HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Dave Zirin: I Keep Wonder...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:54 PM

Dave Zirin: I Keep Wondering WHY George W Bush Is NOT ON TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES?




Saturday morning on MSNBC, Dave Zirin of The Nation questioned why former President George W. Bush had not been held accountable for alleged war crimes.


His remarks came amid a discussion on the U.S. response to terrorism on the Melissa Harris-Perry Show.


“I’m a sports writer by trade,” he explained. “That means one of the things I’ve done in the last ten years is get to know the family of Pat Tillman, the story of Pat Tillman, the NFL player turned army ranger who died in an instance of friendly firing in Afghanistan. Pat Tillman thought the war in Iraq was illegal and I agree with Pat Tillman about that. His family was lied to by the Bush administration about the circumstances surrounding his death, and George W. Bush gave speeches about Pat Tillman and his heroism that were lies.”


“Every time I hear about George W. Bush and staying the course and his principles I keeping wondering why he’s not on trial for war crimes for lying to the family of Pat Tillman, for lying to the families of the people who are crippled at Walter Reed , for the families that have died in the Middle East,” Zirin continued. “I wonder very strongly why the Obama administration has chosen continuity instead of a break with the Bush administration.”




cont'


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/28/msnbc-guest-dave-zirin-why-is-bush-not-on-trial-for-war-crimes/

30 replies, 2382 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dave Zirin: I Keep Wondering WHY George W Bush Is NOT ON TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES? (Original post)
Segami Apr 2013 OP
byeya Apr 2013 #1
Cal33 Apr 2013 #29
LaydeeBug Apr 2013 #2
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #3
edhopper Apr 2013 #4
Newest Reality Apr 2013 #5
Octafish Apr 2013 #6
SamKnause Apr 2013 #7
Uncle Joe Apr 2013 #8
Gregorian Apr 2013 #9
OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #10
indepat Apr 2013 #21
msongs Apr 2013 #11
Segami Apr 2013 #14
robinlynne Apr 2013 #12
HughBeaumont Apr 2013 #13
zeeland Apr 2013 #15
1ProudAtheist Apr 2013 #16
Hula Popper Apr 2013 #18
1ProudAtheist Apr 2013 #19
Bully Taw Apr 2013 #17
MisterP Apr 2013 #20
colsohlibgal Apr 2013 #22
Poll_Blind Apr 2013 #23
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #24
ReasonableToo Apr 2013 #25
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #26
deutsey Apr 2013 #27
DrDan Apr 2013 #28
LaydeeBug Apr 2013 #30

Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:58 PM

1. Perhaps the answer is that Obama and his team saw what had been done, agreed with it, and

 

wanted on keep on doing it with a few side tweaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:26 AM

29. And don't forget Nancy Pelosi. From Day 1 as Speaker in Jan. 07, she said that impeachment

was "off the table." Obama didn't become president until 2 years later.
Nancy did it on her own. She wasn't yet on Obama's team.

It does seem that we have too many right-leaning top politicians in the
Democratic Party. And things are not going to change as long as we
have too few real Democrats in top positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:01 PM

2. kick and rec, because I am wondering that too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:07 PM

3. Obama's retirement plan does not include doing things that the international super-rich don't want.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:08 PM

4. Because ever since Reagan

the powerful have never had to pay for their crimes in this country. Especially if they are GOP.
If Watergate happened today, there would be no talk of impeachment. Probably not even hearings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:09 PM

5. This is a pertinent question that beleaguers me as well! WHY?

Well, one can construct a few informed theories around that inquiry. None of them would seem to reflect well about what writhes under the facade we are compelled to believe in and support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:12 PM

6. That may be the first time the question's been asked on an ABCNNBCBSFauxnoisenutwork program.

Lots of us on DU have been asking it for a long time. Not so many in Corporate McPravda have asked question, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:13 PM

7. Why Indeed

Their are millions the world over asking those two questions !!!!

No one on the panel wanted to discuss it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:16 PM

8. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:29 PM

9. Most likely because the criminal connection is so widespread. Bush was just the figurehead.

How do you arrest a fair fraction of the most powerful people in government and business?

He who has the gold, rules.

We can at least start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:32 PM

10. Why? Why? Why?

Why didn't Obama replace the politicized US Attorneys when he took office? Why?

Why did Sen. Obama break his promise to filibuster retroactive immunity for telecoms, instead voting to do the opposite? Why?

Why is Gov. Don Siegelman still in prison? Why?

Why is one of the authors of HAVA now the Secretary of Defense? Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 06:03 PM

21. Not sure we would be ready to handle the answers to these starkly pertinent

questions, but my thought is it would tell the future of this country has been set and it ain't a pretty sight for: the 1% is going to be able to gobble up most of what they don't already own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:38 PM

11. people perpetuating the bush 2 agenda are not likely to prosecute for doing the same thing nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:57 PM

14. There are 'laws' for the few and then there are 'laws' for the many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:39 PM

12. Obama says he is a GOOD man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:40 PM

13. Everyone in Washington is purchased. That's why.

Reagan never left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:00 PM

15. He won't indict Wall Street criminals,

what makes anyone think he would have what it takes to
go after world class war criminals? He's exactly the president
they wanted him to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:17 PM

16. Tried, Convicted, And

 

Hung..............appropriate actions for The Village Idiot, The National Dick, Asshwipe, Turdblossum, and Buttfeldt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1ProudAtheist (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:24 PM

18. It seems you have


not included Powell, Rice and Wolfowitz... They should all be hung together!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hula Popper (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:50 PM

19. I Believe That

 

Powell was just a pawn, and only repeated the lies that he was told. As for Kindasleezy, she should have been on my list for sure. As for Wolfashitz, he should be one of the first to swing, and should have a cinder block strapped to his feet so that his head pops off. These folks do not deserve to live after all of the deaths that they caused..........and are still causing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:21 PM

17. it's hard to prosecute

 

when you are doing the same thing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:51 PM

20. most conspiracies aren't to *do* any particular thing, they're more about maintaining a status quo

that gives cover, secrecy, "plausible deniability," etc.--IOW, the *ability* to conduct skullduggery, whatever its motive or ideology--and they definitely do have goals and a very limited spectrum of ideology: the Holders, LaPierres, Liddys, Hunts, Singlaubs, Pete Petersons, Ayn Rands, and RJR Nabiscos of the world are all in one basket

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:58 AM

22. Right There With Him

Not only that I'm sorry, there are parts of the official 9/11 narrative that don't add up. Just one is that we're supposed to believe that these guys trained a couple of times, on a little Cessna, were mediocre with that, and then were able to precisely maneuver a huge jet airliner at much higher than recommended speed. Jet pilots speaking out question whether they could even find the right location from up there. Oh and I've flown a lot, I've never seen flights like this with so few passengers listed.

There's more that doesn't add up, the best not nutty site I've seen is here http://911research.wtc7.net/

Links to articles in newspapers, etc on about everything there. Something was and is rotten about the whole thing.

Whatever the truth is, it was no excuse to invade a country that had zero do do with it. Laura should be baking cakes with files in them.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:10 AM

23. Excellent piece + discussion! nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:22 AM

24. It's sad to remember that we once thought that was possible, that all we had to do was

get a majority in Congress and the WH. We got Congress, right before that election Nancy Pelosi stated that there would be 'no impeachment'. I always wondered how she could make that prediction or why she made it?? One member of Congress doesn't get to make such decisions. But I'm sure some very powerful people were happy to hear it.

We were told it couldn't be done until we had it all, the WH, the Senate and Congress. We did that and almost immediately, as if it was of the utmost importance, President Obama announced that we would not be investigating the Bush administration that it was a 'time to move forward'.

I think we have all come to understand WHY no one has been or will be held accountable for these crimes by now.

Now the question is what to do about it all?

Because we know that crimes were committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #24)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 07:56 AM

25. How do we get elections with instant run offs?

We need the freedom to vote for true democrats that will support the planks of Democratic Party (and make sure those planks represent the 99%)

We need to stop voting for the centrist that we think can beat the right of center candidate.

We need to value progressive democrats and not dismiss them as unelectable.

I really don't know how to get the incumbents to unlock their hold on elections and the ability to draw district lines but that would be the way to get the country back.

That and getting some objectivity and integrity of the media. (I wrote "restoring" first - ha ha)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:27 AM

26. Because we want a peaceful transfer of power.

We NEVER prosecute the out-going party for anything. The incoming party knows that someday the pendulum will swing and the other party will again gain power and will want revenge is there has been prosecution. We consider the temporary lose of power to be sufficient punishment.

Notice that we have never seen a losing President or his cabinet punished for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:33 AM

27. To borrow from Orwell:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 09:01 AM

28. standing by and watching a rape without trying to stop it would draw significant indignation here

but standing by having watched war crimes being committed and not dealing with them is tolerated
go figure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:41 AM

30. Zirin starts in earnest right at the 7 min marker. :) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread