Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War

[bluefrog]

LINK

In court papers filed today (PDF), the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

 

[bluefrog]

See, Obama is above partisan politics

 

[Denny Crane]

“The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit,” chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said.

First of all, the case is simply full of shit.

They somehow waged a war they planned 5 years earlier at a think tank Bush wasn't any part of? At a time Clinton was bombing the fuck out of Iraq to destroy is WMDs?

It's laughable.

And I think Obama's right that whether you agree with the war or not, it was within the scope of what presidents do. Being the decider and all.

 

[Denny Crane]

A more interesting case will be when some poor woman from a village in rural Pakistan sues Obama for wrongful death of her children after some drone bombed and killed them. We're not even at war with Pakistan.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

A more interesting case will be when some poor woman from a village in rural Pakistan sues Obama for wrongful death of her children after some drone bombed and killed them. We're not even at war with Pakistan.

That's why you bomb poor people who don't have the resources to fight back with actual weapons of law.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's why you bomb poor people who don't have the resources to fight back with actual weapons of law.

Surely some right wing law firm would take her case pro bono.

Sadly, I think Obama's doing his job, too. His intent isn't to go bomb poor people and kill them, but to go after actual bad guys.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

“The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit,” chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said.

First of all, the case is simply full of shit.

They somehow waged a war they planned 5 years earlier at a think tank Bush wasn't any part of? At a time Clinton was bombing the fuck out of Iraq to destroy is WMDs?

It's laughable.

And I think Obama's right that whether you agree with the war or not, it was within the scope of what presidents do. Being the decider and all.

I agree, except that Cheney and Rumsfeld were sitting on the board of that think-tank at the time.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

not bushs fault?

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree, except that Cheney and Rumsfeld were sitting on the board of that think-tank at the time.

Except that board of that think-tank wanted to take out Iran, too. So it doesn't seem that their policies were actually followed. More like Clinton's were - he made regime change in Iraq US policy.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Except that board of that think-tank wanted to take out Iran, too. So it doesn't seem that their policies were actually followed. More like Clinton's were - he made regime change in Iraq US policy.

Their policies were absolutely followed when it came to Iraq. Who says them and Clinton had different ideas?

 

[Denny Crane]

Their policies were absolutely followed when it came to Iraq. Who says them and Clinton had different ideas?

So where are our troops on the ground in Iran? Not absolutely followed.

I think Clinton was interested in changing the headlines from "Lewinsky to testify" to "shock and awe in Iraq."

You already know I thought taking out Saddam was great. It was what happened after Mission Completed (it actually was) that was the debacle.

That think tank wanted a strong US military presence in the Mid East and it was already there. Troops in at least Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It was there in 1992, long before the 1995 date you think is important.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

So where are our troops on the ground in Iran? Not absolutely followed.

I'll say it again: Their policies were absolutely followed when it came to Iraq.

I think Clinton was interested in changing the headlines from "Lewinsky to testify" to "shock and awe in Iraq."

Quite possible.

You already know I thought taking out Saddam was great. It was what happened after Mission Completed (it actually was) that was the debacle.

Why did we take out Saddam anyway?

That think tank wanted a strong US military presence in the Mid East and it was already there. Troops in at least Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It was there in 1992, long before the 1995 date you think is important.

I don't think a 1995 date is important and I don't know what you're talking about.

Let's be clear because perhaps we're discussing different things. The think-tank I'm talking about is the Project For a New American Century, a group which pressured the Clinton Administration to take out Saddam in the late 90s, and issued reports with awesome titles such as "A Way to Oust Saddam" and "How to Attack Iraq" (all pre-9/11). Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were all members during this time. Dozens of Bush staff have connections to PNAC. Isn't it at least worth an investigation?

 

[maxiep]

Obama doesn't want to be investigated after he gets out of office. He's trying to set precedent.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll say it again: Their policies were absolutely followed when it came to Iraq.



Quite possible.



Why did we take out Saddam anyway?



I don't think a 1995 date is important and I don't know what you're talking about.

Let's be clear because perhaps we're discussing different things. The think-tank I'm talking about is the Project For a New American Century, a group which pressured the Clinton Administration to take out Saddam in the late 90s, and issued reports with awesome titles such as "A Way to Oust Saddam" and "How to Attack Iraq" (all pre-9/11). Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were all members during this time. Dozens of Bush staff have connections to PNAC. Isn't it at least worth an investigation?

Sorry my friend, but "when it comes to Iraq" happened in W's third year in office. There were issues with Iraq since the 1980s. I think you see a conspiracy in the natural course of events. If PNAC's agenda were truly followed, Iran and its nuclear program (as a reason) would have been where we sent our troops, not Iraq.

Rightfully or wrongfully, it looks to me like W wanted to make the world better and reduce risk of future attacks. Perhaps at too great a cost (I think so, but Obama and his NSA program disagree). Ridding the area of a tyrant in possession of WMDs that could be used against us was a reasonable fear.

His State of the Union speech shortly before the engagement in Iraq talked about WMDs, but also gave a number of other reasons. Possession of WMDs, obstruction of the UN inspectors, violation of human rights (torture), gassed his own people, supports terrorists, free the Iraqi people from a dictator, etc. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html

Why did we take out Saddam? Because something like Arab Spring failed there with Saddam gassing his own people. And Saddam is a guy we propped up, and the revolt against Saddam encouraged by W's father.

And I'm fully aware you and I are talking about the Project for a New American Century. 1995 would be the timeframe those guys sat on their advisory committee or whatever.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Obama doesn't want to be investigated after he gets out of office. He's trying to set precedent.

Exactly what I was thinking. My guess is that there's some unaccounted for material floating around out there.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I have to admit that the democrats are very shrewd and effective politicians. The republicans can learn a few lessons from them.

This move is designed to give them a sense of magnimity that will cover a host of their own sins. Add to it holding off Obamacare until after the 2014 elections, sacking Hilary so that people can forget about the way she ran the State department...

Their timing and planning is so good and slick that I have to applaud it. Meanwhile the GOP staggers along like a drunken sailor thinking that the facts will give them elections.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I have to admit that the democrats are very shrewd and effective politicians. The republicans can lear a few lessons from them.

Man I remember saying the exact same thing 8-10 years ago, only about the Republicans.

Though with the young, inexperienced Tea Partiers out there in office, I think the second half of your statement is more true now than mine was back then.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I have to admit that the democrats are very shrewd and effective politicians. The republicans can lear a few lessons from them.

This move is designed to give them a sense of magnimity that will cover a host of their own sins. Add to it holding off Obamacare until after the 2014 elections, sacking Hilary so that people can forget about the way she ran the State department...

Their timing and planning is so good and slick that I have to applaud it. Meanwhile the GOP staggers along like a drunken sailor thinking that the facts will give them elections.

This is so wrong headed. What the GOP needs to do is juxtapose themselves against the Dems and fight hard for civil liberties and the Constitution and change the current playbook from the semi-fascist, authoritarian, overly secretive one they've (the government) been operating under since the start of the Cold War and which only got worse since 9-11.

Either that or the Libertarian party needs to explode in popularity, which is impossible under the current rules and procedures.

EDIT to add clarification

 

[BlazerCaravan]

This is so wrong headed. What the GOP needs to do is juxtapose themselves against the Dems and fight hard for civil liberties and the Constitution and change the current playbook from the semi-fascist, authoritarian, overly secretive one they've been operating under since the start of the Cold War and which only got worse since 9-11.

Either that or the Libertarian party needs to explode in popularity, which is impossible under the current rules and procedures.

Socially, I'd vote Libertarian, if it were vanilla Libertarianism without the Tea Party rom hacks put on top of it. Economically, I'm less certain that handing the keys to corporations that prefer more work from fewer workers will solve our problems of unemployment at all.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Socially, I'd vote Libertarian, if it were vanilla Libertarianism without the Tea Party rom hacks put on top of it. Economically, I'm less certain that handing the keys to corporations that prefer more work from fewer workers will solve our problems of unemployment at all.

I'm a registered Libertarian, but really only because no other party seems to come close to standing for things I really care about. But, yeah I'm not wild about some of the under-tones that come up when you talk about the Libertarian party. I think they've got it right when it comes to personal liberty and privacy issues. As for the economic policy side I definitely don't agree with everything a lot of Libertarians espouse, but I think it's very unrealistic to think that any party is ever going match perfectly with all of the issues somebody might care about.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Sorry my friend, but "when it comes to Iraq" happened in W's third year in office. There were issues with Iraq since the 1980s. I think you see a conspiracy in the natural course of events. If PNAC's agenda were truly followed, Iran and its nuclear program (as a reason) would have been where we sent our troops, not Iraq.

I see no conspiracy, I see how politics works. These kinds of wars take time and effort and massive amounts of lies to calm the public. Iran just wasn't in the cards. And Iraq was clearly the focus. Just look at their website.

Rightfully or wrongfully, it looks to me like W wanted to make the world better and reduce risk of future attacks. Perhaps at too great a cost (I think so, but Obama and his NSA program disagree). Ridding the area of a tyrant in possession of WMDs that could be used against us was a reasonable fear.

His State of the Union speech shortly before the engagement in Iraq talked about WMDs, but also gave a number of other reasons. Possession of WMDs, obstruction of the UN inspectors, violation of human rights (torture), gassed his own people, supports terrorists, free the Iraqi people from a dictator, etc. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html

Why did we take out Saddam? Because something like Arab Spring failed there with Saddam gassing his own people. And Saddam is a guy we propped up, and the revolt against Saddam encouraged by W's father.

Hmm. I'm kind of surprised you bought all of that.

And I'm fully aware you and I are talking about the Project for a New American Century. 1995 would be the timeframe those guys sat on their advisory committee or whatever.

PNAC was founded in 1997, with many signatures in the future Bush administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Bolton, Armitage, Scooter Libby, Perle, etc. The list seriously goes on.

I'm not diving into the conspiracy. But to look at this organization that pushed so hard for Iraq regime change from 1997 until 2003, and see all the ties to the Bush administration, and not think something might be up is ludicrous. I bet you think nothing of the connection between Cheney and the no-bid contract given to Halliburton either.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

This is so wrong headed. What the GOP needs to do is juxtapose themselves against the Dems and fight hard for civil liberties and the Constitution and change the current playbook from the semi-fascist, authoritarian, overly secretive one they've (the government) been operating under since the start of the Cold War and which only got worse since 9-11.

Either that or the Libertarian party needs to explode in popularity, which is impossible under the current rules and procedures.

EDIT to add clarification

I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just making a point about political strategy. The dems get it. The GOP doesn't.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just making a point about political strategy. The dems get it. The GOP doesn't.

But that's all we focus on now; strategy and tactics and rooting for our "tribe" and it's killing real debate and real discussion.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

But that's all we focus on now; strategy and tactics and rooting for our "tribe" and it's killing real debate and real discussion.

True

 

[Denny Crane]

I see no conspiracy, I see how politics works. These kinds of wars take time and effort and massive amounts of lies to calm the public. Iran just wasn't in the cards. And Iraq was clearly the focus. Just look at their website.



Hmm. I'm kind of surprised you bought all of that.



PNAC was founded in 1997, with many signatures in the future Bush administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Bolton, Armitage, Scooter Libby, Perle, etc. The list seriously goes on.

I'm not diving into the conspiracy. But to look at this organization that pushed so hard for Iraq regime change from 1997 until 2003, and see all the ties to the Bush administration, and not think something might be up is ludicrous. I bet you think nothing of the connection between Cheney and the no-bid contract given to Halliburton either.

Agreed. It was 1997.

You and I seem to think alike on numerous issues. I don't think this is one.

W could have ordered the bombing of Iran, Iraq, or any other nation of his choosing the day he took office. If he was the liar people claim, he could have made up any old reason that was imminent doom and reason to act with all due haste.

I do not see how Iraq was any easier a sell than Iran. Iran is building nukes! Bush made it clear who the axis of terror nations were.

I do want my position to be clear. Taking out Saddam was important to do. For the reasons you think I somehow bought into and that Bush talked about in his SOU speech. Every reason Bush listed were good reasons and well founded. If his intent was to lie about WMDs, that's all he would have talked about.

I understood the occupation thing, but it wasn't what I agreed with or wanted to see. I'd have arrested Saddam and left. Let the people sort out how they want to govern themselves. If they want to borrow money, lend it to them. If they want to buy stuff from us, I'm happy to trade with them.

Iran? They had their revolution and installed their government. The sanctions are savaging them, which is terribly unfortunate. I wish there was a diplomatic solution.

Middle East in general? Let the people sort out their own affairs.

Halliburton was given giant no bid contracts under Clinton, too. It just happens that the company is really good at certain things and services the government needs to buy.

Cheney sold all his stock before becoming VP. Any options he had were later sold and proceeds given to charity.

I'm no fan of the neocons and PNAC. They do have a right to make their plans. They do have a right to serve in government. They weren't the only ones in position of power or influence. Colin Powell wasn't a member of PNAC, right? Condoleeza Rice wasn't either.

 

[maxiep]

I have to admit that the democrats are very shrewd and effective politicians. The republicans can learn a few lessons from them.

This move is designed to give them a sense of magnimity that will cover a host of their own sins. Add to it holding off Obamacare until after the 2014 elections, sacking Hilary so that people can forget about the way she ran the State department...

Their timing and planning is so good and slick that I have to applaud it. Meanwhile the GOP staggers along like a drunken sailor thinking that the facts will give them elections.

There's a reason they call the Democrats the Evil Party and the Republicans the Stupid Party.

Yep, this is some system into which we've devolved.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

There's a reason they call the Democrats the Evil Party and the Republicans the Stupid Party.

Yep, this is some system into which we've devolved.

Strange, in my neck of the woods, we say it exactly opposite.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Agreed. It was 1997.

You and I seem to think alike on numerous issues. I don't think this is one.

We only seem to talk when we disagree though.

W could have ordered the bombing of Iran, Iraq, or any other nation of his choosing the day he took office. If he was the liar people claim, he could have made up any old reason that was imminent doom and reason to act with all due haste.

I do not see how Iraq was any easier a sell than Iran. Iran is building nukes! Bush made it clear who the axis of terror nations were.

I don't think it's that easy. If we could invade any country we want using simple lies, we'd do it way more often. The Iraq war, which was based on lies in my opinion, took an extended and concentrated media campaign to win the approval that it did, which wasn't much. I still believe in the fundamental ability of the American public to change things via public outrage, but there is never enough outrage to end/prevent a war.

When it comes to Iran, I think the potential nukes are what prevents us from moving in. I think it was clear that we knew Saddam had no WMDs. I don't think we would have went in if he did. We knew there was no way we would lose.

And again, PNAC's focus was clearly Iraq.

I do want my position to be clear. Taking out Saddam was important to do. For the reasons you think I somehow bought into and that Bush talked about in his SOU speech. Every reason Bush listed were good reasons and well founded. If his intent was to lie about WMDs, that's all he would have talked about.

No, I don't think it works that way. You can't just point at WMDs and say, "Here is the reason." It takes a media campaign. It takes lots and lots of distraction.

Saddam was an evil motherfucker and got what he deserved. But WMDs weren't the reason since he didn't have any. So, it was his murderous, dictatorial style of government, wasn't it? Perhaps. Then why him, and why then? Why not years before? Why not some other murderous dictator?

I understood the occupation thing, but it wasn't what I agreed with or wanted to see. I'd have arrested Saddam and left. Let the people sort out how they want to govern themselves. If they want to borrow money, lend it to them. If they want to buy stuff from us, I'm happy to trade with them.

You would have created a vacuum in the Middle East and then left immediately?

Iran? They had their revolution and installed their government. The sanctions are savaging them, which is terribly unfortunate. I wish there was a diplomatic solution.

Middle East in general? Let the people sort out their own affairs.

So what would you advocate for? America is neck deep in the affairs of the Middle East for numerous reasons.

Halliburton was given giant no bid contracts under Clinton, too. It just happens that the company is really good at certain things and services the government needs to buy.

Cheney sold all his stock before becoming VP. Any options he had were later sold and proceeds given to charity.

Cheney retired from Halliburton in 2000 and received a severance package of 36 million dollars.

And you can't sit here and tell me that Halliburton was the best people for the job if other companies weren't even allowed into the conversation. How anti-capitalist is that?

I'm no fan of the neocons and PNAC. They do have a right to make their plans. They do have a right to serve in government. They weren't the only ones in position of power or influence. Colin Powell wasn't a member of PNAC, right? Condoleeza Rice wasn't either.

Right. The question to me is, did members of the Bush administration plan the invasion of Iraq before even being elected? Perhaps not technically, but I believe there is plenty of evidence to be considered either way. Certainly enough to warrant some kind of an investigation. The actions of the Obama DOJ suggests to me that there is enough evidence to make a case.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry, but I think a lot of what you wrote is conspiracy theories and outright lies you believe. Planned before they took office, for example. Cheney was Secy of Defense under GHW Bush when they didn't go into Iraq and take out Saddam. Secy. of State Colin Powell was the general who ran the show.

There were at least two congressional investigations into whether the administration lied about the Intel to get us into war. Neither found the administration lied at all.

Extended media campaign? Wow. Clinton went into Kosovo under the guise of NATO. It would have been trivial for Bush to have done likewise, but the media campaign was to force him to go through the UN where it was sure that at least one of Russia or China would block it. The polls at the time of the invasion were 92% in favor of going into Iraq. 92% isn't much?

There was no actual rush to war either. The invasion of Iraq took place well over a year after 9/11. It was subject to debate in public. Republicans wrote op-eds in the NYTimes against it. It was put to a vote before congress and passed the House 296-133 and the senate 77-23.

To the best of everyone's knowledge, Saddam had WMDs. Bill Clinton saw the Intel right up until 2001 when W took office and said they had them (as late as 2003). Hillary, too. The long line of Democrats who were on select Intel committees and privy to all our top secret information said he had them. Foreign nations' Intelligence organizations said he had them.

And if W was such a liar, all it would have taken was one Ollie North type dropped into some place in Iraq to "find" a test tube of weaponized germs. If anything, I was rather stunned by the honesty - when it was suspected WMDs were found, the truth was made known very quickly (a lot faster than Benghazi, for example). And they did find lots of WMDs (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous) but the media campaign didn't allow THAT truth to come out, eh?

Iran didn't have nukes in 2001. To the best of our knowledge, they still don't. Never been a test explosion, for example, like the N. Koreans did.

Halliburton? They sold off KBR (the part of the business in Iraq with those contracts) because it wasn't profitable (enough). About a year and a half before W left office, and several before the troops came home.

And they were one of dozens of companies who got contracts to rebuild there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/business/24halliburton.html?_r=0

 

[jlprk]

There were at least two congressional investigations into whether the administration lied about the Intel to get us into war. Neither found the administration lied at all...Extended media campaign? Wow...The polls at the time of the invasion were 92% in favor of going into Iraq...There was no actual rush to war...To the best of everyone's knowledge, Saddam had WMDs...Benghazi...Benghazi...Benghazi...Halliburton? They sold off KBR (the part of the business in Iraq with those contracts) because it wasn't profitable (enough)...

What a bunch of bullshit. You and Bush are the only defenders of that war left.

Great stuff, Denny! Pretending to be a rube to make us laugh! That's not easy for us brains, right?