Did you know that burried in the military tribunal bill passed by congress is a "war Crimes" pardon provision? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjtJAm.HMZ4ev8vRkVQqB7RIzKIX?qid=20061001201736AAsq38Y
is the HAGUE going to try BUSH for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and killing hundreds of thousands ?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Alr9JYvadq1EKOySaWHyJNtIzKIX?qid=20060803210349AA8eKGf
Germany is Prosecuting Rumsfeld, Gonzales & Tenet for War Crimes -Will Congress Do the Same?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvIPcUXaJ_qbKav92su5LyhIzKIX?qid=20061111190356AAUxyXQ
What are the chances that either Bush or key people in his Admin could be charged with war crimes one day?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhfTM1LdLjXzn9fGKZI4OvBIzKIX?qid=20061010222032AADPvL7
Are the Deocrates spineless wimps or will they even try to prosecute Mr./President G.W.Bush for anything
I mean if that republican Clinton can 'impeached' for lying about
2006-11-12 15:51:57 · 15 answers · asked by concerned_earthling 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
an affair with an intern then G.W.Bush should get the same treatment for his affair with a gay hooker
2006-11-12 15:55:12 · update #1
In my opinion Clinton was a ddemocrate in name only
2006-11-14 21:03:47 · update #2
Yes HR 6166 EH has a clause which allows past and future war crimes. That doesn't make the bill legal, most of it is unconstitutional. It has no effect on international law, something Bush doesn't seem to understand, and preparations are being made in other countries to charge him and others with war crimes.
He will be in his little territory (paid for with black appropriations) in Paraguay with his families Nazi buddies when they try to put him on trial.
2006-11-12 15:57:37 · answer #1 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I hope they're investigated, certainly. It's unprecedented and just plain stupid to have an administration that's had to deal with so little oversight, particularly when they've been dealing with two wars. As for impeachment, well. If it's warranted, then I hope it happens. I think we'd be more likely to lose the respect of the world if we let an administration that has manifestly committed crimes go free than if we impeached two presidents in a row. But investigations first. Not out of a sense of revenge, but because that's what Congress is supposed to do to war administrations. That's part of the checks and balances thing.
2006-11-13 00:18:17 · answer #2 · answered by random6x7 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There have already been investigation after investigation and he just changed the Geneva Convention which will exclude him, CIA OR anyone else from being tried for war crimes in that provision. Clintons impeachment did not go thru because it was of a personal and private nature , impeachment charges are when the country is put in jeopardy or harms way like sending our men and women to war on a lie. They have been blocking my answers I,ll see if this gets thru.
2006-11-13 01:09:45 · answer #3 · answered by dinah.thompson@sbcglobal.net 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because the democrats do not want the public to be reminded of their own statements.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
2006-11-12 23:58:31 · answer #4 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm sorry, but what gay hooker?
I believe that was Haggard who did that, not Bush.
And what the hell is a deocrate? Something to do with a wooden box?
And since when was Clinton a Republican, I ask you?
You're mixing up your facts.
2006-11-13 00:32:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need to start thinking on your own and not relying on all the things you read and hear. Thats the trouble with the nation. They read it they believe it. How can you make an intelligent decisions on how to vote if you don't investigate a candidates history, or how to vote an ammendment, or anything else affecting the country or yourself. Don't let others think for you.
2006-11-13 00:06:51 · answer #6 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will be a big mistake to start that. It would take up so much time that the House and Senate need to do other things and could result in Cheney being President.
That would be my nightmare.
2006-11-13 00:01:10 · answer #7 · answered by Nort 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i really don't like the guy but impeaching him would be so bad. we would lose the respect of the rest of the world to impeach 2 presidents in a row. we have better thing s to get done that get bogged down in what would be the beginning of the end of American dominance of the globe.
2006-11-13 00:00:08 · answer #8 · answered by nobudE 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Other than being a pile of excrement, he's done nothing to be textbook "impeached". I'd love to go into my opinion further, but the "Guidelines" of this site forbid me from doing so.
2006-11-13 00:42:37 · answer #9 · answered by 5150 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably not, but that doesn't mean someone wont try to get it through.
Clinton by the way is a Democrat.
2006-11-13 00:00:14 · answer #10 · answered by One Crazy Dude 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋