[Eromereorybig]

I was completely surprised there weren't more pardons. I can only guess that Bush knew Democrats would be to pussyfooted to actually call him on his crimes.

[quack!]

Don't under estimate it.

[uwJzsM8t]

He commuted the sentences of some border patrol agents who shot people and then lied about it to their superiors. That's relatively tame though and not the pardons I thought he'd issue. My best guess is he thought pardons would make him look guilty and he knew Democrats just wouldn't want to force him to account for his crimes. He's probably right about that.

[JaK_MarkoV_Pi]

... Or Bush just didn't want to pardon a lot of people and the "sky is falling" Dems showed themselves to be idiots once again.

[Babposa]

hihi - i just had a funny idea...

How about not having one ruling guy, put a cabinet of ministers (without a prime). They decide what to do in concensus, but for everything they do decide on, the one who suggested it must personally bear the most severe consequences of it for at least just one day/time. In a real way, not in a political way. So instead of retiring and saying sorry, be like ´in the field´.
So one guy really wants to bomb another country, and it gets approved by the other cabinet members, he can go forward, bomb, but he himself, must go into said country until he has been in the immediate proximity of a bombing raid himself at least once and for the next 24h following. Or if some cabinet members suggests torture be okay, he himself should be tortured once, after the law is okay´ed. Kind of difficult to suggest death penalty under such a system, i guess... But if they are corrupt and profit from their politics, one could at least say they somehow paid for and kinda deserved it (the profit).

[Seerseraxlils]

Let's have a search contest. Let's find a list of all the people that Bush pardoned and all the people that Clinton pardoned and then we can do a sleaze comparison. I wonder who will end up looking more sleazy?

[Ceriopal]

What fun is that. Besides, what are you doing (or can you do) to fix the current state of our country.

I'm betting, not a whole hell of a lot, so chill and have a little fun. I always find it entertaining to see the sleaze of heading out the door pardons regardless of which party did it.

[tpdirorg]

And what does being a hypocrite have to do with making fun of out the door pardons.

[mr.nemo]

I think moderators shouldn't use the word "chill" in common parlance.

Hmm, didn't think of that.
But I think most people can tell the context I'm using it. It should be obvious when I've got my hand near the vacation rod or just using it casually. And those that can't tell (or more likely just don't give a crap) don't really concern me much.

[flower-buy]

[Xewksghy]

After all the hubbub over these when Clinton left, I really thought we'd hear more from Bushie's. I refuse to believe that he didn't issue any questionable ones. What good is it to be president if you can't cut your bro a little slack over a little blow. Or was Bush just being incompetent in this area similar to most other areas.

[puzobok]

He will do it tomorrow, he thinks...

[sandracuk]

What an awesome claim that you will never be forced to defend and can't be proven wrong on! I think it can be reasobably proven if we see Obama soften his position on certain things. Wiretapping is probably the easiest to guage, as he and his cohorts will have unfettered access to whatever was discovered through it and some of those may give him pause. Maybe not.

Its common sense really, more information leads to more informed decisions.

[casinobonbone]

Ah, the glorious nineties, when the most pressing concern on all our minds was who was currently slurping Bubba's sausage...if only I hadn't been a depressed teenager at the time, it would have been perfect.

[Cuccuccaltefe]

No, I just think you're delusional. You talk about the "sinister things" Bush has been accused of as if there's no proof he did anything wrong. your comment makes no sense in realation to the comment of mine you quoted.

Are you insinuating that Bush hasn't been accused of sinister things or that I claimed there was no proof?

I simply pointed out that Obama and friends have access to everything and has not found it necessary to expose anything his party and supporters so vehemently accused Bush of. A simple fact. Either that means Bush isn't the antichrist Oerdin types think he is, Obama is deliberatly hiding evidence or he doesn't feel it particularly urgent to expose proof ot the atrocities his cohorts accuse Bush of.

Either way, my point stands, it seems likely that portions of the critisism of Bush will turn out to be bogus as time goes on.

[Haremporblape]

Another possibility: Bush has been accused of various reprehensible acts and we've already seen evidence proving he engaged in such acts over the last 8 years, thereby negating the need for Obama to "expose" Bush in some way. And thats why we have warcrimes trials underway, right? There is nothing that exists that would ever qualify as proof in a court of law. Given the magnitude and depth of the things Bush has been accused of there should be evidence simply laying around. A week in (and lets no kid ourselves, the Dems are pouring over everything they can get their hands on as we speak) and not a peep.

Even if there were proof as you say, there should be far more damning proof available now. Where is it?

[GDRussiayear]

Do you consider that a crime? If so, what are your standards for that?

I don't think the stupidity of it is much in question. Ok there are still a few die hards, and if Iraq ever stabalizes into a democracy, there will be a lot more people saying it wasn't that stupid. (unlikely but the fat lady hasn't sung yet)

[xjNo4zvD]

Sigh, if they were reading intel selectively, you can't claim it was lying. You can claim stupidity and gross incompetence but I bet they'll never be proof that it was lying. And regardless of what you think, there is no definitive evidence. There was some intel (regardless of how it was solicited) that said there were weapons of mass destruction, so it wasn't necessarily lying. I'm not agreeing that any of the course of actions taken, just saying that if he believed it even a little, it wasn't lying. I'll wait to see your definitive evidence.

[Shinegayboyx]

If they were reading intel selectively, then it's deception at the very least. Deceiving themselves, deceiving us, whatever.

If they were deceiving themselves, then it wasn't technically lying to the american people. That charge (even if true) would be very hard to prove. So it's probably best to stop making that accusation. Just stick to stupid and incompetent and I doubt many will argue with you. But you'd better hope that things never stablize in IRAQ. (almost the same odds as muslims accepting the pressence of jews in ISRAEL)

And the last thing I need or want is a person of BK's belief system defending me.

[ImapFidaarram]

What makes you think 'moderate' republican is a compliment?

If you did not mean it as one, that only makes it more complimentary.