Should Bush Face War Crimes Trial, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 2-1-2006 @ 05:37 PM by Marbusse
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached. He believed himself to be above the law. He proved that by lying to a grand jury. Irregardless of what he lied about, he lied. That is committing a crime.

No one is above the law.

George W. Bush also deserves impeachment. He lied to the congress and to the people of the United States in his State of the Union speech. Remember those 16 little words, anyone? It's in the record.

My fellow Republicans have a terrible case of amnesia. They are unwilling to live by the same standards and conduct they demand of the Democrats. It's wrong and its shameful.


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?

No one is above the law.

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.


reply posted on 2-1-2006 @ 09:15 PM by EastCoastKid
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

Originally posted by Marbusse
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.


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

It is good to recall that Clinton, at first, only lied to American public about his personal life which is NOT a crime


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

That was a selfish move of Republican Party and not-so-honest democrats.


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

The whole show around Clinton made it possible for Bush to come to power.


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


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?


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.

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.


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.


reply posted on 5-1-2006 @ 03:52 PM by deluded
Originally posted by Marbusse
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
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
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^