START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

The International Criminal Court Wants Bush


World  (tags: crime, war, warcrimes, warofterror )

Jenny
- 2714 days ago - jbs.org
Officials with the ICC say they are thinking about trying to prosecute President Bush for war crime "Spain judge says Bush and Iraq war allies should face war crimes charges"



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Yvonne White (231)
Friday March 23, 2007, 9:46 am
I'd Pay to see that Trial!:)
 

William Synnott (3)
Friday March 23, 2007, 3:31 pm
Will they include the Oil for food bunch in it also?
 

Maryanne W. (1)
Saturday March 24, 2007, 2:27 am
Yea well he is just as bad as Saddam Hussein, and if he got punished, shouldn't Bush?
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday March 24, 2007, 3:14 pm
I hope they do try him!
 

Rod Gesner (66)
Saturday March 24, 2007, 4:00 pm
Most of the arguments against By The John Birch Represnted point of view Seem good arguments For The ICCThe USA has become a Imperial Tyrant Similar to the British or The Spanish Inquisition Kind of Ironic That The British are now our Allies and The Spanish want to Try us Both for War crimes! Some Cultures Evolve And some Deginerate. The Arrogance to Pressume that we can Declare wars invade Countries Take prisoners and Deny Them the rights That We are Supposedly Fighting to uphold and That We are Not Accountable For Such Actionns. We neeed To hold Our Leaders Accountable Before Some Foriegn Power Carpet Bombs US Back to the Stone Age
 

David Cromie (6)
Saturday March 24, 2007, 5:20 pm
More nationalistic claptrap from the John Birch Society. In what sense would it be a denial of human rights to the defendants if they were hauled before the International Criminal Court to answer for their crimes? Were the defendants before the Nuremburg Tribunal likewise denied their rights?
 

David Cromie (6)
Saturday March 24, 2007, 5:23 pm
If these people act criminally on the world stage, then the world has the right, nay an obligation, to call them to account. If Bush and Blair are to get away with it, why not Iran and N. Korea?
 

Donald Kemp (1)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 6:59 am
I have a feeling that a few members of the current Administration will not be able to leave the states once they leave the protection their office affords them.
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 7:11 am
Problem is .. Bush will NEVER be tried. Nor will congress oppose him. There is too much corporate interest and backing in this administration. The backing is much too powerful. It is not to be reckoned with
 

Lisa K. (14)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 7:27 am
It seems to me this should not require alot of thought-he is a war criminal, he is responsible for what I feel is genocide and he should be held accountable just like any other leader-wouldn't that be the "justice in progress" that he speaks of?
 

David S. (55)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 8:29 am
I could give a simple one word answer for this...

YES!

 

Kellie S. (86)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 8:39 am
Take our president, please!
 

Deborah Imperfect Vessel (7)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:04 am
I will come and stand with the President. Spain should look inward. :(
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:15 am
Spain has the right idea...at least the Europeans still have an element of free press and free speech. Bush will never be tried. He is the almighty front of the 'beast'
 

David Cromie (6)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:27 am
To Miss (In)correct: what are you arguing here? Your logic defies reason. By what authority did Bush invade Iraq? Do you think the lies which were given to the world justifies the invasion? Are you saying that Bush and his allies are entitled to kill as many Iraqui civilians as Sadaam? What happens when the current body count reaches 2,000,000, do we call it quits and then leave a totally devastated country? Since when did two gross wrongs make a right? I do hope these few questions are not too taxing for your seemingly depleted/malfunctioning brain cells.
 

David Cromie (6)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:29 am
To Miss (In)correct: what are you arguing here? Your logic defies reason. By what authority did Bush invade Iraq? Do you think the lies which were given to the world justifies the invasion? Are you saying that Bush and his allies are entitled to kill as many Iraqui civilians as Sadaam? What happens when the current body count reaches 2,000,000, do we call it quits and then leave a totally devastated country? Since when did two gross wrongs make a right? I do hope these few questions are not too taxing for your seemingly depleted/malfunctioning brain cells.
 

Enric Mestres Girbal (3)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 11:29 am
I think in this business ,many times the hart overpowers the mind. The ICC, is nothing more then a few judges that wish to take God's role and change the world policies TO THEIR WAYS. In Nurenberg, only the Germans had to stand trial...the comunists, with a lot more crimes on their shoulders, left free with honours.¿ How many dictators(now in power) have been denounced by the ICC? None, and they all sit confortably in a UNO seat. ¿Why all these stars of justice ,only poursuit the leadres of democratic countries that may have acted wrongly, but with the suport of their Parlament? In Spain we do know Garzon's motivations to act against Pinochet. In Irak, the war finisched long ago; now it's pure terrorism and is left-wing theories to mixt one and the other.
 

Bea Beshara (17)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 12:11 pm
very great idea; justice...if there is such a thing, should be done....
 

Brenda R. (6)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 12:11 pm
I have to see it to believe it!
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 1:18 pm
Rod Gesner, why did you ever mention spanish? Has anybody said anything about spanish? Iam in stitches here, reading all the comments. Sorry Rod, you seem to be the only one who can read. Well, it seems like we deserve all of them.
 

Alf I. (246)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 1:50 pm
If America won't try Bush and England won't try Blair then I say give them both to the ICC!! Good riddance to both.
 

Alf I. (246)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 1:50 pm
Oh and MissCorrct (ha ironic name) you're a moron!!
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 5:40 pm
The international community should face there own problems. Spain is almost an Islamic state already thats why the cry for a war crime trial against those of us in Iraq, but if you people insist in listening to the liberals in this nation then feel free. When the next Democrate President wont go to war because of fearing how upset he's going to offend the international community or think he might be tried for war crimes and alot of americans get killed because of that who are you going to blame then George Bush. You liberals have no idea what road your going down or dragging the rest of us with you and you will be the first weak minded individuals that will have a gun stuck to the back of there head. But keep thinking the international community is your friend that we need them. Obviously you liberals havent realized that since 1776 we haven't had to have the international community come to our aid for anything be it naturals disasters, bombings or wars, But how many times have we sent our young men and women to die on foriegn soil to protect the international community from falling and liberating these countries from the nazi's the communists or themselfs. How many times have we been to the aid of the international community after earthquakes, typhoons,tsunamis or other naturals disasters like droughts and famines. But your right we need the international community to have some place for our young men and women in the military to have year long vacations to, for our citizens to have a place to donate there hard earned money to in times of extreme hardship to people who would spit on you the next day just because your american while there laughing all the way to the bank with your money. Yea you liberals are right go ahead and try your own countrymen real brave of you and in the mean time think of the future and what it holds for you.
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 6:14 pm
Kevin???? Go BACK to you ostrich hole...only this time dig a bit deeper and stay there. Your comments only show your ignorance which is typical of you and people like you. This is why the USA is now accountable for hundreds of thousands of slaughtered, and hated all over the world. You make absolutely no sense whatsoever infact your comment really doesn't even dignify an answer!
 

Lisa K. (14)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 6:20 pm
In all sincerity-isn't genocide when you kill your own people? And isn't that what Bush has done by sending our kids to die for a lie?
 

Marjorie M. (81)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 6:47 pm
Lisa, straight from the dictionary......genocide: The systematic planned annihilation of a racial, political, or cultural group. In my Opinion.....Our Presidential Administration is committing genocide on the Iraqi people, and yes, soon to be Even More Obvious.....citizens of the USA....Iran is certainly in the sights as it has taken the British BAIT.....and here is something else, WE ARE ALL EXPENDABLE. Genocide is happening right now in various places all over this world......the continent of Africa is hardest hit by the practice of genocide.....but look what has happened to the Palistinian People, Genocide......
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 6:51 pm
Oh ..too funny ..You beat me to it Marjorie!
 

Donn M. (56)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 6:57 pm
The ICC was never ratified by the US, so it should have no jurisdiction over any US citizen.
There was never any planned systematic annihilation of the Iraqi people by the US, so no genocide has occured.
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 7:01 pm
What would you call it mIss Donnie? I see you are trying to stir up...Gee and i thought there was a glimmer of hope for even you!!! Too bad you are not over there as an Iraq civilian watching everthing you know being destroyed watching civilians being shot by American 'soldiers' I wonder if you would change your glib tune..!!!
 

Rhonda L. (24)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 8:31 pm
It's such a shame but Bush deserves to be tried! So I hope it happens.
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 8:40 pm
Well i quess the truth absolutely hurts the liberals, especially if they say they wont justify it with answer, beuase they knows it all true.
 

Donn M. (56)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 8:41 pm
My tune is not at all glib, miss Anita. There was never any plan to systematically destroy the Iraqi people, so it does not meet the definition given above for genocide. Have too many Iraqis died? Yes. Do I wish it to be over? Yes. Does anyone know the best way to end it? No.
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 8:53 pm
There was NO plan huh?? Gee what is this?? another ostrich to?? Gee how do people like you get on this website?OK Miss glibbit..I shall do some homeworkl and show it to you. While you are busy stirring and not learning why don't you google PNAC and see what comes up (I am assuming of course that you do not know what PNAC is).
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:07 pm
Here you go Mrs Glib....By having reverence for life, we enter into a spiritual relationship with the world. (Albert Schweitzer)
Former Bush Aide: US Plotted Iraq Invasion Long Before 9/11
by Neil Mackay
January 12, 2004 | George Bush's former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.


» Go To Amazon «
O'Neill's claims tally with long-running investigations by the Sunday Herald which have shown how the Bush cabinet planned a pre- meditated attack on Iraq in order to "regime change" Saddam long before the neoconservative Republicans took power.

The Sunday Herald previously uncovered how a think-tank - run by vice-president Dick Cheney; defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy; Bush's younger brother Jeb, the governor of Florida; and Lewis Libby, Cheney's deputy - wrote a blueprint for regime change as early as September 2000.

The think-tank, the Project for the New American Century, said, in the document Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, that: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein".

The document - referred to as a blueprint for US global domination - laid plans for a Bush government "maintaining US global pre- eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests". It also said fighting and winning multiple wars was a "core mission".

O'Neill was fired in December 2002 as a result of disagreements over tax cuts. He is the first major Bush administration insider to attack the President. He likened Bush at cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people", according to excerpts from a CBS interview to be shown today.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill said. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

O'Neill and other White House insiders have given the journalist Ron Suskind documents for a new book, The Price Of Loyalty, revealing that as early as the first three months of 2001 the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein.

"There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post- Saddam Iraq'."

Another Pentagon document entitled Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oil Field Contracts talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interests in Iraq.

O'Neill is also quoted in the new book saying the President was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it," said O'Neill. "The President saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'"

White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected O'Neill's remarks. He said: "We appreciate his service. While we're not in the business of doing book reviews, it appears that the world according to Mr O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinions than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people."



http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/WarCrimes.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm







 

Donn M. (56)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:09 pm
The plan was very simple, take out Saddam, gain the gratitude of the majority Shiites, help them form a government free of a sadistic dictator, and everyone lives happily ever after. Didn't happen, because Muslims of differing sects apparently cannot get along and prefer to kill one another over who will have the power and control. Shiites hate Sunnis because of how the Sunnis treated them during Saddams reign of terror, and Sunnis now are afraid of what will happen to them in a Shiite dominated culture.
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:15 pm
Blah Blah blah blah blah blah donni...you are truly a lost cause...sounds like you came straight from some very cold planet.
 

Donn M. (56)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:25 pm
I don't understand why Bush needed an excuse to go into Iraq when he already had the wmd excuse, handed to him by Clinton among others. And none of this leads to the conclusion that anyone planned to exterminate large numbers of Iraqis. Invade, yes, regime change, yes, wholesale slaughter, not one shred of evidence for that.
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:25 pm
Woops... i meant to say you sound like you came from a very distant fascist planet.....Oh incase you don't know what fascism means WEebsters defines it as a philosophy or governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usually headed by a dictator, and often a beligerently nationalistic policy. 2 Oppressive dictatorial control.
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:31 pm
Oh and you don't think torture is sadistic?...putting broomsticks up prisoners assholes? forcing them to masturbate? rubbing feces all over them? Beating them to a pulp? waterboarding? sleep deprivation. light deprivation ...raping their women?.....oh i could make a long list...but you are aware, you just really don't give a damn as loing ass you get to drive your suv, watch fox news, and listen to Pat Robertson. Huh?
 

Donn M. (56)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:33 pm
Really Anita, is that the best you can do? Why would it have to be a distant planet, when it is plain to see that you believe that this applies to the US?
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:41 pm
Did i say that? WOW!!! So that iwhat YOU believe...aha....I AM right about you...Tee-hee
 

Donn M. (56)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 9:43 pm
I don't know where you draw your conclusions from Anita. I don't remember saying anything about torture. I don't get the fox channel, so have a hard time getting my news from there, don't listen to Pat R., and don't enjoy paying high gas prices for my little SUV, so I definitely don't want any disruptions in the oil supply, like war, for example. I really do wish for the war to be done with, as much for the Iraquis as for our country.
 

Marjorie M. (81)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 10:52 pm
Donni, the so called "WAR" on Iraq was all very preplanned. Depopulation of the entire country of IRAQ was part of that plan. The dividing up of Iraq was planned. There never were weapons of mass destruction....most of those are owned (and sold)by the United States of America...that was not an issue that was an EXCUSE to INVADE and OCCUPY a Middle East Nation.....IRAQ. The United States of America put Saddam Hussein into Power and when we were DONE with him we confiscated Iraq. Our own government blew up the Twin Towers to initiate the WAR ON TERRORISM.........how can a WAR on TERRORISM be carried out when the Greatest Terrorists of all time are Living the good life in FREE HOUSING aka the White House in Washington DC.....LOTS of information to support these claims right here on the internet. Watch the Google Video: They Want You Soul...for starters. Life on this EARTH is going to change rapidly....don't BLINK.
 

AniTa H. (142)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 10:57 pm
I wouldn't waste any more energy on it (her) Marjorie. It is unwilling to hear.
 

Marjorie M. (81)
Sunday March 25, 2007, 11:00 pm
One more thing......Happily Ever After Stories are a Disney Speciality.....Not the REALITY of the Business of Governments. La-La Land is an excellent place to visit....but it's difficult to live there
 

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (79)
Monday March 26, 2007, 8:04 am

From the excellent article:

"ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair may one day face war crimes charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague."

Moreno-Ocampo’s call for Bush’s prosecution by the ICC received support on Tuesday when Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon also called for Bush’s prosecution.

"In an opinion piece for El Pais, Garzon called the war in Iraq 'one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history.' Garzon also criticized those who joined the US president in the war against Iraq as having equally responsible [sic] for joining the war effort despite their doubts." It was Garzon who, in 1999, attempted to have former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet extradited from Britain to have him tried for crimes against humanity.

The call for ICC prosecution of Bush would seem to be no more than idle talk from another anti-American foreign socialist bureaucrat. In fact, the threat from the ICC, to President Bush and to all Americans, is very real. First, the ICC claims to have "universal jurisdiction" extending even to those nations that have not become party to the treaty creating the court, a fact once noted by former State Department spokesman James Rubin. Following the Rome Summit that created the ICC, Rubin observed: "Once the treaty comes into force, it would extend the court's jurisdiction over the nationals of countries that are not party to the treaty. Never before has a treaty put itself over those who have not been included in it."

Yeah, Yeah, Hurray and AAAAAAmen !
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Monday March 26, 2007, 8:46 am
Anita what part of that did you find untrue or is that it doesnt coincide with the liberal view. Sadly if you feel that you must be liked by every nation in the world then you have different issue's. Nothing that i wrote was untrue, we have never needed the international community and never will but they sure love us simply for our check book. They rant and rave but they want those checks every year. year in and year out. If they really hate us tell them to stop taking our money, pull our military out of iraq and afganistan,5 for that matter out of every country that we have bases in, pull out of nato and all of its peace keeping forces that way if any of our soldiers die it will be right here in america. Since the international community hates us so much then when the next earthguake kills thirty thousand people or the next tsunami wipes out 150000 mostly muslem men, women and children we wont have to send any of our american blood money to them and the rest of the international community that they do like can support and rebuild there crappy little towns and villiages and i quess since we dont wont to look like hypocrites to the muslims while we fighting them in iraq and afganistan then we should stop supplying them with aid and comfort in darfur. I hope this doesnt sound to neocon for most of you and i quess i could dig the hole deep enough to get my whloe head into.
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Monday March 26, 2007, 8:49 am
Go Catt you have my vote for the day Kevin
 

John Jones (143)
Monday March 26, 2007, 9:35 am
If only. I would gladly give my left testicle to see that happen.
 

Enric Mestres Girbal (3)
Monday March 26, 2007, 1:28 pm
Baltasar Garzon is an spanish "starlet judge", well known for his anti-Aznar feelings. Aznar was the spanish president that backed Busch in the iraki war. Garzon is a socialist/comunist caracter. In one of the 1980's socialist governament he was second on the list, hoping to be minister of justice; when he was not appointed, he left the governament and started a crusade against his former friends. His most known adventure is the prosecution of former dictador Pinochet, and adventure that brought Spain to the edge of international conflicts. He is been in America all of last year, spreading his ideas, and now is back in Spain where he has had problems with other judges. As for the ICC, is part of the new group of "progressist people" that wish to change the pride of belonguing to a country into a herd of loosers, afraits of breathing because the ICC (big brother) watches over them. As I said before, the ICC roots are in a weak Europa that is nothing else that a big marked of corrupted politicians.
 

Pam W. (0)
Monday March 26, 2007, 2:11 pm
So, anyone who doesn't agree with the Kevin Cartys of the world (the sky is falling...) is automaticallya liberal. Yawn.

George Bush and company, Dominionists that they are, have no regard for the lives of others. I would love to see them have their day in court.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday March 26, 2007, 2:31 pm
anyone who is as retarded as pam is a liberal...yawn.

they just can't get over the election.
bush by a landslide!!
 

M RuXty F. (130)
Monday March 26, 2007, 3:08 pm
The writer even says "As a result all Americans — conservatives, liberals, Constitutionalists and all others as well — should vigorously oppose any effort put the President, or any other American, before the International Criminal Court."

But do you think the Liberals have enough sense to heed the warning?

It really doesn't matter. The hearing would be a joke, and prosecution would be impossible. But keep dreaming folks...... Maybe your hero Al Gore will get to be President some day....LOL
 

David Cromie (6)
Monday March 26, 2007, 4:35 pm
According to Kevin Carty,

1. 'The international community should face there own problems'.
Unfortunately for the American people Bush and his neocon friends ARE the problems which the internetional community are having to face, and in particular the peoples of the Near East in the US quest for control of their oil.
2. '..... since 1776 we haven't had to have the international community come to our aid for anything........'.
Here again you show your ignorance, Kevin, since if it were not for the international community America would be financially ruined and the American people would be living at subsistence level. Why is that, I hear you ask. Simple. Overconsuming America is the number one drain on scarce world resources (oil, raw materials, and foodstuffs, for example), and these resources are obtained at huge human cost to the countries where they are produced (often ruled by dictators with American support) where exploitation, such as slave labour, poverty wages, environmental damage, corruption, etc. etc. is the order of the day. So you see, your standard of living is maintained to the detriment of these peoples that you express such distain for. Such exploitation is hardly likely to endear America to the down trodden of the world, is it? Remember this, the only reason America gives money to any country is to protect its own interests, and very often the interest payable on so-called aid is another burden on the poor, but not the rich, who are able to line their own pockets come what may, with the blessing of America. Not much talk of regime change in these cases, is there? Even Sadaam was the darling of America when it was thought that he could conquer Iran and then with Sadaam on side the oil could be controlled on behalf of America, without America loosing a single soldier. But this was not to be. Presently, South America is waking up to the exploitative mascinations of American business within their borders, hence the recent Bush mission to that part of the world to try to patch things up. This analysis could go on and on, but I will end nowby saying that if an objective assessmsnt of the facts makes me and others like me, in your eyes, a 'liberal', then long live liberalism. Thought to ponder: China is in the throes of an industrial revolution, how should America react to that Kevin?
 

David Cromie (6)
Monday March 26, 2007, 5:20 pm
Oh, I forgot to mention it, but I see that the fascist Falangists still have a foothold on the Iberian Peninusla. They must really miss Franco, Galtieri and Pinochet (with perhaps Hitler and Mussolini to boot). What a significant contribution these murdering dictators made to the furtherance of human values. I am surprised they do not bemoan the loss of Stalin also, since he also made quite a fist at being a murdering bastard also, as well as being an excuse for the aforementioned tyrants to act in the way they did!!
 

Past Member (0)
Monday March 26, 2007, 7:55 pm
yep, we're the problem, and all the third world turds are right.
typical liberal lecture.
 

Donn M. (56)
Monday March 26, 2007, 8:23 pm
Yes, yes, yes, IT is unwilling to hear. Especially asinine drivel and moronic nonsense.
Marjorie, I do not believe for one second that completely ridiculous conspiracy theory that our own government blew up the twin towers. There was absolutely no reason to do so, and it was not used as an excuse to invade Iraq, so what would be the point in risking everything to do so?
As far as the ICC, no American citizen should ever be brought before them.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday March 26, 2007, 10:06 pm
people like marjorie are so stupid it is breathtaking.

and she votes?

wow
 

Marjorie M. (81)
Monday March 26, 2007, 10:07 pm
Don't worry Donni, the TRUTH will come out about the demolition of the Twin Towers.....Denial in not just a river in EGYPT......there was a reason to demolish those buildings....to justify an illegal "WAR" with a country in the Middle East...to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq. Tell me how can we "Fight Terrorism" ........The problem with liars such as George W. Bush is they forget what they lied about and they slip up from time to time.....I remember dictinctly when he said "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" during a press conference last year.....for example. What happened to "WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION" piled up in Iraq?????? OOPS!!! Another LIE!!!!! The point is control of BIG OIL reserves in Iraq.....the point is Profits from ENDLESS WAR........ Find out WHO PROFITS from "WAR" ...... you may be surprised and you may find some answers to WHY our military in in Iraq.
 

Marjorie M. (81)
Monday March 26, 2007, 10:14 pm
Thank You Catt Boiler for Exposing Yourself so Brilliantly!!!! WELL DONE!!!!
 

Past Member (0)
Monday March 26, 2007, 10:19 pm
green stars for Marjorie

Facts

Bush and Cheney are already Indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald(no SC judge will sign off on it)
Rumsfeld wanted in Germany for War Crimes
Henry Kissenger wanted in Urarguay
Cheney Leaked Plames Name
Bush Lied to Ameica for Pretext for war
Alberto Gonzales implicted in pedophile scandal, attorney firings, Patriot Act (total subversive)
Tom Delay Indicted


Can you spot the criminals
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Monday March 26, 2007, 11:26 pm
Kevin: ALL the countries where the US has bases, THE PEOPLE WANT US OUT OF THERE. They are SICK AND TIRED of our DEGENERATE soldiers RAPING their women and children {when our troops are not too busy RAPING OUR OWN WOMEN SOLDIERS}. According to polls, at least 62% OF ORDINARY IRAQI CITIZENS THINK IT IS WONDERFUL THAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE BEING SHOT AT, BOMBED AND - KILLED - IN IRAQ. THEY DO NOT WANT US THERE. THEY HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THEY WANT US OUT.
American soldiers are protecting nobody; and that is why they hate American soldiers and the American government everywhere. As for tsunami relief, don't you know that the Bush mis-Administration is NOTORIOUS for MAKING GREAT BIG PROMISES FOR P.R. PURPOSES, AND THEN ACTUALLY SENDING HARDLY ANY ACTUAL RELIEF, NOTHING LIKE WHAT WAS PROMISED. The ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD knows that, even if Americans are deliberately kept in the dark! THE REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS THE SCORE, KNOWS THE AMERICANS' REAL RECORD. Only AMERICANS are KEPT BONE-IGNORANT.
Anyone can EASILY look up these FACTS for themselves.
Look up the TRIAL RECORDS of parents attempting to bring JUSTICE to American troops stationed in their countries for RAPE. The figures are AVAILABLE for HOW MUCH RELIEF MONEY WAS ACTUALLY SPENT, as opposed to "promised". Nobody is making this stuff up. IT IS ON RECORD FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.
Yes, I a proud LIBERAL, along with MOST OF THE WORLD, hope every hour that ALL American troops come home from those bases abroad; and the ENTIRE WORLD WILL CELEBRATE when that happens!
 

Marjorie M. (81)
Monday March 26, 2007, 11:47 pm
.....a dumbed-down, ignorant population is easily controlled.......with lies.................WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Tuesday March 27, 2007, 1:23 am
The American troops at bases abroad ARE NOT THERE TO BENEFIT THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY; and are not there at the REQUEST or desire of the PEOPLE of that country. Rather, the American troops are there BECAUSE OUR GOVT HAS BULLIED, BRIBED AND COERCED the govt of THEIR country, to ACCEPT the HATED bases.
Don't take MY word for it -- DO THE RESEARCH. Research is EASY to do on the Internet. Any person who claims any literacy at all, ought to be able to do the research on the Internet -- unless they are either bone-lazy, or WILFULLY IGNORANT ON PURPOSE.
For example, do you know, Kevin, HOW MANY U.S. bases there are abroad? Well, there are at last count, 737 U.S. bases abroad -- MORE U.S. BASES ABROAD THAN THERE ARE U.S. EMBASSIES. Think of the EXPENSE to the American taxpayer! who typically, doesn't even KNOW about these U.S. bases! That the citizens of the "host" country hate, loathe, despise, and curse and spit at America for having them there!!!
Yes, bring the troops stationed abroad, home! NOW! Every moment they are abroad, makes the U.S. hated even MORE!
The FACT that our American govt FORCES THESE BASES ONTO THE FOREIGN GOVTS AGAINST THEIR WILL, can be documented. I will start off lazy people on the road to true RESEARCH. A book to start off your inquiries, is, "Confessions of a Corporate Hit Man", by John Perkins. A long-time employee of the interests I am talking about here. See if you rant & rave about "liberals" after reading THAT book!

 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Tuesday March 27, 2007, 1:37 am
Correction: the book title actually is, "Confessions of an ECONOMIC Hit Man", by John Perkins. Sorry. Didn't mean to mislead. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". Read it! A best-seller in its field.
 

patricia lasek (317)
Tuesday March 27, 2007, 6:54 am
They will never bring him or anyone else to trial in an International court. Our government would not allow it. Does anyone here realize how difficult it is to even get near any one of them? They are protected better than our own shores. Impeachment is the only way to get at them. We have a Constitution to uphold and do not belong to the ICC aqnd will not help them in enforcing their rules regardless of what they say about their jurisdiction.
 

Snow White (0)
Tuesday March 27, 2007, 8:01 am
How about crimes against humanity, his helping the rich at the expense of the poor has done world wide damage. Violating our constitutional rights. the list goes on, How many die right here in our country because of insufficient or lack of medical care. Sending jobs overseas and putting corporate profits first.
We've had far more 'civilian' casualties right here in our own country.
We should get first dibs on him, and hanging would be much to quick and painless in my opinion. Let's make him live in a ghetto on $400 a month (that being more than alot of people his age make, but then he is president) with no car, medical, or food stamps. Just a couple armed guards being paid minimum wage to keep him there.
 

Enric Mestres Girbal (3)
Tuesday March 27, 2007, 12:42 pm
In a demodratic country, souposed to be the firs in the world ( I shoud say after Britain), there are enough ways to stop a wild adventure of their president. But the think is that, the people that have to decide in Parlament or Senate, have an idea similar to the one's the President holds. So there is only one thing to do: change the governament throught the vote, or throught an army upraise. Otherwise people can desagree but can not change what is law and what is democracy. And I think american people have a duty to their troops; they have been sended to a war, and althought some accidents have occurred, they deserve the suport of ALL americans, no mater their feelings or their believes.
Also I'm sorry some people do not think... they just go through wat the left wing propaganda insert in their weak brains.
 

David Cromie (6)
Tuesday March 27, 2007, 5:11 pm
To Catt, Kevin and Enric, for example: I had no idea I would come across so many brain dead, semi-literate people on this site. When I joined Care2 I had hoped that we might have informed debate, from whichever side of the argument. But I realize now that I am doomed to disappointment. What a sad comment on the level of intelligence some of you contributers bring to the discussion of the important issues of the day. There are none so blind as those who will not see!!
 

Carol Knapp (123)
Tuesday March 27, 2007, 5:20 pm
Please refrain from name calling and meaness, it really is not necessary all are entitle to an opinion, and the rest of us are entitled not to be subjected to bickering, the world is a nasty place C2 is an oasis.
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Tuesday March 27, 2007, 5:38 pm
David, Since you do not have even a clue about me and i have refrained from lashing out at anyone for there opinions i would ask that you refrain from making any derogatore remarks against me. This is a forum for people to express there own ideas and opinions, if i wanted to be insulted i'd move Back to california. If you dont agree with my opinions that is totally your right but the true ignorance comes out when you degrade those of us that disagree with your opinions. I can see that the type of informed debate that you so greatly desire is typical of all liberals, because if the the thread is not like minded and parrotted back as you would want it to be then the other side of the debate is moronic, racist, stupid, iliterate or uninformed because we simple will not be led to your way of thinking. So as i asked before either debate or go away there are rules that even you have to abide by here.
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 28, 2007, 7:40 am
yeah, that dave ; he's a real thinktank
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Wednesday March 28, 2007, 10:14 am
Catt i realize that it must be so hard for you and i to sleep at night if we actually believed the left that we the american people have caused every single problem, every war, every natural disaster, raped every single women in the known universe, consume every bit of food in the world, fished all of the oceans to death and was to blame for the shia and sunnis to hate each and then the entire world afterwards. It such a depressing thought that it makes me think that the best thing that we could do for the world is to detonate every single nuclear war head in america on american soils and destroy all of america because i'm absolutely sure that if we were gone the rest of the earth would suddenly become a eutopia where food was plentiful, no wars existed, everybody would love each other everybody would be colored blind and never want for anything ever again. I am ready to make the sacrifice today so that the international community can prosper since we are the only thing standing in its way and its a shame those of us on the right have fought and resisted this notion for so long. Knowing now that i personnally started the suffering in Darfur, that i was single handly responsible for starting the war in serbia, that some child is starving to death in kenya because i threw out my left over dinner last night after i stole the food off his dinner plate before he had a chance to even know it was there. And i have to admit i was the one that ran into building #7 at the world trade center on 911 and set the explosives while the building was on fire so that the government that i conspire with everyday to ruin the lives and economys of every person and every nation on earth could start another war just to increase the misery of the these poor foresaken people outside of the US. I can only apologise for my actions and the stupidity of my conservative views to have allowed all this suffering and i could have stopped long ago just by wiping out america. I sincerely hope Catt that your able to sleep tonight knowing what we have single handedly done to the world.
 

David Cromie (6)
Wednesday March 28, 2007, 3:58 pm
Kevin, perhaps you would care to post my reply to you, which I sent privately earlier today. Allow others to see where I stand on the topic of informed debate versus ignorant comment, or are you unable to answer the points made in that reply? You and Catt were made for each other, it seems. I am happy for you that you have found a soulmate on here.
 

Malachi S. (6)
Thursday March 29, 2007, 1:36 am
I think everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want, even if it's wrong. But there are those of you who seem to think everyone has to agree with everything you think and if you disagree you attack the person instead of the comment. But that seems to be the care2 way. I won't mention names cause you already know who you are AND I won't stoop to your level. I enjoy reading the comments up to the point when the personal attacks begin. Why not grow up and let others have their own thoughts. Oh wait, that's not the American way, stupid me, I forgot, I'm delussional again. You're either with us or you're against us. Hmmmm........
 

David Cromie (6)
Saturday March 31, 2007, 5:28 am
To Kevin: I am disappointed that you did not take up my challenge to post my reply to your charge that I am not abiding by the rules of debate. I think my reply, which I sent to you privately, more than answers your criticism. Thus I am posting it, so that others, who may be tempted to agree with you, can also see where I stand, and how I go about weighing up the unsupported opinion which sometimes is posted on this site.

"Kevin, I do not need to have met you to have a clue about you; you give yourself away every time you put pen to paper. It is obvious that you are not very well educated, your use of language tells me that right away. I do not condemn you for this, merely make the observation. Then there is the problem of having an opinion: any fool can express an opinion, but the secret lies in being able to argue in support of that opinion. This, I notice, you seem not to be able to do, since you have ignored any facts which might count against the opinions/ideas you have expressed publicly on C2NN. Your mind is made up, and you seem determined not to be confused with the facts. This is not the way to conduct a debate, and betrays your lack of intellectual development, but only you can do something about that. Ask yourself why it is, that those who hold right wing views also frequently get so angry when these are blown out of the water. Why are they so insecure in their beliefs? Is it that they know deep down that there are no cogent arguments which would justify their political stance? Merely calling someone a liberal is not a rebuttal, nor is a 'liberal' some form of arch criminal! As Aristotle observed, acknowledging one's ignorance is the first step on the road to wisdom. Culpable, or willful, ignorance is therefore to be deplored wherever it is discovered, on whichever side of the debate. As for moronic, racist and stupid comment, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of such traits in some of the commentators who express their uninformed views on many of the topics which come up on C2NN, sad to say. So, I hope the foregoing has explained the rules of intelligent debate, and I look forward to reading your future contributions in which you will engage your opponents on a point by point basis in arguing for your opinions.

Best wishes,

David"

What do you disagree with in the foregoing, Kevin?
 

David Cromie (6)
Monday April 2, 2007, 5:20 pm
And answer came there none!!
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.