You want to see
Bowe Bergdahl tried before George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the lot of criminals that dragged us into two wars that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and well over a trillion dollars; and also the two chief crooks who oversaw the absolute ravaging of our economy and the theft of again, trillions of dollars??
What criminal statute was violated by Bush and/or Cheney?
- illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda program to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq;
- misused intelligence reports to deceive Congress and the public about a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and the the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001;
- mislead Congress and the public into believing that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States;
- illegally misspent funds to begin a war in secret prior to congressional authorization;
- illegally lied to Congress about the deaths and injuries of members of the U.S. military;
- misused classified intelligence information and conspired to identify a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);
- illegally misappropriated and misspent public dollars on private contractors in Iraq in violation of standing laws;
- detained U.S. citizens and foreign captives indefinitely and without charge;
- authorized torture of captives in Afghanistan and Iraq;
- kidnapped and transported individuals to countries known to practice torture;
- authorized the arrest and detention of at least 2,500 children as enemy combatants in violation of the Geneva Convention, a war crime;
- mislead Congress and the public about threats from Iran;
- the misuse and intent to misuse Presidential signing statements via the issuance of legal opinions by the Department of Justice and violated the Posse Comitatus Act;
- authorized warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens;
- directed telecommunication companies to create databases of the private telephone numbers and emails of U.S. citizens without Congressional knowledge, approval, or oversight;
- blatantly violated the law while using signing statements to claim the right to violate laws enacted by Congress;
- failed to comply with congressional subpoenas and instructed former executive branch employees not to comply with such subpoenas;
- conspired to violate the voting rights of U.S. citizens;
- obstructed investigations into the 9/11 attacks;
Most importantly, the President, Vice President, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Deputy Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz lied to Congress to justify the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
The President violated the several Congressional Acts and laws protecting telecommunications both domestically and abroad.
And the President violated the Geneva Convention, the Convention Against Torture, the Civil Service Act, the Hatch Act.
If they so clearly should have been prosecuted in a court of law for a criminal offense, then why didn't the Democratic-controlled House impeach them in 2007/2008?
This isn't a logical argument. You're saying "if they weren't prosecuted they surely didn't break the law?" I'm not arguing for the Democrats here.
Why hasn't some Democratic U.S. Attorney filed charges against them?
Because the Democrats are equally complicit. Why are you turning this into a political issue? It's not.
Impeachments are, generally, political in nature. There was nothing to be gained, politically, by trying and failing to impeach George Bush. Clinton actually benefited from being impeached as the country grew tired of the scandal and began to blame Republicans for the entire debacle..
Bush and Cheney haven't been in office for more than six years, and during every day of their 8-year term, they were the subject of constant criticism/complaint/discussion.
What does this mean?
They stood for reelection in 2004, and won.
It's highly debatable if they won the first time. I was
actively involved as a Democratic activist in 2004 in Ohio for the Kerry campaign - that election is a story in and of itself, but one cannot say Bush had any sort of mandate coming out of 2004.
So, again, I don't know what the point of saying this is.... it's not, logical or germane to the question at hand.
Nobody overlooked or failed to consider their actions -- people just disagreed regarding the merits of their policies. And even if their policies were completely fucked up, that still doesn't mean they committed a criminal act.
I doubt you've investigated this much further than typing this out. Rather than go on about it, just do your research. I think it's actually quite funny you don't think Bush broke the law... I don't know
anyone who thinks that, Republican or Democrat.
It's one thing to be cynical like King Stannis and simply say, "heads of state don't get prosecuted..." Makes sense, but still... However, it's another thing to be naive enough to say "Bush didn't break the law."
He clearly broke the law when he wiretapped people's phones.
He clearly broke the law when his Administration lied to Congress.
He clearly broke the law when he authorized torture in violation of American law.
In contrast, excuse-makers on the left are still obsessing over guys who haven't been in office for more than six years, and using them as bogeyman to deflect blame from other actions that are still current.
Q-Tip, what is it with you and continually putting things in terms of "left" or "right?"
Fuck, Obama!
I could care less about his agenda... I am saying it's outrageous how bloodthirsty some people are over Bowe Bergdahl and want to wrap themselves in the flag over dead soldiers -- but they don't give two shits about prosecuting George W. Bush who was chiefly responsible, more so than anyone, for an offensive and unnecessary war.
In contrast, Bowe Bergdahl is being prosecuted for a very simple reason -- he quite clearly committed at least one serious violation of the UCMJ.
And again, I ask, how is that more serious than the guy who started this war to begin with?
So until Bush and Cheney are prosecuted for some unspecified criminal act, deserters shouldn't be prosecuted either?
What I am asking is that people actually think about their public outrage before they go on these tirades.
I don't expect Bush to be prosecuted; but for that very reason, I could give two shits about Bowe Bergdahl being prosecuted.. It's silly to care so vehemently about a deserter but not about the instigator of the war itself.
For that matter, there's no logical reason to limit it just to deserters -- ....
For that matter, why bother prosecuting any crimes at all? I mean, I think it's complete bullshit that so many people were upset about Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown, when Bush and Cheney are still walking the streets!
You don't really need me to point out the fallacy in your "logical" statement do you?
