Retroactively strip Bush of all honors & immunities of a President?

[Troubadour]

Would you support retroactively stripping (assuming he leaves power first) George W. Bush of all honors, titles, immunities, and services due a former President of the United States? This includes the right to receive regular top-secret briefings for life, and to continue being guarded at taxpayer expense by the Secret Service. Should George W. Bush be stripped of these and other distinctions associating him with the US Presidency?

[PostmodernProphet]

.....why?

[Troubadour]

.....why?

Why what?

[PostmodernProphet]

why should he be stripped of anything?.....

[Troubadour]

why should he be stripped of anything?.....

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[PostmodernProphet]

no, I'm being argumentative.....

[Troubadour]

no, I'm being argumentative.....

As long as you're not being rhetorical. Anyone who doesn't actually know the basis of this question is not prepared to contribute anything meaningful, but I'll mention it anyway. George W. Bush is not merely a failure, embarrassment, and disgrace - he is an example of monstrous criminality and inhumanity whose very name will carry a blood libel against this nation for untold generations, and whose actions have never once respected or been bounded by the sacred limits of the office of US Presidency. I therefore think it not only morally fitting, honorable, and just to advocate his impeachment, removal from office, and criminal prosecution, but that we take the extraordinary step of retroactively revoking official recognition of his "presidency." To have freedom, justice, and basic human decency raped for 8 long years is bad enough, but to then have it insulted forever by recording a petty tyrant's name with those of American Presidents; to have the portrait of a disheveled fascist murderer who has willingly destroyed every law and institution he touched sit beside those of actual American statesmen is unacceptable.

This is not my opinion, but rather a fact as I've seen it play out: There is no George W. Bush "administration" and never has been - no George W. Bush "presidency"; nothing we could in fact even call a "government" above the level of the civil beaucracy: Every single appointed office was, quite simply, filled with corrupt business associates and juiced-in connected guys whose sole occupation for the past two terms has been pocketing our money and carting it out the back to their associates by the truckload like a common Mafia operation. But even that wasn't enough - they orchestrated an entire war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people out of thin air just so they could cart even more money out the back door - hundreds of billions to date, disappeared down a black hole. Even their "social policies" were nothing more than excuses to feed money to connected religious organizations. There is no "administration," and there is no "presidency" involved in what George W. Bush has done - he is simply a common criminal with uncommon means through fortunate birth, and it's about time we officially recognized that and place his name in its proper context. But beyond not being President, he is also one of the worst human beings in the history of the United States, and if we place any value in honor, we will deny him the privilege of continuing to disgrace the American presidency by association. Following his successful impeachment and removal from power, or the end of his term, the United States should strip him of all titles and immunities of the presidency, and retroactively void its recognition of his presidency. His criminal regime has been disastrous, disgraceful, and lawless, and America must officially recognize that to regain some of what he and his kind have taken from us.

[preservanation]

All this is well and good, and one could do what you suggest if we didn't live in a nation governed by the rule of law.
Unfortunately (for you) this cannot not be done be fiat, or just because leftist malcontents say so.
One needs proof of criminality or abuse and precedent to punish someone in this country. Absent of that, all you are doing is promoting fascism and suggesting anarchy.

Keep trying though...you still have a few months left to convince the Dem congress to fulfill their campaign promise to impeach Bush.

[PostmodernProphet]

This is not my opinion, but rather a fact as I've seen it play out

interesting tirade....not very well thought out, but competently articulated...it is, of course, entirely opinion...based upon a very specific filter through which you have 'seen'....but I can sympathize....I have had similar thoughts about some of the liberal presidents in the last thirty years.....well, both of them actually.....

[David]

"Common Mafia operation"? No, the Mafia have honer and are less corrupt.

[BoogyMan]

As long as you're not being rhetorical. Anyone who doesn't actually know the basis of this question is not prepared to contribute anything meaningful, but I'll mention it anyway. George W. Bush is not merely a failure, embarrassment, and disgrace - he is an example of monstrous criminality and inhumanity whose very name will carry a blood libel against this nation for untold generations, and whose actions have never once respected or been bounded by the sacred limits of the office of US Presidency. I therefore think it not only morally fitting, honorable, and just to advocate his impeachment, removal from office, and criminal prosecution, but that we take the extraordinary step of retroactively revoking official recognition of his "presidency." To have freedom, justice, and basic human decency raped for 8 long years is bad enough, but to then have it insulted forever by recording a petty tyrant's name with those of American Presidents; to have the portrait of a disheveled fascist murderer who has willingly destroyed every law and institution he touched sit beside those of actual American statesmen is unacceptable.

This is not my opinion, but rather a fact as I've seen it play out: There is no George W. Bush "administration" and never has been - no George W. Bush "presidency"; nothing we could in fact even call a "government" above the level of the civil beaucracy: Every single appointed office was, quite simply, filled with corrupt business associates and juiced-in connected guys whose sole occupation for the past two terms has been pocketing our money and carting it out the back to their associates by the truckload like a common Mafia operation. But even that wasn't enough - they orchestrated an entire war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people out of thin air just so they could cart even more money out the back door - hundreds of billions to date, disappeared down a black hole. Even their "social policies" were nothing more than excuses to feed money to connected religious organizations. There is no "administration," and there is no "presidency" involved in what George W. Bush has done - he is simply a common criminal with uncommon means through fortunate birth, and it's about time we officially recognized that and place his name in its proper context. But beyond not being President, he is also one of the worst human beings in the history of the United States, and if we place any value in honor, we will deny him the privilege of continuing to disgrace the American presidency by association. Following his successful impeachment and removal from power, or the end of his term, the United States should strip him of all titles and immunities of the presidency, and retroactively void its recognition of his presidency. His criminal regime has been disastrous, disgraceful, and lawless, and America must officially recognize that to regain some of what he and his kind have taken from us.

Where are the charges against the president for the breathlessly delivered set of allegations? One would think that if such a huge list of allegation were able to be substantiated it would be a small task to be able to bring charges and get a conviction.

[Troubadour]

All this is well and good, and one could do what you suggest if we didn't live in a nation governed by the rule of law.

That we live in a nation governed by the rule of law is why George W. Bush is not our president, and why he should be denied the privileges associated with American presidency. There is no legal precedent one way or another on revoking the privileges of former presidents - unlike the repeatedly affirmed and constitutionally absolute laws the Glorious Leader constantly breaks with impunity and glee, to the evident satisfaction of likeminded and equally worthless people.


Unfortunately (for you) this cannot not be done be fiat, or just because leftist malcontents say so.


What are you babbling about?


One needs proof of criminality or abuse and precedent to punish someone in this country.


Is the extreme hypocrisy of your post deliberate? Are you throwing it in my face that one minute you defend kidnapping, torturing, and holding people indefinitely without trial on nothing more than an accusation by a Bush flunky, and the next minute you're lecturing me on due process because the accused is George W. Bush? Are you of the opinion that George W. Bush and those he designates are the only people who hold rights, and the only people to whom laws restricting behavior do not apply?

Moreover, there is no "right" to be called "president"; no "right" to taxpayer-funded lifetime security after leaving power; no "right" to continue receiving top secret briefings, and have one's portrait beside those of American presidents. George W. Bush has no such rights - those are arbitrary privileges and traditions that can be changed whenever necessary, and it's beyond obvious that American honor requires those privileges be denied him. When he leaves power, he goes from being a tyrant to being a former tyrant, and his disposition with respect to the law (i.e., outside of it) does not change.


Absent of that, all you are doing is promoting fascism and suggesting anarchy.


You're just randomly typing words, aren't you? "The if gauge ball orange hat cold, would under big caprice fascism nunchuks that yes monkey."


Keep trying though...you still have a few months left to convince the Dem congress to fulfill their campaign promise to impeach Bush.

They never made such a promise, and I doubt very much they're going to impeach him. But that isn't the subject of this thread - work on the reading comprehension skills.

[Osborn F. Enready]

To the OP.....

Yes, I would consider such as "reasonable" considering his obvious treason and actions against the rights of individuals, and the violations of the Constitution.

HOWEVER....

Fat chance of this being done if you can't MUSTER THE SUPPORT FOR IMPEACHMENT, which should have been done before his second term.

[Troubadour]

Where are the charges against the president for the breathlessly delivered set of allegations?


Right here:

http://rawstory.com/other/conyersreportrawstory.pdf

Note this only covers a handful of the major crimes through 2005 - it doesn't include any of the crimes committed in 2006, 2007, or this year, and also doesn't cover the countless petty crimes and abuses of power that are a daily fact of life in the Bush regime. Republicans have taken a Phil Specter Wall of Sound approach to crime - just commit so many of them, so often, and be so egregious about it, that there's no time to really deal with any of it before the next outrage happens. From fake terror alerts following every negative news story to gay prostitutes hired to pose as journalists and feed the Press Secretary scripted questions, they're basically professional evil - they do stuff like that constantly, so all that really rises above the fray are the truly monstrous acts like those covered in the above report.


One would think that if such a huge list of allegation were able to be substantiated it would be a small task to be able to bring charges and get a conviction.

Republicans would never, ever, under any circumstances vote to impeach or convict George W. Bush, and they have about half the Senate, so that means no conviction. While a substantial number of Democrats in the House favor impeachment, enough are dissuaded by the math in the Senate to consider it a futile proposition regardless of Bush's blatant guilt. Unfortunately, one of the "defeatists" is Nancy Pelosi, so impeachment cannot move forward. Bush could stomp a puppy's head to pulp in front of children with Associated Press cameras rolling and 90% of Republicans would still vote against impeachment - that's just the nature of fascism. The Republican Party isn't even a political party, it's a criminal organization existing for the benefit of its leaders - they hold fast against all external threats, including the American people, so they manage to keep their stranglehold even while in the minority. No jury in America outside a few counties in Dixie would acquit Bush if his publicly admitted actions were brought to trial before them - it's just the stranglehold of the Republican Party on the process, obstructing justice that prevents impeachment. That's all it is - naked power keeps Bush from accountability. Fascism.

[DamnYankee]

Would you support retroactively stripping (assuming he leaves power first) George W. Bush of all honors, titles, immunities, and services due a former President...

This ought to apply to all presidents.

[AlanC]

Sometimes, words just fail at accurately describing things. We have had Bush derangement syndrome for a while. But I think this calls for a new word. One that would more adequately contain the breadth of the emotion we are seeing here.

Perhaps bushphobia. Since this so obviously goes way beyond a mere political stance and has become, for all intents and purposes, an irrational and fearful expression of such deep emotional engagement and such consumming passion.

Its almost shocking in its expression. What a sad way to live each day.

[Washington]

Damn straight he should be stripped of them. This man is a waste of space, and tax-payer money. He is a moron, and will never be my President. He's is an incompetent, genocidal, thief!

[DamnYankee]

Damn straight he should be stripped of them. This man is a waste of space, and tax-payer money. He is a moron, and will never be my President. He's is an incompetent, genocidal, thief!

Oh, relax. George Walker Bush is leaving office in January, then you'll have your liberal savior in office.

[Pookie]

Gaaahhh! I heard pretty much the same when Clinton was in office. People yelled "Impeach!!" when he got a blow job.
Now people are wanting to strip Bush of everything.
Who's next? Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Paul?
Ehh, so it goes.
Purrs,
Pookie

[BoogyMan]

Troubador, what you and others fail to comprehend, is that an allegation is not the same thing as actually charging someone with a crime. When you get a handle on that simple and easily understood truth we can proceed. I asked you where the charges were and you presented me with a list of allegations.

[Pookie]

You aren't going to get an answer because Bush has not been formally charged with anything, Boogy.
If he were formally charged and maybe trying to weasel out, that would be completely different.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Easy90]

If I didn't know better, I would swear Troubador hates our fine president. Such vilification based on nothing but hate, and having no substance is a waste of time. I see it fairly commonly, and it's an interesting phenominon. All this "he's a thief...a moron...not MY president..CRIMINAL...etc., etc." is simply verbal masturbation coming from frustration out of the fact that Bush won the office, and beat two really stupid Dem candidates. When they won back the Congress in 06, they were all about "impeaching and jailing" Bush...and of course, that certainly would have happened, had not the brutal head of reality (that, unlike Clinton, he hasn't committed any impeachable offenses) reared its ugly head.

I am wondering how these silly folks are going to react with the McCain victory the Dems are getting ready to hand over? I can just see liberal heads exploding in rage! The more they lose, the crazier the really radical ones tend to become.

[Troubadour]

Would you support retroactively stripping (assuming he leaves power first) George W. Bush of all honors, titles, immunities, and services due a former President...

This ought to apply to all presidents.

Agreed, with caveats. Former presidents need Secret Service protection.

We have had Bush derangement syndrome for a while.


Yes, but I'm not claiming that Bush should be stripped of official recognition and privileges because he's mentally ill. If anything, I have an outsized level of compassion for him whenever I think about his actions in those terms. But that doesn't change the facts - to officially strip him of privileges is not merely a moral imperative to preserve what shred of honor he's left intact in our nation, but simply a recognition of fact that he and his regime are not part of the United States government.


Perhaps bushphobia. Since this so obviously goes way beyond a mere political stance and has become, for all intents and purposes, an irrational and fearful expression of such deep emotional engagement and such consumming passion.


I think you've lost track of the discussion. We're talking about removal of privileges once Bush leaves or is removed from power, and you seem to be talking about something else (though I have no idea what).

Troubador, what you and others fail to comprehend, is that an allegation is not the same thing as actually charging someone with a crime.


Bush himself fails to understand that, which is one of the reasons we're regrettably forced to have discussions like this. However, this particular thread is not about prosecution, but about revoking privileges assigned by tradition.


I asked you where the charges were and you presented me with a list of allegations.

I explained the political situation preventing indictment quite clearly, and frankly I don't believe for a single moment you're unaware of it. When someone commits a crime in public before the world, and brags about and rationalizes it, but every time it's brought up his supporters say there is "no evidence," what they're really saying is this: We are above the law, and you can't do anything about it. They declare themselves proudly in contempt of justice and freedom. Now, if there is actually something you want to know, feel free to ask an honest question.

If I didn't know better, I would swear Troubador hates our fine president.

If I didn't know any better, I would swear you think hating a murderer and torturer is a worse crime than murder and torture itself. But I do know better - Bush's lingering fringe of supporters don't care what he's done: He is their Glorious Leader, to whom they are absolutely and unquestioningly devoted, and if he says something that conflicts with reality, then reality is wrong; if he does something that breaks the law, the law is wrong; and if someone hates him for being the vilest murderer and liar in American history, then it is they who are immoral. The "values" exhibited by your comment are about as mysterious to me as navel lint, and just as interesting.


Such vilification based on nothing but hate


You haven't read a single word I've posted. Just admit it and end the farce.

[BoogyMan]

Troubador you have tried to justify this childishness based on supposed crimes and civil abuses and now you claim you cannot get an indictment? This is surely a joke? You continue to bring up crimes and misdeeds for which no charges have been filed and little more than your desire to punish the administration has been put up in evidence.

Your dislike for the current president does not equate to either an indictment or substantive charges.

[Go Fish]

As long as you're not being rhetorical. Anyone who doesn't actually know the basis of this question is not prepared to contribute anything meaningful, but I'll mention it anyway. George W. Bush is not merely a failure, embarrassment, and disgrace - he is an example of monstrous criminality and inhumanity whose very name will carry a blood libel against this nation for untold generations, and whose actions have never once respected or been bounded by the sacred limits of the office of US Presidency. I therefore think it not only morally fitting, honorable, and just to advocate his impeachment, removal from office, and criminal prosecution, but that we take the extraordinary step of retroactively revoking official recognition of his "presidency." To have freedom, justice, and basic human decency raped for 8 long years is bad enough, but to then have it insulted forever by recording a petty tyrant's name with those of American Presidents; to have the portrait of a disheveled fascist murderer who has willingly destroyed every law and institution he touched sit beside those of actual American statesmen is unacceptable.

This is not my opinion, but rather a fact as I've seen it play out: There is no George W. Bush "administration" and never has been - no George W. Bush "presidency"; nothing we could in fact even call a "government" above the level of the civil beaucracy: Every single appointed office was, quite simply, filled with corrupt business associates and juiced-in connected guys whose sole occupation for the past two terms has been pocketing our money and carting it out the back to their associates by the truckload like a common Mafia operation. But even that wasn't enough - they orchestrated an entire war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people out of thin air just so they could cart even more money out the back door - hundreds of billions to date, disappeared down a black hole. Even their "social policies" were nothing more than excuses to feed money to connected religious organizations. There is no "administration," and there is no "presidency" involved in what George W. Bush has done - he is simply a common criminal with uncommon means through fortunate birth, and it's about time we officially recognized that and place his name in its proper context. But beyond not being President, he is also one of the worst human beings in the history of the United States, and if we place any value in honor, we will deny him the privilege of continuing to disgrace the American presidency by association. Following his successful impeachment and removal from power, or the end of his term, the United States should strip him of all titles and immunities of the presidency, and retroactively void its recognition of his presidency. His criminal regime has been disastrous, disgraceful, and lawless, and America must officially recognize that to regain some of what he and his kind have taken from us.

Normally, when president does something really bad, he is impeached. Take Bill Clinton for example. He was impeached, and as a result of his impeachment, was disbarred, which means he can't be a lawyer no more.
Your psychotic ramblings are over the edge, and I'm reporting this one too. Get with the program, Troubadour.

[Go Fish]

"This is not my opinion, but rather a fact as I've seen it play out." - Troubadour

Troubadour, look on the fridge and see if there are any magnets there with phone numbers on them. If there are, call all of them that you can find. At least get ahold of Kathaksung and talk to him.
Go Fish

[Trish]

Would you support retroactively stripping (assuming he leaves power first) George W. Bush of all honors, titles, immunities, and services due a former President of the United States? This includes the right to receive regular top-secret briefings for life, and to continue being guarded at taxpayer expense by the Secret Service. Should George W. Bush be stripped of these and other distinctions associating him with the US Presidency?

No. He is President of the United States of America. When he leaves office he is due exactly what every other ex-President is due. Those rights and/or privileges are not predicated upon performance. If they were, there would be precious few former Presidents who would have "earned" them.

[AlanC]

Troubadour,

I'm sorry, Buck seemed to imply that only liberals had a sense of irony. Apparently not all.

I am suggesting that you show all the signs of having an irrational fear or hatred of George W. Bush. That being the case, I thought we should coin a new term that would adequately name this condition and define it better.

The term I was suggesting is bushphobia. I believe you have it. As to this post, it serves no real purpose other than another display of your now personal angst with reagard to all things bush.

I find it sad actually that anyone would appear to be so bitter that they just can't let that bitterness go. You seem to be trying to find new ways to exocise this particuar demon from yourself and you don't seem to be having a lot of success.

[apdst]

Stupid shit like this gives Liberals a bad name.

I think Liberalism could be one of the best things that ever happened to this country, were not for most Liberals being bat-chit crazy.

[Troubadour]

Troubador you have tried to justify this childishness based on supposed crimes and civil abuses and now you claim you cannot get an indictment?


We cannot get an impeachment indictment, for reasons already stated (which you have now twice refused to specifically address, and all that that implies). However, prosecution once the Executive branch is no longer under the direct control of his henchmen is another matter, and this thread (as I've repeatedly reminded you) isn't about prosecution - it's about removal of privileges in order to dissociate our institutions from George W. Bush and preserve some national honor.


This is surely a joke?


You've certainly treated it like one, so it must be one. The only alternative is to recognize that your level of contempt doesn't determine the importance of a question, which surely cannot be the case...


You continue to bring up crimes and misdeeds for which no charges have been filed


Crimes and misdeeds that occurred in full public view, some of which you undoubtedly watched unfold with the rest of the world, and now upon hearing about them respond like the character from Memento. "Abu Ghraib? What's that? Where am I? Who am I? What year is it?" This thread isn't the joke, Boogy.


and little more than your desire to punish the administration has been put up in evidence.


Holocaust deniers, Creationists, and Bush apologists. Same script, different nouns.


Your dislike for the current president does not equate to either an indictment or substantive charges.

The facts are documented and undisputed. The question is whether we should respond to them by retroactively stripping Bush of the honors and immunities of presidency once he leaves office or is removed. Now, DO YOU or DO YOU NOT have anything of meaning to contribute on the question at hand? (Rhetorical question, of course)

[BoogyMan]

Your decided angst towards anyone questioning your stance notwithstanding Troubador, what charges are pending against the administration's officials again? What was that? None you say? When there has been a conviction for a crime we can talk about punishment, but not until then.

[Pookie]

Oh, dear. But it still comes down to the point where he hasn't been formally charged. Until then, this is simply speculation and what ifs, right?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Kyi Yo]

Yes, I would really hate the thought that my taxes are going to supporting him for the rest of his life.

[Troubadour]

Your decided angst towards anyone questioning your stance notwithstanding Troubador, what charges are pending against the administration's officials again?

You're asking me what they're charging themselves with?


What was that? None you say? When there has been a conviction for a crime we can talk about punishment, but not until then.

For the THIRD TIME - we are discussing privileges assigned by tradition, not something Bush has a right to that can only be removed through prosecution. Hopefully a third time's a charm when it comes to reading comprehension.

[Pookie]

I got it the first time, okay?
Until somebody actually does strip him of his privileges, I don't see it happening.
Who's going to try that?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Troubadour]

I got it the first time, okay?
Until somebody actually does strip him of his privileges, I don't see it happening.


You don't see it happening until it happens? :)


Who's going to try that?
Purrs,
Pookie

Probably no one - Bush will be prosecuted, convicted, and go to prison (likely for a much shorter term than the charges demand), but people will still continue referring to him as a "former president," and his portrait would probably still be on the wall. Regardless, there's no reason this couldn't happen - there are no legal, moral, or ethical barriers to it, and it would serve American honor to strip him of privileges.

[Pookie]

Wait a sec. Who will put this into motion? If someone decides to prosecute him and he gets convicted and goes to prison, who is that someone?
Purrs,
Pookie

[ViolaLee]

Would you support retroactively stripping (assuming he leaves power first) George W. Bush of all honors, titles, immunities, and services due a former President of the United States? This includes the right to receive regular top-secret briefings for life, and to continue being guarded at taxpayer expense by the Secret Service. Should George W. Bush be stripped of these and other distinctions associating him with the US Presidency?

I don't think he should be stripped of being guarded at taxpayer expense.








But I think the guards should be prison guards.

[apdst]

Yes, I would really hate the thought that my taxes are going to supporting him for the rest of his life.

I feel the same way about Bill Clinton. Just think if Hillary gets elected. We'll be paying for BOTH of them worthless MF'ers.

But I think the guards should be prison guards.

What would the charges be? I mean, no kiddin', what would they be?

[PatrickHenry]

Well, Troubador...

I loathe Bush, too.

Fortunately for me, he's not the first president I have loathed.

He is just the latest in a long line of Presidents governing the loathesome USA from the loathesome seat of Empire, Washington, DC.

Can you tell I don't think of the US as us?

[Sublimating]

I don't think he should be stripped of being guarded at taxpayer expense.

But I think the guards should be prison guards.

Troubadour I would support this 100%. It will never happen. Consider that Americans elected him twice. We (Americans) have been the laughing stock of the international community since the last election.

[David]

If I didn't know better, I would swear Troubador hates our fine president. Such vilification based on nothing but hate, and having no substance is a waste of time. I see it fairly commonly, and it's an interesting phenominon. All this "he's a thief...a moron...not MY president..CRIMINAL...etc., etc." is simply verbal masturbation coming from frustration out of the fact that Bush won the office, and beat two really stupid Dem candidates. When they won back the Congress in 06, they were all about "impeaching and jailing" Bush...and of course, that certainly would have happened, had not the brutal head of reality (that, unlike Clinton, he hasn't committed any impeachable offenses) reared its ugly head.

I am wondering how these silly folks are going to react with the McCain victory the Dems are getting ready to hand over? I can just see liberal heads exploding in rage! The more they lose, the crazier the really radical ones tend to become.

Except everyone, Left and Right-Wing, knows he's a liberal as well.

[BoogyMan]

You're asking me what they're charging themselves with?

For the THIRD TIME - we are discussing privileges assigned by tradition, not something Bush has a right to that can only be removed through prosecution. Hopefully a third time's a charm when it comes to reading comprehension.

Until the man is proven guilty of something there is no reason to strip him of anything Troubadour, that is the WHOLE point. When you guys get those charges filed and get a conviction, then you can talk about punitive action.

[Truth_and_Power]

All this is well and good, and one could do what you suggest if we didn't live in a nation governed by the rule of law.
Unfortunately (for you) this cannot not be done be fiat, or just because leftist malcontents say so.
One needs proof of criminality or abuse and precedent to punish someone in this country. Absent of that, all you are doing is promoting fascism and suggesting anarchy.

Keep trying though...you still have a few months left to convince the Dem congress to fulfill their campaign promise to impeach Bush.

Rule of law? Really?

Don't you mean, except for the executive branch? I mean, with no ability of search and seizure, how could there ever be a trial?

[preservanation]

That we live in a nation governed by the rule of law is why George W. Bush is not our president, and why he should be denied the privileges associated with American presidency.What country are you living in where this statement has a chance of being factual, East Timor?

EDIT:Ok, I got it.
Sorry about the slow up-take guys...my bad.

Some want a duly elected President's privileges removed because some don't like him.
This, as I said before, smacks at fascism and anarchy.
Sadly, this is what I'm come to expect from some here in America, and is one reason why some support Stalinist-type tactics and rule.
Got it.

[Troubadour]

It will never happen. Consider that Americans elected him twice. We (Americans) have been the laughing stock of the international community since the last election.

Americans have never elected George W. Bush anything other than Governor of Texas, which I only assume he won legitimately from what I know of Texans.

Until the man is proven guilty of something there is no reason to strip him of anything Troubadour, that is the WHOLE point. When you guys get those charges filed and get a conviction, then you can talk about punitive action.

Your posts in this thread have no relationship to reality. They are a pitiful, ridiculous ideological rear-guard action reminiscent of Baghdad Bob press conferences, saying just about anything to dodge acknowledging the fact of a failed tyrant already consigned by history to the echelons of leadership somewhere between Commodus and Hitler. Just how insulting can you be, telling Americans they have to pretend the last 8 years of crime and disaster haven't happened because Bush hasn't charged himself with anything?

[preservanation]

Americans have never elected George W. Bush anything other than Governor of Texas, which I only assume he won legitimately from what I know of Texans.

Boogyman Wrote:Originally Posted by BoogyMan
Until the man is proven guilty of something there is no reason to strip him of anything Troubadour, that is the WHOLE point. When you guys get those charges filed and get a conviction, then you can talk about punitive action.


Your posts in this thread have no relationship to reality. They are a pitiful, ridiculous ideological rear-guard action reminiscent of Baghdad Bob press conferences, saying just about anything to dodge acknowledging the fact of a failed tyrant already consigned by history to the echelons of leadership somewhere between Commodus and Hitler. Just how insulting can you be, telling Americans they have to pretend the last 8 years of crime and disaster haven't happened because Bush hasn't charged himself with anything?
All we're asking for is proof.
Lacking that, this thread belongs in the rant room.
Maybe this catharsis makes you feel better, but trying to convince sane people of your fantastical hopes and dreams is fruitless.

[BoogyMan]

Until the man is proven guilty of something there is no reason to strip him of anything Troubadour, that is the WHOLE point. When you guys get those charges filed and get a conviction, then you can talk about punitive action.
Your posts in this thread have no relationship to reality. They are a pitiful, ridiculous ideological rear-guard action reminiscent of Baghdad Bob press conferences, saying just about anything to dodge acknowledging the fact of a failed tyrant already consigned by history to the echelons of leadership somewhere between Commodus and Hitler. Just how insulting can you be, telling Americans they have to pretend the last 8 years of crime and disaster haven't happened because Bush hasn't charged himself with anything?

Troubadorur, my posts are asking you to live by your own rules. You want to punish someone for which you have not procured a conviction. Surely you can see the hypocrisy of such a position?

As I have stated over and over again, when you have a conviction under your belt, punish away.

[potter]

How do you investigate someone when they have the ability to deny access to all records, to destroy any records they might have and claim it was an accident, and the ability to block any invistigation just by saying "No you can't investigate me"?


Innocent until proven guilty...we should all have these protections huh?

[preservanation]

How do you investigate someone when they have the ability to deny access to all records, to destroy any records they might have and claim it was an accident, and the ability to block any invistigation just by saying "No you can't investigate me"?


Innocent until proven guilty...we should all have these protections huh?
And we thought Mccarthy was bad....hooo boy.
What some are proposing is nothing new, but it's hard to improve on Joseph Stalin.

[Troubadour]

All we're asking for is proof.

You have proof. The regime admits what it does, and simply insists it's beyond the law.


Lacking that, this thread belongs in the rant room.


Your posts are laughable insults that a 19-year-old White House Press Office intern could write on a napkin during brunch.


Maybe this catharsis makes you feel better, but trying to convince sane people of your fantastical hopes and dreams is fruitless.

Right - "sane" people like Bush. Preservanation, your comments are one great big, unfunny, sick joke, and you could just as easily communicate the same message with one picture of a middle finger as a thousand cloned posts demanding proof that 1 + 1 = 2.

[namguy]

Would you support retroactively stripping (assuming he leaves power first) George W. Bush of all honors, titles, immunities, and services due a former President of the United States? This includes the right to receive regular top-secret briefings for life, and to continue being guarded at taxpayer expense by the Secret Service. Should George W. Bush be stripped of these and other distinctions associating him with the US Presidency?


Indeed so. His 'distinctions' that he may have gotten came by his money, certainly not by his merit, he has no merits.

[namguy]

why should he be stripped of anything?.....

because he's a nut.

[namguy]

As long as you're not being rhetorical. Anyone who doesn't actually know the basis of this question is not prepared to contribute anything meaningful, but I'll mention it anyway. George W. Bush is not merely a failure, embarrassment, and disgrace - he is an example of monstrous criminality and inhumanity whose very name will carry a blood libel against this nation for untold generations, and whose actions have never once respected or been bounded by the sacred limits of the office of US Presidency. I therefore think it not only morally fitting, honorable, and just to advocate his impeachment, removal from office, and criminal prosecution, but that we take the extraordinary step of retroactively revoking official recognition of his "presidency." To have freedom, justice, and basic human decency raped for 8 long years is bad enough, but to then have it insulted forever by recording a petty tyrant's name with those of American Presidents; to have the portrait of a disheveled fascist murderer who has willingly destroyed every law and institution he touched sit beside those of actual American statesmen is unacceptable.

This is not my opinion, but rather a fact as I've seen it play out: There is no George W. Bush "administration" and never has been - no George W. Bush "presidency"; nothing we could in fact even call a "government" above the level of the civil beaucracy: Every single appointed office was, quite simply, filled with corrupt business associates and juiced-in connected guys whose sole occupation for the past two terms has been pocketing our money and carting it out the back to their associates by the truckload like a common Mafia operation. But even that wasn't enough - they orchestrated an entire war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people out of thin air just so they could cart even more money out the back door - hundreds of billions to date, disappeared down a black hole. Even their "social policies" were nothing more than excuses to feed money to connected religious organizations. There is no "administration," and there is no "presidency" involved in what George W. Bush has done - he is simply a common criminal with uncommon means through fortunate birth, and it's about time we officially recognized that and place his name in its proper context. But beyond not being President, he is also one of the worst human beings in the history of the United States, and if we place any value in honor, we will deny him the privilege of continuing to disgrace the American presidency by association. Following his successful impeachment and removal from power, or the end of his term, the United States should strip him of all titles and immunities of the presidency, and retroactively void its recognition of his presidency. His criminal regime has been disastrous, disgraceful, and lawless, and America must officially recognize that to regain some of what he and his kind have taken from us.

Beautifully stated.

[lily]

And we thought Mccarthy was bad....hooo boy.
What some are proposing is nothing new, but it's hard to improve on Joseph Stalin.


Preservation..........you have a president who tells America he is going to get to the bottom of a serious leak.......they are going to investigate themselves...tell me, who in their right mind falls for that?

Then during the special prosecutors investigation, you have the vice-president's cheif of staff lying to cover his boss' ass, because he knows he'll never see the inside of a jail cell.........and then we find out that ooooppppsssss important emails that led up to the war are "missing", important emails that led to firing of prosecuters are "missing". We also have a vice-president that changes his own "status" at will and refuses to give the National Archives his records.........for posteriety. We have one Attorney General leave in disgrace, only to have another ineffective one take his place...........and you guys just lap this up like kittens getting cream.

Yes, I can understand the hatred some on the left have for Bush, but I can't understand the down right total devotion to the man either.

[lily]

Preservation..........you have a president who tells America he is going to get to the bottom of a serious leak.......they are going to investigate themselves...tell me, who in their right mind falls for that?

Then during the special prosecutors investigation, you have the vice-president's cheif of staff lying to cover his boss' ass, because he knows he'll never see the inside of a jail cell.........and then we find out that ooooppppsssss important emails that led up to the war are "missing", important emails that led to firing of prosecuters are "missing". We also have a vice-president that changes his own "status" at will and refuses to give the National Archives his records.........for posteriety. We have one Attorney General leave in disgrace, only to have another ineffective one take his place...........and you guys just lap this up like kittens getting cream.

Yes, I can understand the hatred some on the left have for Bush, but I can't understand the down right total devotion to the man either.


For crying in a handkercheif.........even Cheney has no respect for him, since he didn't bother telling his "boss" he shot his friend in the face until the next day.

[David]

For crying in a handkercheif.........even Cheney has no respect for him, since he didn't bother telling his "boss" he shot his friend in the face until the next day.

Indeed. Anyone else think Bush wasn't supposed to survive that? I mean really...

Since when does this:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/POLITICS/04/23/bush.iraq/vert.bush.oval.pool.jpg
and this:
http://www.stanford.edu/~petelat1/quail.jpg
look the same?

Throw in the fact it was a head shot (or would of been at a closer range) and...

[Troubadour]

Indeed. Anyone else think Bush wasn't supposed to survive that? I mean really...


Cheney shot a "friend" - Harry Whittington - not Bush. As for Whittington, he was begging Cheney for forgiveness for causing him trouble by being shot in the face - begging for forgiveness from his hospital bed, as his life hung in the balance, from the man who shot him. That's some fear FYA. I wonder if he thought Cheney might try to finish the job.

[lily]

Cheney shot a "friend" - Harry Whittington - not Bush. As for Whittington, he was begging Cheney for forgiveness for causing him trouble by being shot in the face - begging for forgiveness from his hospital bed, as his life hung in the balance, from the man who shot him. That's some fear FYA. I wonder if he thought Cheney might try to finish the job.


I don't think anyone's going to fall for Whittington begging Cheney's forgivness.........the man was shot in the face........Now I've never been shot in the face, but I think the last thing I would want to do is stand in front of cameras and say the Vice-president had a few beers, then we ate BBQ, then we had a driver drive us out to shoot some quail and Cheneny was stupid enough and a terrible shot, so he shot me in the face.....Yeah, the well rehearsed statement was buch better!


Anyway, it's really not about Cheney shoting him in the face, it's how he kept it out of the papers for a little while.......AND DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO TELL HIS "BOSS" what happened.