Proof of Conspiracy

[gambling_cruiser]

As I am reminded that the pre-Nazi "Legal Establishment" operated on an uninterrupted status quo basis throughout the Nazi Period in Germany, and that the faction supporting this present Bush administration's openly nefarious conduct is, in culture, religion, and practice, a direct lineal heir of the Nazi culture endorsed by Rockefeller frontman Prescott Bush in his finance of the author of "I Paid Hitler," papal baron, and Prescott Bush's fellow Knight of Malta, Fritz "The Rockefeller of Germany" Thyssen, it has become necessary to seek more credible counsel in placement of the charge of Treason against George W. Bush, and his accomplices, in his commission of false war, leading to the deaths of sworn American military personnel, predicated on the atrocious events of 9/11, killing 3,000 innocents in NYC and at the Pentagon, for which he was morally, legally, and ethically culpable.

Nice to see loony bins in the US have internet access.

 

[Elind]

Are you claiming the public instantly understood what the report said? Isn't the truth the public was in denial the Bush Administration would do such a thing, further impeded by Fox News acting like the administrations propaganda agency with mis-information?

If we are reading the same so called report, I saw a count of the number of references to WMDs and the like and then an unsubstantiated statement to the effect that they were all deliberate lies, on a grand scale. What kind of logic is that?

 

[Ziggurat]

If we are reading the same so called report,

I think in that post he was refering to the senate report I linked to regarding the intelligence on Iraq that was written in 2004, not the report referenced in the original post.

 

[iAmerican]

As I am reminded that the pre-Nazi "Legal Establishment" operated on an uninterrupted status quo basis throughout the Nazi Period in Germany, and that the faction supporting this present Bush administration's openly nefarious conduct is, in culture, religion, and practice, a direct lineal heir of the Nazi culture endorsed by Rockefeller frontman Prescott Bush in his finance of the author of "I Paid Hitler," papal baron, and Prescott Bush's fellow Knight of Malta, Fritz "The Rockefeller of Germany" Thyssen, it has become necessary to seek more credible counsel in placement of the charge of Treason against George W. Bush, and his accomplices, in his commission of false war, leading to the deaths of sworn American military personnel, predicated on the atrocious events of 9/11, killing 3,000 innocents in NYC and at the Pentagon, for which he was morally, legally, and ethically culpable.

quote]

Nice to see loony bins in the US have internet access.

Isn't that how you posted your "brilliant" ad hominem rather than contributing per the OP?

 

[Elind]

I think in that post he was refering to the senate report I linked to regarding the intelligence on Iraq that was written in 2004, not the report referenced in the original post.

Ah so. Obfuscation.

 

[Elind]

Isn't that how you posted your "brilliant" ad hominem rather than contributing per the OP?

My main point was purely ad hominem, as I said. Otherwise known as outing the woo.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't really see that as a worthwhile counter-argument, and suspect it's just the "lawyer" in you coming out to play (there are no fees to be "earned" here, you realize?!).

Since you don't present any evidence or legal precedent to show that my argument is in any way flawed, I am not certain that it matters whether you personally see my argment as worthwhile or not. If you have some sort of actual facts or law as to why I'm mistaken, I'd be glad to review them.

"Tradition" and/or "lack of anyone strongly arguing against it" = immunity from orchestrating 9/11 = necessity to fight foreign enemies? Fancy your chances as defence attorney, do you?!

Very much so. I'd take that case in an instant. And I'd win it.

 

[Southwind17]

Since you don't present any evidence or legal precedent to show that my argument is in any way flawed, I am not certain that it matters whether you personally see my argment as worthwhile or not. If you have some sort of actual facts or law as to why I'm mistaken, I'd be glad to review them.

Does common sense count for nothing these days, especially on a discussion forum?

I'd take that case in an instant. And I'd win it.

I'm surprised at your level of certainty, given:

It might be enough to save him from a criminal prosecution. [emphasis added]

 

[Loss Leader]

Does common sense count for nothing these days, especially on a discussion forum?

I was discussing the legal principle of qualified immunity. If you have no legal research to back up your opinion, then I would agree that your sense of the matter counts for nothing.

I'm surprised at your level of certainty, given:

Well, I'm just that good.

 

[Southwind17]

I was discussing the legal principle of qualified immunity. If you have no legal research to back up your opinion, then I would agree that your sense of the matter counts for nothing.

No you weren't; you'd moved on from principles to state the case for the defense, so to speak:

Presidents do all sorts of things for which no legal authority exists - only tradition and the lack of anyone strongly arguing against it. If Bush put together 9/11, I suspect he'd be doing it as part of his role as Commander in Chief with some sort of argument that the whole things was actually necessary to fight foreign enemies. It might be enough to save him from a criminal prosecution. [emphasis added]

Common sense, alone, strongly suggets that this defense would fail.

Well, I'm just that good.

Well, you must be; you've said so so many times previously! Do you have any legal research to back up your opinion, though?!

 

[Daylight]

Who said anything about instantly?

The point is not that the public was perfectly informed. It never is. The point is that the information was out there.

Just to be clear my bad, talking the 2004 report.

Depends on what you consider instantly. July, August, September, October, Nov 4. Not much time. Then you had the mis-information campaign in full swing, those swift boat guys, Fox, changing the threat indicator to scare the public and others. When you add this in it’s silly to say the public knew the information was there, let alone could act on it.

Just curious what percent of the public do you think knew about the 2004 report and understood what it said? And what percent do you think instead believed Fox and the scare tactics and ignored it (not looking for hard numbers, just your opinion).

There is no monolithic public opinion, so this statement is absurd on its face. And the public's understanding (and misunderstanding) cuts both ways: while some people may think the administration's pre-war position was more accurate than it turned out to be, there are also people who think that evidence exists for outright lies when that report found none. Hell, there are parts of the public which think that Bush directed the 9/11 attacks. Who are you going to blame for that, Fox? It's easy to convince yourself of all sorts of conspiracies of deception if you only look for misconceptions in one direction. But that's confirmation bias, and as easy and tempting as it is to fall for, it doesn't get you any closer to the truth.

Wait, you say the public had to decide to do something based on the 2004 report and then remedy the situation and then say a monolithic public opinion is absurd????

Are you saying report found no lies?

Perhaps. But based on what information? The nuances of our intelligence and the way it was represented to the public? I suspect that wouldn't actually be decisive. Any difference would be more likely due to the discrepency between the public's expectation of the progress of the war in 2004 and their current perception of that progress. And this could prove to cut both ways as well. If things continue to improve in Iraq, it's quite possible that the informed public of late 2008 wouldn't have voted the same way as a 2006 public, and the party balance in congress might be different. But that's always the case, and always will be assuming we don't discover time travel.

We now know in 2008 how incompetent the Bush Administration was planning and running the war. We now know the 935 lies (at least) were told to the American public about the war. We now know congress was intimidated to vote for things the Bush Administration wanted. We all know about the illegal wiretapping. How long a list do you want? And then there are many indicators of wrong doing on top of all this waiting for more pieces of the puzzle. I don't think we'll even know if the Bush Administration did out a CIA agent (which would be treason).

Depends what you think their oversight job is. Because honestly, what else did you expect them to do?

I expect them to do their Job instead of the public having to rely on leaked documents to get their information. The 2006 election cycle showed the public was upset at the poor job congress's was doing.

 

[iAmerican]

The People is Plaintiff - Make the case Counselor per the OP

The American Foundation, in an eclipse of the Old Sectarian Order of King and Pope, whose "thousands upon thousands of years of despotism" Our Revolution "arrested," recognizes The People's sovereignty. Under the Republic this fully-informed Electorate, employing, commissioning, and electing men and women of probity and virtue to serve and protect Our Nation within the metes and bounds of The Constitution, must, with Authority, and for good reason, condemn any want of integrity in governance.

Monolithic under the knowable Truth, and Justice, freed of intrigue and perversion, the People, recognizing a pattern and practice of lies, fabrications, "one-way" distortions, indirection, contrived "ignorances," corrupt factional alliances, and multi-generational affiliation with treason and plutocracy, must, necessarily, condemn this, proven as conspiracy ("breathing together"), as inimical to the proper maintenance of Righteousness and Peace - the sole job of Government - moral authority, and National Honor.

Neither Guilt, nor the appearance of Guilt, is permissible in government, that offense not be brought before the sovereign People. The only moral authority of any in government emanates from personal proven integrity, by which the correctly informed Electorate may exercise its franchise through the trust extended to those made Elect, or commissioned, or employed, by the People, under the Constitution.

Violations of this Covenantal bond must be addressed forthrightly that none be confused about the People's sovereignty. Lying us into war for personal, familial, and factional profit, and getting servicemen and women dead shedding innocent blood is an abomination and treason. The People must punish those responsible. None is above the Law regardless of paygrade, job description, or imaginative excuse-making.

Please make the case as the People's - The Plaintiff's - righteous prosecutor, per the OP.

 

[Loss Leader]

Do you have any legal research to back up your opinion, though?!

Yup.

 

[e-sabbath]

You know, there are a lot of words there. They don't make much sense, though. Can you rephrase in a slightly less pseudolegal fashion? Thanks.

 

[iAmerican]

You know, there are a lot of words there. They don't make much sense, though. Can you rephrase in a slightly less pseudolegal fashion? Thanks.

"Conspiracy to Commit False War/False War" is the given. The series of untruths proving the pattern and practice, with that single goal, is linked at OP. How would the charges be styled? In what venue? Counselor?

 

[Loss Leader]

"Conspiracy to Commit False War/False War" is the given. The series of untruths proving the pattern and practice, with that single goal, is linked at OP. How would the charges be styled? In what venue? Counselor?

If you're asking me, you've already given the answer. You've stated that a revolution is needed wherein the people rise up and take the law into their own hands. In that scenario, any answer I give you predicated on the law as it stands would be moot. Whomever is leading your revolution can just write whatever laws you want.

If you're asking me based on the laws as they stand today, I have already answered you. It is legally impossible to do what you want to do under the law. It cannot be done as the laws currently exist. Ever. In any venue.

If you're not asking me but are just spewing nonsense, good work. You are probably one of the top five nonsense spewers I have ever met.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then you had the mis-information campaign in full swing, those swift boat guys,

1) That wasn't about the Iraq war
2) The swiftboat vets ran a series of ads. Most of those adds focused on Kerry's activities after leaving Vietnam, such as his part in the Winter Soldier investigations. The contents of only one of those adds was ever challenged, and even that not conclusively. It is a fantasy to think that the other multiple ads, which remain unchallenged, didn't matter more than the single ad which was.

changing the threat indicator to scare the public and others.

1) What evidence do you have that the administration played any role in choosing the threat level?
2) What evidence do you have that the public ever got scared because of threat level changes?
3) What evidence do you have that any fear instilled in the public provided any electoral advantage to Bush?

There's a whole chain of evidence and logic you would need to construct in order to demonstrate what you're trying to demonstrate. But you don't have any of the pieces.

When you add this in it’s silly to say the public knew the information was there, let alone could act on it.

Except none of the things on your list pertain to the assessment of pre-war intelligence. Whatever the merits of those complaints, they are separate issues. And you're grasping at straws.

Just curious what percent of the public do you think knew about the 2004 report and understood what it said?

Beats me. What percent of the public followed all the supposed lies the administration told in the first place? You don't know that either. What percent of the public believed the claims, widely circulated but disproved by that 2004 report, that Bush had strong-armed the CIA into misrepresenting its intelligence? I don't know, but it's not zero, and it cuts the other direction. But you're operating as if it is zero, as if we only need to consider errors in one direction. Which is true, if all you want to do is score partisan points. But I for one am not interested in that task.

And what percent do you think instead believed Fox and the scare tactics and ignored it

Fox is the boogie man. I get it. Well, fox isn't the only news source. And plenty of other news sources were peddling other lines. And mischaracterizations cut both ways.

Wait, you say the public had to decide to do something based on the 2004 report and then remedy the situation and then say a monolithic public opinion is absurd????

The public votes. The way the public votes is not monolithic, but it produces a single answer.

Are you saying report found no lies?

I am aware of no lies that it found. Feel free to read the report and find some if you care to.

We now know in 2008 how incompetent the Bush Administration was planning and running the war.

And most of those mistakes were evident in 2004 as well. People have been decrying decisions such as disbanding the Iraqi army, not stopping looters, and failing to secure the borders from the beginning.

We now know the 935 lies (at least) were told to the American public about the war.

Well, no. There's a reason that this new report doesn't actually categorize those as lies. While the headline was a nice attention-getting insinuation that they're lies (and it produced the intended effect upon you of making you conclude that they're lies), it doesn't actually make that claim because it cannot, because there isn't evidence to support the conclusion that they were lies and not mistakes. But there's irony here indeed: you drone on and on about how Fox fooled the people, and yet here you are, so transparently fooled yourself.

We now know congress was intimidated to vote for things the Bush Administration wanted.

Intimidated? How? Did Bush threaten their children if they didn't toe the line? No, I don't think so. Those who didn't vote their conscience voted the way they think the electorate wanted them to vote. Congress does what voters want. Boo hoo. Voters later change their minds. Boo hoo.

We all know about the illegal wiretapping.

No, actually, I don't think we do, and that's a rather separate issue from the Iraq war.

I don't think we'll even know if the Bush Administration did out a CIA agent (which would be treason).

Actually, we do know that someone in the administration outed Plame, but no, it wasn't treason. Richard Armitage revealed her name to Novak, which is how it got published, but he didn't do it to punish her, there's no evidence he understood that he was outing her, and there's no evidence it was even illegal let alone treasonous.

I expect them to do their Job

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Isn't that how you posted your "brilliant" ad hominem rather than contributing per the OP?

It doesn't seem to me that "contributing per the OP" does much good. After all you've been told, you still claim that waging a fraudulent war against another country is an act of treason. The Constitution says otherwise.

This is like saying that killing your next door neighbor is an act of suicide.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Monolithic under the knowable Truth, and Justice, freed of intrigue and perversion, the People, recognizing a pattern and practice of lies, fabrications, "one-way" distortions, indirection, contrived "ignorances," corrupt factional alliances, and multi-generational affiliation with treason and plutocracy, must, necessarily, condemn this, proven as conspiracy ("breathing together"), as inimical to the proper maintenance of Righteousness and Peace - the sole job of Government - moral authority, and National Honor.

I think you just set a world record for Most Commas in a Sentence.

 

[Southwind17]

I think you just set a world record for Most Commas in a Sentence.

I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, yes me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, disagree!