A “Truth Commission” Against Bush?

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
The fringe right are digging in to defend Jarge.

Good thing Bush begged for a promise of no criminal action from The President....


By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/16/2009


Two of Congress's most radical members believe George W. Bush's America was the equal of apartheid South Africa.

Last week, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy proposed that Congress establish a “truth commission” to investigate alleged Bush misdeeds. In the House, Judiciary committee chairman John Conyers seconded Leahy's request.


The concept of the “truth commission” originated in post-apartheid South Africa, when the Mandela government launched an investigation into crimes against humanity. Punishments were waived on the grounds that the nation needed to know the truth about the white minority regime's suppression of black Africans.

Presumably, Leahy assumes President Bush engaged in equally egregious behavior during the War on Terror. Leahy, like his Michigan colleague Carl Levin, hopes to distort any circumstantial evidence he uncovers about how Bush-44 successfully kept this nation free from a second terrorist attack for seven years into proof of the greatest violation of civil rights since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.



If the investigation exposes the ongoing, covert measures Bush has taken to keep America safe, Leahy will only smile as they are revealed. He has a long history of exposing the most vital secrets of our nation. At least one operative was murdered after Leahy publicly leaked a 1985 intercept that had enabled the capture of the Achille Lauro terrorists. After Leahy leaked a 1986 covert operating to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddhafi, it was necessarily canceled.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
That's it....... lay all the blame on one man for what the majority of american people allowed to happen.......
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
Wow!! I wonder what's gonna come of this???

I don't think it's fair to blame the people for the mistakes of it's government. It wasn't the American's telling Bush to go and bomb Iraq. I believe that was an administration decision.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18


Now why would you say that? Wouldn't you want to see something done about it if there's proof that they committed crimes against humanity?

Don't forget, we've come into a new time. The Baby Boomers are on their way out and their kids are mad as h-X-l-l!!!!!!!!
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Now why would you say that? Wouldn't you want to see something done about it if there's proof that they committed crimes against humanity?

I said it because you asked what we thought would come of this. My answer is "nothing".

Don't forget, we've come into a new time. The Baby Boomers are on their way out and their kids are mad as h-X-l-l!!!!!!!!

Not really.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Wow!! I wonder what's gonna come of this???

I don't think it's fair to blame the people for the mistakes of it's government. It wasn't the American's telling Bush to go and bomb Iraq. I believe that was an administration decision.

Wow!! I wonder what's gonna come of this???

Nothing. If you put every american politician who was guilty of crime and corruption in prison, there'd be nobody left to run the country
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,279
11,380
113
Low Earth Orbit
I didn't see much difference between USA/Iraq and USSR/Czechoslovakia.
Immorality can never be justified by the actions of others in the past. Using the past that way only enforces the truth that any offensive attack is wrong.

Offensive is actually one of the defining words for "evil" in Webster's Dictionary.

Main Entry: 1evil Pronunciation: \ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\ Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil Date: before 12th century 1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful , wicked <an evil impulse> b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>2 aarchaic : inferior b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor> c: disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>3 a: causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery> b: marked by misfortune : unlucky
— evil adverb archaic
— evil·ly \-(l)ē\ adverb
— evil·ness \-nəs\ noun


Main Entry: 1of·fen·sive Pronunciation: \ə-ˈfen(t)-siv, especially for 1 ˈä-ˌfen(t)-, ˈȯ-\ Function: adjective Date: circa 1564 1 a: making attack : aggressive b: of, relating to, or designed for attack <offensive weapons>
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,106
7,987
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Would Mr. Bush be defending himself??? :lol:



Really though...I'm sure his butt is covered six ways
from next Sunday. 99% of the things people might try
to stick him with will be protected from disclosure for
national security issues for much longer than Mr. Bush's
remaining life span....so.... 8O
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
Would Mr. Bush be defending himself??? :lol:



Really though...I'm sure his butt is covered six ways
from next Sunday. 99% of the things people might try
to stick him with will be protected from disclosure for
national security issues for much longer than Mr. Bush's
remaining life span....so.... 8O


See but that's what makes him and would make him look soo bad. I wonder if they can overturn that 'rule' that 'he' made up. After all, in a situation like this, it would seem rather idiotic to obey a rule created by the same guy who is in question and just resort to the status quo, which would be to send him to trial and let the evidence do the talking.

To people who answered "Nothing" to my first question : Why should the future generations follow the lead of the superfluous monkeys of the past? I think that there are some smart kids out there that are something else. It's too bad none of you guys know of any. If you did, you may think differently.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
See but that's what makes him and would make him look soo bad. I wonder if they can overturn that 'rule' that 'he' made up. After all, in a situation like this, it would seem rather idiotic to obey a rule created by the same guy who is in question and just resort to the status quo, which would be to send him to trial and let the evidence do the talking.

Can you tell me exactly which "rule" that "he" made up? You are aware that Presidents cannot make laws... only Congress can. He can veto laws/legislation which can be overturned by Congress. He can influence but the final decision rests with Congress.

So I ask again... which "rule" (which is a funny word in and of itself) did he make that would protect him?

To people who answered "Nothing" to my first question : Why should the future generations follow the lead of the superfluous monkeys of the past? I think that there are some smart kids out there that are something else. It's too bad none of you guys know of any. If you did, you may think differently.

All the laws are out there for Congress to act upon. The question is will they.

Probably not.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
EagleSmack : I was answering Ron in Regina
"Really though...I'm sure his butt is covered six ways
from next Sunday. 99% of the things people might try
to stick him with will be protected from disclosure for
national security issues for much longer than Mr. Bush's
remaining life span....so...."

Yes, Congress makes laws but when you consider that Bush hand picked a lot of them in the first place and picked one's that were less qualified than other candidates. If you don't remember this, it's out there - you can look it up.

Now, if Bush gets tried and found guilty by a Truth Commission I'm sure that there will be much more coming out of the wood work simply by investigating it or, should I say, being given the freedom to investigate it.

See, now THAT is freedom. Are you Americans gonna be free to look into it and try to find the truth behind the matter or are they gonna pull back on the reigns that they have so subtly wrapped around your necks?

For everyone's sake, I hope that you guys are as free a you think you are! Because, if you guys can't get yourselves together, we're all in a lot of trouble!
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
EagleSmack : I was answering Ron in Regina
"Really though...I'm sure his butt is covered six ways
from next Sunday. 99% of the things people might try
to stick him with will be protected from disclosure for
national security issues for much longer than Mr. Bush's
remaining life span....so...."

I understand you were answering Ron but this is a forum and I asked you a question.

I see you cannot give me an answer. I'll ask again anyways...

What was the "rule" the Bush made up?

Yes, Congress makes laws but when you consider that Bush hand picked a lot of them in the first place and picked one's that were less qualified than other candidates.

Bush cannot hand pick Congress. Congessmen and Senators are not appointed seats by the President. They run for election against other candidates.

If you don't remember this, it's out there - you can look it up.

It is not a question of remembering... it didn't happen. How can I look up something that is not true? If Bush hand picked these people why did the Democrats sweep both sides of the House?

Now, if Bush gets tried and found guilty by a Truth Commission I'm sure that there will be much more coming out of the wood work simply by investigating it or, should I say, being given the freedom to investigate it.

Since when can a so called Truth Commision find someone guilty? The only branch of the government that can find someone guilty or innocent is the Judicial Branch by use of a jury and trial.

See, now THAT is freedom. Are you Americans gonna be free to look into it and try to find the truth behind the matter or are they gonna pull back on the reigns that they have so subtly wrapped around your necks?

The Democrats are the majority in Congress and now hold the Executive Branch as well. Nothing is stopping them for holding a commission.

For everyone's sake, I hope that you guys are as free a you think you are! Because, if you guys can't get yourselves together, we're all in a lot of trouble!

The ball is in the Democrats court. IMO they will do nothing.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
"A new poll of historians just came out. And the poll has named former President George W. Bush one of the ten worst presidents of all time. But on the bright side, Bush was selected second best president named George Bush." --Conan O'Brien
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
Okay EagleSmack : You said

"
I understand you were answering Ron but this is a forum and I asked you a question.

I see you cannot give me an answer. I'll ask again anyways...

What was the "rule" the Bush made up?
"

First of all, you don't have to be so savage to me about this. I KNOW this is a forum! Do YOU know how to treat other people nice???

Okay. To get to the point - So here's an article (it's a little long) it was written Oct 2005. I know it's from a socialist website but the writer explains exactly what Bush did to screw everything up by manipulating the Supreme Court. It even explains 'how' he did it in case you were planning on torturing me about the details as, it seems, you like to do this.

Bush picks right-wing crony for Supreme Court

This is how Bush connived himself absolution.

Now, here's a more recent article that talks about how Obama now has the opportunity to slash some of those 'Bush Rules' that you said were ridiculous and never existed. The one's that you said Bush didn't have the power to make. It only mentions a few of these rule, as apparently, Bush made many.

Democrats Drafting Lists of Bush Rules to Change | 44 | washingtonpost.com


Eat your heart out EagleSmack! :binky:




 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,106
7,987
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
EagleSmack : I was answering Ron in Regina
"Really though...I'm sure his butt is covered six ways
from next Sunday. 99% of the things people might try
to stick him with will be protected from disclosure for
national security issues for much longer than Mr. Bush's
remaining life span....so...."

Yes, Congress makes laws but when you consider that Bush hand picked a lot of them in the first place and picked one's that were less qualified than other candidates. If you don't remember this, it's out there - you can look it up.

Now, if Bush gets tried and found guilty by a Truth Commission I'm sure that there will be much more coming out of the wood work simply by investigating it or, should I say, being given the freedom to investigate it.

See, now THAT is freedom. Are you Americans gonna be free to look into it and try to find the truth behind the matter or are they gonna pull back on the reigns that they have so subtly wrapped around your necks?

For everyone's sake, I hope that you guys are as free a you think you are! Because, if you guys can't get yourselves together, we're all in a lot of trouble!


Sorry I'm slow to reply to this. Once a Thread falls off the front
page, I tend to loose track of them....

The reason there will be no "Truth Commission" against Bush is
that once that door is open, it's open forever as this will set a
precedence against current and future Presidents, and Congressmen,
and so on and so forth....If you can put a former President in that
position, then a Congressman is no big leap of the imagination.

That is why this will get filed as a "National" Security issue as it is a
convenient answer to protecting their own backsides by protecting
the backside of G.W.Bush. It'll go like this, "You can ask Mr. Bush
anything EXCEPT anything relating to this, that, and anything
related to the other thing....or anything that may lead to any of
these things." With that in mind, don't hold your breath while you
wait.