Should Bush Face War Crimes Trial

EastCoastKid,

No one is above the law is correct and both Bush and Clinton deserve impeachment. However that does not mean that they should be impeached.

It is good to recall that Clinton, at first, only lied to American public about his personal life which is NOT a crime and, in my opinion, should not have been investigated as long as he is the president of the US. What he did is bad, immoral, but it does not worth for the country to bring the president to the trial for that. Why did we put him in front of the jury? That was a selfish move of Republican Party and not-so-honest democrats.

The whole show around Clinton made it possible for Bush to come to power. Why? Because Bush played a hot card at a time: honest, simple, open guy who is close to the masses, exactly what ignorant public wanted to see after intelligent and sophisticated Clinton who, guess what, lied to that same public. Is Bush now that kind of guy we though he was once?


Of course, but keep in mind that crime does not have an absolute meaning. Murder and stealing from supermarket are both crimes but you cannot compare the two. How much sense would it make to ask murderer to catch kinds who stole from a supermarket?

Clinton’s trial was a hurtful show for America. Today we have a new president who lies and commits crimes but we cannot do anything about that even if we wanted to (that kind of puts Clinton’s trial in perspective, don’t you think?). However, I think, we should not impeach even Bush, because that would separate Americans from the government and each other even further. America needs to become united again; we, as individuals, need to look for and support the leaders who could help us achieve that.

This from one of our founding fathers...

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
- Thomas Jefferson



They should be impeached, but they shouldn't be? Not reading you , there.



Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury. It doesn't matter what he lied about. That's a crime.



It didn't seem so back then. But these days its sheer hypocrisy all the way around.



It wasn't the impeachment alone that drove Americans rightward. That came about over time.



In the United States, if a crime is delineated on the books, it is absolute. If a president commits a crime, I personally take special offense at that. I would hope, however naiivly, that anyone who would swear to that office would be above breaking the law.

I guess I watched too much tv growing up. And I expect way too much.



So let's all just roll over and let the criminals run wild.

To that I say, read the Thomas Jefferson quote at the beginning of this post.

Well, a large part of my reasoning for voting for Bush in the first place was because he didn't let these European leaders push him around. I don't really think he cares what other leaders think of him. He has our country in his best interest. Bush didn't even start the war in Iraq.

The only reason these people would even think of trying him for war crimes would be because they are pissed Bush and the rest of America don't give a rats ass what they think. If they want to try Bush for war crimes they will have to try the 51% of Americans who voted for him and supported the war as well.


[edit on 2-1-2006 by LostSailor]

Howz that exactly?



Of course he doesn't. He's got his pioneers and whatnot to worry with.



Who do you think started the war in Iraq?



Half of America wants to try Bush for not being responsive, or supportive of their position? Very interesting.

I highly doubt that's why, per se, LS.

Sailor I will like to know also who started the war in Iraq.

If I remember very clear it was not a war . . . it was a "Liberation" .

Perhaps you know something that I don't.

No Marg, remember.. it was an invasion to disarm an evil tyrant of weapons of mass destruction.

When that didn't pan out, it became a war for liberation. Remember?

Yep, Bush and his cronies lied about WMD's... Bush tricked Congress into letting him go to war... No one ever makes mistakes heh? Can I ask you a question? Even if the WMD theory, which he did have at one point in time, didn't work out. Do you think the world is better without Saddam?

Maybe if Clinton did something besides slap Saddam with a warning back when we knew for sure he had the WMD's this whole tirade wouldn't be happening. Who knows. All I know is all war is evil right marg?
external image

Why do people always have to drag BILL clinton into this thing? He avoided the NeoCon schemes throughout his presidency, for the most part, and did not fall for the idiotic invade Iraq scheme.

LostSailor, there are alot of folks out there that seem to think I liked Clinton. You have no idea how I loathed him as president. But I'll give it to him. He held the Likudnik American vampires at bay. Does that make him better than today's Republicans? No. Not really. He's still the sleezy political whore he always was.

The bottom line is George W. Bush got us into this so-called war. It should be his head on the platter.

[edit on 1/2/06 by EastCoastKid]

I never said that I thought you liked Clinton man. My previous post was directed at no one in particular aside from the last part directed at margo. All I wanted to say was that this entire incident could have been avoided had Clinton done something a long time ago. Bush will not be held for war crimes because no war crimes were committed.

The people pining for Bush to be tried are only doing so out of spite for a man they despise. They despise him because Bush doesn't let them boss him around. I like Bush for this reason. However, I will not lie, there are some things I don't like Bush for. I think he spends to much money to be called a "conservative" among other things. But the bottom line is the world is a much better place without Saddam in power, and I hope that this incident sets an example to the rest of the world that the U.S. won't be pushed around anymore. These are just my opinions.

LOL i dont know why democrats are crying out for impeachment, Bush being in office is helping the democrats out, who knows maybe they will win the election in 06 and 08. God knows they don't have a message out there to unite the American people.

So, what exactly do you propose here, a revolution?

Is that a trick question?

It means what it means. One of our revered founding fathers wrote it. To me, it is the truth.

Hmmm... see, if I don't know whether this is a metaphor or not, I cannot really understand your answer to my previous post. Oh well...

(And, BTW, there is a difference between "deserve to be" and "should be" which is within the moral context)

The quote means what it means, again. When government becomes an enemy to the people, it deserves to be overthrown and remade.

That time may be drawing nigh for the American people.

I am afraid the vast majority of Americans would not support a revolution (I would not); and impeachment would put Cheaney to power. What's the difference? We are screwed

We the people have always thought that we controlled our elected representatives and that's really the whole shell game. Master and Slave. Which are you? Are you free if you can't even count on an election clearly showing who got the popular vote? Even if only one vote was thrown out on technicality then your own vote counts for nothing because yours could be next.

This President went to war in your name. People are dying in your name. A soverign nation was invaded in your name. Wake up, man! Demand accountability.

I also love the thought that we should be the police of the world and rid it of monsters of our own making (Saddam) as if it's alright to just run in to someone's house and take it from them. That's the point. It's against the law to invade a sovereign nation even if you don't like what they do or how they act. Today we are seeing our own countrymen torturing people the same way Saddam the monster did so are we next? Should some other country take umbrage and see themselves fit to change our regime?

And one final thought, the use of white phosphurous (sp?) as a weapon should be considered a war crime because it's against the law. But no one will demand the answers. And if the military broke international law then the commander in chief broke the law. You can't have it both ways. Where does the buck stop? Certainly not at Bush's desk.

Just thoughts! They aren't bullets. Take them or leave them. I don't care either way if I've given you a new viewpoint.

Peace, freaks!

jimmy

If Bush is going to be impeached it should be for not fighting the war more aggressively.

The terrorist scum in Iraq are getting the weapons from Iran and Syria.....why not make them suffer? Lets bring the war to them.

-Mine their harbors.

-wipe out oil producing facilities.

-Hit military targets.

-Wipe out Irans nuke facilities.

The way we've been fighting this war is fighting ON THEIR TERMS...not ours and thats how you lose.

Maximu§