BS?

Yes, investigation is not prosecution. Madison will not shut up about prosecution. I still say that he needs to play it across the board if he wants to lay that card.

I never suggested Bush did nothing wrong. I said we have no idea what he went on. Intel can be wrong and he may have naively entered the war. I merely presented the other side which is completely plausible.

Clinton was not prosecuted for the same reason Bush will not be, regardless of what comes up. It's a moving ahead thing by the successor. There is no evidence (yet) of any wrongdoing whereas with Clinton, there was video of him being caught. The OP loves to state that the Bush admin has made a mockery of our justice system, but it's in fact 8 years late on that statement.

So, then we agree that without presuming any wrongdoing, and accepting that to an American anyone is innocent until proven guilty, we nevertheless shall move to open the archives and welcome the investigation.

Be it Bush or Clinton, the justice must be all the same as it is to Joe Six Pack.

So, then we agree that without presuming any wrongdoing, and accepting that to an American anyone is innocent until proven guilty, we nevertheless shall move to open the archives and welcome the investigation.

Be it Bush or Clinton, the justice must be all the same as it is to Joe Six Pack.

in a nutshell. Just like I said, many around here tend to forget that whole innocent until proven guilty thing when it's convenient.

Really?
Is getting caught practicing infidelity the same level of criminality as what the Bush Administration has done?
I think not!

And the most dangerous thing about the Bush Administrations wrongs are that they were more than likely conspired.
Premeditated.......
Intentional....

Committed on the world stage in our name.

You know, you should read the entire post before you spout off.

BJ = not a crime

Lying to a Grand Jury = in fact, a crime.

Stop with the bias of how bad YOU think it is. Wrong is wrong. One worse wrong does not make the other ok.

And one more time, if you can come up with proof (real proof that would be admissible in court and not some left wing website with accusations) that Bush acted with full knowledge, I'm all ears. Until then, sit down and shut up.

]The White House, having initially blocked National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice from testifying before the 9/11 Commission, finally reversed itself in April 2004.

In a dramatic moment, under the stares of the on-looking 9/11 families, Rice made a startling revelation.
See her live admit in front of congress....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjSoKy7jNUQ&feature=related

I remember that! IMO that things like this will play an important role in the future.

The problem with prosecuting the Bush administration is that congress approved of his actions, including democrats in congress.

The Constitution requires that congress declare war, and that the president executes the war. The reasons for war are not important from a constitutional perspective.

Since we know that congress had access to the same intelligence that Bush had when making the decision to declare war, we know that the war was lawful.

If you want to argue that democrats in congress intentionally voted for a war that was immoral, then go complain to the democrats in congress that did so, and oppose them when they are running for office.

The problem with prosecuting the Bush administration is that congress approved of his actions, including democrats in congress.

The Constitution requires that congress declare war, and that the president executes the war. The reasons for war are not important from a constitutional perspective.

Since we know that congress had access to the same intelligence that Bush had when making the decision to declare war, we know that the war was lawful.

If you want to argue that democrats in congress intentionally voted for a war that was immoral, then go complain to the democrats in congress that did so, and oppose them when they are running for office.