Bush has gone but has left many questions about 'Western democracy.' Has George W exposed weakness and inconsistencies in our political system? In a democracy is it OK to torture a person provided the executive re-defines torture? Can a democracy decide it is OK to kidnap a person and transport them to another country where it is known they will be tortured? Is there a limit to what can be done in the 'National interest'?
To me these are questions that transcend political opinion. It is not a question of what team you are on but of what the rules are going to be. Can we leave the 'rules' the same so that another Bush can come along some time in the future?
Do we need a war crimes tribunal to deal with the Bush administration? It is probably legally impossible sanction anyone, but do we need it to understand what happened and ask if we want a re-run some time in the future? Has Bush serve to point out changes that need to be made?

Davey1 “Do we need a war crimes tribunal to deal with the Bush administration?”

No more than we need a tribunal to deal with Kissinger and the bombing of Laos or

Kennedys Bay of Pigs debacle or

Truman’s decision to allow the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan.

OR whatever shortocmings are eventually found in reflection on Obamas reign.

I would further note, as an alternative to some "war crimes tribunal", the US constitution empowers the joint houses of senate and congress wiht a right of impeachment which could have been exercised

as was exercised in the case of Nixon and almost exercised in the case of Clinton but which it never considered in the case of Bush.

As to the "Is there a limit to what can be done in the 'National interest", I recall it was Gerald Ford, the unelected President who was never ever on the voting ticket, who did instrumental work on defining the limits of CIA and other covert actions (no assassinations of prominent foreign enemies), practices which were common during the Kennedy years, when Castro was a prominent target for US assassins.

Col
I believe the impeachment process with G W Bush was discontinued because it was worked out that by the time he was impeached he would be out of office. I agree with your over examples, but is there a point where we can say enough is enough and pick one person as an example even if he is not the only offender? Has enough trauma caused by G W to say it needs to be dealt with? I don't know the answer to that but is something I would like considered.

Dear Daviy,

Big fish are not called to account in the
large political ocean. They usually escape
retribution, dying, as did Stalin and Hitler,
the evil architects themselves - without having
been brought to justice.

While the Nazis, have been pursued all
over the world for their crimes, the other half,
the communist criminals, were allowed
to go free. They were, in effect, given tacit permission
to continue the operation of their concentration camps,
to expand their draconian systems to include psychiatric
wards, thereby raising torture, suppression, and murder to
a science. The fact that the process persisted was vividly
disclosed to the free world by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

In the case of George W. Bush - the US Congress gave full
authorisation to the actions of his administration. History
will be the judge of their legacy.

However the following book may be of interest:

"George W. Bush, War Criminal?
The Bush Administration's Liability for
269 War Crimes." by Michael Haas.
(I believe it was published last year).

Daviy..while ur on the issue.. don't forget to take white Australians to task for 'war crimes' against Australian aborigines.....

OH.. and by the way.. don't look in a mirror.. it might break.

BOAZ_David,
I totally agree. I think the main thrust of what I am writing is that G W Bush gives us a focus to take a good hard look at Western society. We are certainly not all clean and sparkly.
I would include the settlement of Australia, The cynical removing of legal rights from refugees and so on. I would certainly hope that the role of John Howard would be examined along with G W.

Daviy.. there is a serious problem with what you are saying here.

Not that it is not well intentioned I presume but for the love of God.. how many 'wrongs' do you think can be righted in this world?

Every single society today is based on not a small number of injustices and wrong doings.. can you fix them all ? Will you just choose those which give you the warm fuzzies?

Ultimately.. it boils down to 'winners are grinners'.. sad but true.

Human society is as it is today directly as a result of conflict, expanstion..greed and pride.

Solve the problem of the heart and the rest come natually.

The medicine for the heart is repentance from sin and faith in Christ.

Daviy “a focus to take a good hard look at Western society. We are certainly not all clean and sparkly.”

I recall one old reprobate and object of post WWII scrutiny for his supposed communist sympathies, George Orwell, put is most eloquently

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

The services of those rough men ensure the clean is tarnished and the sparkle slightly less lustrous.

However, we live in a practical world where those who would resist the democratic processes are far grubbier and do not sparkle at all, they are positively grubby and dull.

For a perfect “clean and sparkly” we would need to be lead by the meek and as the old saying goes

The meek will inherit the earth but only when it is OK with everyone else.

Personally, I am quite used to accepting the consequences of political compromise, which is the hallmark of democratic western society, after all, politics is the art of the possible, not the pursuit of the fanciful.

Did any of ou hear Barack Obama say (not quoted exactly) that America will nolonger use Torture to gain Intelligence? There is something very wrong when that has to be said. If we sleep at night while others do our dirty work then it is either 1) The sleep of ignorance, 2) The sleep of hypocrites.
We cannot make ammends for every past agrievence but we can look at what has happened and see what can be done to avoid future grievineces.
Bush took the world to the brink of total calamity. How close was he to dropping nuclear bombs on North Korea and Iran? How close did he come to inciting the whole Islamic world with talk of 'Crusades'?
And if you want to see this as a religious debate and look at the Sermon on the Mount. You are not responsible for anothers actions, but if you go along with them you are as guilty as the doer.
Another old quote 'Bad things happen when good men do nothing.' We may be limited in what we can do, but that does not stop us doing what we can.

Daviy, I believe the quote was from Albert Einstein and stated "the world is not a dangerous place because of those who do evil - it is a dangerous place because of those who stand by and do nothing".

The point has resonance due to Einstein's status as a prominent Jew, given the horrors of the holocaust.

There was another quote: "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" though I'm not sure who said it.

I think Bush was the third worst President the US has had (the two that the US had before Lincoln were worse, in the dark days leading up to the civil war, sat on their arses while the country tore itself apart. At least, GW didn't preside over civil war in his backyard. That being said, their incompetence provided the situation for Lincoln, the first and best president of the Republicans, to show backbone and Leadership. Lets hope Obama does the same).

Regardless, I'm not advocating Bush be tried for 'war crimes'. Aside from the fact it's impractical, it comes back to the framework.

Like those quotes above - there will always be incompetent or malignant leaders, but as you say, we need to define the limits of executive power. For example, if Obama suggested suspending voting rights for Americans until he can correct the economic crisis, he'd be stopped. There are limits on executive power.

Bush bent those limits. Whether he broke them is questionable, though I agree, torture ought to be one of them.

It's about examining the system and putting measures in place that can't be overridden.
That in itself is difficult, because who judges what should and shouldn't be inviolable?

When it's a decision that's clearly for personal power (i.e. suspending voting rights) then it's obvious.

When it's about government power, it's harder. I'd argue much of the wiretapping and ridiculousness in the Patriot Act is a violation of the American Constitution and their civil rights. To me, this would be the initial matter for inquiry - not politically charged accusations of war crimes.

The question is not what we do about George Bush but WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT GB.
We can not do anything about GB because USA are out from the International Criminal Court, they ignore it totaly!
I like to see him in prison for crimes against humanity, hundrends of thousands of Iraqis died of cause BUSH, he violated the human rights and international law, in normal conditions he had to be in prison.
FOR US, FOR THE MASS MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE HE IS A CRIMINAL, FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE HE IS ONE FROM THEIR WORST PRESIDENT.
THE GOOD THING IS THAT OF CAUSE HIS BAD POLICY WE HAVE NOW THE OBAMA AS PRESIDENT.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Reading the comments on my original post naturally helps clarify what it was I was writing about in the first place. One of the things that surfaces as cause of my discontent is the phrase 'It is not in America's national interest'. I would like to see the worlds interests override American national interest.
As a beginning if Obama could be made aware that American national interest does not make it right. It has been pointed out correctly that there is probably nothing that can be done about Bush, but we might be able to make it clear that the world is not going to accept another Bush.

Daviy
Bush was not bad only for Iraqis and international community he was bad for America too, his foreign policy was catastrofic for USA, NONE ELSE COULD DAMAGE THE USA SO HARD AS BUSH DID. They took their lesson and they voted Obama to improve their relasion with the rest of the world.
Ignore Howard and other right extremists THEY DID NOT CARE FOR PEOPLE, FOR AMERICAN OR AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE, Bush was good only for the enemies of USA, FOR THE EXTREMISTS as Bin Laden etc.
An extremist creates extremists.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
(sory for my poor english)

Daviy "that there is probably nothing that can be done about Bush, but we might be able to make it clear that the world is not going to accept another Bush."

Hate to pour rain on your parade but "the world" don't get to choose the American Presidents and how well Obama does will determine how the good citizens of USA will decide, when they come to it in another 4 years time and 8 years time the flavour of their choice.

AND when they do, the World will accept the decision of those US citizens and bearing in mind the high proportion of "swinging" voters history shows us how frequently Democrat presidencies give way to Republican presidencies.

regarding your misquote 'Bad things happen when good men do nothing.'

Well maybe nothing bad has really happened, except in the minds of the over-sensitive.

I would recall the clamour to impeach Bush never had the energy behind the efforts to impeach Clinton.

Daivy says,

"Big fish are not called to account in the
large political ocean. They usually escape
retribution, dying, as did Stalin and Hitler,
the evil architects themselves - without having
been brought to justice."

That's a generalisation and an inaccurate one Daivy. It's so easy to make a point by dropping a few names and forgetting the ones that contradict your point isn't it. You would have heard of Sadam Hussein, Napoleon,Benito Mussoloni? Now whether in the history of big bad bastards there are more on the got caught side than the other, I don't know. But neither do you.

Ditch
I don't know what comment you are refering too but it wasn't mine.

Foxy was the culprit.

Daivy, my apologies.

Ditch,

I'm flattered that you read my post.

And, you're right to point out my
error. I should have
clarified the fact that:

"None but the vanquished ..."
shall be held to account.

Thanks for that.
Much appreciated.

No need to be flattered Foxy. Most of us read the posts of the thread we are posting to. Most but not all.

I merely pointed out your generalisation and that it was incorrect. Nothing to get too excited about. I think though that your point about only the vanquished is another generalisation and unsubstantiated.

Besides, those who get categorised as either good or bad is a matter of opinion and depends on who writes the history. One man's villain is another man's hero.

Dear Ditch,

Exactly.

I'm glad you get it!

I'm glad I've made it clear for you Foxy.

Mark Latham once accused GWB as being "incompetent and dangerous" and was immediately howled down by all the Reich Wing apologists and their media chums.

Now Bush (along with Blair and Howard) is gone, nobody seems to be so afraid to criticise him anymore and some of that former cheer-squad can now smell blood in the water and are circling.

Bush became President through a Supreme Court
decision (undemocratic turn of events). He's
left quite a legacy behind, as another poster
put it:

"A prisoner of his intellectual poverty,
and a willing front-man for the
shadowy figures behind the scenes ..."

Then of-course there's his famous quotes:

Asked by UK tabloid, The Sun, about Tony Blair,
Bush reportedly said:

"I've heard he's been called Bush's poodle.
He's bigger than that."

My favourite is:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."

Any leader who has any death happen on his watch is going to get slammed by the left.

Winston Churchill would not have been allowed to fight WW2 if the left we have today was around back then.

I think GWB was dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't. He got one of the hardest presidential shifts in history thanks to the vile 9/11 massacre.

I mean imagine a Bob Brown type trying to navigate through that.

Dear Daviy,

You only need to google 'global atrocities,' to learn that there were
perpetrators who never saw the inside of a jail cell or faced
criminal prosecution for their crimes against humanity.
As with all war crimes tribunals in history, there is a
selectiveness about what is considered a war crime
and who ends up on the dock.

Unless there is a massive alteration in the balance of forces in the
world between the powerful and the dispossessed, nothing is going
to change.

Dear Foxy

The selection of blame is always the prerogative of those who exercise the greatest power. For example, no-one was ever prosecuted for the unnecessary bombing of Dresden in WW2, because Germany were "the vanquished" (for which I am eternally grateful BTW). However, war crimes are decided by the winners, hence many wrongs go unpublicised and unpunished.

There is also the issue that many people react with kneejerk irrationality when criticism is issued; if people criticise Palestinians they are seen to be pandering to Israel, when it is pointed out that Israel has commited its own share of attacking civilians - we hear shrieks of "anti-Semitism".

Clearly there is much wrong on both sides. Who will be the vanquished this time?

PS Foxy
Loved the George W quotes - the man made a better comic than president.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/H/bush_turkey.jpg

Fractelle,
I agree with you but I have reservations on the word "prerogative". It sounds like they have the right rather than what it really is, a distortion of the truth to justify/cover their misdeeds. The whole unnecessary bombing campaign of civilian targets cathedrals and museums etc. including Dresden near the collapse of Nazi Germany was one such of obscenity.

The Allied reasoning was at best arrogant and at worst simply vindictive reprisal. Give the same strategy failed in the battle of Brittan what made them think it would achieve a different result in Germany.

I agree that Hamas has indeed committed war crimes and the persons responsible should stand trial.
But that doesn’t justify Israel’s disproportionate shock and awe policy version of the failed Nazi Germany’s (US in Iraq, Dresden, reprisals against the resistances etc) total war tactics of attacking civilians in order to break their will/morale.
Regardless of the sides of the combatants brutality has never won over an ideal.

The rhetoric may differ but both sides are simply feeding the insatiable monster of vengence.
BTW I too am glad the Allies beat the Nazis too.

My personal favourites were "man and fish can coexist peacefully."

(I wasn't aware we had a fish-conflict policy, but it's good to know we've got all the bases covered).

Though the grandest foot-in-mouth moment was either: "the hardest part of my job is connecting Iraq to the war on terror."

(Freudian slip?)

Or "I'm honored to shake the hand of the brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."

(Might be an idea to clarify which hand, Mr President).

I'm really not sure how his gaffes managed to result in comedic value so frequently. (Except in the cases regarding his comments about literacy. Those were never going to end well for him).

-

Daviy, in relation to your comments on Bush, despite some differences, I've got to agree with the thrust of Col Rouge's previous statement.
Even though I regard GW as an incompetent president with a noxious extreme ideology who presided overa bloated government and reckless spending, it isn't up to the world to dictate who chooses the American President. That's for the Americans to decide.

However, as with all things, the pendulum has swung the other way now.
I agree we need to review many of the decisions GW made and the processes by which he made them.
Hopefully the US will rectify issues such as sanctioning torture and so on, but a witchhunt will achieve nothing, save for stirring up further divisions at a time when unity is needed.

Don't focus on the man, focus on the system in which he operated.

You can talk about rectifying these things all you like, but the fact is, putting any strict measures in place would ultimately be a denial of democracy. Sure, you can lay down rules, but if those rules can't be bent or broken, then effectively you're watering down the democratic decisions of future generations.

They may be an attempt to prevent stupid or malicious decisions, but those aren't our decisions to make.

I can't help but feel your comments represent the good intentions upon which the road to hell is paved.

Examinator:
"The rhetoric may differ but both sides are simply feeding the insatiable monster of vengeance."

In total agreement with you on that.

However (pedantically) on the use of "prerogative" - victors tend to believe that they do (have the right), religious victors believe they have god on their side as well - divine right.

Wars have never ended with a friendly handshake...

'but do we need it to understand what happened and ask if we want a re-run some time in the future? Has Bush served to point out changes that need to be made?' That is from my original post. It has been completely ignored. Notice I am asking questions, not laying down dogma.
'Bomber Harris' was condemned by all levels of British society when details of the Dresden (and other) raids became known, and he became a shunned man. I hope the same fate awaits Bush.
My favourite is 'I like water, especialy when I am fishing.'

Daivy, So why single out Bush for investigation? Don't think that Gitmo Bay is the only place torture has been used by the US or it's allies. Bush's mistake was that he got caught out and had to admit what they were up to. If you throw the book at Bush you'd have to throw it at a very long list of offenders. I know that that doesn't exonerate him or anyone connected with Gitmo or make right any act of torture.

After all the s-it that both sides have inflicted on eachother, picking out GW for punishment as the main culprit, to me, is pointless. If you go after Bush can you name the others you will also go after for similar offences?

And GW was not elected undemocratically as someone mentioned earlier. While SCOTUS did play a major role it was all within the bounds of the US Constitution. Like it or lump it, that claim won't fly.

Ditch
'but do we need it to understand what happened and ask if we want a re-run some time in the future? Has Bush served to point out changes that need to be made?' Still no attempt to answer the questions.
Claims about what was withing the US Constitution are pointless. George Bush was not President of the world. The US constitution only has effect inside the US, and if GWB had stayed home he would have not been a problem for the world.
Again I am asking if George Bush has served to point out changes that need to be made? What happened back whenever is probably too late to change, But this is now and if changes need to be made they can be changed now.
If you think that the actions of GWB where justified then say so. If not then say so. But this making excuses for the man's actions is just the justifier form of falacious arguement. Do your excuses indicate that you approve of GWB's actions?

Daivy, You should read my post more carefully. My reference to the US Constitution was directed to the claim made by a previous poster that Bush was not elected democratically.

I don't think there is anything in Bush's presidency that teaches us anything that we didn't already know. Power tends to corrupt and that is nothing new under the sun. What do you suggest that needs to be done to prevent more abuse of power by........those in power?

I'm not offering excuses BTW. I'm offering explanations. I certainly don't excuse Bush of anything. He was acting from a political perspective that differs significantly from mine. In a democracy the one who gets the top job is the one who wins the election. There's no overseer to determine if each candidate's agendas are acceptable or not, just the voters themselves

Dear Daviy,

You may be interested in the following website:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2008/11/19/horton/index2.html

Its an interview with Scott Horton on war crimes
prosecutions by Glenn Greenwald.

It deal with George W. Bush, and there are some
interesting questions raised.

Thanks Foxy
I agree with everything that is said. I quote;
'that although it's the case that in the past that presidents have broken specific laws, what has happened under the Bush administration is different in kind, not just degree, because what they've really done is assaulted the law itself.'
Ditch, I request that you also read this article. It gives a powerful explanation on why Bush is a different case to even Nixon. After reading this article I am hopeful that America will have a full enquiry into the Bush administration, and I am content with that for now. After that will depend on the results of the enquiry.

Yes I read that Daivy. Horton spoke of the mechanics of why Bush transgressed but hasn't addressed any of the reasons the reasons why Bush wouldn't be charged. He's suggested that the public needs to be bought on side and made aware of the seriousness of the "crimes". Hell, aren't they aware of that already.

Let him put his money where his mouth is and go ahead with his case. It's one matter to talk about it but another to take the cause to the courts. I wish him luck.

'Bush has gone but has left many questions about 'Western democracy.' Has George W exposed weakness and inconsistencies in our political system? In a democracy is it OK to torture a person provided the executive re-defines torture? Can a democracy decide it is OK to kidnap a person and transport them to another country where it is known they will be tortured? Is there a limit to what can be done in the 'National interest'?
That is the thrust of my original comments. I doubt if Bush will ever be charged with anything, but my point, and that of Horton as I understand it, is to use Bush as a case study to see what can be done to prevent future abuses of power.

The following from http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/now-is-ideal-time-to-prosecute-bush-and.html bears repeating in full:

(Preface: To those who believe that all 9/11 conspiracy claims are crazy, please listen to what intelligence officers, military leaders, legal experts, and others in the know (http://www.911summary.com) have to say. On the other hand, to those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job - so that talk of mere "negligence" is a cop-out, please read to the end before making up your mind about strategy. As David Ray Griffin has pointed out, nearly everyone who looks at the evidence regarding 9/11 with an open mind ends up being convinced that it was an inside job. Any prosecution related to 9/11 will force people to look at the evidence.)

Gangsters have been jailed for life based on convictions for tax fraud.

Investigations into small misdeeds often turn up evidence of major crimes.

And covering up the crime is itself a crime. Even if the prosecutor isn't sure how you did it, if he can prove you covered up the crime, destroyed evidence, committed perjury, etc., you'll end up in the big house.

So if government agencies are too spineless to prosecute for anything else, prosecuting those complicit in 9/11 for criminal negligence and/or cover-up is worthwhile.

Is there strong evidence of criminal negligence with regard to the 9/11 attacks?

Definitely (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/04/to-keep-america-safe-we-must-impeach.html).

Is there strong evidence for a cover-up and destruction of evidence?

Without doubt. See this (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-evidence-of-obstruction-of-justice.html) and this(http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/01/whitewash.html).

Now is the perfect time (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/now-is-perfect-time-to-prosecute-bush.html) to prosecute criminal behavior.

9/11 is no exception.

If the only politically feasible way to do it is to start with a prosecution solely for criminal negligence or cover-up, then start there.

---

For the record, for those who aren't already aware, I have looked at the evidence and, like most who have, as David Ray Griffin pointed out, I am convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

See also "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=76 http://911oz.com http://911blogger.com http://911truth.org http://ae911truth.org http://firefightersfor911truth.org http://pilotsfor911truth.org http://candobetter.org/911truth etc.

"nearly everyone who looks at the evidence regarding 9/11 with an open mind ends up being convinced that it was an inside job."

Rubbish. Anyone who believes it was an inside job is a wack job.

Why don't you stop thread crapping and go and get your nappy changed.

Ditch,

Do you know what President Bush was doing at the time that America was under attack on 11 September 2001?

If you don't already know, then why don't you look with your own eyes at on 11 September 2001 http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9UA1xcwRLM?

Of this, Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker said in his documentary "The Great Conspiracy" of 2004 :

At a Town Hall session in Orlando, Florida on December
the 4th, 2001, here’s the President’s own account of the early
morning of 9/11.

Jordan (a third grader): "How did you feel when you
heard about a terrorist attack?"

George Bush: "Well, thank you, Jordan (applause).
Well, Jordan you’re not going to believe where, what state
I was in, when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in
Florida. And my Chief of Staff Andy Card, well actually
I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that
works, ... and I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to
go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower – you know, the TV
was obviously on..."

BZ: The President tells us he sees, on an ordinary TV
set outside a school classroom, the first plane hit the World
Trade Center. He gives the oddly reinforcing detail that "the
TV was obviously on." He continues:

George Bush: "I used to fly myself and I said, well,
there’s one terrible pilot and I said it must have been a
horrible accident, but I was whisked off there and didn't
have much time to think about it."

Barrie Zwicker : "Didn't have time to think about it?" As if his being told,
"Time to meet the kids, Mr. President" stops all his
thought processes concerning the remarkable image of what
he told us he's just seen on an ordinary TV, on top of all his
knowledge of the unprecedented situation from earlier in the
morning. But anyway, could George Bush have seen, on
ordinary TV, the first plane hit the World Trade Center? No,
he could not have.

(tobecontinued)

This conspiracy theory is as old as. It's for the naive and gullible.

I've got a life to live. You just sit there and suck on your dummy daggett. You won't do yourself too much harm that way.

Don't worry Ditch - it's just daggett's current pathological obsession. Apparently the vast majority of intelligent and informed people who don't subscribe to his crackpot conspiracy theory are 'denialists'.

Join the club.

Before I continue:

It looks as if the first YouTube link I gave above is no good. Apparently YouTube does that a lot these days - move around links to broadcasts of 9/11 evidence, particularly 9/11 Truth broadcasts, causing links on other pages to break.

Anyhow, here's two more:

"Bush's Seven Minutes of Silence" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8 (and http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI) and "Seven Minutes - The Bush 9/11 Split Screen Video" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ro3o-ld0CWw

In the latter, the real time footage of the September 11 attacks are juxtaposed to President Bush's activities in Florida at precisely the same time.

(continuedfromabove)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI

The footage of that first strike (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8)
only shows up on television
the next day, September the 12th, 2001. It was taken by a
French documentary crew that happened to be in downtown New
York.

Bystander: "Holy 5hit!" (Explosion)

Barrie Zwicker: The Orlando Town Hall session takes place seven
weeks after 9/11, so it can be suggested Bush confuses
the second plane with the first. But, how to explain this?
We'veall seen Andy Card do that. None of this can ever be
retracted. It is an interlocking historical record.

Why go on at length about this? (Presidential aid ) Because it may one day
become the basis for criminal court proceedings.

(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623 http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/tgc.html http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/pdfs/TGC_transcript_GOIssue9.pdf)

(The above was also posted to "Bush's democracy of hypocrisy" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288#130992)

---

If you had lost a loved one on that day, either on flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 or in the World Trade Center twin towers or in the Pentagon, would have felt satisfied that President Bush had done everything within his power to prevent those losses?

If you truly want to see something done "to prevent more abuse of power by........those in power" as you say you do, then why shouldn't the above be used as evidence in a legal suit against former President Bush and his staff for criminal negligence?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Ditch wrote, "Anyone who believes it was an inside job is a wack job."

Why do you say that?

Do you happen to think that anyone who believes that is a 'whack job' independently of whether or not the evidence supports that belief?

Or are you saying that you know that the evidence does not support that belief?

If you guys want to argue about 9/11 why not start your own thread? I was hoping this would be a sensible discussion of the issues I started with. Can we learn from the Bush experience?

911 happened when GW was president. You say that is not relevant to what we can learn from GW. Really!!

I'm leaving the building. I'll find my own way out thanks.

Daviy,

How was my initial post was not relevant to a forum entitled "What to do about George W Bush?"?

Can't you at least see George Washington's point that there is more than sufficient evidence to launch a prosecution against former President Bush for criminal negligence?

---

You asked, "In a democracy is it OK to torture a person provided the executive re-defines torture? Can a democracy decide it is OK to kidnap a person and transport them to another country where it is known they will be tortured? Is there a limit to what can be done in the 'National interest'?"

---

As Hermann Goering once said, if you can convince the people they are threatened, they will support war.

That's what Hitler succeeded in doing in 1939 and that's what Bush, Howard and Blair succeeded in doing from 2001 onwards.

I also think it follows that as long as people accept that some of those kidnapped and tortured or imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay had the intent and ability to launch further attacks on the US such as that of 11 September 2001, it will be very difficult to convince people that Bush and Cheney should be tried for having made that happen.

I finally made myself look properly at the question of 9/11 seven years late than I should have starting about 4 months ago, and have become convinced that the US Government lied about 9/11. That made me extremely angry - angry with the Bush Government and angry with myself for having been taken in by them.

Now I know for a fact that few, if any, of those who were kidnapped and tortured had any intention of launching terrorist attacks against the US, and none, except as deluded patsies under the guidance of the US intelligence agencies that staged September 11, would have been capable of launching similar attacks.

I suggest that if you sincerely want to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al, brought to justice, then have another look at 9/11. A good start is the article at http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/now-is-ideal-time-to-prosecute-bush-and.html and linked articles.

Hi Daggett
Another notable quote was from Hitler himself; 'It is lucky for governments that the people do not think.' I don't know if I want Bush bought to justice or not. I don't know if he has been legally guilty of anything. But even if it was legal was it acceptable?
What I would like is for 'the people' to think about what has happened. And from there go to deciding if this is what they want and can we demand better.
We do not live in a democracy. Democracy is about making choices. People who are lied to or do not think cannot make choices. They only blindly follow dogma. Voting for someone's lies over someone else's lies every few years is not democracy. It is a series of time limited dictatorships. If Australia is going to become a democracy Australians will have to start thinking and making choices on a continuous time-line.
Do you want democracy (general question to all)? If you do the price is that you have to start thinking and making choices. And you have to be certain you are not being lied to. That is the main reason I want the Bush administration examined, to expose the lies. If that leads to include 9/11 then so be it, but I think Guantanamo Bay is one of the big issues to start with.
I have no idea what happened on 9/11. I can see both views and to me there is no clear indication. Both sides are circumstantial. But Guantanamo Bay is different. The Inquisition was revived. Torture, detention without charge, guilt by of religious association.
It showed just how easily the human race can wipe out five hundred years of supposed progress. Who is next on the list? Atheists, Buddhists, homosexuals, people with red hair? If we do not start thinking and making choices it is all down hill from here.
And I will reserve the right to get frustrated when questions are answered with unthinking dogma as happens with many of the posts on OLO. That just perpetuates the whole unthinking mess.

From BBC updated at 11:11 GMT, Saturday, 31 January 2009
**Iraqis are electing new provincial councils in the first nationwide vote in four years, with the Sunni minority expected to turn out in strength.**

What to do about Mr Bush? Thank him