yea, yea, blah blah blah

Too bad for me? It has nothing to do with me. I'm just telling it like it is. I am helpless to do anything about any of it. Just like aliens, I avoid politics, politicians, high ranking military officers, the CIA, the FBI, black vans and black helicopter.

What you don't understand is, these people are above the law! They are held to an entirely different standard than we are.

For example, do you realize that for a big corporation like GE, the tax laws do not apply to them? They don't pay a dime in taxes! Meanwhile, every red cent we make has to be accounted for. It's utter hypocrisy!

Excellent.

so what is your point? did you vote these people into office? when buy a GE made product, do you pay taxes on it? i'm pretty sure they pay taxes somewhere...

No they don't, cause they know how to get around them. Here, see for yourself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/plutocracy-ge-doesnt-pay_b_840936.html

There's a NY times article linked in it too, which can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

And don't even get me started on the voting process.......that's a total joke all its' own.

huh... i saw this in the article "Yet many companies say the current level is so high it hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals. Even as the government faces a mounting budget deficit, the talk in Washington is about lower rates. President Obama has said he is considering an overhaul of the corporate tax system, with an eye to lowering the top rate."

Yes and our government was lied to about WMDs by someone from Iraq who was seeking refuge in the UK I believe. The invasion was not illegal.

Oh no someone pressured you do make a decision. Does that mean you shouldn't make a decision? I don't see anything illegal sorry.

This criminal corrupt system absolutely loves people like you.

Violation of Requirement for Determination

Bush also violated several terms of the resolution. The first violation relates to Section 3(b), which states:

"In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall ... make available ... his determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;"

If Bush had told the truth about Iraq then he would have said Iraq did not pose a threat to America. In that case "diplomatic or other peaceful means" would have given us adequate protection.

Bush accused Saddam Hussein of violating the UN Security Council resolutions by not revealing the presence of his WMD. Bush then invaded Iraq without permission from the Security Council. It then became apparent that Iraq did not have WMD. Ironically, therefore, Bush violated the UN resolutions and Iraq did not.

Because Bush did not fulfill his obligation to truthfully show the need for the invasion, he did not have authority under HJR114 to invade Iraq.

Violation of War Powers Resolution

The second violation relates to Section 3(c)(2), which states:

"Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."
This means Bush cannot ignore the War Powers Resolution of 1973 when determining what is "necessary and appropriate". So what does the War Powers Resolution say about this? Section 9(d)(1) states:

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
What existing treaties address the issue of attacking other nations? Two immediately come to mind: the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter.
The Nuremberg Charter says that it is a crime to plan a war of aggression. Many people believe that Bush is the aggressor in this situation. Iraq has made no threats or attacks against the United States. They have simply built weapons to defend themselves from attack. They are also cooperating, albeit begrudgingly, with the United Nations. Bush, on the other hand, has surrounded Iraq with a huge military force and has threatened to destroy Saddam Hussein and much of Iraq in the process. Bush has also labeled the UN as irrelevant.

The UN Charter states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...". War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.

Bush attacked Iraq based on false pretenses and without UN permission. He, therefore, violated the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are grounds for impeachment.

Paul R. Pillar, 28 year veteran of the CIA and national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
"...the White House helped frame intelligence results by repeatedly posing questions aimed at bolstering its arguments about Iraq.

The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted. "Feeding the administration's voracious appetite for material on the Saddam-al Qaeda link consumed an enormous amount of time and attention."

The result of the requests, and public statements by the president, Vice President Cheney and others, led analysts and managers to conclude the United States was heading for war well before the March 2003 invasion, Pillar asserted.

They thus knew, he wrote, that senior policymakers "would frown on or ignore analysis that called into question a decision to go to war and welcome analysis that supported such a decision. . . . [They] felt a strong wind consistently blowing in one direction. The desire to bend with such a wind is natural and strong, even if unconscious."

Pillar wrote that the prewar intelligence asserted Hussein's "weapons capacities," but he said the "broad view" within the United States and overseas "was that Saddam was being kept 'in his box' " by U.N. sanctions, and that the best way to deal with him was through "an aggressive inspections program to supplement sanctions already in place."
"Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says" by Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer, February 10, 2006
"Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq", Paul R. Pillar, From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006

Tyler Drumheller, formerly CIA's top man in Europe, describes how "the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not." CBS Video Interview, 4/23/06
Downing Street Memo describes a meeting with Tony Blair in London in July of 2002. It describes the lack of evidence and how the intelligence was "fixed" in order to justify war.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Bush wanted so much to convince people of the need to invade Iraq that the White House set up a secret team in the Pentagon to create evidence. The Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA's intelligence estimates on Iraq's weapons programs, removing caveats such as "likely," "probably" and "may" as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. They also used unreliable sources to create reports that ultimately proved to be false. [M

Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Ron Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:

So, ya' wanna' try BHO for the assassination of an unarmed suspect?

Reading the news where Bin Laden was unarmed.

That being the case, he should have been brought in alive.

Should have. But they had orders to KILL.

A trial would have been so messy.

Go ahead and try him if you think you have the authority.

We couldn't try Bush, why should Obama be any different?

They all work for the same company.

I hear ya'.

How in the world did Bin Laden hold 'em off for 40 minutes without a gun.

Their's were blazing.

He must have had a loaded finger. Bang bang.

Even with what is now known, a majority of the American public _still_ believe Saddam was in league with bin Laden. On this basis, a thought experiment bringing GWB to trial for war crimes can have only one result-- acquittal. Because a jury of his peers would be hopelessly deadlocked in its refusal to believe anything but what is most expedient to believe. And the Congressional Democrats sure aren't going to make waves because they bought into the expediency because of their desire not to get caught in the gears.

Sad to say, but History will be the only one able to portray the Blind Lady with the Scales in this affair. And as always, there are only three type of people involved-- those who start the wars, those who fight them, and those who are unfortunate enough to get caught in the crossfire.


-Kerry O.

Even with what is now known, a majority of the American public _still_ believe Saddam was in league with bin Laden. On this basis, a thought experiment bringing GWB to trial for war crimes can have only one result-- acquittal. Because a jury of his peers would be hopelessly deadlocked in its refusal to believe anything but what is most expedient to believe. And the Congressional Democrats sure aren't going to make waves because they bought into the expediency because of their desire not to get caught in the gears.

Sad to say, but History will be the only one able to portray the Blind Lady with the Scales in this affair. And as always, there are only three type of people involved-- those who start the wars, those who fight them, and those who are unfortunate enough to get caught in the crossfire.


-Kerry O.

I suspect they just wanted to shoot the place up a little. After all, that's what they are trained to do.

Some from Iraq said he had wmds so it wasn't a lie only acting on misinformation. Approval was given. Obama acted without approval. If you arrest bush you have to arrest Obama