On Jan 14, 9:29*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:01:17 -0500, John H
wrote:





On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:50:23 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:09:41 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

wrote in message
....

Your responses are not based on true facts.. you are even worse.
Funny, with over 200 seperate investigations into the Bush
Administration in the last two years (when they should have been
investigating William Jefferson, and taking care of business) there
was no impeachment of Bush... hummmmm, wonder if any other president
was impeached recently?

--------------------------------------------

There's an interesting dilemma facing Obama when he takes office.
Here's his problem:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office
of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability,
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If Bush and/or Cheney are guilty (as many have alleged including some in
this NG) of actions that are in violation of the Constitution, then Obama,
by virtue of his oath, is obligated to seek indictments against Bush, Cheney
or both. * To not do so means Obama himself is in violation of the oath he
is about to take.

This is not my legal opinion. *I am not qualified. *It's the legal opinion
of several qualified legal scholars.

He's been pressured for an answer as to his intentions in this regard and
has been evasive in his answers. *He speaks of "looking forward" not
backward or passes the buck off to his future attorney general in an obtuse,
cloudy statement. *Right.

Anyone care to make a wager as to whether he will actually try to go after
Bush/Cheney?

If he doesn't, isn't he guilty himself?

Eisboch

And you're citing who, that paragon of virtue Gerald Ford? *He didn't
just not prosecute Nixon, he pardoned him.

What would you think of Obama if he pardoned Bush?

Wouldn't that put him in the clear, legally?

That's the path the R's would take. *Nice 'n clean, legally.

Let's see whether Bush grants Libby a full pardon before leaving
office. *It wouldn't surprise me if he pardoned clueless Cheney too.

Cheney's latest statements would have you believe that Gitmo should
stay open for torture because it's such a nice, clean facility.

Anyone here who comes from a military background should be aghast and
sorely disappointed at how this administration has treated veterans
and servicemen and women. *Lip service and then a thorough screwing is
what they got from Bush and the republicans in congress.

As a veteran, with a disability, who does use the VA hospital, I can say
without reservation that the liberal party line, which you seem unable to
get away from, is full of ****.

But, that's your style.

You're a sampling of one. *What about all the poor kids who've lost
limbs, eyes, hearing who suffer from poisoning and PTSD who cannot get
the therapy and compensation they need.

How about when the military deducted pay for meals while healing from
war wounds. *Was that a shining moment for the military?

How about stop losses where guys are put out there for 3 or 4 tours
and then told they can't leave?

Not since the civil war have our troops been so poorly treated and
used.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I go out of my way to stop and talk to vets I meet. I have not met one
who is not proud to have served, I have some Iraq vets in my family
too. I think you need to get out and meet some instead of listening to
the likes of Obermann and Jon Stewart.. They are not honest
representatives, you really should inform yourselves before you go
spewing the party line of bull****.. So far in the last few weeks you
have been back you have proven you are really not interested in
facts.. Harry loves you, that should tell you something...pffffttt....
BTW, Tom may have felt sorry for what he said, but he never said he
was wrong...