Islamic terrorists is not Iraq. And if i'm not mistaken, wasn't the war on iraq because of immenent threat due to wmd and not alqaida?

I think that's a fundamentally bigoted position. "Islamic terrorists" does not justify killing in Iraq, any more than being attacked by Catholics justifies an invasion of Ireland.

Furthermore, if your logic did hold true, it would justify any attack on America in retaliation for anything any westerner has ever done. We are, after all, a vital part of the support system that allows western civilization to flourish, aren't we?

Attacking Iraq makes no sense if your goal is to stop terrorism. And thanks to Bush, that's no longer conjecture. That's now historical record.

Back to the OP:

Bush needs to be held accountable. By Americans. It's the only way we can regain our self-respect as a country.

international court would be better. A american court would be seen as "biased"

to quote GW's father "there not gonna do it"

There likely will be war crimes trials. The International Red Cross has already stated that they found the Bush Administration guilty of war crimes. There's a growing list. Rumsfeld, Feith, Gonzales and a few others have been advised not leaving the United States because of the likelihood of being arrested.

We can, we have argued Bush's War against Iraq till the cows come home but the fact remains that there is thought to be credible evidence that the upper levels of the administration are guilty of war crimes. Last night I order two new books from Amazon: Torture Team and the Dark Side. Both books are supposed to do much to publicly fill in the blanks.

__________________
You, you, and you, panic. The rest of you follow me.

Last book read: "Child 44"
Now reading: "Tree of Smoke"

TERROR IS TERROR. Splitting hairs because you hate the president is lame.

Look, we are fighting a war against radical terrorism on this planet - whether it be in Afghanistan, Iraq or here at home. And who knows where it will take us next. But I'm sure gald we have a President with the cojones to meet the threat head on. Had President Clinton taken action after the WTC bombing in 93 or after the African emabassy bombings or after the USS Cole bombing, maybe this would be over by now.

For those of you who try and say we "attacked" Iraq are being very disingenuous. We attacked a terrorist dictator and, hopefully, we will attack a few others. We did it on behalf of the good people of Iraq and we do it for our own safety.

Don't look now, but a whole lot of liberal hate is marching way out in front of common logic.

i'm not splitting hairs, you simply forgot that bush didn't invade iraq because of terror but because of "alleged" wmd's

you wish. I didn't hear one peep from America regarding Betancourt, the terrorists in indonesia or in the south of thailand. and there are more examples.

Actually, it's been pretty quiet after 93 (i'm not counting the uss cole because that's a military ship). America did pretty well in that period of time. Bush on the other hand, reallly mad a financial mess.

he's a dictator, not a terrorist dictator. And i think those 600.000 iraqi's that died sure are happy you invaded iraq.

If we take care of the problem ourselves, it'll prove we don't require international oversight, is what I'm thinking.

We need a way to say, as a country, that Bush does represent us.

Of course, really, not letting him bully his way into the oval office in the first place would have been the time for that.

Nothing but fantasy. There will be no trials. It nothing more than the fantasy of the left that Rumsfeld, Gonzalez etc. are fugitives running scared. They travel. They aren’t wisked away as the cops are bearing down. Grow up people just because you read some fictitious story on some radical website doesn’t' make it true. (*)(*)(*)(*) heads can complain and file documents with the court all day. That doesn't mean anything is coming of it.

__________________
Mens Sana in Corpore Sano