I say, put him in prison and let him have Zacharias Moussaoui as a cellmate!

I was gonna say 50 lashes with a cane, but this is not Singapore...although Dumbya should feel pain because of his sending our soldiers into Iraq on a false pretense of WMD's...

That would be after he's impeached. The articles have to pass congress, and then they would have to remove him from office. I would say he and his goons need to be tried for treason.  However, I would personally be happy to see Bush and his entire cabinet and the two merrie melodies he put on the Supreme Court exhiled to a remote island in Indonesia where they still practice cannibalism.

Maybe send him to Iraq to complete his National Guard duty.

Maybe send him to Iraq to complete his National Guard duty.

Please, Bri, we're talking about punishing Bush, not punishing the Iraqis! Oy vey, they've suffered enough!
;D

Make him John Kerry's gofer!
"Hey George, mail out those Kerry for President flyers!"
"Hey George, make me breakfast, and don't forget to make a fresh pot of Fair Trade Certified coffee!"
"Hey George, gimme a massage!"
"Hey George, go to the liquor store and get me a few cases of beer, and don't drink any of it!"
"Hey George, clean the bathroom, and it better be spotless!"

This bores me.

I say, put him in prison and let him have Zacharias Moussaoui as a cellmate!

I was gonna say 50 lashes with a cane, but this is not Singapore...although Dumbya should feel pain because of his sending our soldiers into Iraq on a false pretense of WMD's...


You're gonna need a really big cell. Since it'll have to include people like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They had the same intelligence info Bush had and they voted "yes" to go to war back in Oct.2002.

And comparing George Bush to Zacarias Moussaoui or saying he should share a prison cell with him is kind of sick.  :(

You're gonna need a really big cell. Since it'll have to include people like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They had the same intelligence info Bush had and they voted "yes" to go to war back in Oct.2002.

And comparing George Bush to Zacarias Moussaoui or saying he should share a prison cell with him is kind of sick.  :(

Look, Bush the Second is just as much of a killer as Moussaoui. Bush is having innocent Iraqi citizens as well as our soldiers, needlessly killed. Same as all the people killed on 9/11/2001 were innocent people who did not have to die

I was gonna say tie him to the back of an NHRA dragster...that goes something like 300 MPH in five seconds!



So, you'd want the man dragged behind a race car going at top speed.


Aren't you a loving and gentle soul.

Also:  What if Donald Rumsfeld and Spider-Man had a faceoff?  Spider-Man could totally beat Rumsfeld!  I bet he would use a slingshot, and, like, cover him up with all that web...and then he would throw him off a cliff...  At the bottom of the cliff would be a rabid group of gorillas who would be all "Arrghhh!" and they would eat him after he died from hitting the ground.  Then Spider-Man would be all, "Haha, you suck" and everyone would elect him king of the universe.

You're gonna need a really big cell. Since it'll have to include people like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. They had the same intelligence info Bush had and they voted "yes" to go to war back in Oct.2002.

Fine by me. Put the lot of them on a garbage barge and set it adrift in the Bermuda Triangle. Do us all a big favor!

And comparing George Bush to Zacarias Moussaoui or saying he should share a prison cell with him is kind of sick.  :(


Yeah, tooootally unfair to Zac!
:P

You know that comment I made about how I thought some of you would find glee in Bush's assassination if it were to happen?


It doesn't sound so odd reading some of these responses.

Bush is having innocent Iraqi citizens as well as our soldiers, needlessly killed.


???

Ah, I think impeachment is enough.  Bush is an innocent, misguided, idiotic soul.  It's Dick who needs to be punished.  I say for Dick Cheney, strand him in a big, beautiful pine forest, just for irony.  ;D

You know that comment I made about how I thought some of you would find glee in Bush's assassination if it were to happen?


It doesn't sound so odd reading some of these responses.

I feel enraged at the Bush Administration, but assassination is not justice. It is still murder even if it is killing a monster such as Dubya. I do not think impeachment and and removal from office is enough. The Bush Administration needs to stand trial at the Hague for war crimes.

And what is so hard to understand about the statement "Bush is having innocent Iraqi citizens as well as our soldiers needlessly killed"? The Bushies themselves admitted the invasion of Iraq was not about WMD nor any threat to our national security, it was about "regime change." They started the war, as Cheney said, "because we could." They demonstrably made a bogus connection of Saddam Hussein with 9/11. Saddam was an American imperial strongman who went rogue. He got out of line. So, yes, because of Bush's war tens of thousands of American soldiers have been injured or killed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been injured or killed. That's the way its.

I feel enraged at the Bush Administration, but assassination is not justice. It is still murder even if it is killing a monster such as Dubya. I do not think impeachment and and removal from office is enough. The Bush Administration needs to stand trial at the Hague for war crimes.

And what is so hard to understand about the statement "Bush is having innocent Iraqi citizens as well as our soldiers needlessly killed"? The Bushies themselves admitted the invasion of Iraq was not about WMD nor any threat to our national security, it was about "regime change." They started the war, as Cheney said, "because we could." They demonstrably made a bogus connection of Saddam Hussein with 9/11. Saddam was an American imperial strongman who went rogue. He got out of line. So, yes, because of Bush's war tens of thousands of American soldiers have been injured or killed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been injured or killed. That's the way its.



If you believe Bush is a war criminal for the War in Iraq, then every sitting president who has had troops engaged in foreign combat are war criminals as well.  They too had our soldiers killed as well as civilians in the countries we were fighting in.

Look at Vietnam for example.  Pre-Iraq, probably the most unliked and ill-thought of war in our history.  Every president who sent troops to Vietnam, going by what you lovely people say, should be considered a war criminal for sending our soldiers off to die and for killing innocent civilians.  Same goes for the presidents who sent troops into WWI and WWII.  Can't forget Korea either.

If you want to accuse Bush of being a war criminal for the above stated reasons, fine.  However you must also classify every other sitting president during a time of war as the same thing.  You can't pick and choose.  Either none of them are or all of them are.


And can we stop with the hypothetical questions about what will happen to Bush if he's impeached?  It ain't gonna happen.  No way in hell is a Repub Congress going to throw out a Repub President while a war is still on.  So take your panties out of your butts and pray for 2008 to get here.

And what is so hard to understand about the statement "Bush is having innocent Iraqi citizens as well as our soldiers needlessly killed"?


There is nothing about that statement that was hard to understand.  The way I read it, the word "having" implies that he has commanded someone to kill our soldiers and innocent Iraqis.  Now I fully understand the thinking that he is somehow responsible for their deaths, but to say he is having them killed, well I think it's a far stretch.

If you believe Bush is a war criminal for the War in Iraq, then every sitting president who has had troops engaged in foreign combat are war criminals as well.  They too had our soldiers killed as well as civilians in the countries we were fighting in.

Look at Vietnam for example.  Pre-Iraq, probably the most unliked and ill-thought of war in our history.  Every president who sent troops to Vietnam, going by what you lovely people say, should be considered a war criminal for sending our soldiers off to die and for killing innocent civilians.  Same goes for the presidents who sent troops into WWI and WWII.  Can't forget Korea either.

If you want to accuse Bush of being a war criminal for the above stated reasons, fine.  However you must also classify every other sitting president during a time of war as the same thing.  You can't pick and choose.  Either none of them are or all of them are.


And can we stop with the hypothetical questions about what will happen to Bush if he's impeached?  It ain't gonna happen.  No way in hell is a Repub Congress going to throw out a Repub President while a war is still on.  So take your panties out of your butts and pray for 2008 to get here.



What about torture? Isn't that what Saddam Hussain is on trial for? It is a fact that CIA (under the direction of the president) has kidnapped people (whether they were guilty or not), taken them to private prisons and had them tortured. There is also a place called Guantomino Bay where people have been held without charge and-yes, tortured. I would say that is a crime against humanity and against the Geneva Convention. Llike Max said, I would like to see him, as well as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all those others stand trial for these crimes.



Cat

What about torture? Isn't that what Saddam Hussain is on trial for? It is a fact that CIA (under the direction of the president) has kidnapped people (whether they were guilty or not), taken them to private prisons and had them tortured. There is also a place called Guantomino Bay where people have been held without charge and-yes, tortured. I would say that is a crime against humanity and against the Geneva Convention. Llike Max said, I would like to see him, as well as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all those others stand trial for these crimes.



Cat


You all must not understand how foreign powers act in times of war.  No one is saying it's right, but if torturing someone to get information out of them may save a few thousand lives......it's a necessary evil, the same as war.  I believe there is a line that can be crossed and do I feel it has been crossed at times?  Yes.  Does that mean it's been crossed all the time?  No.  Stop looking at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as the S.O.P. of all people in the United States military.  Get some freakin' perspective, here.  Sometimes.....and this will be shocking information I'm sure.....the people at these places AT TIMES have acted on their own accord and not because they were told to.  I don't think the President is on the phone telling the soldiers to kill, maim and torture as many people as they possibly can. 

People will die when there's a war going on.  It's a fact of life.  Whether Bush was president or Kerry was president or my dog was president, this war would be on and people would die.  Our soldiers would die too.  See, the people over there.......they don't like us.  So no matter who sent them......they'd get shot at.  Some of you seem to forget that. 

All war is evil and all war takes lives.  So once again, if you want to hang Bush by his non-existant testicles for this, you must also do the same to EVERY OTHER SITTING PRESIDENT DURING A TIME OF WAR.

You all must not understand how foreign powers act in times of war.  No one is saying it's right, but if torturing someone to get information out of them may save a few thousand lives......it's a necessary evil, the same as war.  I believe there is a line that can be crossed and do I feel it has been crossed at times?  Yes.  Does that mean it's been crossed all the time?  No.  Stop looking at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as the S.O.P. of all people in the United States military.  Get some freakin' perspective, here.  Sometimes.....and this will be shocking information I'm sure.....the people at these places AT TIMES have acted on their own accord and not because they were told to.  I don't think the President is on the phone telling the soldiers to kill, maim and torture as many people as they possibly can. 

People will die when there's a war going on.  It's a fact of life.  Whether Bush was president or Kerry was president or my dog was president, this war would be on and people would die.  Our soldiers would die too.  See, the people over there.......they don't like us.  So no matter who sent them......they'd get shot at.  Some of you seem to forget that. 

All war is evil and all war takes lives.  So once again, if you want to hang Bush by his non-existant testicles for this, you must also do the same to EVERY OTHER SITTING PRESIDENT DURING A TIME OF WAR.



First of all, I know how people in the military are-I USED to be a member of the military. I also know that the president is Commander in Chief-in other words, he is the head honcho and is SUPPOSED to be responsible for the actions of the military. He knows (or at least he is suppose to) what is going on in those prisions. He also knows the fact that the CIA have secret prisions that the public is not suppose to know about. Why? Because he knows that is against the Geneva Convention. For those who are not familar with the Geneva Convention, it is a guideline on how prisoners of war are supposed to be treated. Here is a link.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

When I was in the military, we were taught the Geneva Convention, what it meant, what it entails, and how we are supposed to act because of it-this includes if we ever became prisoners of war as well as captors.

It seems to me that a few years ago, there were some American political prisoners in China and the U.S. was up in arms because they violated the Geneva Convention. Now, the U.S. is doing the same thing-only worse.

A crime is a crime is a crime and done in MY name-as an American citizen I don't care who does it, I want to see justice done.



Cat

First of all, I know how people in the military are-I USED to be a member of the military. I also know that the president is Commander in Chief-in other words, he is the head honcho and is SUPPOSED to be responsible for the actions of the military. He knows (or at least he is suppose to) what is going on in those prisions. He also knows the fact that the CIA have secret prisions that the public is not suppose to know about. Why? Because he knows that is against the Geneva Convention. For those who are not familar with the Geneva Convention, it is a guideline on how prisoners of war are supposed to be treated.


You really think Bush is authorizing half this crap?  Even I'm not a Bush-basher to that degree.  If you don't think there are rogue soldiers who take things into their own hands because they think they won't get caught, you're living in la-la land.  These are people with weapons around people who are alleged conspirators and terrorists.  If you don't think one of them is going to get trigger-happy and decide to teach them a lesson, you're wrong.  You see it in cops as well.  Every now and again you come across a bad apple.  Doesn't mean they're all like that and it doesn't mean they were told to do it either.  Just because you didn't come across people like that in your experiences doesn't mean they don't exist.  This also comes back to the argument I was making all along.  If you want to hold Bush responsible for this, as you should, you must hold everyone else who's ever sent troops to die responsible for their actions too.  Where's the placards calling Truman a war criminal?  Where are the people ranting for Eisenhower to be called one for sending troops to French Indo-China?

I think Bush knows more than he should but not nearly enough as some of you would have others believe.

Sis Morphine, IMHO needs to read some history.  It may be true that both W. Wilson qnd FDR wanted to become invonved in WWI and WWII, in both cases we were attacked, or has she forgotten the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor?  And while in both cases the US committed reprtheensible acts, one would hoipe that we have learned something along that way.  Lil' Georgie's war in Iraq would by like FDR saying "Oh my god, tyhe japanese have bombed Pearle Harbor, lets declare war on --- Mexico. 

Osama bin Forgoten - wanted, dead or alive

Sis Morphine, IMHO needs to read some history.  It may be true that both W. Wilson qnd FDR wanted to become invonved in WWI and WWII, in both cases we were attacked, or has she forgotten the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor?  And while in both cases the US committed reprtheensible acts, one would hoipe that we have learned something along that way.  Lil' Georgie's war in Iraq would by like FDR saying "Oh my god, tyhe japanese have bombed Pearle Harbor, lets declare war on --- Mexico. 

Osama bin Forgoten - wanted, dead or alive



I read history.  But thanks for wanting to be involved in my spring/summer '06 reading list. 

These posters were calling Bush a war criminal for sending our soldiers off to die and for killing innocent civilians.  That is no different than what any other president during a time of war has done.  NONE.  I'm not equating the War in Iraq to WWII because our involvement came about in two different ways, but calling a president a war criminal for sending soldiers to die must encompass them all, not just one.

Look, Bush the Second is just as much of a killer as Moussaoui. Bush is having innocent Iraqi citizens as well as our soldiers, needlessly killed. Same as all the people killed on 9/11/2001 were innocent people who did not have to die
The war in iraq has killed ten times more innocent people than died in 9/11. there's really not much getting around that. so it's certainly a moral crime on a par with 9/11, at least, unless you subscribe to the idea that the US government is right to go to war, any time, for any reason it wants. Which plainly a lot of people, particularly republicans, do.

I really don't think bush had much to do with the decision to go to war, though.

There is nothing about that statement that was hard to understand.  The way I read it, the word "having" implies that he has commanded someone to kill our soldiers and innocent Iraqis.  Now I fully understand the thinking that he is somehow responsible for their deaths, but to say he is having them killed, well I think it's a far stretch.
Seems sorta like splitting hairs. Did he deliberately kill these people, or did he give the orders that he knew full well would lead to their needless death? unless the war is justified this distinction isn't meaningful.

So, you'd want the man dragged behind a race car going at top speed.


Aren't you a loving and gentle soul.
I'm sorry. It's just that I'm sick and tired of Bush the Second not showing an ounce of concern for anyone who is not filthy rich like he is. What has he done to help poor and lower-middle class people? Not a thing that I know of.....oh yeah, there's Medicare Part D, which is not really working out that well. Show me one thing he or his party's members have done for people who now don't have a roof over their head because of the major hurricanes last year. Show me one thing he's supported that is for people who have AIDS, cancer, or other catastrophic illnesses. Show me one thing he's done to make sure the Americans With Disabilities act is implemented in both public buildings and private businesses. Show me one thing he's done, other than his 'War on Terrorism' to make this world a better and safer place to live in.

Sorry about the comment. It just seems like Bush the Second only cares about things his rich right-wing Christian Coalition cares about, screw the rest of us!

BTW, I did not vote for Bush, I voted Democrat.

I was thinking that we could string him up by the balls...but then, well, for obvious reasons that is out.
Making him Kerrys butt boy, maybe, he already has a lot of experience doing what he is told.
I think I'd be happy if he just went back to Texas and was never allowed of off the "ranch", him, Dead
Eyes Laura, and the girls.

If you believe Bush is a war criminal for the War in Iraq, then every sitting president who has had troops engaged in foreign combat are war criminals as well. 
Right-o, we'll be charging them too!
:D

We know about the Gulf of Tonkin BS, and there is a growing consensus that FDR knew a little something about Pearl Harbor before December 7th. But Johnson and Roosevelt are like dead and stuff.
Now, it is certain Bush and his cronies lied their azzes off about Iraq. If at long last we grab the crooked politicos and throw 'em in prison for lying to the country and then using the flesh and blood of our armed forces to benefit the super-rich, maybe, just maybe, the next bunch of crooked SOBs who get in charge might think twice about pulling this war business!
::)

I know that Dumbya has not been the only President involved in scandals besides Nixon...John F. Kennedy supposedly slept with women other than his wife, supposedly one of those women was Marilyn Monroe... but I don't think any big fuss was made over it until recent years...

Hey, we finally are done with Bush the Second on Inauguration Day, 2009!

I don't think a Republican president will be elected in 2008. I think sensible people have had enough of Bush and his cronies.

Bush the Second is full of enough b.s. that every farmer in America could use all that manure!

I honestly believe that if Dumbya were impeached, if the next president that wins election is a Republican, he will be pardoned...remember Gerald Ford actually pardoned Nixon!

I honestly believe that if Dumbya were impeached, if the next president that wins election is a Republican, he will be pardoned...remember Gerald Ford actually pardoned Nixon!



Yes and that had less to do with what Nixon did and more to do with the fact the country had to move on.  Between Watergate, oil prices, Vietnam and national affairs.......the country needed to let something go.  Which one of those would you rather he passed off?

Yes and that had less to do with what Nixon did and more to do with the fact the country had to move on.  Between Watergate, oil prices, Vietnam and national affairs.......the country needed to let something go.  Which one of those would you rather he passed off?
vietnam has been pretty much handed over by then anyway. it would have nice to have seen some accountability for a change. but yeah, that'll be a cold day in hell.

vietnam has been pretty much handed over by then anyway. it would have nice to have seen some accountability for a change. but yeah, that'll be a cold day in hell.



I agree that Ford should have done something other than pardon him, but at the time, in that moment......the country had been through enough and something needed to get put back on the back burner.  I don't think any of the aforementioned items should have been there, but one of them had to. 

Yes and that had less to do with what Nixon did and more to do with the fact the country had to move on.  Between Watergate, oil prices, Vietnam and national affairs.......the country needed to let something go.  Which one of those would you rather he passed off?
I don't think Gerald Ford really did something bad. Besides, what would have impeaching Nixon achieved anyway? A divided nation becoming even more divided, which was not what Americans needed at that time.

I don't think Gerald Ford really did something bad. Besides, what would have impeaching Nixon achieved anyway? A divided nation becoming even more divided, which was not what Americans needed at that time.



We finally agree on something.

I don't think our Government will ever be a government for the everyperson, since both Republicans and Democrats are influenced by rich 'friends in high places'...aka big business interests, here and abroad.

// No one is saying it's right, but if torturing someone to get information out of them may save a few thousand lives......it's a necessary evil, the same as war.


Torture has never been an effective means of extracting reliable information from people, and in the end it is self-defeating.

Torture has never been an effective means of extracting reliable information from people, and in the end it is self-defeating.


In many cases, I'm sure that's true. 

In many cases, I'm sure that's true. 


So, I take it that you still support the use of torture because the reverse is "true":

What you implied is 'in some cases it is not true, and therfore acceptable'

Well, if you can tell who is lying and who is telling the truth after shoving a toilet plunger up someone's ass, or shocking their genitals, or depriving them of sleep for an extended period of time, then you are a better person than I.

I take it you are not familiar with Nanking. I invite you to read about it and see what people will do left to their own devices.

Torture isn't necessary, but it is evil. If you have to result to torture, then you have already seriously failed on numerous levels, not the least of which are piss poor intelligence gathering and not being a human being. Torture is banned in practically every country and also banned under a ton of treaties.

So, I take it that you still support the use of torture because the reverse is "true":

What you implied is 'in some cases it is not true, and therfore acceptable'

Well, if you can tell who is lying and who is telling the truth after shoving a toilet plunger up someone's ass, or shocking their genitals, or depriving them of sleep for an extended period of time, then you are a better person than I.

I take it you are not familiar with Nanking. I invite you to read about it and see what people will do left to their own devices.

Torture isn't necessary, but it is evil. If you have to result to torture, then you have already seriously failed on numerous levels, not the least of which are piss poor intelligence gathering and not being a human being. Torture is banned in practically every country and also banned under a ton of treaties.







Applause to you.



Cat