need for a formal Security Council mandate. Today, Kofi Annan, an official Dutch inquiry, the Costa Rican Supreme Court, a former law lord from the House of Lords (Lord Steyn) and a former chief prosecutor from the Nuremberg Trials (Benjamin Ferencz) have all concluded the Iraq War was illegal under international law.

Yes, he's guilty but I agree with President Obama that bringing him and that dick of a veep to justice might well do more harm that good.

Whatcha think?

I think the Libs should either shit or get off the pot....
This constant whining of war crimes...
Enough.Write letters to newspapers,write to your representitives in Washington.
Scream as loud as you can if it bothers you guys so much.
Do something.

You guys always bring it up then back off till you get the itch again...

It's getting tiresome...

You guys have a problem with these guys..Try to do something..

 

[Mad Scientist]

Oh I see how it works.

Obama covers for Bush. And then in turn, Obama Cult members cover for him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one is "blaming" Bush and no, it was not a long time ago.

How about holding him responsible?

Why are RWs so afraid of that?

Why don't liberals like you hold Obama responsible?

Why are you so afraid of that?

You have little room to lecture about holding anyone responsible since you liberals have given Obama virtual pass on almost everything. In fact politics is a process where the opposing party holds your guy more responsible than they do their own.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What do I think? Bush was president a long time ago. I think Cheney was VP a long time ago, yet Democrats like you are still obsessed with trying them for war crimes. It's old quite frankly. And if anything, you have little room to talk with Obama, as he waited till 2011 to end the Iraq War, started a war in Libya, and droned American Citizens in the Middle East without due process, killed children in drone strikes.

No sir. What do I think? I think you need to lay off.

You're a very naive and foolish child but even you should be able to tell the difference between hundreds of thousands dead, millions maimed, trillions $ wasted to decimate an innocent country and a few hundred dead and very little spent.

You make excuses for yourself and more excuses for one of the worst presidents in our history. Grow up, you silly little twerp.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I was in high school when Democrats were accusing the man of war crimes, so, it is in fact old. How does it feel to have something like that stewing inside of you for well over a decade?

 

[Yurt]

"crimes against peace"

what law does that violate?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No one is "blaming" Bush and no, it was not a long time ago.

How about holding him responsible?

Why are RWs so afraid of that?

Why don't liberals like you hold Obama responsible?

Why are you so afraid of that?

You have little room to lecture about holding anyone responsible since you liberals have given Obama virtual pass on almost everything. In fact politics is a process where the opposing party holds you guy more responsible than they do their own.

You always do this. You always hide behind deflection and hijacking the thread. This thread is about a class action against war criminal Geaorge W Bush.

If you want to trash Obama, get yourself some balls of your own and start a thread about Obama.

 

[depotoo]

An independent*research*and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists committed to curbing the tide of "globalisation" and "disarming" the new world. They also believe Ukraine shot down the jetliner, Israel is committing war crimes, not Hamas, terrorists groups are US paid foot soldiers. Hopefully you get the picture.

?Crimes against Peace?: Historic Class Action Law Suit against George W. Bush | Global Research

The case against Bush is based on the conduct of members of the administration prior to coming into office as well as conduct taking place on and after 9/11. Years before their appointment to the Bush Administration, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were vocal advocates of a militant neoconservative ideology that called for the United States to use its armed forces in the Middle East and elsewhere.

They openly chronicled their desire for aggressive wars through a non-profit called The Project for the New American Century (or PNAC). In 1998, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would personally sign a letter to then-President Clinton, urging the president to implement a “strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power,” which included a “willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing.”

On 9/11, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz openly pressed for the United States to invade Iraq, even though intelligence at the time confirmed that it was al Qaeda, and not Saddam, that was responsible. Richard Clarke, former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-terrorism, famously told President Bush that attacking Iraq for 9/11 would be like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

We now know that the Bush Administration began a concerted effort to scare and mislead the American public in order to obtain support for the Iraq War. As alleged in the complaint, this included the famous phrase that “the smoking gun could not be a mushroom cloud,” which was used repeatedly by Administration officials on news shows as a way of equating non-action with the vaporization of a United States city. The Administration used bogus and false intelligence to make the case for weapons of mass destruction, and also falsely linked al Qaeda to Iraq, despite the fact that there has never been any evidence of any operational linkages between the two. These were not simple mistakes: this was an intentional campaign by Administration officials to use faulty data to garner support for a war.

The crime of aggression was completed when these officials failed to secure proper authorization for the war. So concerned with their invasion, the Administration dismissed any need for a formal Security Council mandate. Today, Kofi Annan, an official Dutch inquiry, the Costa Rican Supreme Court, a former law lord from the House of Lords (Lord Steyn) and a former chief prosecutor from the Nuremberg Trials (Benjamin Ferencz) have all concluded the Iraq War was illegal under international law.

Yes, he's guilty but I agree with President Obama that bringing him and that dick of a veep to justice might well do more harm that good.

Whatcha think?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What do I think? Bush was president a long time ago. I think Cheney was VP a long time ago, yet Democrats like you are still obsessed with trying them for war crimes. It's old quite frankly. And if anything, you have little room to talk with Obama, as he waited till 2011 to end the Iraq War, started a war in Libya, and droned American Citizens in the Middle East without due process, killed children in drone strikes.

No sir. What do I think? I think you need to lay off.

You're a very naive and foolish child but even you should be able to tell the difference between hundreds of thousands dead, millions maimed, trillions $ wasted to decimate an innocent country and a few hundred dead and very little spent.

You make excuses for yourself and more excuses for one of the worst presidents in our history. Grow up, you silly little twerp.

Eyeah... whatever you say. Your response is indicative of how weak your argument is. So shut it Luddly, before I really take to embarrassing you in your own thread, got it, hotshot?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"crimes against peace"

what law does that violate?

Dang.

If only we had a attorney in this thread ..........................................

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[TemplarKormac]

"crimes against peace"

what law does that violate?

Dang.

If only we had a attorney in this thread ..........................................

Would be better than the idiot we have now.......................................

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What do I think? Bush was president a long time ago. I think Cheney was VP a long time ago, yet Democrats like you are still obsessed with trying them for war crimes. It's old quite frankly. And if anything, you have little room to talk with Obama, as he waited till 2011 to end the Iraq War, started a war in Libya, and droned American Citizens in the Middle East without due process, killed children in drone strikes.

No sir. What do I think? I think you need to lay off.

You're a very naive and foolish child but even you should be able to tell the difference between hundreds of thousands dead, millions maimed, trillions $ wasted to decimate an innocent country and a few hundred dead and very little spent.

You make excuses for yourself and more excuses for one of the worst presidents in our history. Grow up, you silly little twerp.

Eyeah... whatever you say. Your response is indicative of how weak your argument is. So shut it Luddly, before I really take to embarrassing you in your own thread, got it, hotshot?

And just what do YOU think my "argument" is?

Think, child.

And quit trying to hide behind hijacking the thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're a very naive and foolish child but even you should be able to tell the difference between hundreds of thousands dead, millions maimed, trillions $ wasted to decimate an innocent country and a few hundred dead and very little spent.

You make excuses for yourself and more excuses for one of the worst presidents in our history. Grow up, you silly little twerp.

Eyeah... whatever you say. Your response is indicative of how weak your argument is. So shut it Luddly, before I really take to embarrassing you in your own thread, got it, hotshot?

And just what do YOU think my "argument" is?

Think, child.

And quit trying to hide behind hijacking the thread.

BUSH IS EEEVIIIL!!

Your threads hijack themselves. Maybe if you posted something that isn't obviously baiting, maybe people wouldn't hijack your threads with facts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And you accuse me of making excuses for him. I haven't. But you don't seem to mind making excuses for Obama. Seriously. Neither party is guiltless, why act like you are?