It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama will let " Bush's Crimes Remain Buried for all Time"

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:43 PM
If elected , Obama wouldn't hold Bush accountable for the last eight years of crime....

[edit on 16-8-2008 by L.HAMILTON]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by L.HAMILTON]

[edit on 16-8-2008 by L.HAMILTON]

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:45 PM
Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing? What is it you feel that Obama should do? I'm not quite sure where you want to go with this thread.


posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:47 PM
Neither would McCain. Neither would anyone else in power in this country.

History may rightfully vilify him in 10, 20, maybe 50 years. Other countries will call him to task. The American public, for the most part, will place the blame square on his shoulders. What it comes down to, though, is that no one will hold him accountable in a criminal or legal sense for anything done during the last 8 years.

I thought we all knew that already.

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 06:49 PM

Originally posted by L.HAMILTON
If elected , Obama wouldn't hold Bush accountable for the lasteight years of crime....

Obama isn't stupid. he knows that if he starts digging into why China got the WTC steel dirt cheap and before any criminal investigation cleared it for disposal he would be dead in days.

He of course would 'commit suicide'. Like all the other 'witnesses to politicians crimes' do.

Obama or McCain? Your screwed America, screwed.

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 07:02 PM
The last president that was actually held accountable for his crimes was Nixon . Though his crimes were no where even close to those that have been openly committed by the past several administrations.

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 07:23 PM
No man, woman, cop ,senator , political figure priest paster judge Democrat ,Republican or president should be above the law . PERIOD

In my eyes to willfully hide crimes or refuse to prosecute them is aiding and a bedding the crime making them a co conspirator in the crime .

This rug they are sweeping every thing under is getting pretty full it might just burst one of these days .

If in fact Bush has done any thing illegal it is a slap in all of our faces not to peruse charges . We can all say yes he has but that really needs to be sorted out by the courts not public option . Even if i think he did , The courts need a opportunity to decide .

It is for judges to decide if laws were broken not politicians .

We are electing i guess a President and judge to decide whats crime and whats not .

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 07:27 PM
There wasn't any crime over the past 8 years. Sorry.

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

How do you come to that conclusion?

What i find HILARIOUS is the comments from Bush and Rice about the Russian invasion of Georgia


"Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected. Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century


This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbour, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed...


Do Rice and Bush have the shortest of short term memories or what?

"Iraq" anyone?

But yeah - going to war without a congressional declaration....thats not illegal or nothing. No crime there. The illegal wiretapping. Yah - no big deal.

I guess next we'll be hearing a plea for ENRON executives to be let free?

[edit on 8/16/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

going to war without a congressional declaration.

Andrew, what war was this. I thought it was authorized.

Make a list of those crimes you speak about. Thanks in advance.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by jam321]

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by jam321

this handy little article is what raises suspicion in my mind.

Explain to me what the Iraqi conflict has done to be different from what Russia is doing to Georgia?


Im just curious - because if we label Russia the bad guy for doing the same thing we did - doesnt that make us the bad guy too?

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

let's keep Russia out for a second.

The War Powers Act prohibits the President from waging war beyond 60 days *1 without Congressional approval. Authorization can be made in many forms such as a temporary waiver of the Act or via a Declaration of War.

This was passed by Congress due to President LBJ getting us heavily involved in Vietnam

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:40 PM
reply to post by jam321


Im not really sure what you're saying?

So the president can go to war without any justification?

He's the judge jury and executioner and congress has no authority?

Serioulsy - thats what im asking....

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

By law president can use military for 60 days but if he needs them to stay more than 60 days he needs Congress to authorize it.

President Clinton did one up on Bush.

in places such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, the Sudan, Iraq, Haiti, and Somalia. In none of these cases did the Clinton administration receive congressional authorization for its decisions to use force abroad.


[edit on 16-8-2008 by jam321]

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:49 PM
Obama shouldn't punish Bush. It is not his place. It is between God and Bush if he did something wrong. Why does everyone automatically believe he is so evil. I mean if he was getting his orders from God almighty (who also handed out orders to Moses, Joshua, and others that would seemingly be questionable) then he is actually doing the right thing even though we may not understand it. God knows what he is doing and that is who Bush is listening to, so who are we to complain about it.

Too many are so quick to pull out the noose and drag Bush to the hanging tree when what they don't realize is that they won't be hanging Bush just as a man, but a chosen man of God. Didn't you read Bush's book "man of faith"? It is very insightful and a reminder that God works in ways that are beyond our ways.

Don't be so judgmental of a man who is only following higher orders because you will be judged by the same higher power.

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:52 PM
While he's at it I hope he can do the same for disclosure, just let the bigwigs go, but let us know the truth about our technology and where we sit in the Universe.

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:55 PM
reply to post by jam321

So since we've been in Iraq for more than 60 days....he's violating a law...or am i wrong?

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 11:59 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Congress authorized the war prior to the war starting. It is called the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY

Once authorized the 60 days no longer applies. Congress could set deadline but has chosen not to.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by jam321]

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by jam321

So then this extends, indefinatly, the powers to the president to wage war?

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

No it only authorizes this war. For example, if Bush send troops to Georgia, he has 60 days or he must seek approval from Congress if it will take more than 60 days. If Congress refuses he has to get troops out.

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:04 AM
where i get fuzzy on this argument is this:

We invade on the premise of WMD's


Nope. No WMD's....

So we invaded because they were tied to 9/11 ??

Oh wait wait wait....wrong again

Straight from the horses mouth.

So war crimes?

Since when is invading a country without a reason considered not a war crime?

[edit on 8/17/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in