[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Jan 21 2007, 06:27 AM, said:

The differences lie in the fact that Clinton denied having sex under oath and in front of a grand jury, while Bush said there were WMD in front of the UN assembly and not under oath.  Odd that if Bush knew he way lying, Clinton's is still the more punishable under law?

Clinton lied about something which is no-ones business except for his own, his wife's and ms Lewinsky's, while Bush fabricated a reason for starting a pointless war that killed 100,000+ (and counting) people. Plus the wiretapping, election fraud etc. etc.

This whole "oath" concept is ridicolous. If you lie you must be prepared to take responsibility for foreseeable consequences.

Then again, the Florida election and all Karl Roves' dirty tricks were long known before Bush's second election, so obviously the majority of the voters wanted a criminal president. It would then be undemocratic to impeace him for the kind of behavior he was elected for.

Besides, who cares what Bush thinks about WMDs? He's not an expert in that field, just a stupid politician. If the members of the UN general assembly are stupid enough to believe what Bush says, maybe they are the ones who should be dismissed.

[pbleighton]

"Besides, who cares what Bush thinks about WMDs? He's not an expert in that field, just a stupid politician."

Yes.

The invasion of Iraq would have been a war crime even if WMDs exist - any war other than a defensive war is a war crime (se the Fourth Geneva Convention", and Iraq clearly doesn't fall under that .

However, it is silly to expect that Bush will ever be prosecuted for it. A large majority of U.S. citizens approved it, so our country is complicit, and our government won't ever prosecute. As for international organizations, well, large scale war crimes apply only to countries which have been conquered.

Peter

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 20 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

What do you think, Jimmy?

i think the high crimes & etc apply to u.s. law, but i'm no expert... that said, i think illegal wiretaps are impeachable by definition (much as illegal aliens are criminals, by definition)...

[helene_t]

I'm not an expert either but I'm prettyr sure that Jimmy is correct.

[Winstonm]

Well, Clinton escaped the "high" crimes because he didn't inhale.

[sceptic]

It would seem to me that America is qute capable of reducing a country to ruins and not being able to manage the aftermath, would it not make sense to have to leave Iraq to destroy Iran, when that is complete the US army can go home and we can conviniently forget how we left Iraq

[Al_U_Card]

It depends on where the price of oil goes......if it continues to drop, the US will have to destabilize the middle east to get it back up so that Russia will continue to be solvent and the oil companies will make their multi billion $ profits.


btw see how the US has got Harper and his twits to sign on for quintupling the oil-sands production destined for them? This will greatly impede Canada's ability to reduce its CO2 emissions......