A “Truth Commission” Against Bush?

[Tyr]

I think the deal was.... Leave quietly, don't steal the silverware or towels and we won't throw you in prison

 

[earth_as_one]

Wow!! I wonder what's gonna come of this???

I don't think it's fair to blame the people for the mistakes of it's government. It wasn't the American's telling Bush to go and bomb Iraq. I believe that was an administration decision.

Perhaps, but Bush's 2004 re-election was a stamp of approval.

No one is found guilty in a Truth Commission. That's not their point. Its about finding out the truth. Confess your sins and you go free. Get caught in a lie and you could face criminal proceedings.
Truth and reconciliation commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush was just the salesman, not the manufacturer. Putting him on trial would be destructive and counter productive. What would be more useful would be opening the American public's eyes to the Bush administration's abuses.

 

[Ron in Regina]

The real power (the Puppeteers behind the scenes) in politics protect
themselves by protecting people like Bush. That's why I'm saying,
"Don't hold your breath waiting for a Truth Commission." That's
all. Many of the Players directing (advising) Bush will still be in place
for Obama. Can you imagine a reason why these folks would set
themselves up to be outed? Even the "abuses" in the Bush administration
could/would lead in directions that those pulling the strings won't want to
go. Bush (and all former Presidents) would know enough to rock the
boat if he was backed into a corner. I can't see a Truth Commission
happening for that reason alone.

Whatever your opinion of G.W.Bush, if you were one of the Power
Players behind the scenes, would you want Bush in front of a "Truth
Commission?" Whether you think he was conniving or incompetent,
that would be the absolute last place you'd want him, wouldn't you?

Why do you think these former Presidents have Secret Service protection
for as long as they do? Is it JUST for a former Presidents protection???

 

[givpeaceachance]

I know, I know, I know!

I know that a Truth Commission wouldn't convict Bush of anything! I know that the idiots at the top would never let something like that happen! I just can't stand it when society acts like puss:sunny:'s! And I was responding to Eaglesmack's smack!

I personally think that it would be good for the American's (and the rest of us) to route out the people responsible for this mess we are all in. If people would just realize that if we want out of this mess we need to get to the bottom of it and all I keep getting is rhetoric and excuses that lead to nowhere. Maybe that frequency transmitter GWEN Tower business I read about somewhere on here about making people apathetic is true?

 

[EagleSmack]

Okay EagleSmack : You said

"I understand you were answering Ron but this is a forum and I asked you a question.

I see you cannot give me an answer. I'll ask again anyways...

What was the "rule" the Bush made up? "

First of all, you don't have to be so savage to me about this. I KNOW this is a forum! Do YOU know how to treat other people nice???

I wasn't being savage. I was asking you what "rule" did Bush make up that would protect him from a Truth Commision?

Okay. To get to the point - So here's an article (it's a little long) it was written Oct 2005. I know it's from a socialist website but the writer explains exactly what Bush did to screw everything up by manipulating the Supreme Court. It even explains 'how' he did it in case you were planning on torturing me about the details as, it seems, you like to do this.

Bush picks right-wing crony for Supreme Court

This is how Bush connived himself absolution.

First off it IS from a socialist anti-Bush website so it is biased. The President has the right to appoint Supreme Court Justices BUT they have to be approved by Congress. He can appoint but that does not mean his appointee gets nominated. Reagan appointed a conservative judge name Robert Bork. His nomination was rejected by the US Senate. Bush Sr. appointed Clarence Thomas and he was put through the ringer by the Senate. Thomas pulled the race card, an old liberal trick that was shoved back on them, and was appointed.

So now Obama is President and he will appoint more liberal and left leaning SJC's when he has the opportunity.

Maybe you will read...

Obama picks left-wing crony for Supreme Court

... in the near future.

Now, here's a more recent article that talks about how Obama now has the opportunity to slash some of those 'Bush Rules' that you said were ridiculous and never existed. The one's that you said Bush didn't have the power to make. It only mentions a few of these rule, as apparently, Bush made many.

Democrats Drafting Lists of Bush Rules to Change | 44 | washingtonpost.com

Oh... executive orders. Funny I did not see any rule mentioned in the article about lifting an executive order absolving Bush of anything and preventing any Truth Commission against him in this article.

Can you name that "rule" that would protect him? You said he made one so where is it?

Health Care issues and Stem Cell Research surely would not protect Bush from a "Truth Commission".

Eat your heart out EagleSmack! :binky:

Why do you have to be so savage?

Back to the drawing board with you. Please try again. :smile:




[/quote]

 

[givpeaceachance]

Eaglesmack : So what if it's from a socialist website? It still outlines what Bush did and it still best explains what I was trying to say. I understand that presidents will pick whomever they want to be with them during their admin but when you look into the backgrounds of the people that he put in various important positions, it started to look horrible. Obama's no better. I'm not biased and I'm not some mindless Bush hater. I'm just not going to be in favor or in support of anyone who likes to make the rules up as they go in favor of perfectly good one's that have been set in place and hurt a lot of people in the process. No one can deny that Bush did this. Not to mention that the official version of 9/11 was released to the public only after Bush and his BFsF picked through it dimishing the report by a third of it's original size.

But we are digressing.

The point of the thread is the possibility of a Truth Commission against Bush. Regardless of whether or not other people think something like that would be effective the point is that I think it could be a good thing simply because it would at least be a show of solidarity for Joe Public and a clear message that society is interested and deserves and will find out the truth behind these guys and what they were up to. Abuse of power is something that this generation is going to have to deal with. Might as well start chipping away at it ASAP. It would do good in furthering government accountability. Either way it would simply be doing something which is better than allowing the situation to disolve into some kind of collective amnesia. Which is as it seems what they want.

 

[EagleSmack]

It would not be a show of solidarity of Joe Public. It will be what it is... a Democrat attack. They did not have the guts to go after him while he was in office so some radicals cannot let it go.

He won. He did 8 years and got out on his terms and they couldn't touch him.

 

[kettyy]

That's it....... lay all the blame on one man for what the majority of american people allowed to happen.......

by the time most of the americans understood what happened, it was too late. the gov is responsible for making them believe it was the right thing to do. You think they watch anything else than their own media?!..