What about Condoleeza?

[klewis]

What about Condoleeza Rice? She rarely gets a mention as being in any way responsible or complicit for the lies and deceptions connected with the Bush administration and it''s disastrous foreign policies, particularly in connection with the invasion of Iraq. Why is that when Bush and Cheney get mentioned all the time, after all she is the Secretary of State. Are we more lenient because she''s a woman? If she had been a man would she have been mentioned more often along with Bush and Cheney? What do you think? If Bush were to be tried for war crimes, or as Vincent Bugliosi suggests, for the murder of US citizens, should she be tried as well?

 

[movie zombie]

yes.

movie zombie

 

[purrfectpear]

1. I appreciate the fact that you have views on the war and might believe that there should be some sort of retribution to Bush et. al., but there is NOT going to be any trial for "war crimes". Seriously, not going to happen.

2. No, I don''t think that anyone is trying to let Rice off because she''s a woman. If anything, she probably gets a pass on culpability because people are loath to accept that a woman might actually have power. In other words, it''s more antiwoman than prowoman. Sad but true.

3. Vincent Bugliosi is a tool. The last thing he did of any consequence was to prosecute Manson, and that was a slam dunk case

 

[miraclesrule]

I have to disagree with you purrfectpair, I don''t believe that a preeminent prosecuter such as Bugliosi is a tool. I don''t think that anyone holds as many successful murder prosecutions as that man. He also wrote some very compelling throught provoking papers on the ridiculousness of allowing a case to proceed against a standing President in order to effectively distract the Commander in Chief from performing his duties. The Paula Jones vs. Clinton should never have been allowed to go foward until Bill Clinton was out of office. The precedent sent in that absurb ruling of the Supreme Court essentially ruled that anyone, crazy or not, could usurp the office of the Presidency by filing meritless claims or otherwise in order to prevent the President from focusing on the duties of office.

Vincent has always been meticulous in his fact gathering and common sense deductions from the evidence. This is why he was so successful in maintaining a record that I am sure is rare among criminal prosecutors. To win 104 out of 105 is impressive, no matter how to try to slice and dice it.

I believe that Condelezza Rice has been insulated from the issue because she has refused to testify regarding he very untrue and scandalous 16 words that got into Bush''s address to the nation on January 28th. Everybody is claiming ignorance, including Ms. Rice, whose very job it was as national security advisor to coordinate all intelligence from the intelligence community and present it, with advice, to the president in a cohesive manner. She says she never saw the memo from George Tenet which she admits was directly addressed to her that the Niger uranium claim was without merit. She also stated that she didn''t remember reading a memo in January 2003. When asked my she didn''t read it she said " Because when George Tenet say Take it Out, we simply take it out. But how would she know to take it out if she didn''t read the memo as she claims? Not only that, her Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley was also provided copies about the fully vetted story and it''s lack of validity. As Vince puts it "If , during their workdays, Rice and Hadley didn''t discuss extremely important things like this, then what did they talk about? She would only state that prior to Bush''s State of the Union speech "No one in our circles" knew of the problems with the Niger reference. If Hadley, Rice chief deputy at the National Security Council, and the White House Situation Room were not in Rice''s circle, who was?

There is overwhelming evidence that Rice was more than aware of the bogus evidence that they fed the lawmakers and the public in order to support going to war in Iraq. Hopefully, someone will a conscience will write a tell all. This went far beyond an honest mistake. Bells and whistle were ringing all over the place, but the administration chose to go forward with whatever they could to gain our support for the war that should never have been waged.

 

[klewis]

Date: 12/29/2008 2:58:20 PM
Author: purrfectpear
1. I appreciate the fact that you have views on the war and might believe that there should be some sort of retribution to Bush et. al., but there is NOT going to be any trial for ''war crimes''. Seriously, not going to happen.


2. No, I don''t think that anyone is trying to let Rice off because she''s a woman. If anything, she probably gets a pass on culpability because people are loath to accept that a woman might actually have power. In other words, it''s more antiwoman than prowoman. Sad but true.


3. Vincent Bugliosi is a tool. The last thing he did of any consequence was to prosecute Manson, and that was a slam dunk case

no, not retribution.... justice! I agree with you, I don''t think they will be tried for war crimes, but purrfectpear, do you think they should be?
You seem to be saying Rice isn''t being let off because she''s a woman, but then you seem to say she is... have I misunderstood something?

 

[klewis]

miraclesrule - you have put it so well!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 12/30/2008 1:01:05 AM
Author: klewis


I don't think they will be tried for war crimes, but purrfectpear, do you think they should be?

I happened to notice a few readers' opinions on how Mr. Cheney should be handled when I was looking at a newspaper this morning. I would have no problem seeing the American Congress take a look at the role that each administration official played in each foray that the Bush administratration made outside the law. My personal favorite is Alberto-Let's Torture 'Em-Gonzalez, but I wouldn't rule out Dr. Rice. Just let the Congress do a truly thorough investigation!

Deborah

December 28, 2008
Letters
As the Vice President Prepares to Depart
To the Editor:

Re “The World According to Cheney” (editorial, Dec. 23):

You correctly indict Vice President Dick Cheney for complicity in torture, criminal violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and duping Congress into authorizing war against Iraq.

But your conclusion is like a surprise O. Henry ending. No criminal investigations of Mr. Cheney; no censure by Congress; only delight that the vice presidency colossus of Mr. Cheney will be diminishing under his successor, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

We cannot improve on the Roman historian Tacitus as the Roman Republic degenerated into emperorship: “The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more, and tolerated by all.”

Bruce Fein
Ralph Nader
Washington, Dec. 23, 2008

The writers are, respectively, a former Justice Department official and the author of a book about the Constitution and the Bush administration, and a presidential candidate and citizen advocate.

•

To the Editor:

Such damning words by Vice President Dick Cheney must lead to a Congressional investigation of the secret and probably dark world of a vice presidency in which almost zero accountability has been offered.

The man who would suspend every constitutional guarantee to “protect” the American people from his take on “terrorism” must explain just what he did for eight years in the employ of the people.

Otherwise, we may never know how deeply his tentacles have been set for future clandestine operations. Will his shadow rule continue in some way through loyalists embedded in the system?

Arthur H. Gunther
Blauvelt, N.Y., Dec. 24, 2008

•

To the Editor:

Re “Popularity Isn’t Everything” (column, Dec. 22):

William Kristol would have us re-evaluate this nation’s unpopular opinion of Vice President Dick Cheney by comparing him with Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois.

One might think he’d be embarrassed by lowering the bar that much, but sadly, even that does not work here. Governor Blagojevich showed himself to be a two-bit hustler. Mr. Cheney embarked on a path that shamed and weakened the nation and its Constitution.

Many years from now, Mr. Blagojevich may be recalled as an iconic figure of a corrupt political machine. Mr. Cheney will be remembered as a principal in one of this great country’s worst administrations, whose damaging effects are yet to be fully felt.

Frederick M. Lifshey
New York, Dec. 22, 2008

•

To the Editor:

I am happy to hear that according to William Kristol, Vice President Dick Cheney has “a well-considered sense of justice.”

Perhaps he will one day receive the justice he deserves.

Dan Heyman
Hartsdale, N.Y., Dec. 22, 2008

•

To the Editor:

William Kristol suggests that Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois carefully cut short his reading of Rudyard Kipling, and writes that he suspects that Vice President Dick Cheney “might like Kipling, and that Kipling would admire him.”

I’d remind Mr. Kristol that further reading of Kipling would reveal that Kipling once wrote a poem for rulers like Mr. Cheney:

If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.

Kas Zoller
Gold River, Calif., Dec. 22, 2008

•

To the Editor:

William Kristol writes of Vice President Dick Cheney that there’s “no spin” and “no double talk.”

Has Mr. Kristol forgotten Mr. Cheney’s reference to waterboarding as a “dunk in the water”?

One would be hard pressed to find a more extreme example of spin and double talk.

Louis Erlanger
Brattleboro, Vt., Dec. 22, 2008

 

[klewis]

Date: 12/30/2008 2:23:14 AM
Author: AGBF
Just let the Congress do a truly thorough investigation!

What do you think about an appropriate, reputable international body doing a thorough investigation?

 

[klewis]

AGBF I didn''t manage to attach your comment as a quote to my previous post in the right way - sorry if this is misleading to others.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 12/30/2008 4:10:07 AM
Author: klewis

Date: 12/30/2008 2:23:14 AM
Author: AGBF
Just let the Congress do a truly thorough investigation!

What do you think about an appropriate, reputable international body doing a thorough investigation?

Appropriate and reputable are terms that mean different things to different people. This post reminds me of a conversation I had while dating a fellow from Sweden (he was visiting the US on Holiday) - he felt it appropriate that the rest of the world''s population should get to vote in the US Presidential elections.

Oh, and welcome Klewis.

 

[klewis]

Date: 12/30/2008 3:33:24 PM
Author: LAJennifer

Date: 12/30/2008 4:10:07 AM

Author: klewis

Date: 12/30/2008 2:23:14 AM

Author: AGBF

Just let the Congress do a truly thorough investigation!


What do you think about an appropriate, reputable international body doing a thorough investigation?

Appropriate and reputable are terms that mean different things to different people. This post reminds me of a conversation I had while dating a fellow from Sweden (he was visiting the US on Holiday) - he felt it appropriate that the rest of the world''s population should get to vote in the US Presidential elections.

Thank you for the welcome.

I do sympathise with the Swedish fellow you dated - those voted into power in America make decisions that affect my life and the lives of my family, so I can see his point but I think you''re quibbling with words. My point was to ask AGBF if she would be happy with it being an international investigation.



Oh, and welcome Klewis.

 

[klewis]

Oh dear - I can''t seem to get this quote thing sorted. I inserted it into the middle of your post LAjennifer. I''m sorry. Anyway here it is on it''s own.

Thank you for the welcome.

I do sympathise with the Swedish fellow you dated - those voted into power in America make decisions that affect my life and the lives of my family, so I can see his point but I think you''re quibbling with words. My point was to ask AGBF if she would be happy with it being an international investigation.

 

[strmrdr]

What war crimes?

Now if someone wanted to throw the whole bunch in jail including all the beaurocrates who carried out the illegal wiretaps then maybe there would be a case there on that charge.

As far as foriegn investigations there would be a 1000 feet of snow in death valley before that will be allowed to happen.

 

[klewis]

Date: 12/31/2008 10:22:26 AM
Author: strmrdr
What war crimes?


Now if someone wanted to throw the whole bunch in jail including all the beaurocrates who carried out the illegal wiretaps then maybe there would be a case there on that charge.


As far as foriegn investigations there would be a 1000 feet of snow in death valley before that will be allowed to happen.

The allowing of abuse and torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib would be a start.
Please answer me strmrdr, do you think America should be above the jurisdiction of an International court?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/31/2008 1:52:02 PM
Author: klewis

Date: 12/31/2008 10:22:26 AM

Author: strmrdr

What war crimes?



Now if someone wanted to throw the whole bunch in jail including all the beaurocrates who carried out the illegal wiretaps then maybe there would be a case there on that charge.



As far as foriegn investigations there would be a 1000 feet of snow in death valley before that will be allowed to happen.

The allowing of abuse and torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib would be a start.

Please answer me strmrdr, do you think America should be above the jurisdiction of an International court?

proof it was allowed? I seem to recall that the people that did it went to jail....
The USA answers to no court other than the USA supreme court.
No other court has any authority.

 

[klewis]

Date: 12/31/2008 2:09:35 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/31/2008 1:52:02 PM

Author: klewis

Date: 12/31/2008 10:22:26 AM


Author: strmrdr


What war crimes?




Now if someone wanted to throw the whole bunch in jail including all the beaurocrates who carried out the illegal wiretaps then maybe there would be a case there on that charge.




As far as foriegn investigations there would be a 1000 feet of snow in death valley before that will be allowed to happen.

The allowing of abuse and torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib would be a start.


Please answer me strmrdr, do you think America should be above the jurisdiction of an International court?

proof it was allowed? I seem to recall that the people that did it went to jail....

The USA answers to no court other than the USA supreme court.

No other court has any authority.

Well after reading that you bowl me over with a feather! It sounds as if America, as you see it anyway, is just a heartbeat away from actually being God. What an arrogant and narrow way of looking at the world. Your view is like that of a person who inherits a position of authority, enjoys the power but lacks the wisdom necessary to hold the position. A bit like George.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/31/2008 3:35:00 PM
Author: klewis

Well after reading that you bowl me over with a feather! It sounds as if America, as you see it anyway, is just a heartbeat away from actually being God. What an arrogant and narrow way of looking at the world. Your view is like that of a person who inherits a position of authority, enjoys the power but lacks the wisdom necessary to hold the position. A bit like George.

Well I''m shocked but not surprised that anyone would think that anyone but Americans should have anything to say about what America does.
We fought the revolutionary war to be independent and self-governing and that we will remain or there will be a war that makes all wars until now look like child''s play.
Any steps to move away from that by the US government will be the end of the then current US government either by vote or by the force of arms.
That is why the second amendment to the US constitution exists to maintain a firearm behind every bush and make enslavement impossible.

Frankly I am appalled by how much the US government has interfered in others business since the end of ww2 but that does not give anyone the right to interfere in ours.

 

[klewis]

Date: 12/31/2008 4:59:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/31/2008 3:35:00 PM

Author: klewis


Well after reading that you bowl me over with a feather! It sounds as if America, as you see it anyway, is just a heartbeat away from actually being God. What an arrogant and narrow way of looking at the world. Your view is like that of a person who inherits a position of authority, enjoys the power but lacks the wisdom necessary to hold the position. A bit like George.

Well I''m shocked but not surprised that anyone would think that anyone but Americans should have anything to say about what America does.

We fought the revolutionary war to be independent and self-governing and that we will remain or there will be a war that makes all wars until now look like child''s play.

Any steps to move away from that by the US government will be the end of the then current US government either by vote or by the force of arms.

That is why the second amendment to the US constitution exists to maintain a firearm behind every bush and make enslavement impossible.


Frankly I am appalled by how much the US government has interfered in others business since the end of ww2 but that does not give anyone the right to interfere in ours.

I''m not suggesting America should be anything but self governing but there''s a difference between other countries interfering in Americas business, and requiring its leaders to be accountable for criminal acts committed by them in other countries. They must be bound to behave according to same international laws as the rest of the worlds leaders and if they don''t they should be tried by the international courts.
Having a firearm behind every Bush does not in itself make enslavement impossible- that would depend on the morality of the Bushs

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/31/2008 5:46:06 PM
Author: klewis


I'm not suggesting America should be anything but self governing but there's a difference between other countries interfering in Americas business, and requiring its leaders to be accountable for criminal acts committed by them in other countries. They must be bound to behave according to same international laws as the rest of the worlds leaders and if they don't they should be tried by the international courts.

Having a firearm behind every Bush does not in itself make enslavement impossible- that would depend on the morality of the Bushs

rofl on the bush comment good one....

No international court has any jurisdiction over America and never will.
The only court our leaders are accountable to is our own.
International courts can not try them because they have no standing nor do they have jurisdiction and no American leader will ever submit to such jurisdiction.
If a foreign leader wants to submit to such jurisdiction that is their problem.

 

[klewis]

Date: 12/31/2008 6:03:37 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/31/2008 5:46:06 PM

Author: klewis



I''m not suggesting America should be anything but self governing but there''s a difference between other countries interfering in Americas business, and requiring its leaders to be accountable for criminal acts committed by them in other countries. They must be bound to behave according to same international laws as the rest of the worlds leaders and if they don''t they should be tried by the international courts.


Having a firearm behind every Bush does not in itself make enslavement impossible- that would depend on the morality of the Bushs

rofl on the bush comment good one....


No international court has any jurisdiction over America and never will.

The only court our leaders are accountable to is our own.

Should any country be subject to such jurisdiction? If so, which ones?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/31/2008 6:08:03 PM
Author: klewis


Should any country be subject to such jurisdiction? If so, which ones?

not unless they agree to be accountable.
For example much of Europe agreed to be accountable to the EU courts and that is their right and their problem.
The US will never agree to be so held.

 

[klewis]

hmmmmm. If North Korea invades another country, it''s ones business but its own?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/31/2008 6:31:33 PM
Author: klewis
hmmmmm. If North Korea invades another country, it''s ones business but its own?

lol what is an international court going to do?
Wave its arms and say bad bad bad.

The country being invaded and its allies will unleash the dogs of war.
That is the only answer not a court gashing its teeth and waving its arms saying bad bad bad.

 

[klewis]

Date: 12/31/2008 7:11:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/31/2008 6:31:33 PM

Author: klewis

hmmmmm. If North Korea invades another country, it''s ones business but its own?

lol what is an international court going to do?

Wave its arms and say bad bad bad.


The country being invaded and its allies will unleash the dogs of war.

That is the only answer not a court gashing its teeth and waving its arms saying bad bad bad.

That was an evasive answer. You believe a country should not be held accountable for its actions by anyone else other than its own peopl, unless it has agreed to be. So to ask the question again -If North Korea invades another country, is it anyones business but its own?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/31/2008 7:24:08 PM
Author: klewis

That was an evasive answer. You believe a country should not be held accountable for its actions by anyone else other than its own peopl, unless it has agreed to be. So to ask the question again -If North Korea invades another country, is it anyones business but its own?

Wasn't an evasive answer at all it is reality.
What is an international court going to do about it?
Not a thing other than say bad bad bad, the county being invaded and its allies releasing the hounds of war is the only answer.

 

[klewis]

Date: 12/31/2008 8:00:28 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/31/2008 7:24:08 PM

Author: klewis


That was an evasive answer. You believe a country should not be held accountable for its actions by anyone else other than its own peopl, unless it has agreed to be. So to ask the question again -If North Korea invades another country, is it anyones business but its own?

Wasn''t an evasive answer at all it is reality.

What is an international court going to do about it?

Not a thing other than say bad bad bad, the county being invaded and its allies releasing the hounds of war is the only answer.

No, it''s not the only answer and you know it isn''t. Just follow your line of thinking about this and apply it to the question...C''mon..........Is it or isn''t it anyone elses business?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/31/2008 8:26:06 PM
Author: klewis



No, it's not the only answer and you know it isn't. Just follow your line of thinking about this and apply it to the question...C'mon..........Is it or isn't it anyone elses business?

It is the only answer that works.
And other than the involved parties and their allies it isn't anyone elses business.

Again I ask what is an international court going to do about it, other than say bad bad bad?

 

[klewis]

Great, you said it... kind of. No one elses business but the involved parties and their allies. Should America then ever use an international court to pursue justice?

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 12/31/2008 8:59:31 PM
Author: klewis
Great, you said it... kind of. No one elses business but the involved parties and their allies. Should America then ever use an international court to pursue justice?

No. If you go asking this again, you''ll hear crickets....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/31/2008 8:59:31 PM
Author: klewis
Great, you said it... kind of. No one elses business but the involved parties and their allies. Should America then ever use an international court to pursue justice?

superior firepower works much better