Should Bush be prosecuted and possibly jailed AFTER he resigns from his current post?

We all know that people sometimes commit crimes and some of these crimes eventually escape punishment. For instance, Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron have been investigated and found guilty because they undermined the fiscal base of this country and defrauded their shareholders.

But, looking at current American president, George W. Bush committed much bigger crimes with far greater consequences for America that cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars in a failing Iraq war--the war started largely for his self-serving motive of being re-elected. In so doing, he undercut not only our country's financial strength, as Enron bosses did, but also undermined our values and liberties through his moronic behavior, defamation and various acts, e.g. Patriot Act.

It is true that challenges to president's conduct of foreign policy is a politically non-justiceable question (e.g. Vietnam was conducted w/o Congressional consent) as well as president has absolute immunity from monetary damages in civil suits during office.

Yet, I think this case is a really MAJOR exception and these are all good reasons for investigating him to determine the extent of his lies and crimes(and possibly jailing him, if found guilty) AFTER he resigns from his current presidency.

I think our laws call for greater fairness based on universal application and we need to cut down on unjustifiable exceptoins (done for the 'benefit' and 'welfare' and 'safety' of our citizens). HUH.. Arent these sometimes obvious political niceties much like the laws that are designed to comfort those in power.

what do you think?

To answer the silly question: NO.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

Well, Clinton was impeached, didn't seem to by silly and didn't create much lack of confidence, because I think CLINTON was impeached; it wasn't that presidency was subject to scrutiny... Well, true, this on one hand sounds a little tricky, but I think it is important to emphasize that the purpose of a possible trial would be not to destibilize the executive branch, but to investigate an individual case, a person, Bush in this case. Such things do happen when cases are really severe.

Regarding the charge question, we would need to investigate as to what prompted him to embark on the course of action that he had embarked upon. We can determine several things. First, it could be that when he was relying on the information from our intelligent agencies he became genuinely convinced that Saddam was piling up WMD and was likely to hit the US and he found it prudent to pre-empt; in this case he'd be fully protected because he'd be acting in the best interests of the nation and the intelligence agencies would be to blame; or, an inquiry can determine that he didn't have such information and instead he took the advice of his political strategists, say, for example, Karl Rove, who advised that it would be politically prudent for him to open up a front line in Iraq if he wanted to remain on the front pages of political coverage. In this case it is in some sense similar to Clinton scandal; whether he lied or not.

Then the implications for our allies; I think this is important and I need to elaborate on this too. I think this would not jeopardize our coalitions in the future because it was Bush who was the source of the information. HE decided the way he decided and ex-post communicated to our allies worldwide that Saddam was a threat and some of these allies subscribed to his story line (some obviously didn't; some of them were punished at early stages, e.g. Spain's J.M. Aznar goverment overthrown). So it is important to emphasize and it would resonate as Bush lying to his allies, much like to his own people (if he did at all, something yet to be ascertained). Our only problem with our allies would be, "how come you guys elected such a moron twice", but I mean, this doesn't really matter. Everyone knows he is a moron. So would still perfectly be able to remain in good faith with our allies.

I think if, and this is a big if, he committed a major crime he shouldn't go unpunished just because he was president of the most powerful country (not company) in the world.

__________________
How GW Bush got re-elected--the best thread on the forum.

YES

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

Bush the Lame is the first great war criminal of the 21st Century. He should spend the rest of his life in a cell with Birdshot Dick and Rummy the Mummy.

Or maybe he should be sentenced to a hunting trip with Birdshot Dick.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

I am opposed to capital punishment.

In my opinion Bush has been a total failure as a president. He has done an awful job, and not much has gone well under his term as President. I feel he is stubborn, not very intelligent, and listens to advice from some of the wrong people.

With that said those things (in my opinion) make him a bad president. However they do NOT make him a criminal.

What is there to impeach him for?? Lying about WMD's?? He was told that Saddam had these things. The British and a few other nations got the same intelligence. It was a case of bad intelligence, not Bush lying. Bush's only mistake on WMD's was not listening to the weapons inspectors from the U.N. However that was Bush making a bad judgement call.....NOT him being a criminal.

What else has he done thats illegal?? He didnt ask the U.N.'s permission to take us to war??? LOL....if I was president I wouldnt ask ANYTHING from that corrupt organization. The United States doesnt have to ask permission from Kofi Annan to do ANYTHING. What else is there?? The wire tapping stuff?? Again I have no problems with suspected terrorists getting their lines tapped into. I dont break the law, I dont talk about suspicious stuff, and I dont keep child porn on my computer....therefore all the wire tapping, or intenet tapping or anything else only effects those who have something to hide......still though despite personal belief, what crime did Bush committ??

So if anyone can tell me a good reason why they want Bush impeached then post it. However it has to be for a better reason then YOU dont like him, or in YOUR Opinion he is doing a bad job or whatever. I dont like Bush and I think he is one of the 3 worst presidents in history (behind Buchanan and the worthless Jimmy Carter) however going into Iraq, having a bad strategy there, and being stubborn and unintelligent arent good enough reasons to impeach someone....

Neither is cheating on your wife with another insanely ugly woman....but thats a whole other debate altogether.

Of course not. That's silly.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.

Get your daily dose of truth*

* or something approximating it

Right. He's a totally incompetent boob, but he's not a criminal. Actually, I think he's a really good guy at heart. He's just way over his head being President.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.