Bush invaded another country - Iraq. He had no right to do so. In my mind he is a criminal in this country.
2007-01-25 08:17:27 · 36 answers · asked by jimmyed2007 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No but there should be a law for stupid questions with no basis or facts to prove your case. If you are going to ask this type of question try finding the exact federal crime statute then re ask your question - otherwise shut up
2007-01-25 09:56:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-10 10:20:26 · answer #2 · answered by Jerome 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Question with a Question:
He invaded another country without (valid) cause prior to 2004. He was then re-elected. Shouldn't the 51% + of all Americans also be considered criminal for being Accessory After the Fact?
2007-01-25 08:24:15 · answer #3 · answered by GOODWIBR 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Sure he did. But do you in all honesty think anyone would convict him. The CIA has proven to the world that they have committed numerous crimes from drug-running to outright murder in countries other than ours and here too, yet no one agent or agents have ever been convicted of any crimes. The same can be said against the entire Bush family. How many people believe George Sr. actually jumped out of an airplane in WWII and had it filmed and was immediately picked up by a submarine that just happened to be there. And when the pictures were taken they were taken from a position higher up than a conning tower of a sub. And was this why G Sr. was made the head of the CIA before he became President. And GW's daughters, why weren't they prosecuted like normal people for causing all those accidents while drunk? So, no, GW will never be prosecuted.
2007-01-25 08:34:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
You need to educate yourself better. Iraq violated or ignored 14 UN resolutions since the end of the Persian gulf War in 1990.
They were known users of chemical weapons against their own people and the iranian army in the iran/iraq war.
the UN gave the US and Great Britain permission to invade Iraq based on violation of the resolutions and their know use of chemical weapons.
If that makes Bush a war criminal then it also makes FDR and Churchhill war criminals from World War II for invading Africa and most of Europe to stop the Nazi's in that War.
the only war criminals in this war are the "insurgents" who are passing themselves off as Iraqi's but are actually majority foreign fighters from other countries.
2007-01-25 08:34:43 · answer #5 · answered by rwadejohnson 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Funny thing about the war, Americans are fighting against a lot of their own weapons. They went to war to look for weapons of mass destruction. Still have found none. Have killed many civilions. Hitler was voted in but I think he would of be convicted of crimes against humanity. But by many of your comments the whole country should of been convicted. Bush could technically be considered for lots of crimes i'm sure. But he is the President of the one and only Super Power. His corp. and friends corps have made more money on this war then anyone else so is htis question that out of line, really? Get your heads out of the sand. I'm not a left wing person but if America wasn't in control of the whole U.N. and the situation he might be the one hanging from the rope not sadam. The U.n> by the way did not want the U.S. to go in as they did.
2007-01-25 08:37:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
He may be responsible for many crimes. And many would like to see him punished. The question today, as our country is so radically divided, would prosecuting him be good for the country or would it tear it apart. Perhaps Congress could instead get Bush and Cheney to go "play golf" for the next two years, and leave responsible governance in the hands of those who love this country. Impeachment would probably feel great for a while, but if the society falls apart as a result, how would that have been worth the effort for justice?
2007-01-25 08:31:50 · answer #7 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I do not believe President Bush is a war criminal nor do I believe he should be prosecuted for invading Iraq. We were attacked, and then he responded. You say "HE" had no right- but what about the people that did that to us? Did "They have the right"?
The old saying"all's fair in love and war" means just that! Fair about turn play! I always say too!
2007-01-25 08:27:26 · answer #8 · answered by medtech1 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well, according to all the UN resolutions he did have the right to invade and them fagotrons at the UN should have supported him 100%. BTW, who care about your mind, it couldn't grasp the legality of the Iraq war, so it must not be working very well.
2007-01-25 08:41:54 · answer #9 · answered by zombiefighter1988 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First, who is the "you" that you're referring to?
Secondly, the President had ample right to invade Iraq for many reasons, not the least of which was Congressional authorization. Not to mention Saddam's 17 violations of U.N. resolutions, his use and research of WMDs, his possession of WMDs, his gross human rights violations, invading 2 countries, interefering with or refusing to let the U.N. search for weapons, being responsible for roughly 2 million deaths, etc.
Whether you agree with the decision or you do not, four years after the invasion, you should understand why we invaded.
2007-01-25 08:22:45 · answer #10 · answered by C = JD 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋