| Jul 15 @ 7:22 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Bugliosi has quite a distinctive record btw of actual legal action against criminals He prosecuted Charles Manson. Bama Gary could have won that one!  Do some research. He is a tinfoil wearing goof along the lines of Dennis Kucinich. At least Kucinich admits to having been "VISITED."
We now turn to a man considered to be one of the best prosecutors in this country. In his career at the LA County District Attorney’s office, he successfully prosecuted 105 of 106 felony jury trials, including twenty-one murder convictions without a single loss. Alan Dershowitz calls him “as good a prosecutor as there ever was,” and the legendary F. Lee Bailey calls him “the quintessential prosecutor.” source
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:23 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Lacy Kucinich is alleging in his lastest impeachment attempt that Bush lied to Congress about the urgency of the threat, and had he not lied, Congress would not have authorized military action against Iraq.
According to Wilki you and your nutbar political freaks are out to lunch.
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:24 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Well Bush lied about that crap of UN resolution violation as well...
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:27 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
vinnytmd
Posts: 6,004
|
Maam, Democracy Now is not exactly a source for data. Neither is YOU TUBE
Sorry.
Pelosi has made it clear that she will not allow any impeachment proceeding to make it to the floor.
You should also note that Bill Clinton signed the original resolutions regarding Iraq.
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:34 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Lacy Well Bush lied about that crap of UN resolution violation as well...
So then Iraq, in your universe, was in compliance with all the requirements of all the resolutions against it?
In short, you believe it had fulfilled the war reparations with Kuwait, complied with the WMD requirements as well as the inspection process, achieved the mandated level of human rights accords, carried out environmental reparations, returned all stolen Kuwaiti property, returned all foreign nationals and ceased it's support for terrorism.
Unbelievable.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:35 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Do you have something that disputes Bugliosi's record as stated on Democracy Now?
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:39 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
vinnytmd
Posts: 6,004
|
Lacy, I saw this man on a News show. He is 100% nuts. Somewhere along the line he has lost his better senses. His record as a LA Prosecutor hardly qualifies him in this arena.
I know that the toofer movement needs some heros. It seems like most that you chose are in the lost arena.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:41 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Lacy Do you have something that disputes Bugliosi's record as stated on Democracy Now?
Didn't even look at it. You presented this;
Bugliosi bases his case not on Bush's false claims of WMD, but rather that the president lied that the WMD posed a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States,
And I replied with this;
Ho hum. I suppose he is referring to the NIE that Bush based his decisions on which stated that iraq had all sorts of WMDs and programs going on. I don't recall Bush ever saying Iraq was an 'imminent threat' but do remember something about 'urgent.' Since his case has those two glaring errors as it's base, I doubt it's going very far.
If you have something different, please present it however, to expect me to go over the entire case when I blew it's two main points out of the water in a simple paragraph is not going to happen.
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:44 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Lacy, I saw this man on a News show. He is 100% nuts.
Well, from your profile, you might be qualified to diagnose Bugliosi as 100% nuts, but I would question your professionalism to do so based on 'a News story'...
It's easy to discount as a nutcase anyone who holds a view contrary to yours i guess...
...to expect me to go over the entire case when I blew it's two main points out of the water in a simple paragraph is not going to happen.
I don't expect anything from you nova
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:50 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
vinnytmd
Posts: 6,004
|
Lacy, his view is not contrary to mine at all. His book makes no sense. Read some reviews. No one is taking him seriously except of course the troofers.
Are you aware of the book he wrote on the JFK Assassination? He wrote 1500 pages of jibberish. He researched the book for 20 years. The book received no notoriety and was generally not taken seriously. In an interview with Rocky Mountain news he confessed that he uncovered nothing new. Yet he wrote 1500 pages.
Do you think that he would ever have been published if he did not prosecute Manson?
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:50 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
vinnytmd
Posts: 6,004
|
.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:55 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
j_goose
Posts: 1,951
|
Rep. Dennis Kucinich continued his seemingly quixotic crusade to impeach President Bush last week. But with Speaker Pelosi suggesting the House Judiciary Committee may hear his argument, Kucinich might get his day very soon.
I live here in OH. WE even laugh at Little Dennis.
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 7:57 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Kucinich wins hearings but not on impeaching Bush
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. Dennis Kucinich's single impeachment article will get a committee hearing but not on removing President Bush from office.
The House on Tuesday voted 238-180 to send the article of impeachment — for Bush's reasoning for taking the country to war in Iraq — to the Judiciary Committee, which buried Kucinich's previous effort.
This time, the panel will open hearings. But House Democrats emphatically said they will not be about Bush's impeachment, a first step in the Constitution's process of a removing a president from office.
Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review — possibly televised — of everything Democrats consider to be Bush's abuse of power. Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, is likely to testify. But so will several scholars and administration critics, Democrats said. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE21FOVAfMfEbAE5LDwiYm8fGh4QD91UIKCG0
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 8:01 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
vinnytmd
Posts: 6,004
|
Well that sounds like a waste of time. Our country is facing economic stress and there is a War. Yet our Congress chooses to spend time interrogating baseball players and now will do a review of Bush's presidency.
Funny, I thought they were law makers. No wonder their approval rating is single digits.
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 8:09 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
You forgot the first part of my quote which was; "If you have something different, please present it however, to expect me to go over the entire case when I blew it's two main points out of the water in a simple paragraph is not going to happen"
Now, if you wish to prove your case, please present where Bush said Iraq was an 'imminent threat.' This seems to be a reoccurring theme in this nut's case so there must be something to prove it.
Moron LawyerHere’s what he did. Here’s what he did. He’d constantly—because what he was doing, he was trying to convince the American people of Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 by unmistakable innuendo and implication.
You know, I never once ever thought Saddam Hussein was involved with 911 or, even had any knowledge of it. And I listened to everything that Bush said, read what was reported and I never had one morsel of an idea the two were connected.
And this one proves he is a moronHe’d say things like this: when you’re talking about the war on terror, you cannot distinguish between al-Qaeda and Hussein.
This idiot, and I can't believe that you lap his heels Lacy (shame on you) has just convoluted an interview question to make it sound like Bush was intentionally saying Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together.
Here is the question and answer;
QUESTION: "Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al Qaeda?"
THE PRESIDENT: "That's a - that is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say. But I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is - I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." (President George W. Bush, Remarks In A Photo Opportunity With Colombian President Uribe, Washington, DC, 9/25/02)
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 8:11 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Jgoose I live here in OH. WE even laugh at Little Dennis.
You guys need to rent a Frankinstein Mob complete with pitchforks to string that man up by his vagina. I don't even want to think about the amount of tax payers money he is burning up with his hissy fit ultra loony left vendetta.
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 8:17 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
j_goose
Posts: 1,951
|
Tell me about it, Nova.
We're proud owners of Jimmy, "I'll take off my pants in court" Trafficant.
Although I liked him. He DID tell you how it is.....No holds barred. Just a little too whacky...
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 8:18 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Kenn159
Posts: 2,774
|
I live here in OH. WE even laugh at Little Dennis.
And I care because? 
Dennis had a really good platform, but the corporate media, realizing their new job is to insure the corporate status quo , had to smear him as some kind of nut case.
And you feel for it.
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 8:21 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
His book makes no sense. Read some reviews.
Amazon has 80 (of 120) reviews giving him 5 stars, 20 giving 1 star, eight each with 3 and 4 stars and 4 with 2 stars...
Barnes and Noble had 10 of 12 giving 5 stars, one 1 star, one 2 star.
Now, if you wish to prove your case,
It's not my case. It's Bugliosi's. And now Kucinich's.
[Edited on 7/15/2008 8:26 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 8:22 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
j_goose
Posts: 1,951
|
You've obviously never talked to the man....
And you care because I'M AWESOME!!!
|
| |
|
|