If President Obama believes "justice has been done" by the killing of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden -- allegedly responsible for the deaths of 3,000 civilians in the 2001 World Trade Center attack -- why hasn't he indicted former President George W. Bush, the architect of an illegal war that has killed some 5,000 U.S. troops and perhaps a quarter of a million Iraqi civilians?

How can President Obama talk about justice concerning bin Laden while steadfastly refusing to indict his own predecessor who deceived the American people into making a war against Iraq based on fabricated intelligence and outright lies? Why aren't former Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush team players under arrest at this hour?

Why is there no prosecution of the officials who sucked $3 trillion in tax dollars from the pockets of American workers to wage a war against a country that posed no threat to them?

President Obama's failure to prosecute Bush-Cheney clearly violates his obligation to enforce the U.S. Constitution -- a document that incorporates the United Nations Charter which the Bush White House violated when it attacked Afghanistan and Iraq.

And it also sends a signal to the world that the White House today considers itself above the law of nations; that others such as bin Laden must pay for their crimes but that the highest American public officials may commit crimes and yet are exempted from prosecution. If this isn't the "master race" theory with America at the top of the pyramid, what is?

While fair-minded Americans recognize President Bush made an illegal, criminal war on Iraq, they are less certain about whether his attack on Afghanistan was just. However, as University of Illinois professor of international law Francis Boyle wrote for the Atlantic Free Press: "There is so far no evidence produced that the state of Afghanistan, at the time(9/11), either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack."

In his book, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder"(Vanguard), former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi holds that Mr. Bush intentionally misled Congress into invading Iraq to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. In a summary of that book, Wikipedia wrote, the strongest evidence against Bush was his own Oct. 7, 2002, speech claiming Iraq posed an imminent threat when a National Intelligence Estimate "less than a week earlier stated that while Iraq did have WMD capabilities, it had no plans to use its weapons except in the capacity of self-defense..." Of course, it turned out that Hussein had zero WMD.

And far from making serious efforts to avoid war, Bugliosi wrote, Bush even considered the possibility of provoking Hussein by falsely painting American U2 spy planes with United Nations colors and having them overfly Iraq to lure Hussein into attacking them, whereupon U.S. fighters would shoot down the attackers, starting the war, Wikipedia reported. Perhaps nothing else shows so clearly Bush's willful intent to start the war.

President Obama clearly sees only the evidence he wants to see. A former CIA employee, he has also declined to prosecute the CIA officials who tortured Middle East captives and who in 2005 destroyed documentary evidence of those crimes, very likely obstruction of justice.

Veteran New York Times reporter Tim Weiner wrote of President Obama's task in an Afterword to his book, "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA"(Random House): "he must restore principles" to our foreign policy. "That means renouncing torture as a tool of American power, returning habeas corpus to its rightful place in American law, closing Guantanamo, and shutting the secret prisons. It means limiting the state secrets privilege by which presidents block American courts from administering justice. It means an end to the arrogation of presidential powers and a return to constitutional checks and balances in the realm of American national security." Of course, after more than two years in office, President Obama appears to be utterly indifferent to these standards, just as he attacked Libya without seeking the consent of Congress, just as he authorized reckless CIA drone assassination attacks in Pakistan that have resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths.

The killing of any human being, even the very worst, is no signal for rejoicing. But for President Obama to call bin Laden's killing "just" while failing to indict Mr. Bush and his aides who also resorted to terror, reveals a dangerous and disgraceful double-standard.
_______

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/sherwood-ross/35942/obama-got-bin-laden-now-its-time-to-bring-george-w-bush-to-justice

Don't get me wrong joe. Bush may have had reliable information not released to the public to justify his actions on the attack of Iraq. He may even have helped reduce terrorism more then we know it, but isn't it only right that we as a people should know more about it now. What is wrong to require information from one fellow American to another about why such actions where justified in the first place.

If his actions are legal or illegal (however you wish to see it) we should be able to know more then just sit on speculations and conspiracies. Saddam was a bad man, but did he pose a threat to our nation at all?
Osama was a bad man but is he truly the mastermind of the 9/11 attack and wouldn't it have been wiser to have taken him alive then dead to get more information out of him?

This war has costed me tons of my tax money. It has crippled our economy and destroyed aspects for our children's future as they will inherit the debt, infrastructural problems, and educational delusions of a split government.

It is my right to know more and to have those that were in power asked tough questions justifying their actions or do you believe we should just blindly believe in their decisions without questioning them?

my whole point is that bush is gone, history, will not ever be a factor in our lives anymore. what is the sense of beating a dead horse? bush cannot influence your "right to know", that is OBAMA now. so, get with the times, this whole argument is pointless. If i remember correctly, obama promised to end both of the wars, which was a lie, then he said he ended one war, another lie, then he says he will pull all the troops out of iraq and afganistan, another lie.. now we are invading another country, something the liar in chief said wouldn't happen, another lie... now he sent special ops into a nation that we are not engaged with to get bin laden. and you want to whine about bush? whether bush lied or not is pointless now, and obama has spent way more money than bush ever did

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was an assassination. Call it what it is. It was a public assassination, because most assassinations are done secretly, this one was not.

Therefore, it was a political move. It was not for "justice."

They did not go in there to arrest him for trial, because they could not connect him to 9-11, and all the evidence about him being trained by the CIA would have come out in the trial....not to mention the names of the real perpetrators of 9-11.

Obama will be sending troops home soon now that Osama is dead or they say he is. I haven't seen any evidence that he is dead besides a confirmation from the government and the news media. Were are the pictures of the dead body? Perhaps this is Obama's strategy to get troops home. Think about it for a moment..... What if Osama would still be alive. Would the government or we as a people think it would be wise to leave the Middle East at the moment? Now that he is dead how do the people feel about it now? It could be all a political strategy to get Congress's approval to finally send troops home. I know Obama has the say on this alone...but I am sure he will want other opinions on the matter that work with him.

I know that troops are going to leave Iraq soon as promised. Gates suggested to leave the troops for a little while longer but also agrees to slowly send troops home.

I know that troops might leave Afghanistan if the government can finally take care of themselves. I think they are hesitating that the Taliban can still take over.

I know that the Libyan attack was short lived and that it has been handed over to NATO to resolve. America is not spending money on that at all for Obama didn't want us to land troops there or waste anymore money on the situation. I know that the Republicans wouldn't hesitate to resolve the issue in that country if they were in power.

Yes Obama promised to send troops home, but he didn't say a time when he will. Be patient, by the end of the year you will see our troops shifting to another country or hopefully home to their families. I am a vet who was deployed 3 times to Iraq each for 18 months. I can tell you that Iraq is stable enough to take care of its own as the Iraqi troops are trained well enough to do a good job. As for Afghanistan I think that takes time...but that is my opinion.

Also the question is if we should send troops home from Iraq. Iran as the neighbor is pretty defiant of Israel and have their differences with the Iraqis. I know, I know why should it be our problem. You are right...but I am just saying in a perspective of what the politicians may be thinking. They might end up keeping US bases permanently in Iraq like they do in Saudi Arabia.

As a former soldier I can only say that whatever the cause I agree with you. Both Obama and Bush and primarily our Congress has failed us in many ways. As a concerned American I want answers! That is all I am saying!

I didn't realize it was illegal to go to war.

It is illegal to go to war without approval of congress and/or upon false pretenses.

It is illegal to go to war without approval of congress and/or upon false pretenses.

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was an assassination. Call it what it is. It was a public assassination, because most assassinations are done secretly, this one was not.

Therefore, it was a political move. It was not for "justice."

They did not go in there to arrest him for trial, because they could not connect him to 9-11, and all the evidence about him being trained by the CIA would have come out in the trial....not to mention the names of the real perpetrators of 9-11.

Bin laden was wanted before 2001 in connection with some bombings and then he CONFESSED his involvement to the world in the 2001 attack,, so he was supposed to see justice done just as much as I would be prone to justice if I was wanted for one crime and then CONFESSED to another

I have faith it was a capture or kill mission and he wasnt willing to be captured,, I dont see that as the same as an assassination