Proof of Conspiracy

[Ziggurat]

So knowing this, what did congress do? Nothing. And that is the precedent that is troubling.

I disagree. They publicized this. That isn't nothing. And it allowed for a political remedy, should the public have so chosen. And political remedies are the proper remedies for most transgressions of this sort by office holders. The public happens not to have decided to evict Bush from office, but it was quite capable of doing so (and probably would have if the democrats hadn't put forward such a lousy candidate). The idea that Congress should take action against Bush beyond what it's already done is essentially saying that Congress should do something that the public could have done themselves but didn't want to. And the motivation for this? At the end of the day, it's because you disagree with the electorate's decision, and want to find an end-run around it. I sense a lack of faith in the democratic process.

 

[Daylight]

Yes, but fortunately we can't redefine treason whenever we want, just because we don't like the situation.

Correct, another example would be we shouldn't redefine the law to provide retroactive immunity to communication companies to cover possible illegal wiretapping because the Bush administration doesn't like the situation.

But it still is as close to treason as you can get without crossing the line (with the current evidence). Remove the abuse of Executive privilege and that might change.

Members of the opposition party in congress have a way of jumping on presidential wrongdoing at the drop of a hat. Remember Bill and Monica? The Republicans were on him like ugly on an ape, for what was arguably a minor offense having nothing to do with Clinton's execution of office.

A good example to civics students of how politicians can abuse the constitution when they put Party first and country last. Seems to be a common theme with the Republicans.

Don't you wonder why the Democrats wouldn't try to return the favor, if Bush's "incorrect behavior" were real and not imaginary? Could it be that members of Congress are able to assess the situation more realistically than you?

Why would the Bush Administration have lied to such an extent if it was imaginary? One report has them at 935 lies just for going to war. Plus the data shows spikes in the number of lies told when they needed to push things through. Unless you think people only lie when they do good things?

 

[Daylight]

I disagree. They publicized this. That isn't nothing. And it allowed for a political remedy, should the public have so chosen. And political remedies are the proper remedies for most transgressions of this sort by office holders. The public happens not to have decided to evict Bush from office, but it was quite capable of doing so (and probably would have if the democrats hadn't put forward such a lousy candidate). The idea that Congress should take action against Bush beyond what it's already done is essentially saying that Congress should do something that the public could have done themselves but didn't want to. And the motivation for this? At the end of the day, it's because you disagree with the electorate's decision, and want to find an end-run around it. I sense a lack of faith in the democratic process.

Are you saying the public could bring articles of impeachment against Bush? I can’t tell.

Congress should be doing oversight; they refused to do their job. If they had the facts they were supposed to act.

To say the Public should have acted appears to be a cop out with the Bush Administration using Executive Privilege to block the flow of information to the public. Can you honestly say the public was as informed in 2004 as it is now in 2008?

If you look at

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

Seems Bush’s approval has gone down as the public has been informed.

 

[Elizabeth I]

E Pluribus Unum

Annuit coeptis

I don't think those phrases mean what you think they mean.

Either that, or you have no sense of context.

 

[Kestrel]

Why would the Bush Administration have lied to such an extent if it was imaginary? One report has them at 935 lies just for going to war. Plus the data shows spikes in the number of lies told when they needed to push things through. Unless you think people only lie when they do good things?

I note this is still going on. Last July the TSA leaked a rather scary "report on terrorist dry runs".

The implication was that terrorists were preparing for another 9/11.

A few days later, the President devoted his radio address to the need for changes to the FISA law.

As it turns out, the TSA hadn't really caught terrorists doing dry runs. The objects found were benign and the TSA did not suspect the people carrying them of being involved in a terrorist plot. It also appears that details of the incidents were altered in a way that made them sound more suspicious.

This sure smells like an intentional leak.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you saying the public could bring articles of impeachment against Bush?

No. I'm saying they could have voted him out of office, which would have had the same effect as not only impeaching but also convicting him. But they chose not to.

Seems Bush’s approval has gone down as the public has been informed.

And how confident are you that that (rather than, say, perceived difficulties with the progress of the war) is what led to the decline in his approval rating?

 

[Daylight]

No. I'm saying they could have voted him out of office, which would have had the same effect as not only impeaching but also convicting him. But they chose not to.

But if they didn’t have all the information, how could they in 2004? You keep acting like they were informed to the level of the 2008 public.

And how confident are you that that (rather than, say, perceived difficulties with the progress of the war) is what led to the decline in his approval rating?

I think the number of people really upset about the economy and the roll the Bush administration played is growing every day.

 

[iAmerican]

Bush Led the Destruction of the Internet Stock Market

But if they didn’t have all the information, how could they in 2004? You keep acting like they were informed to the level of the 2008 public.



I think the number of people really upset about the economy and the roll the Bush administration played is growing every day.

My hope is that we all come to realize Bush's faction - capable of committing 9-11 - intentionally tanked the Internet Revolution stock market by "jawboning" the public and otherwise, which was just five percent off the all-time high, when then-Governor Bush (and TX has much to pay for that as well as Dallas and the TX RRComm.) had this poison to drop into our "well"...just as his faction's grandfathers tanked Edison's and Tesla's Electrical Revolution to buy up the equities at the bottom:

Lehrer Newhour April 27, 2000
---
A Bush administration

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, let me say, just to respond to that poll first, I readily concede if this country wants four more years of Clinton-Gore, I've got a tough battle, there's no question about that. Here's the difference - or here's what they'll see under a Bush administration: One, a strong economy.

JIM LEHRER: Stronger than the one we have now?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, it can be - you know, the one we have now has got a little - slightly rocky looking future to it, only because the stock market's got a lot of jitters.

JIM LEHRER: Does that bother you, the stock market problems?

BushGOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah, it does. I would hope - I mean, I'm not going "hooray." I wish it wasn't as jittery. I wish it was stable because I'm not - I'm not so crass as to want to be the president at the expense of somebody's portfolio, but that does trouble me a little bit because I think - and I think - I think there's some uncertainty out there that's beginning to kind of creep into the conscious of investors.

And so many people now have their assets tied up in the market it could affect in a longer term the economy, and that's why I think it's so important to share some of the surplus with the people who pay the bills as an insurance policy for economic growth.

---

All the off-shoring and tanking the market was a two-pronged assault on the Middle Class, the newly rich who had become "alarmingly" wealthy - from the BIG OIL false-elite fascist plutocrats' perspective - by investing in the legitimate economic revolution of the Internet. It is the MIDDLE CLASS that poses the only threat to the Fifth Column's "Shoot the Moon" corner on society its Roman caesaropapism has enjoyed for thousands of years...interrupted by the Whig Jeffersonian Revolution.

 

[twinstead]

Good to see you in the politics section where you belong, iM.

Have fun with iAmerican gentlemen.

 

[Ziggurat]

But if they didn’t have all the information, how could they in 2004?

But they did. The report I linked to was written in July 2004, well before the election. And the complaints listed in this latest "study" were widely circulating back then too. There's nothing new here.

 

[Loss Leader]

How does proof of "a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq," and the American and innocent blood shed because of it, not constitute prima facie evidence to support an indictment and trial for treason?

Open and shut.

Any students of the Law? Lawyers? Plaintiffs' lawyers, that is...or simply Constitutional Law scholars.

Seems Intent is demonstrated by "pattern and practice," leaving overt complicity in 9-11 aside, obviating any defense to be made based on serial stupidity and incompetence.

I'm a lawyer. Even if every single on of your premises were true, it is not treason. It's that simple. Open and shut.

 

[iAmerican]

I'm a lawyer. Even if every single on of your premises were true, it is not treason. It's that simple. Open and shut.

Is is "just" High Crimes? Lying, in a "caesaristic" ploy to invent a foreign enemy for factional profit and domestic control, and intrigue on behalf of corrupt foreign interests, resulting in the deaths of sworn America servicemen is at least Felony Murder, is it not? What else is Warring against America? Is it only the People's outrage that, politically - and then legally - makes it treason?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Is is "just" High Crimes? Lying, in a "caesaristic" ploy to invent a foreign enemy for factional profit and domestic control, and intrigue on behalf of corrupt foreign interests, resulting in the deaths of sworn America servicemen is at least Felony Murder, is it not? What else is Warring against America? Is it only the People's outrage that, politically - and then legally - makes it treason?

It's none of the above. I'm not even really sure you can impeach on those premises.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is is "just" High Crimes?

If Congress decides it is, then yes. But then, Congress can declare anything it wants to be a high crime in terms of impeachment, if they should so choose. Congress cannot decide on the definition of treason, however.

Lying, in a "caesaristic" ploy to invent a foreign enemy for factional profit and domestic control, and intrigue on behalf of corrupt foreign interests, resulting in the deaths of sworn America servicemen is at least Felony Murder, is it not?

Nope, not even that. Murder requires that you intend to kill the victim. Engaging in actions you know might lead to deaths to unspecific individuals for secondary purposes can sometimes be categorized as manslaughter or negligent homicide, but not murder.

Is it only the People's outrage that, politically - and then legally - makes it treason?

No, to be treason it has to fit a legal definition provided by the constitution. If it doesn't fit that definition, then no matter how evil, outrageous, despicable, or whatever, it still isn't treason. Your inability to understand basic concepts like this speaks very poorly for you.

 

[iAmerican]

If a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, killing the president (as GHWBush and the CIA did) or killing 3,000 on 9-11 (as his son and Cheney did) can be charged as treason:

trea·son (trē'zən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.


It is a violation of allegiance to the United States for agents of the U.S. Gov't to murder Americans, whether John Kennedy or the portion of the 3,000 9/11 dead who were members of the sovereign American People...hence treason.

The Law is not an academic exercise. The faction that murdered President Kennedy and then fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin Hoax is morally, legally, and ethically culpable of the deaths of 58,000 U.S. servicemen and women, and untold millions of other innocents.

Bush's and Cheney's belief that the longterm good of America (their faction in particular) was best served by committing 9-11, in no way lessens the crime against the Nation (waging war against us) and the individual victims and property holders affected. Just as a psychopath may believe the murder he or she commits if for the victim's own , or "greater" good, it is none the less a crime. The faction Bush and Cheney serve has the psychopathological inability to understand

"the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god."

Thomas Jefferson knew better and so should we. Some sort of judicial/political intervention is necessary that no further innocent life, treasure or national honor be lost at the hands of this clearly "misguided" faction.

 

[Ziggurat]

If a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, killing the president (as GHWBush and the CIA did) or killing 3,000 on 9-11 (as his son and Cheney did) can be charged as treason:

Yup, you're just as crazy as I suspected. But thank you for making it so explicit.

trea·son (trē'zən) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

This is not a legal definition. The legal definition is defined by the constitution. While there is some relationship between the dictionary definition and the constitutional definition, they are not identical, and for legal purposes, the constitutional definition is the only one that matters in the US. Get that through your thick skull.

Some sort of judicial/political intervention is necessary

Because god forbid we should actually trust the democratic process to solve any problems.

 

[iAmerican]

Hitler's party was also democratically elected.

America was established as a republic. Cannot this board act as did the Committees of Correspondence?

Just as the Founders recognized the Tory monarchists were engaged in a conspiracy to enslave them, should not those attentive to Justice and Truth - genuine republicans - recognize the presence of quibblers, shills and apologists whose only goal is to discourage a general awareness of the patently obvious treason being committed by the Bush faction and its false war killing our servicemen and women?

Our Republic requires philosophical and spiritual awareness in keeping with the precepts of Our Founding - the Sovereignty of the People - not blind obedience to faction, cult, or sect.

Bush's committing 9-11 is treason, and actionable. By the Constitution's definition it is waging war against the United States, regardless of the lunatic state of mind of the cabal leaders, self-serving though it may be, or their apologists, defenders, or co-conspirators.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hitler's party was also democratically elected.

As a minority party. Hitler himself was appointed chancellor.

Bush's committing 9-11 is treason, and actionable.

I thought we were talking about the stated motivations for going to war in Iraq. And seeing as how you won't find agreement here that Bush committed 9/11 (or, for that matter, even any evidence to that effect), you're tilting at windmills, Quixote.

regardless of the lunatic state of mind of the cabal leaders

Oh, THAT'S rich, coming from you.

 

[iAmerican]

Check the OP: Conspiracy is the given...not theoretical. All required is a satisfactory level of proof, lacking signed confessions (other than all the times Bush and Cheney have been seen to be acting and talking like traitors), and the correct charges to be made.

 

[Ziggurat]

Check the OP: Conspiracy is the given...not theoretical.

Your original post contains a link to a paper about administration rhetoric regarding Iraq. It contains no information pertaining to or even suggestion of 9/11 being committed by anyone within the administration.

All required is a satisfactory level of proof,

What I can only assume you meant to say is a satisfactory level of evidence (since a proof either exists or it doesn't). And somehow, I doubt what you consider "satisfactory" would withstand any serious scrutiny.