NGO: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld found guilty of war crimes

[Liability]

Yes, he did, but that did not legalize the war. We had no authorization from the UN to carry out its resolutions. Plus a number of other items.

No nation needs "approval" of the UN. Certainly the USA doesn't.

That YOU disagree with the decisions made by various officials to go to war does not make it an illegal war.

It was authorized -- by Congress -- and that absolutely did make it legal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress cannot authorize an illegal war in wrongfully waging war against another country, particularly when we try to hide behind UN resolutions, which we were not authorized to enforce by invasion.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes, he did, but that did not legalize the war. We had no authorization from the UN to carry out its resolutions. Plus a number of other items.

No nation needs "approval" of the UN. Certainly the USA doesn't.

That YOU disagree with the decisions made by various officials to go to war does not make it an illegal war.

It was authorized -- by Congress -- and that absolutely did make it legal.

The UN is not some all encompassing world government... they have no rule over the sovereign nation that we are... unlike with Jokey would like to believe

He cannot take that this was not an 'illegal war', that it was not some grand conspiracy, and that worldwide intel supported the decisions made (that it was not "Bush LIES")

 

[California Girl]

it does mean Bush and team cant travel overseas.

they can be taken away to jail if they do

No, it doesn't. But... it does prove that you are a fucking partisan hack... and not smart enough to function in a civilized society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, he did, but that did not legalize the war. We had no authorization from the UN to carry out its resolutions. Plus a number of other items.

No nation needs "approval" of the UN. Certainly the USA doesn't.

That YOU disagree with the decisions made by various officials to go to war does not make it an illegal war.

It was authorized -- by Congress -- and that absolutely did make it legal.

The UN is not some all encompassing world government... they have no rule over the sovereign nation that we are... unlike with Jokey would like to believe. He cannot take that this was not an 'illegal war', that it was not some grand conspiracy, and that worldwide intel supported the decisions made (that it was not "Bush LIES")

I never said or implied bush lies, dave. I said all the reasons we gave did not pan out or were not grounded on international law.

You better think twice about why Bush and other senior bushies have not been traveling to Europe lately.

 

[Sallow]

I find Malaysia guilty of criminal vapidity and sentence them to continued backwardness and general irrelevance.

And I pass sentence on the NGO. I fart in their general direction.

My farts only kill the grass in my immediate vicinity. How do yours make it to Malaysia?

Oh wait. "General direction." Never mind.

Ignore that bit about my farts as well.

You two should form a comedy team. Allen and Burns watch out.

 

[Trajan]

a non-governmental organization established under the laws of Malaysia'



You are a freak.

You didn't even read my comment, did you.

why did you even post it then?

please huh? I told you, you are trying to hard......

 

[Sallow]

Congress cannot authorize an illegal war in wrongfully waging war against another country, particularly when we try to hide behind UN resolutions, which we were not authorized to enforce by invasion.

Gosh..Jake.

In case you haven't noticed the UN basically rubber stamps almost everything the US does. When it doesn't..the US goes and does what ever it wants to do anyway.

So other then being a means to express "outrage", the only power the UN has over the US is like..

Nadda.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Congress cannot authorize an illegal war in wrongfully waging war against another country, particularly when we try to hide behind UN resolutions, which we were not authorized to enforce by invasion.

The is no earthly power above the U.S. it answers to no one.

 

[Liability]

Congress cannot authorize an illegal war in wrongfully waging war against another country, particularly when we try to hide behind UN resolutions, which we were not authorized to enforce by invasion.

Congress can authorize a war. The alleged "illegality" of that war is not yours to define and your willingness to add that dishonest modifier doesn't make it any less bullshit.

Further, the UN Resolutions meant more to us than they did to the UN.

Other than that, though, terrific post.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No nation needs "approval" of the UN. Certainly the USA doesn't.

That YOU disagree with the decisions made by various officials to go to war does not make it an illegal war.

It was authorized -- by Congress -- and that absolutely did make it legal.

The UN is not some all encompassing world government... they have no rule over the sovereign nation that we are... unlike with Jokey would like to believe. He cannot take that this was not an 'illegal war', that it was not some grand conspiracy, and that worldwide intel supported the decisions made (that it was not "Bush LIES")

I never said or implied bush lies, dave. I said all the reasons we gave did not pan out or were not grounded on international law.

You better think twice about why Bush and other senior bushies have not been traveling to Europe lately.

Maybe because he doesn't want to go any other place outside the U.S.

But I would love to see someone from another country try too take Bush in that would be an act of war.

 

[Liability]

The UN is not some all encompassing world government... they have no rule over the sovereign nation that we are... unlike with Jokey would like to believe. He cannot take that this was not an 'illegal war', that it was not some grand conspiracy, and that worldwide intel supported the decisions made (that it was not "Bush LIES")

I never said or implied bush lies, dave. I said all the reasons we gave did not pan out or were not grounded on international law.

You better think twice about why Bush and other senior bushies have not been traveling to Europe lately.

Maybe because he doesn't want to go any other place outside the U.S.

But I would love to see someone from another country try too take Bush in that would be an act of war.

Or, perhaps President Bush is smart enough to see that the dimwit currently infesting the Oval Office would NOT assert the national interest in responding to such an act of war.

If Presdient Bush has any desire or reason to go to Europe, it is perhaps wiser to wait until we have a real President in Office again. January 2013 is not that far away, thank God.

 

[BDBoop]

Ok so this is a little ridiculous, no it's a lot ridiculous!!

Typical left wing propaganda BDPOOP does . Let us talk about everything except the economy and jobs

Uhhh, Boop's saying this "tribunal" is stupid.

I owe you rep. It's lovely having someone else around who can not only read, but comprehend.

 

[BDBoop]

a non-governmental organization established under the laws of Malaysia'



You are a freak.

You didn't even read my comment, did you.

why did you even post it then?

please huh? I told you, you are trying to hard......

I know, but you also told me I was unintelligent. Once I established you were clueless, there was no reason to listen to you anymore.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I never said or implied bush lies, dave. I said all the reasons we gave did not pan out or were not grounded on international law.

You better think twice about why Bush and other senior bushies have not been traveling to Europe lately.

Maybe because he doesn't want to go any other place outside the U.S.

But I would love to see someone from another country try too take Bush in that would be an act of war.

Or, perhaps President Bush is smart enough to see that the dimwit currently infesting the Oval Office would NOT assert the national interest in responding to such an act of war.

If Presdient Bush has any desire or reason to go to Europe, it is perhaps wiser to wait until we have a real President in Office again. January 2013 is not that far away, thank God.

Sometimes I do forget about who's in the white house thanks for the reminder.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

And you are one stupid fuck. American troops were attacked and killed in Korea when the North Koreans attacked South Korea. In 'Nam, Kennedy had advisors, it was not until Johnson that we got involved heavily. And Eisenhower was the President that first put Americans into 'Nam. One of his few errors.

Iraq, on the other hand, was attacked by us on the basis of lies. Lies manufactured by the Bush Admin. And the absolutely idiotic actions in Iraq were also the responsibility of the Bush Admin. Rumsfeld, and the commander of the troops at that time, should have been tried for criminal negligence because of leaving the ammo dumps intact to be used by the Shia and Sunni for blowing each other and our troops up with IEDs made from the munitions they took from the ungaurded and and undestroyed dumps.

I take that back.Old Rocks seems to be awake as well.I mean he nailed it here with this post.He hit the nail on the head.There sure are a lot of stupid fucks out there and on this site as well who think JFK started vietnam.they have been brainwashed by our corrupt school system.

JFK in fact resisted the militarys commanders to esculate the war in vietnam that Ike had approved of in his last year in office.He is right,Eisenhower was the president that first put americans into Nam.Ike even publicly criiticised Kennedy for not esculating the war in vietnam.

JFK only sent in advisors just like he said.In sept 1963 when he gave his speech at that one college,it was shown on the tv screens and you can view it now in the old films that there were only 82 combat casultys during JFK's term in office.Thats a far cry from the 58,000 GI's murdered under LBj and Dick Nixons watch.

He also spoke the truth about Iraq being attacked by us under lies manufactured by the Bush administration.for this,he deserves a good rep for this excellent post.

Between 1945 and 1954, the Vietnamese waged an anti-colonial war against France and received $2.6 billion in financial support from the United States. The French defeat at the Dien Bien Phu was followed by a peace conference in Geneva, in which Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam received their independence and Vietnam was temporarily divided between an anti-Communist South and a Communist North. In 1956, South Vietnam, with American backing, refused to hold the unification elections. By 1958, Communist-led guerrillas known as the Viet Cong had begun to battle the South Vietnamese government.

Late 1961
President John F. Kennedy orders more help for the South Vietnamese government in its war against the Vietcong guerrillas. U.S. backing includes new equipment and more than 3,000 military advisors and support personnel.

January 12, 1962
In Operation Chopper, helicopters flown by U.S. Army pilots ferry 1,000 South Vietnamese soldiers to sweep a NLF stronghold near Saigon. It marks America's first combat missions against the Vietcong.

To support the South’s government, the United States (say Kennedy) sent in 2,000 military advisors, a number that grew to 16,300 in 1963. The military condition deteriorated, and by 1963 South Vietnam had lost the fertile Mekong Delta to the Vietcong.

As far as Bush's lies are concerned, check these 'lies' out:

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

congratulations.all you did was prove my case for me that LBJ was the one that got us into vietnam not JFK by posting the true statement that he only sent in ADVISORS.
thanks for aiding me and help prove like him,you have been brainwashed. oh and like those other two idiots,you just proved your as big an idiot as they are as well believing in what JOHN KERRY AND TED KENNEDY said.hahahahahahaah congrats on your gullibility. Ted was a sellout to his brothers fool.

The problem with your ramblings is that troops there never found any WMD'S and many deserted because of the Bush administrations lies.

Your too funny that you listen to these corrupt politicians over the troops that served there.comedy gold.

you also conviently ignored what the media said when he was interviewed by walter Kronkite in sept of 1963 just two months before his assassination that there were only 82 casualtys which for the hundreth time is a far cry from the 58,000 that came under LBJ and Dick Nixons watch.thanks for ignoring that statistic and proving you only see what you want to see.nice. here is some more for you to chew on and even some good stuff on Bush as well. below for you to chew on.o and for the other brainwashed people,stay tuned,I got plenty more coming.

The scion of a railroad fortune, Harriman became a financial baron, the founder of Brown Brothers Harriman where he taught Prescott Bush the ropes on Wall Street, in the halls of government and in the dark alleyways of the world, the tradecraft of spy vs. spy.

Harriman was a Democrat, the Governor of New York. FDR appointed him to serve as ambassador to the Soviet Union during World War II. Truman appointed him to serve as Secretary of Commerce during the Marshall Plan. The guy seemed to be a big player for the good guys.

But there was the NAZI thing. The US Government identified five companies associated with Harriman and Bush that directly aided Hitler’s war machine. When they said, "So?" -- in the middle of 1942 -- Uncle Sam took the companies away. Recently released government documents indicate Prescott Bush kept intact the "financial" relationship with the NAZIs through 1951.
Money has always meant a lot in American jurisprudence, so mainstream historians and legal authorities have pretty much stayed away from that part of this important player’s biography. So, of course, things get worse.

JFK named Harriman Ambassador-at-Large for Southeast Asia. Instead of helping defuse the worsening crisis when CIA decided Diem had to go, he acted the rogue agent and did all he could to ramp-up war in Vietnam. Seemingly a super-hawk in the fight against communism, it was Harriman who ordered the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem, his brother and a Catholic priest accompanying them into exile. The result was chaos, from which the US and South Vietname goverments never fully recovered.

JFK was furious when he heard that the Diem brothers had been assassinated. He ordered the withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam, a war he viewed as unwinnable. Two months later, JFK was dead. And LBJ signed orders stating the US would provide whatever level of support was needed to preserve the government of South Vietnam. A big mistake for our nation, the nation of Vietnam, and for our world.

Oh and i got plently more coming.

 

[frazzledgear]

NGO: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld found guilty of war crimes while Colin Powell speaks up - Auburn Journal

From an article by Victoria N. Alexander in the Digital Journal, she says "An international tribunal has found former US President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld guilty of the crime of conspiracy to allow torture in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and Abu Ghraib.

Also convicted were former White House legal advisors, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo. The the tribunal was organized by the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW), a non-governmental organization established under the laws of Malaysia. The court heard testimony from a number of victims, including Abbas Abid, who had his fingernails removed by pliers, Ali Shalal, who was electrocuted and hanged on a wall, and Jameelah Abbas Hameedi, who was stripped and beaten."

Is this like The Onion? If this were reality, wouldn't it be the biggest news story of the year? WTF are they smoking over there?

Oh sure, you would think a group composed of people from some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet where torture is a way of life and their victims unlikely to survive - actually have the credentials to pass judgment on ANY other nation? And sure we all know for a fact captured terrorists the US released never, never lie trying to harm the US. Why these fine, upstanding individuals have NO motive to lie! It is good to know the Koran says lying to damage non-Muslim enemy is a worthwhile activity. Certainly gives the mass murdering and would-be mass murdering barbaric thugs even more credibility. To say nothing of the fact this was SUCH an upfront endeavor the thugs endured absolutely no cross examination and were not required to substantiate in any way a single word out of their mouths.ROFL

Only a hardcore anti-American asshole would not only pretend this was anything credible-but rejoice in it and gleefully repeat it. What is life as a maggot like for you?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

still more proof people who say JFk got us into vietnam are ramblings idiots.

http://surftofind.com/vietnam

By Mat Wilson

They say that Richard Nixon opened the door to China, because he kept it closed long enough to exploit anti-Communist hysteria. They say that Kennedy started the Vietnam war, because he was murdered before being granted the opportunity to satisfy his schedule of total withdrawal, which was supposed to be completed by 1965, 'win, lose or draw'. So much for what THEY say...

In recent years, much has been written about a so-called unbroken chain of events which stretch from Dallas on the 22nd of November, to Watergate, the scandal that cost Nixon the presidency. Secrecy and denial may have blunted the effort to determine the entire truth, but it has not obliterated the trail from Dallas to Watergate. Unlike the shock that engulfed most, Richard Nixon and Nixon crony, Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, were both committed to alibi or to the avoidance of being associated with Dallas Texas, on the day Kennedy was assassinated. On November 22, 1963, Nixon claimed that he was in New York, and indeed he was, having left Dallas Texas at 9:05 a.m. about two hours before Kennedy's arrival. Ironically, Nixon landed at New York's Idlewild at 1:00 p.m., latter renamed Kennedy International Airport. The flight offered Nixon the air tight alibi that a person in-the-know desperately required. Howard Hunt, who was also reportedly in Dallas on the 22nd of November, also established an air-tight alibi to prove that he was not in Dallas. According to Hunt, he was not in his CIA office in Langley Virginia (why not?), but with friends in Washington D.C. "And since it is a law of physics that you can't be in two places at the same time", Hunt boldly asserts, "I was not in Dallas Texas." Hunt's appeal to the "laws of physics" ignores the manipulations of covert action crusaders who practice the fraudulent art of being at more than one place at a time. Remember the "Oswald double" who has made the task of tracing the real steps of the real Lee Harvey Oswald, practically impossible? The major preoccupation of spooks like Howard Hunt is deception, and their colorful denials have been permanently exposed.

In the final analysis the fact that Nixon and Hunt both secured "air-tight" alibies to account for their whereabouts when Kennedy was assassinated, is more incriminating than not. Most people vividly recall exactly what they were doing and where they were when they heard the tragic news about the Kennedy assassination, they were not vague, evasive or preoccupied by the need to produce law of physics-style alibis.

The common suspicion that Nixon and Hunt were privy to the fact that Kennedy was going to be assassinated, is well founded. Nixon and Hunt were violent anti-Communist crusaders with a penchant for plotting the assassination of "foreign" leaders and for perverting democratic principles. Moreover, Hunt and Nixon were two of the earliest and most persistent advocates who promoted assassination plots against Castro, and when Kennedy did not enthusiastically endorse anti-Castro plots or a military invasion of Cuba, they were invariably obsessed by the perceived need to get rid of him as well. On November 22, 1963, quoted in the New York Times after having made a timely evacuation from Dallas, Richard Nixon publicly recognized his anti-Kennedy zeal through the bold assertion: "I am going to work as hard as I can to get the Kennedys out of there. We can't afford four more years of that kind of administration."

While Nixon publicly exposed his commitment to get rid of the Kennedys, he did not say how he planned to accomplish his goal. At any rate, the fact that Nixon did not plan to defeat the Kennedys through legitimate political elections is quite obvious. In 1963, Nixon was the most popular Republican in the nation, yet despite the declared intention "to get the Kennedys out of there", he refused to run for the presidency until a shadowy committee to elect Richard Nixon was created in 1967. Political pundits, experts at creating a theory which matches the limit of public awareness, have repeatedly claimed that Nixon's decision not to run in 1964 was a brilliant tactical exploit. It was, they claim, foolish to challenge the unbeatable wave of popularity that brought Johnson a landslide victory in 1964. And so, it is popularly asserted, Richard Nixon, the brilliant statesman, staged one of the greatest political comebacks in American history, when he became the President in 1968. It is indeed a convenient theory but it ignores the fact that Nixon was not a typical politician but a man immersed in the shadowy world of secret politics. The fact that Nixon was largely a low key behind-the-scenes political operator until the Kennedys were assassinated, suggests that the so-called Nixon comeback was anything but legitimate. Politics, in the Nixon tradition was about behind-the-scenes plotting to destroy political enemies, it was not about fair play elections. And if Nixon did not aim for the presidency in 1964, it was not because he thought he couldn't win, but because the plotting of political cronies like J. Edgar Hoover precluded the possibility of a Nixon presidency in 1964. John Ehrlichman, Nixon's former counsel, made that quite evident when he said:

Hoover and Nixon had kept in touch during all the years Nixon was out of office. Rose Mary Woods had been Hoover's Nixon contact for the exchange of information and advice between them. Whenever Nixon travelled abroad as a private citizen, the FBI agents who posed as "legal attaches" in U.S. embassies were instructed by Hoover to look after Nixon. Hoover fed Nixon information during those years via Cartha De Loach, and through Lou Nichols, a retired Bureau assistant director who had become a distillery executive. But Hoover was more than a source of information -he was a political advisor to whom Nixon listened. (Witness to Power; The Nixon Years, 1982, Simon & Schuster, New York p.156-7)
And so, despite the popular belief that shrewd political acumen kept Nixon out of the White House race in 1964, the evidence suggests that Hoover dictated the Nixon decision to "wait it out". Indeed, pre-Kennedy assassination knowledge probably convinced Nixon to refrain from opposing Johnson in 1968. Clearly, evidence which strongly suggests that Nixon had foreknowledge about the Kennedy assassination is compelling. On November 21 1963, J.Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon were at the home of wealthy oil baron Clint Murchison, in Dallas Texas. (p.14 High Treason) Murchison was a wealthy Texan who owned everything from the Dallas Cowboys to Henry Holt and Company, the publishing house that promoted the propaganda that Hoover published, to the racetrack where Hoover placed $100 bets, to the luxurious Del Charro Motel in California, where Hoover vacationed annually free of charge, to oil-gas interests... Murchison's empire, it appeared, was tailor-made to suit the interests of J. Edgar Hoover. The alliance between Hoover and Murchison was indeed like an ideal circle of corruption. Murchison, the recipient of huge loans from Teamster's pension funds, was evidently well served by the "politically correct" Teamster's union, whose administration was shaped by Hoover's capacity to blacklist the so-called un-Americans within. And the "dissent-free" Teamsters were at liberty to abuse pension funds at will. Business associates like Mafia crime boss Carlos Marcello gave Murchison additional "empire-building" clout. (mafia kingfish, p312)

Travelling in a circle which linked the Mafia, the Director of the FBI, Lyndon Johnson and ultra-Conservative wealthy Texan reactionaries who vilified Kennedy because he was supposedly soft on Communism, Richard Nixon was surrounded by people who were enthusiastic about supporting a plot to murder the President. In particular, the fact that Richard Nixon spent the eve of the assassination in Dallas Texas with Johnson and Hoover cronies, the oil-rich Murchisons, goes a very long way in casting a dark cloud of suspicion towards the arch-Republican Nixon, who virtually assured a Democratic landslide victory by not challenging Johnson in 1964. Like the ultra-Conservative Murchison, who provided financial support to the so-called liberal, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon secretly supported the Democrats, not the Republicans. Kennedy assassination plotters had evidently created "politically peculiar" secret alliances that escaped the notice of political pundits who promoted "Nixon the brilliant political comeback strategist" theories, to account for Nixon's conspicuous absence in 1964, and his "miraculous" return in 1968. What the pundits failed to explore is the probability that Richard Nixon did not run in 1964 in order to help Lyndon Johnson shed the scornful claim that he was the "accidental" President. Moreover, it is also safe to assume that Richard Nixon did not oppose the candidacy of Lyndon Johnson because he was absolutely certain that Johnson would reverse the foreign policy course of action that Kennedy had charted. If that was not clearly the case, there is no way that Nixon would have tolerated the "landslide mandate" that fell into Johnson's lap, through the decision to allow the "trigger happy" Barry Goldwater, to lead the Republicans.

Preoccupied by the need to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assassination, Lyndon Johnson publicly embraced the "let us continue" pledge, and with Nixon's undeclared support, "landslide Johnson" privately promoted the commitment "to begin", not where Kennedy had left off, but where Johnson and Nixon wanted to go. And so, like the convoluted plot of a Shakespearean play, the Nixon-assisted Lyndon Johnson landslide foreshadowed the dramatic new beginning in Vietnam -the introduction of the combat divisions that Kennedy had vigorously opposed. The popular misconception that Johnson and Nixon inherited the Vietnam war reflects a gross distortion maintained by obsessive secrecy and ignorant "punditeering". In actual fact, Nixon, Johnson, Hoover and the like, "engineered" the Vietnam war.

To be sure, since the man was murdered, the propaganda mill repeatedlly churns out the fraud that Cold Warrior John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam War. We do not have the time nor the inclination to challenge 27 years of rhetoric, ignorance and fraud. We’ll just tell you what John F. Kennedy said, and you can make up your own mind. John F. Kennedy said: "In 1965 I’ll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[POSTSCRIPT] The "textbook/cloned" historians that CNN routinely parades over the air, thrive on the statistical claim that Eisenhower kept involvement in Vietnam low whereas Kennedy escalated America's commitment to over 16,000. But a simple statistical analysis, of the sort that McNamara used to project optimism is absolutely meaningless. Colonel Fletcher Prouty, former liaison between the CIA and the Pentagon, explains the meaningless "numbers game" that superficial analysts use to distort history. According to Colonel Prouty: Don't get trapped into the numbers game. JFK had about 16,000 US military in Vietnam. He emphasized that they were not in combat slots, but this does not count all the guys with the CIA, etc... But this was true of the Eisenhower days. I and my whole squadron were in and out of Vietnam all the time in 1952, 1953 and 1954 and I am sure that the people who followed me in that job were there even more. My brother was with a group in Hanoi in 1954 and 1955. We had alot of guys helping at Dien Bien Phu ...aerial work mostly. We had naval units and plenty of army people. On top of that, the CIA had large units from Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines in Vietnam and they had been there a long time. They began to go with Lansdale in '54. It is not the numbers that matter. It is what the President intended. JFK let things roll along...things that had been started by Eisenhower, and some of them grew. But he was going to get out of there by 1965 and wanted a record of bringing men home during 1963 and 1964. When I was working on NSAM 263 [Taylor/McNamara Report] I was very well briefed on this plan of Kennedy's. He was getting out and he wanted that on the record. That is why he was shot.
There are no shortage of references citing Kennedy's commitment to pull out of Vietnam by 1965. As a matter of fact, Kennedy was so absolutely committed to withdrawal, he actually believed that anyone who suggested otherwise was a blundering idiot. In his own words, Kennedy defined the political and the moral challenges he faced over the war in Vietnam when he said:

If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I am reelected... In 1965, I'll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I'll be damned everywhere, but I don't care.
To be sure, partisan and ideological bickering has obscured this simple, undeniable fact, and Canadians are probably in the best position to resolve the controversial quagmire of hostile disagreement. In particular, when Kennedy asked Canadian Prime Minister Pearson about what he would do in Vietnam, Pearson told him that he would pull out and Kennedy's reply did not leave any room to doubt his firm intentions. Indeed, when Prime Minister Pearson advised him to pullout, Kennedy said, "Any damn fool knows that. The question is, how?" And so, in the final analysis, if Kennedy was not assassinated, "any damn fool knows" that win, draw or lose, Kennedy would have ended America's involvement in the Vietnam war by 1965 as promised, and Lyndon Johnson would have been denied the opportunity to reverse his plans.
And that is the ultimate tragedy of the Kennedy assassination. As President, we granted him the opportunity to save the world by averting nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but we denied him the opportunity to spare us the grief over Vietnam. And that is what makes John F. Kennedy the greatest and the most underestimated President in world history. To be sure, common ignorance has made us retreat in the comfort of "we will never know what might have been", but we know the man, we understand his leadership qualities, we know what he had planned, and we know that it would have made all the difference in the world. It is no longers safe to hide behind ignorance.

John F. Kennedy was determined to save America from the pain of the Vietnam quagmire and he was willing to pay any price to do it. Does anybody miss the stark contrast between the myth that Johnson picked up where Kennedy left off and the reality that he was murdered to facilitate the ignorant crusade that claimed over 35,000 American lives?

To fully appreciate John F. Kennedy, understand his mind.

NEWSWORLD SHOWDOWN
Copyright © 2009

yep,Kennedy clearly got us into the vietnam war mess,Not Eisenhower.

 

[BDBoop]

NGO: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld found guilty of war crimes while Colin Powell speaks up - Auburn Journal

From an article by Victoria N. Alexander in the Digital Journal, she says "An international tribunal has found former US President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld guilty of the crime of conspiracy to allow torture in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram and Abu Ghraib.

Also convicted were former White House legal advisors, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo. The the tribunal was organized by the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW), a non-governmental organization established under the laws of Malaysia. The court heard testimony from a number of victims, including Abbas Abid, who had his fingernails removed by pliers, Ali Shalal, who was electrocuted and hanged on a wall, and Jameelah Abbas Hameedi, who was stripped and beaten."

Is this like The Onion? If this were reality, wouldn't it be the biggest news story of the year? WTF are they smoking over there?

Oh sure, you would think a group composed of people from some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet where torture is a way of life and their victims unlikely to survive - actually have the credentials to pass judgment on ANY other nation? And sure we all know for a fact captured terrorists the US released never, never lie trying to harm the US. Why these fine, upstanding individuals have NO motive to lie! It is good to know the Koran says lying to damage non-Muslim enemy is a worthwhile activity. Certainly gives the mass murdering and would-be mass murdering barbaric thugs even more credibility. To say nothing of the fact this was SUCH an upfront endeavor the thugs endured absolutely no cross examination and were not required to substantiate in any way a single word out of their mouths.ROFL

Only a hardcore anti-American asshole would not only pretend this was anything credible-but rejoice in it and gleefully repeat it. What is life as a maggot like for you?

Your crabby pants are too tight.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

still more

<snip>

tl; dr