Bush signed a paper excusing his own administration from being charged with international crimes against humanity- charges used against the Nazis and Sadam(remember the media comparisons).

Why would he do that if he had nothing to hide, or more importantly, how could he do that? Doesn't that fall within the realm of the legislative or judicial branch of international court?

I think that's a "Prequel" to a pardon expected to be issued at the end of his regime. That in itself will be controversial because under the law a pardon can't be issued unless criminal charges are brought. Unfortunately, a president (whose name I can't mention) set a precedent for that 30 years ago.

I say bring CIVIL charges (rather than criminal). Losing money is a worse fate than prison time to most of these extremist right-wing nutjobs anyway. You threaten 'em with criminal charges and prison time, they'll use a presidential pardon or simply hire their rich lawyer buddies to get 'em off (the "OJ Effect"). However, attack their wallets and leave them penniless? THAT will get some results!

Glad I came late to THIS thread, but sorry I even posted.................

Of course that is not true. It is also not true that Saddam was charged with "international crimes against humanity." Saddam and the Nazis were charged with totally different crimes. That is why an international tribunal was able to try the Nazis but an Iraqi court tried Saddam.

Go for it. make some big bucks...LOL. You will find out real quick that you cannot make up your "facts" as you go like you do here on PP BBS. The counter suit for slander and frivolous lawsuit will have you working to pay GW's lawyers for the rest of your life

thwart darts!

But Bush should almost be broke...considering that the only company he ever ran, Harken Energy, he ran into the ground.
(Of course it was a no harm/no foul situation because Harken was completely funded by daddy's friends and poor George was coming down from the coke binging while deserting/going AWOL from the military.)

Oh wait, Harken and Haliburton both were set up with susidiary shell companies in the Carribeans for the purpose of dodging US taxes.
-These subsidiaries increased from 9 in 1995, to 44 in 2000.
-The result? Haliburtons taxes went from $302 million in 1998 to less than zero in 1999.
And, yes, Haliburton did do business with Iran Libya and Saddams Iraq.
-At the same time Haliburton got $2.3 Billion(with a "B") in goverment contracts and $1.5 Billion in government financing and loan guarentees(think freeloading).
-In 2002 the SEC finally looked into accounting practices of Haliburton while Cheney was in command but it seems no actions were taken.

But since the above was all before the Iraqi-Freedom thing started (thus Haliburtons' No-Bid/Non-audited/10 year contracts), I'll take that back Fint.
Mabye George does have the money for perpetual lawsuits.

edit- the above facts (we know you like recieving facts fint) were from "Pigs at the Trough" by Arianna Huffington

Lets see:
1. Drugs and Military desertion= Loser
2. Ruining a multi-million dollar company given to him= Loser
3. Iwrek= Loser

Sounds like a 3 time loser to me.

The left and right are both equally corrupt, which is to say they are both utterly corrupt.

That is some funny *****! I'm gonna steal that line. Thanks Fint (as I clean off my keyboard of spit coffee!):D :D :D

Snipe..

That is, sadly, the "human condition".

A perfect world we will never have.

And the cynicism that the situation creates in most of is is probably the single most divisive element of civilization. Probably, in part, a case of "sensory overload", with facts and fiction morphed into a incomprehensible melange that is, in the end, meaningless.

Apathy, making slaves of men since the dawn of time. ;)

The difference between ignorance and apathy....

I don't know and I don't care......

Of course, even you must know these things are untrue by now. Why do you repeat them?

Based on the time-line you present, it is apparently the Clinton administration you are referring to as corrupt...correct?

It seems that posting outright lies and unsubstantiated charges would actually make you the loser...Can't you do any better?

I'm sorry, were there any facts that you wanted to post as a counterpoint, fint?

Because he has manage to stay stupid 24/7, he is OK with dishonesty...or at least excusing with no problem as long as it is a dem.

Asking for facts while presenting none yourself....Transferring the onus to the other party....Interesting ploy. It works once or twice, but then the victims wise up and simply dismiss the ravings.

There is nothing to waste time refuting. For example, there has never been any evidence (except that already found to be forged) that the President was a deserter....To continue to post such without any evidence is pathetic...and it is a waste of time to try to refute it because you guys just make up more stuff. It is downright silly for you to imply that you can post any wet dream you can come up with and the other side must prove it is not true. The burden of proof is generally on the person that posts it to provide evidence.