How can you call President bush a criminal without proof,?

Liberals do not care about the law as long as they get there way.

Oh, there is plenty of proof. The only argument that Bush has in his defense is that it's OK because he's the President and whatever the President does is OK because he's the Decider.

Oooo K.

He *will* be brought to trial for war crimes one day.

He was not impeached already only because the Republican congress would not let it happen. He may not be impeached now either, because it will be seen as a politically divisive waste of time (he's a lame duck for the next two years.) But the reasons are all political, not legal.

In a just world, he would be strung up next to Hussein.

I won't "gladly vote for Hillary," either. I don't know anyone who would. Not for President.

People only voted for her for Senator because this was an important election and Democrats needed every single senator they could get to retake control of Congress. In such a situation, it really does come down to the lesser of two evils; voting for a Green or Libertarian would have been idiocy.

At least you're not saying she murdered the guy herself and made it look like a suicide. Even KEN FREAKIN' STARR- you know, that tireless investigator of blue dresses with your tax dollars- found no evidence to continue a murder investigation— so I don't either.

Bush admitted to running programs that violated existing law. Usually, a confession is pretty good for a basis of calling someone a criminal. His signing statements that pretty much says he can disregard laws when he feels like it has no basis in law, and announces his intentions to violate additional laws.

If "alledged" criminal makes you fell better about it, that's fine. I'm all for waiting until evidence is examined before making any declarations. I did have a problem with no one (Congress) even bothering to examine acts that seem to be blatant violations of law. He's the President, not the King (that would be Elvis).

Vince Foster? That was examined multiple times by legitimate law enforcement, then by witch-hunt hacksters like Starr.

Even Starr admitted that there was NOTHING to those rumors. Think about that. When Starr's other dead-ends fizzled out, he usually announced about how he was sure the Clinton's were guilty, but just didn't have any evidence to that effect, or couldn't prove it in a court of law.

Not so with Foster. Get help.

I suppose I'm not really qualified to answer this question, because I'm not someone who is interested in Hillary as President. However, like with just about every election dating back to 1980, you have to pick between who's on the tickets, not the best person for the job. I wouldn't count on Hillary just yet, either. I seem to remember they had annointed Dean as the candidate weeks before the first primary was even done.

There is no need of proof.He declared war against Iraq not to save the people of Iraq but to satisfy the petroleum demand which his country faces.

He said the war against Iraq is not by a single nation but from the international point of view,so now saddam is considered as an international accused and must be produced before the international court.But this was not done and the case was proceeded by officials appointed by Mr.Bush.Three of Saddam's lawyers were killed and for more than eight times the judge has been changed just because they stayed neutral.

This is not justice and Bush will be considered as a criminal for causing this injustice.

Well, let's see...he's the only person with a criminal record to be president (drunken driving). He subverted the Constitution, outed a CIA operative, started the war in Iraq illegally, signed legislation with "signing statements", produced propaganda which was broadcast in the news media...to name a few.

About Vince Foster's body...you are kidding, right? You should have mentioned the Whitewater thing, and the Travel office thing.

How can YOU advocate impeaching a man for being hot in the pants? Seems more than odd, if you ask me. As for Bush, the proof is in several facts: he knew about 9/11 and let it happen to use it as a reason to invade Iraq, without even explaining the correlation I might add, he did nothing concerning Katrina, he did nothing concerning North Korea, and he continues to do nothing about Osama bin Laden or Joseph Kony. Care to compare?

Can you refresh my memory on that Vince Foster thing? She had the body moved, apparently illegally, and yet was never charged? Strange that I never do recall hearing about that... As for the President, where are those darn weapons of mass destruction I heard so much about?

How many people have died because of Bush? Was it worth it? Have any of his family or friends died? No. He has sent American soldiers to their deaths and murdered thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Should he really be allowed to just walk away? Shouldn't there at least be an investigaton into what has happened? Shouldn't politicians be accountable for their actions?

It is not a FACT that Hillary moved his body. It is a theory.

What the hell are you talking about? What proof do we have? Have you opened your eyes in the last 6 years? How about you stop watching Fox News and take a look at the world.

You are absolutely correct.............he is entitled to a fair trial unlike the ones he has ordered for the ones he calls terrorist. You know the ones he ordered torture oops allegedly ha! Fair trial for Bush he should have a lawyer too even if he thinks they are unnecessary.