View Poll Results: Should G.W. Bush be prosecuted?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES!

    24 40.00%
  • NO!

    19 31.67%
  • This is a partisan thread.

    7 11.67%
  • No, just hang him.

    1 1.67%
  • No, everybody is doing it.

    2 3.33%
  • The GOV'T should tell us the truth, unvarnished.

    7 11.67%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

  1. #21
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    Are we going to also hang all the democrats who voted for the war without even reading the classified document made available for their review prior to the vote?

  2. #22
    User Bezukhov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Providence, R.I.
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 05:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    One problem with putting GWB on trial is that it wouldn't be too difficult for his lawyers to get it thrown out on the basis of diminished capacity. GWB, after all, is dumber than a bag of hammers.

  3. #23
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,903

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bezukhov View Post
    One problem with putting GWB on trial is that it wouldn't be too difficult for his lawyers to get it thrown out on the basis of diminished capacity. GWB, after all, is dumber than a bag of hammers.
    So where did you earn your MBA?

  4. #24
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    LMMFAO it was me, I thought it would be fun to do, so I did.


  5. #25
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    "Now that a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel has reached the conclusion that President George W. Bush and his top advisers bear “ultimate responsibility” for authorizing torture in violation of domestic and international law, the question becomes what should the American people and their government do."

    What to Do with G.W. Bush? | Consortiumnews


    "The logical answer would seem to be: prosecute Bush and his cronies (or turn them over to an international tribunal if the U.S. legal system can’t do the job). After all, everyone, including President Barack Obama and possibly even Bush himself, would agree with the principle that “no man is above the law.”

    "The report also noted that the behavior of the Bush administration deviated from the most honorable traditions of U.S. history, dating back to the Revolutionary War and General George Washington’s instructions to his troops not to respond to British cruelty in kind but to treat prisoners of war humanely.
    In contrast to those traditions, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration approved specific techniques of torture while formulating legal rationalizations for these violations of law. Never before, the report found, had there been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”

    Was this illegal?

    Would you be prosecuted?
    SHould Englund and Graner be pardoned?
    Should torture be legal?
    Did you know this before this thread?
    Should GWBush continue receiving his pension?
    Should be prosecuted? Yes. Will be? No.

    It's a long way since Nixon, who only lied about knowing something and had no actual involvement in other criminal activity. But then we held Presidents responsible, now we do not.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #26
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    A general answer:

    I feel the American people should hold their Presidents legally responsible for violations of the Constitution, of treaties the US have signed and for violations of basic human right standards. I think everybody in his right mind will agree that no politician and not even the President is above the law. If we didn't believe that, we could as well get an absolutist king.

    Maybe I don't know enough about the situation in America, but my first reaction is that the Supreme Court should have been responsible doing that when these laws were first enacted. If it can't or does not, the system is obviously flawed. Not sure how this can be fixed.

    My two cents.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    I think there's a wide gap between "mistake" and "intentionally lied to the American people and the whole world for several years in order to justify an unnecessary war." Also the torture of prisoners in Gitmo. I know of no definition of war criminal that includes the Middle Eastern dictators that we've been going after that excludes GWB.
    These two dynamics are what I'm wrestling with concerning this poll issue. I can't help thinking of how America and the world all but demanded the heads of the surviving German government officials/military brass for war crimes and crimes against humanity after WWII. Or how America and the Iraqi people celebrated after the capture and subsequent execution of Saddam Hussein for the crimes against humanity he committed. The only difference between the actions of the GWB Administration and those of Hitler and Saddam is GWB acting as this nation's Commander-in-Chief didn't issues direct orders to commit genocide against a people. It's for this reason I don't put GWB on the same plain as the aforementioned dictators.

    However, he did violate international law. And for that, IMO, he doesn't deserve a pass. Nonetheless, I'm unsure of what should be done about it.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 04-24-13 at 12:09 AM.

  7. #27
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Should be prosecuted? Yes. Will be? No.

    It's a long way since Nixon, who only lied about knowing something and had no actual involvement in other criminal activity. But then we held Presidents responsible, now we do not.
    But... but... we held Clinton responsible for a blow job! That's so much more important than a war!
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    You need to pick up a dictionary unless you have evidence that Bush didn't believe that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

    When you have Saddam Hussein telling the UN before we went to war that he lost track of 450 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and sarin gas and has no idea where they were. That's not good enough, the UN cease fire agreement required that Iran account for every milligram of chemical that could be used as a weapon.

    But we did eventually found 400 mustard and sarin artillery shells buried in the desert. Is anyone concerned with the 50 that are unaccounted for ?

    For one to be lieing that person must be aware he's lieing. If Bush even believed there was a 1 % chance that Saddam had WMD's then he wasn't lieing.
    Yes, they found 400 EMPTY artillery shells buried in the desert. woop de doo.

    In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."[61]....
    Interview with Scott Ritter

    It was very clever how the US and the UK manipulated the UN and set Iraq up.....

    Nicholas Arons: Let's begin with current developments and work our way
    backwards in time. What are your impressions of the recent developments on
    the Security Council. What do you think of the British proposal, which the
    US appears to support?

    Scott Ritter: All the new resolution shows is that the United States and
    Great Britain have no serious position. The US is not a sponsor of this
    resolution; they are in the background. They are putting an awful lot of
    pressure on people to put this resolution forward. It is strongly flawed for
    a number of reasons. One, it's illegal. It is a huge step backwards from [UN
    Resolution] 687 in that 687 says that if Iraq complies, the sanctions are
    lifted. This one basically ensures sanctions in perpetuity. With its 120-day
    blocks Iraq will never regain control of its economy.
    There are two steps in the economic rehabilitation of Iraq and the Iraqi
    people. One is the lifting of sanctions and the second is the reconstitution
    of the economy. The economy cannot be reconstituted from the outside, it has
    to be reconstituted from within. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people
    have to take control of their economy and their way forward. This resolution
    gives no hope for that.

    Having said that you now understand where the US is coming from. They know
    that this resolution is not going to pass. This is an effort for the US to
    be seen as moving forward on the issue when in fact all it does is put
    something on the table that they know Iraq will reject, and Iraq has already
    rejected it. This gives the US continued justification to pursue its regime
    removal policy, which is the major factor in US foreign policy towards Iraq
    today.

    I just wish people would see the transparency of this effort. It's not
    serious arms control; it's not serious anything. This is hypocrisy at the
    highest levels...read
    Personally, I don't think Bush knew or saw the real intelligence until long after the damage was done. I think he was manipulated just like the UN and Saddam were and by the very same people.

    Shortley after Bush took office the US was supposed to ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty. He was advised by John Bolton not to sign it....


    "...Bolton worked as the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, sworn into this position on May 11, 2001. In this role, a key area of his responsibility was the prevention of proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Bolton also led the Bush administration's opposition on constitutional grounds[35] to the International Criminal Court, negotiating with many countries to sign agreements, called Article 98 agreements, with the U.S. to exempt Americans from prosecution by the court, which is not recognized by the U.S.; more than 100 countries have signed such agreements. Bolton said the decision to pull out of the ICC was the "happiest moment" of his political career to date.[36]
    John R. Bolton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In short, GWBush can't be tried as a war criminal by the ICC. Nor can John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Paula Dobriansky, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick and the Neocon list goes on.....
    Last edited by Moot; 04-24-13 at 02:17 AM.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    It was very clever how the US and the UK manipulated the UN and set Iraq up.....



    Personally, I don't think Bush knew or saw the real intelligence until long after the damage was done. I think he was manipulated just like the UN and Saddam were and by the very same people.

    ....
    Interesting, your one of the few I have seen on the DP who got the UK intelligence connection right.

    Saddam Hussein said the same thing after his capture when he was interrogated by the FBI. Saddam blamed all of the faulty intelligence on British intelligence on setting him up.

    Have you read this yet ? -> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI

    Saddam Hussein said that he also was almost convinced he had WMD's.

  10. #30
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

    Re: What to Do with G.W. Bush?

    Bush should be criticized for actions that set us up for the Obama disaster, however a larger issue that needs to be immediately considered is the future prosecution and incarceration of Obama. Hopefully they have empty cells at Gitmo.
    Last edited by Ray410; 04-24-13 at 03:35 AM.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •