Would an American Jury Convict Bush?

[Troubadour]

Setting aside the prejudices we can assume jurors would bring into such a case, are you confident that having gone through a trial, an American jury would convict George W. Bush if the charges against him were proven beyond a reasonable doubt? In other words, do you believe that on average, American juries are reliable?

[Drocket]

Most Americans would. There's about 30% of the population, though, who would support Bush even if shown video of him personally shooting up a maternity ward full of babies with an AK47 (gotta keep an eye out for them there terrist babies, you know.) So whether or not Bush could be convicted depends on whether or not there's any insane people on the jury.

[Troubadour]

Most Americans would. There's about 30% of the population, though, who would support Bush even if shown video of him personally shooting up a maternity ward full of babies with an AK47 (gotta keep an eye out for them there terrist babies, you know.) So whether or not Bush could be convicted depends on whether or not there's any insane people on the jury.

True, but we can assume the usual jury selection procedures would apply - defense and prosecution could make exclusions. So, if Bush's attorneys excluded everyone with an apparent IQ over 120, and prosecutors excluded the Nazi loons and TV-educated idiots, would the resulting mush of American mediocrity be moral and rational enough to convict on overwhelming evidence?

[apdst]

There isn't enough evidence to make it to an actual trial, so it's a moot point as to whether a jury would convict.

[Scribbler1]

An American jury failed to convict OJ Simpson, so I wouldn't bet on an American jury going either way with Bush. They MIGHT vote to convict, but with a "good", yet unethical lawyer such as Johnnie Cochran it wouldn't be a lock.

[apdst]

An American jury failed to convict OJ Simpson

OJ was aquitted because he is black.

[Elrathin]

OJ was aquitted because he is black.

No, he was acquitted because he was rich and was able to afford a good lawyer.

[Troubadour]

There isn't enough evidence to make it to an actual trial

There is no other word for this claim - it's a lie. If the tenor of Republican statements on this has proven anything, it's that they are not only unaware, but completely uninterested in the evidence against Bush. Despite the fact that Bush has not permitted a single investigation into his regime in its entire history; despite the fact that he has never cooperated with a single Congressional investigation that came anywhere near to questioning the legality of his actions or those of any high official on his behalf; despite the fact that they have been held so far above the law that neither he nor Dick Cheney have ever been required to testify under oath about anything, and the 9/11 Commission was not even permitted to record his answers to questions given to him in advance; despite the fact that his regime has attempted to classify every scrap of paper and cafeteria napkin that passes through the White House, Pentagon, CIA, or other agency involved in direct application of power; despite their ruthless suppression of internal dissent and terrorist retaliation against inconvenient leakers while encouraging leaks that suit them; the evidence that already exists in the public domain, simply by what they themselves have admitted to, is sufficient to convict. You will not cite the fact that Bush refuses to prosecute himself as indicating a lack of evidence - that is an outrageous absurdity worthy of some third-world dictator's press spokesman, and an inexcusable insult to this country.


so it's a moot point as to whether a jury would convict.

Read the poll question: Would an American jury convict Bush, if given proof beyond a reasonable doubt? More appropriately, would you? Personally, I think you've already answered that question.

[Troubadour]

An American jury failed to convict OJ Simpson, so I wouldn't bet on an American jury going either way with Bush. They MIGHT vote to convict, but with a "good", yet unethical lawyer such as Johnnie Cochran it wouldn't be a lock.

The OJ Simpson case was very particular, and I don't know that it could apply to a case with thousands of witnesses, countless victims, thousands of hours of video, signed Executive Orders, and virtual confessions in press releases. It's one thing to see photographs of a body, and take a tour of a crime scene after it's completely cleaned up - it's quite another to have innocent victims of torture breaking down on the stand as they describe their experiences, and then follow that up immediately with video of Bush or whoever talking about "harsh interrogation," and cracking jokes about it at one of their fundraisers. Also, I don't think a judge in a case of that magnitude would tolerate Cochrane-esque shenanigans - if defense attorneys tried to turn the trial into a Rovean attack on secularism, or gay marriage, or "elitists" instead of addressing the evidence, there would be stern warnings, contempt charges and, if necessary, removal from the trial.

[apdst]

No, he was acquitted because he was rich and was able to afford a good lawyer.

And black. The jury was concerned about coloreds rioting over a guilty verdict.

There is no other word for this claim - it's a lie.

Ok, post your evidence.

[Elrathin]

And black. The jury was concerned about coloreds rioting over a guilty verdict.

Yeah, that was it alright, no because he was rich and not because he had a good lawyer, but because he was black. So how come the jails are overcrowded with black people then? Shouldn't they have all been acquitted because they were black? Sorry, but you just got proved wrong.

[apdst]

I agreed with the part about being rich and added that he is colored. Read a little closer in the future, please, sir.

[Troubadour]

Ok, post your evidence.

The following is not merely evidence of the two biggest charges, but (if the articles are factually accurate) it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt in its own right - and it is nowhere near exhaustive. These are just articles anyone could find in five minutes. But, again, I am perfectly willing to let a court decide - although Bush and his supporters are naturally not. Again, these are just two charges among potentially dozens, proven and virtually confessed to in public.

Torture:

Approval at the highest levels:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256&page=1

Official attempts to justify and rationalize it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html

Institution of secret prison system run by the Pentagon for the purposes of torture:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/24/040524fa_fact

Direct admission:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7229169.stm

Policy of hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, approved at highest levels:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:LQk-itjRE1cJ:www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040628/28prison.htm+hiding+prisoners+from+the+Red+Cross&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Iraq conspiracy

This provides a nice summary:
http://rawstory.com/other/conyersreportrawstory.pdf

Basically, the above report shows that Bush and his accomplices had intended to invade Iraq before even entering office, and conspired to cook up fake intelligence, suppress real intelligence, punish insiders who wouldn't toe the line, and did everything within their power legal and illegal to push for the invasion of Iraq. It also delves into the torture, aftermath, and many other aspects of the horror. I don't expect you or any other Bush supporter to actually read it, but I might as well post it anyway and watch you try to rationalize not reading it, or see if you can convincingly pretend to have read it. You're welcome to surprise me at any time by conceding that maybe this evidence, which would be enough to convict any regular American in a heartbeat, probably merits an indictment. But I'm pretty sure you've seen all this before - it's been around for years, and this is a debate forum. So, go ahead and chuckle at the "silly librul" wasting his time actually answering Republican demands for evidence that will never be acknowledged, examined, or considered by any Bush supporter - finding this information took less than 15 minutes total.

[apdst]

You're going to court armed with newspaper articles? One is a foreign paper and at least two more are known bations of Liberalist treason? Are you for real? Is this the best you have? You're going to court, dude. Newspaper articles won't hold up.

Keep trying.

[Drocket]

OJ was acquitted because it was fairly clear that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence. No, I don't think OJ was innocent and Fuhrman decided it would be fun to frame an innocent black man. What I think happened is that Fuhrman believed that OJ was guilty, and decided to take matters into his own hands to ensure the 'correct' outcome. If OJ had been just another poor man (black or not), he would certainly have gone to jail, but he had enough money to get good enough lawyers to examine the evidence thoroughly and discover the serious issues that existed with so much of it.

My own opinion is that OJ was probably guilty. With so much tainted evidence, though, there simply wasn't any way to convict him - there was enough reasonable doubt to drive a white SUV through.

None of this is really relevant to this question, though...

[Scribbler1]

The OJ Simpson case was very particular, and I don't know that it could apply to a case with thousands of witnesses, countless victims...The question was would an American jury convict Bush. A good enough lawyer can always sway a jury regardless of how many facts, witnesses, etc. you can bring in.

[Scribbler1]

And black. The jury was concerned about coloreds rioting over a guilty verdict.I don't think so. They were swayed by a slick lawyer and were not privy to the same information we had due to sequestration. I recall at least THREE of the jurors (all black, btw) saying in an interview if they had known what WE knew, they would have voted to convict.

[Troubadour]

You're going to court armed with newspaper articles?

ROFLMAO! I knew you'd come back with some fatuous excuse for not even reading them. Did I call it or did I call it? Either I'm Criswell or you folks are about as unpredictable as a metronome. Demand evidence, then don't read a single word - just babble attacks on the sources. Your post isn't even a joke anymore - it's CUTE, like a little baby picking its nose.


One is a foreign paper and at least two more are known bations of Liberalist treason? Are you for real? Is this the best you have? You're going to court, dude. Newspaper articles won't hold up. Keep trying.

OMGROTFLMFAO...(gasp)...(gasp)...okay...okay, this is (chuckle)...this is...(gulp) too...funny. "Liberalist treason." I predicted practically every single word in your post - I wrote an additional paragraph predicting your response, and then deleted it before posting. This is the first part of what I said:


No, in all likelihood you're simply going to respond with some idiotic attack on "the librul media," as if randomly generated by a Republican chatbot. You won't read a single word in a single one of those articles, let alone respond to the evidence in them that you just demanded. If anything, you'll claim the articles are evidence of a treasonous Democratic conspiracy.


Beyond a joke, apdst. Your statements have transcended the realm of unintentional humor into a sublime universe of pure parody and endearing travesty. Doesn't it disgust you that I have your mind mapped like a computer game dungeon, and can predict your responses like a landscaper can predict weed growth? Here is a bare-bones summary of the discussions we've had here and elsewhere, boiled down to their essence:

You: Where's your evidence?
Me: You don't want evidence. You're just running through a script.
You: See, you don't have any evidence!
Me: I have a virtually unlimited, easily available ocean of evidence, but you wouldn't read or acknowledge a single word of it.
You: Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh! You don't have any evidence!
Me: Do you really want evidence? If I give it to you, will you read it and address it honestly?
You: ...
Me: Well?
You: ...
Me: If I post it to you, you're just going to ignore it, not read a single word, and attack the sources.
You: Am not! I'll be an adult, I pwomise!
Me: Really?
You: Yeah, cross my heart and hope you die!
Me: Um, you mean, cross your heart and hope to die?
You: ...
Me: (Sigh). Fine, here it is.
You: Ahhhh! Evidence! It's burning, it's burning, get it off me! It's just a buncha librul media stuff! Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh! Librul media! Nyeh!

[apdst]

Sorry, Troubador, but that's not evidence. I don't know whatelse to tell you.


OJ was acquitted because it was fairly clear that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence.

It wasn't a trial, it was a compromise. He was found innocent in the criminal trial to appease one group and found guilty in the civil trial to appease another group.

[Trish]

The following is not merely evidence of the two biggest charges, but (if the articles are factually accurate) it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt in its own right - and it is nowhere near exhaustive.

There in your own words is the fly in the ointment so to speak - "if the articles are factually accurate" - big IF there.

[Troubadour]

Sorry, Troubador, but that's not evidence.

Oh, so that's why you didn't read it. You cast your clairvoyant powers forward into the internet and sensed immediately that it was not sufficient, as my own far more powerful psychic powers predicted you would! ROFL!


I don't know what else to tell you.


I know you don't - I knew it instantly from our first conversation. Your request for evidence was just a lying tactic to keep the burden perpetually on the other side, denying things you've already seen countless times - you're just running through a talking points script. What a silly, trivial little joke. There isn't a single disputed fact in any of the articles I posted - they are all verified, and an investigation would gather the same information and much more. I've proven my statements more thoroughly than I've ever seen you prove anything, and your only defense is complete indifference to the truth. So be it - I knew that was your attitude from the beginning, and I answered your ridiculous demand just to complete the punchline. There is now zero misunderstanding between us - I am on the side of the law, and you are on the side of George W. Bush. (Shrug). I/we/America will win.

[apdst]

I did read the articles. Tha ABC articel, for instance, talks about sleep deprivation being used to interrogate AQ prisoners. I don't see a crime there. AQ prisoners aren't protected under The Constitution, nor The Geneva Convention. The rest say purdy much the same thing.

The Raw Story article has conspiracy theory written all over it. The title on the cover of the book that the pdf shows, starts with, "The Downing Street Minutes", the originals of which were destroyed, so there's no possible way to verify authenticity.

[Pookie]

Personally, I think it's pretty funny that Apdst goes on and on and didn't vote in the poll.
Back to the topic, I think yes, if there was irrefutable evidence.
Purrs,
Pookie

[apdst]

The poll is rigged. There's sense in voting in a rigged poll.

[Pookie]

The poll is rigged. There's sense in voting in a rigged poll.

Okay, if there is sense in voting in a rigged poll, vote.
Yeah, yeah, I know it was a typo. Had to bug you about it. :nana:
Purrs,
Pookie

[Sublimating]

An American jury failed to convict OJ Simpson, so I wouldn't bet on an American jury going either way with Bush. They MIGHT vote to convict, but with a "good", yet unethical lawyer such as Johnnie Cochran it wouldn't be a lock.

Yeah Scribbler but OJ was innocent and Johnnie,
may he rest in peace, was a good man.

[preservanation]

The poll is rigged. There's sense in voting in a rigged poll.Yup.
This is a classic example of a "push-poll"
They're used campaigns all the time.
I think this guy is aspiring to be the next Peter Fenn.

[Scribbler1]

I don't see this as a "push" poll. You have two choices, yes or no with no editorializing.

My idea of a push poll is one where the question is couched within a certain slant. Something like, "Barack Obama is reportedly tied to a terrorist from the Weather Underground. Knowing that, would you say he is more able to be a patriotic president or less able."

[Buck Laser]

Yup.
This is a classic example of a "push-poll"
They're used campaigns all the time.
I think this guy is aspiring to be the next Peter Fenn.

My congressman in IL, Dumb Denny Hastert, used push polls all the time in his "communications" with his constituents. I'll agree that SOME pols use this kind of pettifoggery, but I've noticed that my congressman in Austin is very straightforward in asking questions of his constituents.

With regard to Bush, I doubt there'll be much of an investigation of his misdeeds until he leaves office. Probably most of his minions will fall before he does. But his chickens WILL come home to roost, as Obama's pastor so aptly noted. I'm gonna enjoy the next few years as we recover from this near-death experience.

[Troubadour]

I did read the articles. Tha ABC articel, for instance, talks about sleep deprivation being used to interrogate AQ prisoners. I don't see a crime there.

The law does. The ABC article also discusses waterboarding and beatings.


AQ prisoners aren't protected under The Constitution


I suggest you read it again. The Constitution limits what the US government may do, and those limitations contain no exceptions. I also suggest you read the Declaration of Independence for some insight on what this country stands for - it refers to the rights of "all men," not Americans. But quite beyond the Constitution, foreign prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions until a tribunal finds them to be unlawful combatants - Bush cannot simply claim they are and erase their rights. Moreover, there's also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, federal law against criminal conspiracies, District of Columbia laws against criminal conspiracies, and Texas law against criminal conspiracies (since many of them were undoubtedly hatched in Crawford).


nor The Geneva Convention. The rest say purdy much the same thing.


I can say with near-absolute certainty you've never read the Geneva Conventions. They require that prisoners taken on the battlefield be assumed to be POWs until a tribunal finds otherwise.


The Raw Story article has conspiracy theory written all over it.


Accusations of criminal conspiracy are conspiracy theories by definition. A conspiracy, BTW, is two or more people planning to commit a crime, so a conspiracy theory is a conclusion supported by the evidence that a conspiracy took place. The Nuremberg trials involved a conspiracy theory - one that, like this one, was overwhelmingly evident. The information in the ABC article alone proves that a criminal conspiracy took place.


The title on the cover of the book that the pdf shows, starts with, "The Downing Street Minutes", the originals of which were destroyed, so there's no possible way to verify authenticity.

Oh, you read the title. Congratulations on getting that far. Where are you getting that the "originals were destroyed"? The representations made in the leaked documents are not disputed.

[preservanation]

foreign prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions until a tribunal finds them to be unlawful combatants The terrorists you refer to do not qualify under the Geneva Convention for a whole host of reasons which I'm sure you are aware of.
But despite that...Accusations of criminal conspiracy are conspiracy theories by definition. A conspiracy, BTW, is two or more people planning to commit a crime, so a conspiracy theory is a conclusion supported by the evidence that a conspiracy took place.It seems that some are willing to extend privileges to our enemies without offering the same 'courtesy' to a sitting president.
Why would that be?

[DamnYankee]

Setting aside the prejudices we can assume jurors would bring into such a case, are you confident that having gone through a trial, an American jury would convict George W. Bush if the charges against him were proven beyond a reasonable doubt? In other words, do you believe that on average, American juries are reliable?

There's no case. A judge would throw it out of court. Unless the judge is a member of the kook leftist fringe.

[NDNdancer]

Setting aside the prejudices we can assume jurors would bring into such a case, are you confident that having gone through a trial, an American jury would convict George W. Bush if the charges against him were proven beyond a reasonable doubt? In other words, do you believe that on average, American juries are reliable?

I'm certain a jury would convict him. What I'm not certain of is whether the Judge would give an appropriate sentence.

The case would undoubtedly be appealed again and again until it reached a judge who Bush put on the bench.

[Scribbler1]

Or he could be pardoned by the next Republican president.

[Troubadour]

The terrorists you refer to do not qualify under the Geneva Convention for a whole host of reasons which I'm sure you are aware of.

All prisoners seized on the battlefield are covered by the Geneva Conventions until a tribunal determines they are not covered. That is the law.


It seems that some are willing to extend privileges to our enemies without offering the same 'courtesy' to a sitting president.

Human rights are not "privileges" nor "courtesies," and you are the only one of the two of us who advocates violating them. Only a blood-soaked fascist personality cult would claim that indicting its leader for torturing and murdering people is a "violation" of his "rights," let alone one equivalent to the charges against him. And congratulations on once again confirming that status for the Republican Party - not that it needed any additional confirmation.

There's no case.

I stipulated that the case had proven in asking the hypothetical question. If you are unable to even conceive of the possibility of guilt, especially in light of the fact that there is no rational, legal, or any other basis for denying it beyond denial itself, then you label your own position a fanatical article of faith.


A judge would throw it out of court.


A judge appointed by Bush would throw it out of court. No honest one would.


Unless the judge is a member of the kook leftist fringe.

Which you define as anyone who wouldn't throw out the case, thus proving your entire post an example of mindless, lawless, and worthless fanaticism.

[Troubadour]

I'm certain a jury would convict him. What I'm not certain of is whether the Judge would give an appropriate sentence.

It's true - sentences do tend to be inversely related with money and power, and you can't get much more connected to both than the child-emperor himself.


The case would undoubtedly be appealed again and again until it reached a judge who Bush put on the bench.

We have no clue about the revelations that would follow from the original trial, so it may not be the case that Republicans would move hastily to overturn the verdict. I'm sure breaking him out of jail would remain on their To Do list, but if (for instance) the trial introduced recordings of him directly ordering torture and/or murders, destruction of evidence, witness tampering, and other crimes, they would want to let things blow over before sabotaging justice. Once tried and convicted, the damage is done - they would focus most heavily on preventing an investigation, and then get really desperate once it reached the point of trial. After that, if a conviction occurred, they could afford to take their time regrouping.

Or he could be pardoned by the next Republican president.

Which would mean nothing if his US convictions were followed by international ones - although I hear Dutch prisons are pretty tame compared to Supermax.

[Scribbler1]

Which would mean nothing if his US convictions were followed by international ones - although I hear Dutch prisons are pretty tame compared to Supermax.Supermax? You mean Allenwood, don't you?

And a foreign jail means extradition. Ain't gonna happen.

[Troubadour]

Supermax? You mean Allenwood, don't you?

I mean the most secure solitary confinement cellblocks in any US federal maximum-security prison.


And a foreign jail means extradition. Ain't gonna happen.

Why wouldn't it happen?

[Buck Laser]

Supermax? You mean Allenwood, don't you?

And a foreign jail means extradition. Ain't gonna happen.
Why not Gitmo? There'd be a certain pleasing symmetry about that, I think. :shock:

[Troubadour]

Why not Gitmo? There'd be a certain pleasing symmetry about that, I think. :shock:

I wouldn't be against granting them a temporary prison furlough to work on the crews dismantling Gitmo - under extremely heavy guard, of course, to prevent any sympathizers from trying to whisk them away to Dubai or Saudi Arabia.

[Buck Laser]

I wouldn't be against granting them a temporary prison furlough to work on the crews dismantling Gitmo - under extremely heavy guard, of course, to prevent any sympathizers from trying to whisk them away to Dubai or Saudi Arabia.
I could live with that. But we'd have to watch Bush to be sure he doesn't defect to Cuba.

[Troubadour]

I could live with that. But we'd have to watch Bush to be sure he doesn't defect to Cuba.

The solution is simple: Just don't tell him Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba. "Well, they're speakin' Spaynish over there, so it must be Mexicuh."

[Rage]

Setting aside the prejudices we can assume jurors would bring into such a case, are you confident that having gone through a trial, an American jury would convict George W. Bush if the charges against him were proven beyond a reasonable doubt? In other words, do you believe that on average, American juries are reliable?

What charges? I have seen this a lot around these forums, is this some sort of slang?

[Troubadour]

What charges?

This thread is concerned with whether an American jury has the integrity (i.e., if enough people who voted for the scumbag do) to convict him of something were that something proven in court. The exact charges (e.g., treason, waging aggressive war, murder, conspiracy, torture, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, fraud, racketeering, falsification of government documents...ad nauseum) are not of consequence to the question.

[Rage]

Well thank you for elaborating but I don't think its a matter of integrity of conviction its just common sense, since juries don't generally fall for trumped up (fake) charges.

[Katrolis]

Any politician at the federal level is protected by layers of people willing to sell out for his success. Theres so many hands getting greased, theres nothing to stop it....

[davo]

It would depend on the will of the highest bidder whether or not Bush would get convicted of any crime committed while he was president. As he's supported big money the whole time, the chances of conviction are next to zero.

[Waffletush]

I choose not to answer. I will reconsider if someone can answer this.

From where will we pull an impartial jury?

[Elrathin]

From where will we pull an impartial jury?

Just like any other trial. When a woman is raped, do they just pick an all male jury to preside? No. Do they pick an all woman jury? No.

Just like any other trial it has to come from a compromise with the Prosecution and the Defense. Bet your bottom dollar both sides will be trying to stack it, but eventually it will have to com to a compromise.

Of course I don't even think it will come to that. In fact, I don't care if President Bush pulled the trigger on someone himself, I don't think a civilian trial would ever happen. BTW, this includes whether the president was a Dem or Rep. I think they will be treated above CIVILIAN law.

[Waffletush]

Just like any other trial. When a woman is raped, do they just pick an all male jury to preside? No. Do they pick an all woman jury? No.

Well, I know THAT.

Just like any other trial it has to come from a compromise with the Prosecution and the Defense. Bet your bottom dollar both sides will be trying to stack it, but eventually it will have to com to a compromise.

And that.

My point being, how can you find anyone who has no bias on a PRESIDENT.

Though I wonder, if the defense wanted a change of venue, were'd it be?

[Elrathin]

My point being, how can you find anyone who has no bias on a PRESIDENT.

There are some out there. There a some folks that really don't pay attention to the news, media, or anything. They are out there while they are few.


Though I wonder, if the defense wanted a change of venue, were'd it be?

Change of venue within states, but there would NEVER be a change of venue outside the US. I would bet dollars on that one that there wouldn't be a change of venue outside the US in the case of a president being put on trial. (Unless such a president got captured outside the U.S. then that is a whole new situation).

[lily]

Well, I know THAT.





Though I wonder, if the defense wanted a change of venue, were'd it be?


GITMO?

[cronic]

Its a cool question but IMO one that could never be answered if we used our system beliefs and courtroom correctness in choosing a fair and impartial jury for this case...

I don't think it would be possible to pick an impartial and fair jury from anyone living in America.

[Milton Bradley]

Its a cool question but IMO one that could never be answered if we used our system beliefs and courtroom correctness in choosing a fair and impartial jury for this case...

I don't think it would be possible to pick an impartial and fair jury from anyone living in America.


I suspect you're right.


You're either with'em, or against'em.

[Kanadesaga]

Nobody went after Clinton and Somalia, so why should we go after Bush and company? Should Obama make it in he will probably do something similar to Clinton i.e. Pakistan. People please focus on the present and future and forget about the past.:shame:

[tecoyah]

Nobody went after Clinton and Somalia, so why should we go after Bush and company? Should Obama make it in he will probably do something similar to Clinton i.e. Pakistan. People please focus on the present and future and forget about the past.:shame:

One can only hope you are joking, as there is very little similarity between Somalia/Clinton and Iraq/Bush...if any:

Clinton Orders 5,300 Troops to Somalia; Vows End in 6 Months
By John M. Broder
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON

President Clinton Thursday ordered 5,300 new combat troops and an aircraft carrier to Somalia "to protect our troops and to complete our mission," and at the same time he announced that he would bring all American combat forces home by March 31.

He said the objective of the new deployment was to give the Somalis a reasonable prospect of survival in conditions of near-anarchy and factional warfare. Regardless of the success of the new mission, he vowed to end the U.S. military presence in Somalia in six months.

In his first public explanation of why American troops were in that lawless land and when they would be getting out, Clinton said he had rejected calls from Congress and elsewhere to "cut and run" from Somalia because he believed that both Somali lives and American credibility were at stake.

"We face a choice," the president said. "Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive?"
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N48/somalia.48w.html

Misleading and Inaccurate Public Statements
Compiled from Public Sources

This website contains a collection of misleading and inaccurate public statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq. The source of this information is a report created by the US House Committee on Government Reform. The statements are sorted by person:

President George Bush

Vice President Richard Cheney

Secretary of State Colin Powell

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice

The format of each entry is as follows:
The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq
Who spoke, and on what general topic:

"The quote"
Source: Date and source information.

Explanation The reason why this statement was known to be inaccurate or misleading at the time the statement was made.

For Example:
The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq
President George W. Bush on Nuclear Capabilities:

"The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).

Explanation This statement was misleading because it failed to acknowledge the intelligence community's deep division on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.
Background

On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President Bush stated:

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

One year later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administration's assertions about the threat posed by Iraq. Prior to the war in Iraq, the President and his advisors repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that jeopardized the security of the United States. The failure to discover these weapons after the war has led to questions about whether the President and his advisors were candid in describing Iraq's threat.
http://www.bushoniraq.com/


I may be biased....but the similarities are far from obvious to me.

[Kanadesaga2]

This country is founded upon some really radical ideology. Even by 21st century standards the idea of liberty, enfranchisement and privacy are shared by very few on this planet, regardless of coca cola commercials. That these ideals were enshrined upon parchment over 230 years ago is a testament to their strength, universality and truth. But lately, these ideals have been encroached upon. Not by outside forces bent upon our destruction. (Although those people do exist.)

No, this threat has come from within, as we always knew it would. Some men of great vision saw this coming and wrote stern warnings. Orwell gave us glimpses in 1984 and Animal Farm. But others, were much more specific: “When fascism comes to the United States it will be wrapped in the American flag and will claim the name of 100-percent Americanism … “, Sinclair Lewis knew of what he spoke.

Criminal and fascist things have been done. They have been done right out in full view of the world. Those perpetrating these crimes are bold. They have done heinous and vile tings, and said “f*ck you” to the rest of humanity while doing it. They believe that they can get away with it. And the sad part is, they may be right. For no one, I mean no one, in all of law enforcement in this nation so loves his country, and the ideals for which it supposedly stands, that he will risk livelihood and ridicule and arrest these criminals.

Not that I blame the local beat cop, for these are world class criminals. With connections and power and an air of authority they long ago squandered but still use like a sledgehammer on any that question or pause to think about what they’ve done. There are people in the positions of power and authority that could do something. In fact one has, Dennis Kuchinich is a man of integrity.

But one man alone can not protect the Constitution of the United States. Nor can a million. But 100 senators and 435 Congressmen can protect that hallowed parchment. But they have become complicit in the crimes against that sacred roll and therefore won’t take the chance of exposing themselves to investigation. This means that George and Dick and Condi and Alfredo will leave this criminal enterprise having been responsible for more deaths than gangland criminals, having looted more money from the national treasury than all the criminals in the history of this nation put together. And they will go home.

That means that there truly is only one man that can bring these criminals to justice. The next president of the United States of America will have the power to appoint an attorney General who knows how to prosecute world class criminals. One who is a pit bull with evidence and squeezing witnesses/criminals. And he should sick him on the previous administration like a fat man on an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Now some say, it’s counter-productive, in an election year, to be bringing up all this talk of impeachment, and hearings and such. People want to put it in the past and turn the page. Well this isn’t something you turn the page from. This is the very fabric of American society, culture and jurisprudence. Nor is this about a vendetta to get even for these crimes. This is about justice. Something it seems, very few understand.

When a president takes the oath of office, he says these words:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It isn’t very long or complicated. It says that as president, he has but one duty. “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He is not bound to protect his political party, or his ideology. He is not bound to protect its corporations nor even its citizens. He is bound, by oath, to “preserve, protect and defend” that which George W. Bush called “..a piece of paper…”.

That means defend from everything. From foreign terrorists and crazed politicians to corporate Supreme Court justices and presidents who have shredded the document to with in an inch of its being. It is the latter to which I shall address the rest of this missive.

There are some very sound and prudent reasons for prosecuting bushco. The first and foremost is that justice demands it. Those who have died for that piece of paper over the past two hundred and thirty plus years will have died in vain if bushco is allowed to walk away scot-free.

Our reputation amongst the nations of the world has been severely tarnished of late. There is no better way to restore it than to admit freely that we allowed a group of criminals to take over the office and run roughshod over the world and that we will prosecute and punish them for those crimes. That the idle boast we make ‘that no one is above the law’ rings true.

Any presidential hopeful that takes that oath must prosecute this administration for their crimes against that most important of documents. If he doesn’t, he is making a mockery of that oath and neither deserves nor should have that office. I can not be clearer.

And if you believe otherwise, then you are not an American. You are a disciple of politics. You are a partisan. You are caught in a cult of personality, not integrity. A sycophant for a political party or agenda or worse, politician. You don’t care about the country, you care about winning an election.

And one final thought. If a presidential hopeful won’t swear to prosecute criminals, perhaps it is because he is hedging his bet that he may want to use those same criminal tools during his administration. Which begs the next question; why? We have come as close as I ever want to a dictatorship under G.W. Bush. Without an immediate rollback of practices and ideology I fear the next president could take us to where we may never return.

And no I don’t trust any politician to keep his word, and I trust one less who won’t even give it.