Fox legal analyst: Bush should have been indicted

Source: rawstory.com...

I have always said that punditry has been the method used to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people but if I had to pick one pundit over the other, it sure would be the "The Judge". With that being said, punditry wouldn't be so bad, if only people wouldn't blindly follow them and maybe check up on some of the things they issue. In this case, Andrew Napolitano couldn't have been more right.

What is most surprising, is this came out on FOX News. Obviously, this is FOX News trying to capitalize on the whole "Tea Party" movement and anti-neocon sentiment that is boiling in this country but the message is still there and needs to be out there.

--airspoon

He wouldn't have been able to be indicted until he was impeached, which never occurred.

reply to post by pacific_waters


I think that goes without saying. However, an impeachment isn't necessarily a bad thing. Look at Bill Clinton. Even still, I think that we should investigate the Bush Admin and indict as needed. You surely don't need an impeachment now.

--airspoon


[edit on 13-7-2010 by airspoon]

He' not wrong. Could still happen. I don't think it's true either that he and/or Cheney would have to have been impeached to be tried for war crimes at a later date.

Side Note: I have a feeling Napolitano's days on Fox are numbered. Did you happen to catch The Daily Shows spoof of them tranquilizing him when he went roque (on another subject...not this one)? Hilarious. The video is at the bottom left, and Na about 3:30 into the video, thought the rest is hilarious too.

Being conservative means you believe in natural rights and laws that protect those rights.

When the article says:

Fox News' senior judicial analyst made some surprising remarks Saturday that may go against the grain at his conservative network.

What they really mean is:

Fox News' senior judicial analyst made some surprising remarks Saturday that may go against the grain at his liberal warmongering network.

Since conservatism means to conserve that which is good while rejecting that which is bad, one can say that those who are in favor of rejecting natural rights are not conservative.

reply to post by mnemeth1


In this country, there is a false fassad of left-right politics, as you probably know. I think the wording of this article is meant to capture this false perception of American politics.

I don't really think that it's a secret that the neo-cons aren't really conservative, hence the "neo".

With that being said, I agree with you that it should have stated "neo-conservative" network instead of "conservative" network, however most Americans falsely believe the neo-conservatives to be conservative, as opposed to liberal and so wouldn't understand the meaning if worded any different.

--airspoon

[edit on 13-7-2010 by airspoon]

reply to post by airspoon


Well said Airspoon, Neoconservatives are not conservatives. Their philosopy derives from Trotskyism.

Ron Paul fits the bill of a true conservative. His philosophies, if examined in detail, are closest to that of Thomas Jefferson.