Monday, June 06, 2005

What do you think?

Is Bush a War Criminal?

This a question I have been pondering now for some time.
The question “Is Bush a war criminal?” is one that the Democrats could have used in their campaign to thwart Bush’s bid for a second term. It is astounding that the so-called moral Republicans apparently place far more emphasis on the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery!” than on the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill!”

read on...

Update: At this point in time "War Criminal" is a bit harsh but John Conyers says it best:

As many of you are aware, a classified memo was recently disclosed in Great Britain that I believe has serious ramifications for the integrity of the United States Government. Dubbed the "Downing Street Memo," but actually comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top British governmentofficials, the memo casts serious doubt on many of the contentions of the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq war.æ With over 1,600 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and over $200 billion in taxpayer funds going to this war effort, we cannot afford to stand by any longer.

Along with 88 of my colleagues, I wrote to the President requesting answers aboutthis grave matter.æ Thus far, our search for the truth has been stonewalled and I need your help. æI believe the American people deserve answers about this matter and should demand directly that the President tell the truth about the memo. To that end, I am asking you to sign on to a letter to the President requesting he answer the questions posed to him by 89 Members of Congress.


I will personally insure that this letter is delivered to the White House. You can read the letter here and sign on to it below. æYou and I know the White House is just hoping that this matter will fade away, but in a few short weeks, with our steadfastness, the memo has found its way into leading newspapers and White House press briefings. æWith your help, we can hold this Administration accountable.


Please pass on this important letter to your friends and colleagues, and ask them to sign as well.


Thank you for your help and support.


John Conyers, Jr.


Letter to President Bush Concerning the Downing Street Minutes


27 comments:

Steve M said...

It's very late and I'll keep it short....YES!

Steve M said...

It's very late and I'll keep it short....YES!

Rowan said...

If there ever was one, it's Duh-bya. He's by far surpassed our need to be in a war by pursuing his own agenda using 9/11 as an excuse. The war we're in has nothing to do with that anymore. That's what we get for electing a moron..and then, inexplicably, re-electing him!

13 Fox said...

Lol! A war criminal, lol. Military personnel serve their country to die for it, if need be. No President ever killed anyone. You liberals are reaching for thin air to gripe about something. What about all the Dummocrats who said Iraq had WMDs and was supplying them to terrorists? What about all the Dummocrats who voted to go to war and to fund the troops.......and then voted against it? You guys are sad, lol.

13 Fox said...

Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers said this:

"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike."

And that's exactly what the Dummocrats are doing.

You say Bush lied? I say, "so did the following liberals."

"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily."
Tom Daschle on President Clinton's possible attack on Iraq.

"I'm going to the White House this afternoon and I have a pretty good understanding, a pretty good idea what I'm going to hear. And I'm saddened, saddened that this President failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war, saddened that we have to give up one life because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work, and we will do all that we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many."
Tom Daschle on President Bush's attack on Iraq. - "FLIP FLOP" -

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"They say that Bush lied about the intelligence reports about Saddam. Tell me, if that is so, then doesn't it seem that the junior Senator from New York is lying as well? She sure seems concerned doesn't she?? HYPOCRISY!!" - - From An Author at the Museum.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos, among others.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
Madeline Albright, 1998

HEY LIBERALS! DO I NEED TO KEEP GOING, OR DO YOU HAVE IT DOWN YET? So much for Bush lying and dreaming up a war, huh? What's there to say about all those lefties concurring with the Intel reports President Bush received? You guys talk about Bush being stupid? If Bush did dream those reports up, the Dummocrats were stupid enough to be his puppets.

As untrue as it is that Bush had dreamed up all the Intel reports of Iraq's WMDs, we still have the moronic, ACLU supporting, baby murdering liberals who think they know it all.

Yeah, that's why President Bush was re-elected in the largest victory in the history of the United States and it's also why you ignorant libs have a racist, brainless fool like Howard Dean heading up your party. You ignorant Libs deserve each other and you deserve the back seat until at least 2008. With the grace of God it'll be longer than that. Enjoy the GOP.

13 Fox said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
13 Fox said...

http://rightdecisions.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_rightdecisions_archive.html#111748796802857966

Read that. My sources are cited and you'll see the moral justification for government and military interference. Not justification for adultery and perjury.

13 Fox said...

Many liberals, atheists and liberal atheists have asked why Conservatives follow President Bush. They also ask why we base political stance on religious beliefs. What I will post below is the answer to any and all questions related to the subject. One of my favorite contributors to Bible.com, Betty Miller, has prepared the following, so that ignorance may be overcome with education:

"We are now watching as the government in the USA has begun major changes in our national affairs in order to prevent future terrorist attacks after the invasion of the terrorists on September 11, 2001. Increased security measures in all levels of our nation's operations have been instigated. The USA has gone on the offensive to root out terrorists nationally and abroad. President Bush has declared war on terrorism. He has launched a world wide coalition, as other nations are joining in this war. We are all facing changes in our lives. The whole world is experiencing war, or is under the threat of war, with ominous weapons looming over all the people of the globe. The evil of war is discussed daily in the news with reports of possible attacks from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as conventional armaments. The Bible is not silent about this subject, as it warns us it will increase more and more as the time for Christ's second coming approaches.

Matthew 24:6-8:

And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Some Christians are having difficulty with the actions of our government in the area of war as the heart of Christianity is to love our enemies, not destroy them. How do we reconcile this as Christians? We must understand that the Bible deals with the role of government differently than that of an individual Christian. Throughout the Bible, the main role of governments was to protect its people from threatening invaders and to maintain law and order within its borders. This was done by maintaining a military force. Those who would argue against our country's military position, must also ask what our nation would be like without policemen and prisons.
God set boundaries on mankind by establishing ruling authorities that would make and enforce the laws He gave. The purpose for this was because He knew unregenerate society, without any restraints, would seek to destroy good men. God's desire is that all men would come to Him and live by His laws. However, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and broke His law, sin entered into the world and was passed down to all of mankind through Adam's seed. God, in His love for mankind, made a way for men to come back to Him, through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. Because Jesus lived free of sin and obeyed the law of God perfectly, He became the sin offering and died upon a cross, thus paying the price for all men's sin. He then rose from the dead the third day showing that He indeed was the son of God. Now those who accept what Jesus did and repent of their sins can find their way through faith to be reconciled to God. This sacrifice covers and cleanses men even from the worst of sins including murder. Now, through Christ, even murderers can be forgiven and restored to a relationship with God so they can live forever with Him; however, they must repent and give their lives wholly to Christ.

Where we find most of our problems with the military action of our government versus loving our enemies is that God's law of justice for the taking of a life demands that life be taken; yet, God's spiritual law of mercy and forgiveness grants that a murderer can be forgiven and restored. How can we reconcile this? We must understand that God instituted civil authorities to maintain order in the earth. God uses them to restrain evil and they should be obeyed for this purpose.

An analogy would be like a family that had a son at home and who was given love, freedom and many privileges. However, one day the son committed an evil crime and was sent to jail. The rules he lived under at home while he was obedient must now be changed to the rules of the jail because of the son's sin. The same is true with God. His will is to bless the earth and all those who obey and live in harmony; but for those who disobey, He had to set up separate rules so that the ones who are evil do not destroy the good. War is like that, as God uses civil authorities to maintain order in the earth. In the New Testament we see that even Jesus surrendered to the governing authorities because He was submitted to God.

John 19:11:

"Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above..."

Romans 13:1-5 (RSV):

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,4 For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

From these verses we see that governments can elect to bear the sword (go to war) to deal with evil men. Although the act of war is a harsh form of punishment upon evil invaders, the alternative is far worse -- the destruction of innocent people by wicked aggressors.

No soldier who is a Christian desires to kill another; however, the Lord Himself, did not chastise a Centurion soldier in the Bible in the matter of his occupation. On the contrary, the Lord commended this man for his understanding of authority and his great faith when he called upon the Lord to heal his servant. Our military men need our prayers and the protection of the Lord as they go to battle. This should be the work of the church -- prayer for our men's protection and prayer for our president and heads of state. Our critical words will not change things, but prayer will. We must pray that the war would end quickly so we can return to peace, and especially prayer for our enemies, that they might be saved. We can pray that good will come out of what Satan means for evil.

Matthew 8:5-10:5

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

1 Timothy 2:1-6:1

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

Now, as for CL who always says he needs an answer other than "because the Bible says so," here's my answer. "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO."

The Bible may've been written by man, but their wisdom was given to them by God. Man didn't just get up and write the Bible one day, CL. God chose each and every person who contributed to the Word.

What you need to understand is us Christians don't need any other reasoning or any other answers, other than "because we've been instructed by God to do so." We don't compromise with worldly "trends" and opinions to sit back and watch abortion and gay marriage take place. Neither were legal until liberal ignorance came into play. The Word of God is strictly against both acts. This is why Christians don't support them. We don't tell God, "Oh well, it's legal now. I think we'll sit back and watch because the atheists don't comprehend common sense."

The convictions and actions of a Christian leader will continue to build this Nation.

God Bless President Bush and God Bless America.

13 Fox said...

You're a good man, Fred, just politically mislead.

13 Fox said...

Hey, have you ignorant liberals seen the latest headlines? Kerry didn't cut his military record loose during the election because it shows his grades were lower than Bush's at Yale. Kerry's GPA was a 76 and Bush's was a 77.

Kerry posed as the genius intellectual, while hiding his 4D's his Freshman year, so he wouldn't be exposed as being inferior, intellectually, to President Bush.

LOL! Yeah, Bush is an idiot, right?

Enough said.

Xavier Garza said...

rep vet,

spare us the sermon please. That's the problem with you guys.

Did you watch the debates? Smarts is not Bush's strong point...we all know that! Rumor has it Bush had the answers fed to him in his ear with some kind of a speaker.

13 Fox said...

Oh please. You liberals believe anything. How did he have the answers fed to him when there was nothing in his ear? Spare me the excuses. You say smarts isn't Bush's strong point? Well, at least now Bush's smarts are stronger than Kerry's, lol. Make all the excuses you want. The fraud has been exposes.

13 Fox said...

And spare you the "sermon" because that's the "problem" with "you guys?"

Lol, what does that mean? I think you'll find out your eternity will be very painful and you'll be begging people like me to bring on the sermon.

I love it when ignorant, non believers tell me I have a "problem" because of my faith, lol. You people deserve each other, but we'll continue to pray that your ignorance be overcome with the Word.

Fred said...

I don't recall GW passing the bar first time out? Please come up with a better explanation than that. So JK missed a few more classes as a freshmen...who gives?

13 Fox said...

Who cares about passing the bar? JFK Jr didn't either but he was successful.

And who gives about Kerry's grades being lower than Bush's?

EVERYONE!

This is the whole reason he never turned loose of his military records. They exposed his lower than Bush grades while he was trying to play the Yankee intellectual. Lol, everyone cares. You libs have no place to talk about Bush's brains, now that your almighty waffler is dumber than the Prez, lol.

Anonymous said...

ignore the troll!

13 Fox said...

Yes, ignore anonymous trolls.

Wes for Prez said...

If Kerry couln't beat a loser like Bush, then yes he wasn't very smart. Not my guy anyway. Wesley Clark would have kicked Shrub a new one!

13 Fox said...

Lol, he couldn't even stick out the primaries. What makes you think anyone would've beat Bush? He won in the largest victory in the history of the US.

Give some moronic liberal excuse to try and play that one off.

Anonymous said...

Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. (Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.) In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Furthermore, more votes were cast for candidates other than the winner than in any previous U.S. presidential election.

13 Fox said...

Wow, it's STILL too bad the popular vote doesn't count for jack. Besides, Bush won the popular vote, so there's no argument. He also won the electoral college, so there's no argument. He's also President until Jan '09, so there's no argument.

I don't know where you anonymous trolls get your info from, but since you don't cite sources, I'm guessing it's another load of liberal garbage.

Anonymous said...

hey educated one, look it up!

13 Fox said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
13 Fox said...

Lol, my comment was deleted because I keep proving an anonymous troll wrong?

13 Fox said...

Now we're taking 1st Amendment rights away from people who actually cite sources and speak intelligently.....

For the reason that you liberals argue irrelevant points and hate being shut down by a Republican?

Bring on the 3rd grade comebacks, I'm used to em by now. It's a liberal thing.

13 Fox said...

Besides, "anonymous" troll, who needs to look up the popular vote? Remember what I said? It's common sense. The popular vote counts for crap. And to further compliment the GOP, Bush won the popular vote and the electoral college.

Any questions?

13 Fox said...

Hey Dummocrats, remember this quote?

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

That was John Kerry in 1974. You guys had no problem trying to put an admitted war criminal in the White House and you complain about Bush being a war criminal, even though he's violated 0 war laws?

MORE LIBERAL HYPOCRISY!

Delete that one, fool.