Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu
  • Davebo

    It’s an interesting theory. But the fact is at this time we don’t know that there is zero chance of Bush or anyone in his adminstration facing prosecution after they leave office.

    Because we aren’t sure yet what exactly transpired in the background. And if, 3 months after innaguration, we discover what I suspect we might, we’ll look pretty stupid for having pardoned the guy.

  • Even considering the passive agressive portion, it’s a good idea simply because it shows something people haven’t seen in a while, a reaching across.

    Besides, it’s a good idea in general for a president to ensure that the office itself isn’t too heavily looked into. The potential loss of powers could be quite extensive should a trial ensue.

  • Bones_708

    It would be seen as exactly what it would be, a passive aggressive “attack” across the isle. Both sides would condemn it and it would be bad politics in general.

  • Somebody

    Well its not an overly intelligent idea. Designed to stimulate divisive debate and is making assumptions that may or may not be true.

    Your assuming GWB has broken the law. If this is so, then why is he still President?

    If you do this then you set a standard by which each incoming president will then pardon the next encouraging each president to be more likely to reach the limits of the law realizing “Im gonna be pardoned.”

    Thirdly this would simply stir up MORE left vs right, Democrats vs Republicans designed to further polarize America.

    But I guess your assumption is he is guilty of lawlessness, believe that only GWB as president has ever come close to breaking the law and revel in a nation divided.

    The thinking of the left (and I think your sliding farther left everyday) never ceases to amaze me. Its amazing what a few semesters at college does to fine young conservatives.

  • Rudi

    Somebody – Even if laws are broken it takes a large majority to convict. Didn’t happen with Clinton. Won’t happen now or in the future with Bush.

  • I was never a “fine young conservative,” even prior to college. I’m still a step or two to the right of where I was in early high school (though probably quite a ways left of where I was late HS/early college).

  • Somebody

    IN 1963 a song was recorded named Louie Louie. Funny song. Radical. Well that is if you can figure out just exactly what the lyrics to the song really mean.

    The FBI launced a 30 month investigation.

    Impeach LBJ for attempting to deny first Amendment rights?

    During the Civil war protest songs were written in which they protested the war. Lincoln and the Secretary of War announced anyone singing those songs would be arrested.

    Impeach Lincoln for violating first amendment rights?

    The Maryland state government banned the singing of the song “Short People” because it might be offensive to some. Political correctness was born at the expense of the freedom of speech many of you so cherish.

    The point is simply that by whose standards do we begin making judgments as to what constitutes violation of the law? And if we start putting such stringent standards on our President then how is the leader of the free world supposed to act with such stringent constraints placed upon his actions as president.

    Did LBJ violate the constitution and therefore deserve to be impeached? Lincoln? Nixon for ordering the investigation of radicals by the FBI? At what point does the cart start leading the horse?

    Sometimes in ones zeal to protect the constitution one is prone to trample all over its intent. We as a nation are best when we are allowed freedom. A president good or bad is best when he is allowed the freedom to act in the best interests of a nation. I will say this about Democrats or Republicans. It just is what is best for this country.

  • The FBI’s operations under J. Edgar Hoover throughout the 50s and 60s was absolutely disgraceful, and should have led to his prosecution without a doubt in my mind.

    But my standard, in this case, is rather easy. Torture is an unmitigated evil. George W. Bush has approved of American officials engaging in torture. That’s a good distance beyond LBJ and Nixon’s wiretapping and abusive investigations.

  • Republicrat

    What laws precisely have been broken that would merit a pardon? I’m guessing Dave will say:

    1. torture — waterboarding, secret CIA prisons, etc. — This is the biggest scar on Bush’s record, no doubt about it. On reading French Pres. Sarkozy’s speech to Congress, he seemed to be hinting at this by calling us to still be a good example to the world.

    2. attacking Iraq — far less clear-cut; think of all those U.N. resolutions, “serious consequences” threatened, etc.

    3. global warming? Good luck! Interesting that Pres. Sarkozy did openly mention that one.

    What else am I missing here? Don’t forget that Rep. Kucinich couldn’t get his “impeach Cheney” resolution onto the floor of the House. His own party nixed it, so why would a Dem President pardon Bush?

  • The point is simply that by whose standards do we begin making judgments as to what constitutes violation of the law?

    Uhh… Congress, the courts? The President (not a King) is not above the law.

  • Somebody

    The point is simply that by whose standards do we begin making judgments as to what constitutes violation of the law?

    Uhh… Congress, the courts? The President (not a King) is not above the law.

    Then I must respond once again with “if that is so then why is he still president if he has broken the law?”

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com