Rummy on Abu Ghraib...... You know it would interesting to see what the current administration would do, if parts of the United Nations demanded that Bush be handed over and tried for war crimes. Personally I think they would tell them to go f yourself, and I don't think our former President should be considered a criminal, even though he broke the law. Nixon did also, and all he did was resign. Still though, it would be interesting to see, it would also be interesting to see how the administration would handle the situation if Bush went overseas and was arrested. This is just a fascinating story to me because it's never happened before. So sorry Martin if it's not worthy of discussing to you.
in the original post! what is wrong with you? "Scared the Swiss would arrest him for torture..." - lasalle remember? i responded with "not true". try to remember, it isnt difficult.
yunno what else would be interesting? if taco bell made a taco could levitate. right but nixon was pardoned by the president. the us doesnt have the authority to pardon people accused of crimes by the UN. good thing the UN has no authority whatsoever. i think it would interesting if bush became an actor and portrayed the samuel jackson role in a pulp fiction sequel. it would never happen, but i am an idiot and mention it for no reason. it is interesting to you because you have zero understanding of reality. no nation would try to F with bush or the US, except iran or someone similar. ahamindijad might pass a bill calling for bush arrest. but he also might pass a bill stating the holocaust never happened. it is irrelevant. sane nations are yunno, sane, and dont do idiotic things like call for the arrest of former US presidents. so discussing it is like discussing levitating tacos.
That really isn't that intersting. What would be interesting is if it were a levitating double decker taco.
then you can't comprehend, because that says he is scared the swiss will arrest him for torture, not "the swiss will arrest him" not "he will be arrested wherever he goes" what is wrong with me?
why would you assert that he is scared of arrest when according to you there is no intent to arrest him? why would he be scared of something that definitely would not happen? why would you think/say that?
i am trying to teach you something about the world. you are a partisan hack so you get caught up in non-issues. i am trying to help you. you posted this thread because you misunderstood an issue and were misled by the media. i am hoping to help you read news better, interpret the facts better. if a headline says "bush cancels trip amid calls for arrest", you need to be careful. the headline wasnt "bush cancels because of arrest threats" there is a big diff between the words "amid" and "because". you and some of these news stories were adding a cause and effect relationship that didnt exist. bush wasnt canceling because of arrest threats, thats nonense, an invention of the media and lasalle.
to keep it simple, let me take you back to our starting point: "Scared the Swiss would arrest him for torture..." - lasalle not true. not even slightly true, completely false and stupid.
then why did he cancel his trip, and why are there 500 different media outlets reporting the same thing, including fox? Please all knowing one, enlighten me. I think you would be better off letting me interpret what I am talking about, and you can stick to your own assertions.
