So who did Bush end up pardoning anyway?

[Lorizael]

He very well may be in the near future. I think you will find him finding out that there were a reason certain things were done the way there were when they were after he gets to peek through the various classified breifings.

What an awesome claim that you will never be forced to defend and can't be proven wrong on!

[Patroklos]

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.

[rah]

Rah has never been secretive of the fact that he's a moderate Republican.

That is correct. And I like picking on liberal dems. Lord knows I get it back in spades. But believe it or not, I kinda liked Clinton. ( i even voted for him once, which is heresy for me) I always thought he was really a moderate Republican. And I've always been a firm believer that what's the point of being president if you don't get to swing a little power every now and then. Whether it be a few fun pardons or getting a little head. I just think he shouldn't have lied about, and when asked, should have answered "sure I did, what's your point" That would have kept him out of trouble.

[Lorizael]

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.

This doesn't contradict what I said. You've made an unfalsifiable claim. If Obama doesn't soften his position on wiretapping, it doesn't mean he didn't see more evidence that made him realize why Bush did what he did.

[Elok]

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.

[Patroklos]

This doesn't contradict what I said. You've made an unfalsifiable claim?

So. Are you imagining I am expecting some sort of vindication of something by stating the obvious?

[Lorizael]

So. Are you imagining I am expecting some sort of vindication of something by stating the obvious?

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.

[Patroklos]

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.

[Whoha]

In addition to commuting sentences of the two border patrol agents who shot the drug runner he also pardoned a rancher who hired illegals. He rescinded the pardon for the guy whos son gave him 30k for something or other though when that was exposed. Thats all I remember about it.

[Lorizael]

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.

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.

You're delusional for somehow believing that we don't already have proof.

[Patroklos]

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?

[Lorizael]

*blink blink* We need proof that he led us into a stupid, useless war that cost thousands upon thousands of lives, strengthened our enemies, and failed to protect the United States against weapons of mass destruction?

[rah]

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)

[Lorizael]

I don't remember mentioning crimes.

There is, however, the bit about him and his administration lying to the American public about weapons of mass destruction to get support for the war. There's a pretty good deal of evidence to make that case.

[rah]

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.