We need to know what was done in our name by the war criminals in BushCo.
-------------------------------------------

After more than a decade of fighting to keep them out of public view, the Pentagon released 198 photographs on Friday, mostly showing close-ups of tiny cuts, bruises, and scars on a series of anonymous men. But the real story is what the Obama administration decided to keep hidden. Friday’s photos are an innocuous fraction of a much larger cache of 2,000 images, detailing the abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Some of the most graphic images are said to show American troops posing with corpses. Others depict U.S. forces holding guns to people’s heads or simulating forced sodomization. In one, a large man rides an elderly woman as if she were an animal and whips her with a stick. The mistreatment of corpses and prisoners are widely considered to be violations of the international rules of war.

Those grotesque photos aren’t any closer to seeing the light of day, thanks to persistent efforts by Obama administration officials to prevent their release.

The Pentagon has for years insisted that those images would incite violence against U.S. troops and potentially endanger Americans overseas. And officials had also argued that even the anodyne pics released today could inspire the same backlash—a claim that seemed hard for even the secretary of defense to believe.

While the abuse occurred under the administration of George W. Bush, the Obama administration has successfully kept this evidence of possible war crimes buried. President Obama himself, who took office in 2009 promising a new era of transparency and accountability for torture and other abuses, was prepared at the time to release some of the photos. But at the urging of his top military commander in Iraq, he pulled back, persuaded by military leaders that the graphic images would incite violence.

[link=*not_secure_link*www.thedailybeast....-covers-up-bush-era-detainee-abuse.html]Click here[/link]

 

Guess all that liberal coolaid made mush of your brains.

 

He just admitted to having a stroke and ongoing diabetes. Maybe Koolaid actually helped, in his case.

 

So you deny the war was started under false pretenses?

This thread is going to become interesting. Look at the insults you guys are already throwing.

 

I stated facts, followed by an opinion. That's not an insult.

 

Ad hominem. Look it up, fool.

 

Insults...... I thought that was the exclusive domain of the progressives.

 

Fuck you troll, and yer mama too.

 

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
4. *not_secure_link*www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

 

It's called being unable to handle themselves. They want to run their mouths all day long, but when they get called out....

And he'll claim he's being civil.

 

An internet forum attracts posters who have strong opinions, but weak minds. When one tries to insert facts into those weak minds, they become abusive. When someone insults me, I smile condescendingly, knowing that the Master of Facts has won another argument.

 

I have a better question, why are we talking about Bush still..."possible" war crimes bad, Hillary crimes acceptable and off limits. Can't cover up her crimes, she is untouchable like her husband. If Bush was so wrong going to war how come we're still there after nearly eight years of Obama? I know, that is somehow Bush's fault also. Funny how liberals remember the past when it suits them, but deny the present that shows what they are. Liars, hypocrites, and criminals.

 

And this is called a red herring, folks.

 

He claims to be living the life. Everyone is so envious that he has nothing better to do then log into a porn site. Yes that is living it up alright, way to show us!

 

You use the term "possible" when you refer to the crimes that former President Bush was in fact convicted of. I wonder why you still doubt that they were real?
*not_secure_link*www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/
Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia

Kuala Lumpur — It’s official; George W Bush is a war criminal.

In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes.

Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.

 

You want to talk about Clinton, fine just stay out of this one and start your own. Why are we still in Iraq? Cause Bush fucked it up and left it for the adults to fix, however we can't fix it. the Iraqis need to do that

 

I wonder in which war there were no war crimes .
Now let me see , mm , so for America , could it be the Vietnam (non) war ?
Ah no.
Are there any ?
The civil war, war of independence , Indian wars , or any other.
What became war crimes when I wonder.

Funny , the winners , if there are any , and the rich n powerful rarely suffer prosecution , while the losers often do.

I suspect none of us have any idea at all how many war crimes have been committed by our countries and allies , and or our soldiers.

Bombing a known hospital in Afghanistan must be a top of the list one we all do know about.

That's war for you.

Ugly isn't it.

 

War crimes trials are reserved for the side that loses the war.

In the short history of war crimes which were brought to trial, the offenses listed in the OP are insignificant. The only purpose for bringing those crimes to trial would be for the political damage it would do to GW Bush's legacy, which is pretty much a waste of time.

 

Lol , Bush's legacy .
Oh yeah
that's right , he liberated Kuwait,
but forgot to stop there ,
had a giant fail , which somebody decided you had t go back and fix.
Now who was that ?
Oh of course it was because of those damned elusive WOMD's.


and that was so successful of course , leaving s fractured and fractious country , wuth

 

FYI there are rules, international ones. I'll leave you to discover them because you don't know what they are.