Skip to main content

George W. Bush Belongs in Prison

By Joel S. Hirschhorn

To ensure that no future president behaves like George W. Bush we must punish him. Not merely through the words of historians, but through the physical punishment that he has inflicted on so many millions of people. In previous eras citizens would have demanded "off with his head." Now we must demand "lock him up." How poetic for a pro-torture ex-president.
Link
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by DEENALYNNE:
I should have known JJ was behind this thread. Only an idiot would say this! Bush will be revered as a great president beside the idiot we are about to get. He will destroy America. Bush protected even people like JJ.




And you think like an idiot DEENALYNNE. I bet you can't even tell me anything about the article. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by DEENALYNNE:
Just referring to the headline. Not even interested in the article! I like George Bush. I don't read stuff that idiots write if I can avoid it.


No, you just "like" them. Why trouble a bush supporter with reading?

Part of the 26% who actually still like bush. I am actually liking him better and better. He is almost history and he was a tremendous help getting Obama elected and the new sizeable Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. What a great guy.
quote:
Originally posted by DEENALYNNE:
Just referring to the headline. Not even interested in the article! I like George Bush. I don't read stuff that idiots write if I can avoid it.


What a coincidence! George W. Bush likes to avoid reading as well. Simply amazing.

Anyway, I'll certainly be celebrating the departure of George W. Bush.
quote:
Originally posted by Schnauzer1:
Let me start off by saying I voted for Bush, but I also think he is an Idiot. I haven't seen anywhere or any post by anybody of what crimes Bush has committed. If there is any that anybody can find please post them. The last I looked being a idiot is not a crime.




Well, some think it might be a war crime to attack a country that did not attack you. I think the list goes on.
I did read the article, and while Mr. Hirschorn is certainly entitled to his opinion, I have a few concerns.

First, he states that we should give Bush a "fair trial, finding him guilty of many criminal acts..." In the author's view, Bush has already been convicted, therefore where is the fair trial? The author himself seemingly advocates ignoring the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees "an impartial jury." Agree or disagree with Bush, if this were to happen, then wouldn't we be just as guilty of trampling the Constitution?

"Forget revenge," the author says. Without a fair trial, meaning one in which the outcome is not preordained, then this action becomes one of revenge.

"I say convict Bush of myriad counts of criminally negligent homicide related to both Iraq and the Katrina disaster and put him in prison." Again, Mr. Hirschorn has already made up his mind, so no fair trial exists in this scenario. Also, if Bush is to be convicted re: Katrina, then so should New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and former Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco, as their collective inaction added to the situation. Yet, there is no such statement from the author.

"Surely no president must be allowed to disrespect and dishonor the US Constitution." If the author has a complaint regarding Bush, then he should also have one against Lincoln, whose suspension of writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War also treaded upon the Constitution and the Fifth Amendment. We should also include John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, and FDR and the interment of Americans citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. Both were also done without due process. Yet, the author is silent on this as well.

This is not to say that I believe Bush to be a great president. His actions, and inactions, have demonstrated him to be probably the worst of my life, and amongst the worse thus far to hold the office. Only Nixon, in my lifetime, and Buchanan, all time, would I judge to possibly be worse than Bush. But to call for his imprisonment? I seriously doubt that it "would restore honor to the office and the Constitution," as the author claims it would. Most likely, were this to become a distinct possibility of occurring, Obama would probably pardon Bush for any crimes he may have knowingly or unknowingly committed. After all, he did call for all Americans to come together. Allowing a former president to be convicted and sent to prison would only serve to further galvanize Republicans and Democrats against each other more than they already are, in spite of Obama's request.
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
quote:
Originally posted by Schnauzer1:
Let me start off by saying I voted for Bush, but I also think he is an Idiot. I haven't seen anywhere or any post by anybody of what crimes Bush has committed. If there is any that anybody can find please post them. The last I looked being a idiot is not a crime.




Well, some think it might be a war crime to attack a country that did not attack you. I think the list goes on.


Some would be wrong. The International Criminal Court has defined war crimes...and attacking a country that did not attack you is not listed.
quote:
Well, some think it might be a war crime to attack a country that did not attack you. I think the list goes on.


Didn't Congress vote to go to war? wasn't there a UN resolution? I think Bush had the legal right to go to war and did so with the approval of Congress....if Bush is convicted then we need to convict each member of Congress too.
quote:
Originally posted by Schnauzer1:
quote:
Well, some think it might be a war crime to attack a country that did not attack you. I think the list goes on.


Didn't Congress vote to go to war? wasn't there a UN resolution? I think Bush had the legal right to go to war and did so with the approval of Congress....if Bush is convicted then we need to convict each member of Congress too.


You are technically correct about Congress but not fully correct. It is interesting that Congress hasn't declared war on a country since World War II. It is true they "authorized" action by the President. Without discussing Bush (which we already did), my problem with Congress is that they need to do their job and not abdicate their responsibility to the President. I must admit they share some serious responsibility in all of this action whether they like it or not. They abdicated their responsibility for the Koren War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and Iraq.

The military and our veterans deserve all the support we can give them. It took us forever to properly recognize our Vietnam veterans. If Congress would do their job then maybe we wouldn't be pinning everything on the President. I say this even though I disagree with George W. Bush. I just have to say he isn't in the blame game alone. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents share blame for the mess if they didn't do their job.

Edited Add --> And I also agree that everyone deserves a fair trial. I know I have written various things about the war, etc. But those writings are my opinion. At the end of the day everyone, even George Bush, members of Congress who gave him "authority," and those held in Guantanamo Bay, deserve a fair trial. Then, if convicted, they should pay their dues according to the decision of the court. I think Congress felt like "giving him authority" rather than declaring war freed them from responsibility. I disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by DEENALYNNE:
Remember 9/11? We had every right to search out and attack terrorists who attacked us! Only a true coward would sit here and do nothing....oh wait...that was Bill Clinton.


9/11/2001 happened after Bill Clinton left office. We responded by attacking Afgahnastan, which is what we should have done. Congress should have declared war. But I bet you are trying to connect Iraq to 9/11. Sorry, that doesn't connect.

You know it would be best if you did a little more research, especially when I am trying to give Bush a little break. Most people on the forum would tell you that is rare for me.
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
Well wouldn`t that be true during WWII.The Japanese bombed us but we attacked Germany first.The answer is that Germany was also a threat the way Iraq was.


Actually Germany was attacking our merchant ships and merchant ships of other nations that were our allies. Sort of like the way we defended Kuwait. Either way, we did the right thing for WWII and we did the right thing for Kuwait. George HW Bush ran the Gulf War well.
Tough to issue a declaration of war against militant Islam. When that law was conceived, nation-states went to war against nation-states. Now a nation-state can go to war against a non-government-organization (such as AQ) but the NGO doesn't have a distinct country, borders, infrastructure, etc. So, probably since the law is unclear as to how to do that, we should just roll over, smile, and say "next"?
quote:
Originally posted by DEENALYNNE:
Remember 9/11? We had every right to search out and attack terrorists who attacked us! Only a true coward would sit here and do nothing....oh wait...that was Bill Clinton.


Sweetie, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - which, by the way, occured during bushs tenure. Are you,what, about 15 years old?
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
But Iraq did fire upon our planes in the no fly zone.Wow how quickly you libs forget.


So, lets get this straight. We go to war over minor infractions in a "no fly zone" and send over 5000 of our nations youth to their deaths? The reasons for going to war in Iraq have changed now about 50 times. I don't think it is that we "libs" forget. Its more likely that it is impossible to keep up with the constantly changing reasons about which we went to war. Pick one and stick to it. It makes things seem much more legit and the the deaths of our soldiers much more dignified. Think of them first, not the attempted justification of a bad policy and a poorly executed war.

P.S. I just heard parts of Charles Gibson's interview with bush. In the interview bush admits to being "unprepared for war". Absolutely fascinating.

Link
Last edited by meanasasnake
I`m sorry Mean but firing at our planes is not a minor infraction.Let`s say Cuba fired at our planes flying in International airspace.Would that be considered minor?Plus they violated countless UN resolutions and they would not own up to not having WMD`s.I say we had every reason to go to war with them and we rid the world of another Tyrant and liberated millions of people.No matter how you cut it we were justified.And by saying we weren`t you have denegrated every man and woman who gave up their life for that cause.
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
I`m sorry Mean but firing at our planes is not a minor infraction.Let`s say Cuba fired at our planes flying in International airspace.Would that be considered minor?Plus they violated countless UN resolutions and they would not own up to not having WMD`s.I say we had every reason to go to war with them and we rid the world of another Tyrant and liberated millions of people.No matter how you cut it we were justified.And by saying we weren`t you have denegrated every man and woman who gave up their life for that cause.


The War was based on faulty intelligence according to bush. He makes no mention of the planes being fired upon in a no fly zone. The planes were NOT shot down and that is not provocation for all out WAR, invasion and occupation of a nation. Keep trying. Sooner or later you will come up with something which at least sounds substantial enough to justify faulty policy you doggedly support. Bush has admitted he was unprepared for war - pretty much says it all.

"Mr. Gibson: You’ve always said there’s no do-overs as President. If you had one?

Mr. Bush: I don’t know — the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that’s not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

Mr. Gibson: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

Mr. Bush: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely."

I see no mention, by the Commander in Chief, about Iraq planes firing upon American forces in the no fly zone as being a reason for the War. Pretty much what he said was that faulty intelligence or not - he wanted to go to war.
Last edited by meanasasnake
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
Iraq was firing on our planes patrolling the no fly zones.So wouldn`t that be reason enough to attack?


Fire back and retaliate, yes. Take over a foreign country, no. I believe President Reagan proved that fact in the way he handled Libya. Libya shot down our domestic plane, Pan Am Flight 103 (not even a military target), and we didn't overrun the country.

Contrary to what you may think I am not anti-Republican and I happen to agree with the way Reagan handled several incidents. But I do not believe the George W. Bush Administration handled Iraq correctly.

quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah: Tough to issue a declaration of war against militant Islam. When that law was conceived, nation-states went to war against nation-states. Now a nation-state can go to war against a non-government-organization (such as AQ) but the NGO doesn't have a distinct country, borders, infrastructure, etc. So, probably since the law is unclear as to how to do that, we should just roll over, smile, and say "next"?


As to militant Islam, the people leading terrorism are nuts very similar to the militant Christians who carried on the crusades. In our case having militant Islamic people in the country does not justify overtaking a country by itself. Afghanistan's actions justified war. Their leadership participated in the actual acts against the United States, killing thousands. Iraq's actions did not. Our military had Iraq under control.

-->Edited because I can't spell tonight<--
In case you`ve missed it Mean we have won in Iraq.Oh you wont hear about it in the MSM or leftest web sites but we have won.I bet the news will come out after our new president is inaugerated.It will be a way for the media to pump him up for his first 100 days.Good response AS but I have a question.Reagan went after Quadafi personally.He tried to have him eliminated.Wouldn`t that be the same as replacing Saddam?
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
In case you`ve missed it Mean we have won in Iraq.Oh you wont hear about it in the MSM or leftest web sites but we have won.I bet the news will come out after our new president is inaugerated.It will be a way for the media to pump him up for his first 100 days.Good response AS but I have a question.Reagan went after Quadafi personally.He tried to have him eliminated.Wouldn`t that be the same as replacing Saddam?


Sweetie, what did we win? A prize? Do tell!

Oh, and trying to take out Quadafi did not require 5000 American lives. More than a slight dif. Bush is no Reagan - thats for **** sure. He is the Republican version of Carter - only he had two terms to screw every thing up.
quote:
Originally posted by Schnauzer1:
Mean,

Just because he screw up the execution of the war does not constitute a Criminal Act. He didn't Lie under Oath like Clinton did, He just used Faulty Intelligence And he had the permission from the UN and US Congress. He even got Permission from the UN to Occupy Iraq with UN Resolution 1483.


What does Clinton lying under oath have to do with this? I should imagine that Clintons impeachment was clearly payment enough for lying about sex. Bush on the other hand lied and his poor execution of his war caused the deaths of thousands. I see a clear and distinct difference between the two things. Of course some are incapable of ever forgetting about sex and subsequent lies about it, but death is easy to ignore and forget. One must wonder about that.
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
Plus (Iraq) violated countless UN resolutions and they would not own up to not having WMD`s.I say we had every reason to go to war with them


Hahaha! Seriously? So, if they had DENIED having WMDs, we wouldn't have attacked? Somehow, I find that difficult to believe.

quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
No matter how you cut it we were justified.


No... no matter how YOU cut it, apparently, you think we were justified. Many, many people disagree with you. One's opinion does not create facts, no matter how strongly one believes in it.

quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
And by saying we weren`t you have denegrated(sic) every man and woman who gave up their life for that cause.


See, and I think that by lying about the reasons we went to war, then rotating these reasons in and out to suit the political climate of the day - and come on, that HAS been done numerous times in this fiasco - is the true dishonor to the men and women who have perished in this conflict. They (and their families) have paid the ultimate price for a series of lies. Their honor is above reproach. The "honor" of those (on both sides of the political fence) who created this mess is beneath contempt.
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
In case you`ve missed it Mean we have won in Iraq.Oh you wont hear about it in the MSM or leftest web sites but we have won.I bet the news will come out after our new president is inaugerated.It will be a way for the media to pump him up for his first 100 days.Good response AS but I have a question.Reagan went after Quadafi personally.He tried to have him eliminated.Wouldn`t that be the same as replacing Saddam?


Yes, but Ronald Reagan did it intelligently. His covert action, even if he didn't kill Quadafi, obtained the object and killed the minimal number of Libyan citizens with zero American casualties. The French, well that's another story. I like to think that was a "oops" for their own actions. I am sure we paid for that embassy. Reagan had a plan and executed with precision. He had good people in his intelligence community (remember he appoints his own staff) who didn't simply want to give Reagan the answer he wanted to hear. In the end, in my opinion, Reagan executed a military operation flawlessly to the extent possible.

On the other hand George W. Bush went in with guns blazing on some lunatic binge. His intelligence told him what he wanted to hear. And he even stated he was looking for a fight. Compared to Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush doesn't look very intelligent. I'm sorry.

When did we start letting European countries start making decisions for us? Reagan would not have done that. George H. W. Bush did not do that.

If we went on every leader's bluff then we would be in constant war. Yes, Saddam made a dumb move. He was actually bluffing a country that the Reagan administration asked him to keep at bay. Don't forget who supported Saddam so we could keep Iran at bay. George H W Bush simply reminded Iraq of their purpose and pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. At that time Colin Powell wasn't a puppet of George W. Bush and he went on camera saying the occupation of Iraq would be a quagmire.

Please, my Republican friends, look to those Republican leaders who actually used their brain. I can't see how George W. Bush compares in any way to Ronald Reagan. You will then understand why I say the Republican Party needs to redefine itself and go back to its roots.

And yes, I still think Obama was the right choice. I also voted against George W. Bush both times. I think Clinton's sex life is NONE of my business. We have plenty of Democratic and Republican Congressman with sex problems. If they keep it legal with consenting adults it is NONE of my business. But that is another subject and I only state it because I want you to know I stand by my vote. And I reject Internet lunacy. Yes, I keep my mind open. I may read it, but I make a judgment. Your judgment may be different. You are perfectly welcome to dislike Obama and disagree with me for however much time he is in office. If he turns out like George W. Bush I will have to admit I was wrong. I have many Republican friends licking their wounds, but they will live another day and we will survive.

We all live on the greatest nation on Earth. We will survive because the people haven't given up. And we discuss our differences.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
And by saying we weren`t you have denegrated(sic) every man and woman who gave up their life for that cause.


See, and I think that by lying about the reasons we went to war, then rotating these reasons in and out to suit the political climate of the day - and come on, that HAS been done numerous times in this fiasco - is the true dishonor to the men and women who have perished in this conflict. They (and their families) have paid the ultimate price for a series of lies. Their honor is above reproach. The "honor" of those (on both sides of the political fence) who created this mess is beneath contempt


Again, how nicely put and so true. To use the troops as a tool for justification is reprehensible.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
In today's political climate even Reagan, with his measured response, would have been villified as a baby killer for his action against Gadaffi, as it resulted in the death of one of his daughters.

"Everything in war is simple, but even the simplest things are difficult."
--von Clausewitz


I seriously doubt it.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×