The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Well, since Congress agreed with him, then no, there is no case, regardless of the partisan composition of Congress at the time. If they voted for war, then they voted for war.
I know, but the admin TRICKED them all with glossy layouts of mobile chemical units!!
Then why did the 2006 version of a Democrat-owned Congress vote for more of the same?
I’m dying to know.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t seriously dispute that Bush lied to Congress, do you?

As to the '06 vote, they were already in Iraq so the circumstances were different.

[John_Mace]

@DtC

In the interview I heard yesterday, Bugliosi implied that a lot of his case rested on Bush’s alleged manipulation and even outright falsification of intelligence reports (such as literally deleting the words, “Iraq is not an imminent threat” in the reports he showed to Congress).

Well, considering that he outlined the Bush Doctrine to Congress and the American people explicitly, I don’t see how that can be considered criminal.

Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.

For reference: National Security Strategy of the US (Sept 20, 2002).

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, considering that he outlined the Bush Doctrine to Congress and the American people explicitly, I don’t see how that can be considered criminal.

For reference: National Security Strategy of the US (Sept 20, 2002).
[/QUOTE]

Calling a policy a “doctrine” doesn’t make it legal. Bottom line – Iraq was not a threat. Bush KNEW it was not a threat and had been told by every US intelligence agency it was not a threat, yet he lied to Congress and the American people and told them the intelligence said it WAS a threat. Those facts are indisputable. Whether it would sustain a literal charge of murder seems dubious to me, but let’s not pretend the invasion itself was legal under international law just because of some self-declared “doctrine.” The US has no legal right to impose deomocracy or overthrow other governments, and Iraq had nothing to do with this imaginary “war on terror.” There was no defensive reason to attack the sovereignty of Iraq, therefore it was a violation of the UN Charter, period, full stop.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Calling a policy a “doctrine” doesn’t make it legal.
[/quote]

Well, you said he might be criminally liable for deleting the “imminent threat” phrase from intelligent reports. I’m simply pointing out that there was nothing secretive or misleading about that since he explicitly said on a number of occasions that we shouldn’t wait until Iraq became in imminent threat.

Bottom line – Iraq was not a threat. Bush KNEW it was not a threat and had been told by every US intelligence agency it was not a threat…

Well, considering that the intelligence reports are classified, you really have no way of knowing that. But what he claimed was that we needed to attack before they became a threat. Now, you and I may disagree with that, but there was nothing secretive about it, and Congress knew full well what the policy was when they voted on the AUMF. Not sure about the House membership, but every Senator had access to the full, unedited NIE on Iraq if they chose to view it. Apparently only a handful did.

The US has no legal right to impose deomocracy or overthrow other governments, and Iraq had nothing to do with this imaginary “war on terror.” There was no defensive reason to attack the sovereignty of Iraq, therefore it was a violation of the UN Charter, period, full stop.

Then throw every member of Congress who voted for the AUMF in jail.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, you said he might be criminally liable for deleting the “imminent threat” phrase from intelligent reports.
[/quote]

I said that bugliosi said that. I personally don’t know if it would make him criminally liable for murder.

I’m simply pointing out that there was nothing secretive or misleading about that since he explicitly said on a number of occasions that we shouldn’t wait until Iraq became in imminent threat.

He got Congress to give him authority by lying, not by his illegal, self-declared “doctrine.”

Well, considering that the intelligence reports are classified, you really have no way of knowing that.

That’s not true. These particular reports are no classified anymore.

But what he claimed was that we needed to attack before they became a threat.

No, he claimed they already WERE a threat. That’s how he got the authority. “Attacking before they become a threat” is illegal under international law.

but every Senator had access to the full, unedited NIE on Iraq if they chose to view it. Apparently only a handful did.

This is not true. They had access only to the redacted “white papers.” That’s the crux of Bugliosi’s case.

[BarnOwl]

GOP Talking Points don’t seem to be working as well as they used to.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I said that bugliosi said that. I personally don’t know if it would make him criminally liable for murder.
[/quote]

That’s why I said you claimed he might be liable…

He got Congress to give him authority by lying, not by his illegal, self-declared “doctrine.”

Maybe. Or maybe he got Congress to give him the authority because they were too chickenshit to call BS on him.

That’s not true. These particular reports are no classified anymore.

Then you should have no problem citing all of them and showing us where they said Iraq “was not a threat.”

No, he claimed they already WERE a threat. That’s how he got the authority.

Pffft. He put so many qualifiers on the “threat” that he is always going to be able to wiggle out of that charge.

“Attacking before they become a threat” is illegal under international law.

I’m not disputing that. But presidents routinely violate international law, so good luck with getting any traction out of that.

This is not true. They had access only to the redacted “white papers.” That’s the crux of Bugliosi’s case.

If he says so, then he’s mistaken. From the NYT:

…the complete classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, the most comprehensive judgment of the intelligence community about Iraq’s W.M.D., which was made available to all 100 senators.

<snip>

Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report.