when a new leader is looking to the transfer of responsibility, there's an awkward moment as the old guy steps down, wondering how history will remember him.
how should a new president react when first assuming the Office when faced with a stong case that his predecessor but what if the old leaders had behaved in such a way as to challenge the integrity of our constitution itself. a leader that had been accused with evidence of nearly one thousand false or misleading statements and promises. since many in the white house and in the strategic military and intelligence ranks.... conspiracy before the fact is the equivalent to the act itself. conspiracy after the fact could be even worse if you conspired with ithe intent to deceive....what if the old president had conspired to deceive the legislature and the world *with the intent to circumvent* the limits of his power and assume supreme leadership... tyranny , treason???
why has nobody stood up and objected to bush's "we're at war" excuse" and suggest the wartime defense has been barred as an affirmative defense, because of the overwhelming evidence he knew there were no WMD's. but then we went there to find al Quaeda for some reason.... and then he had some kind of depleted uranium story... is he seeing which lie we will believe???
Not to mention that as a direct cause of his actions and under his watch and command as chief executive officer, the united states of america has executed a man that i can't really remember him actually breaking any US laws. He can use the affirmative defense to take arms when faced with an aggressor in times of peace. we culd if he was alive. the united states has effectively overthrown a government that offered no evidence at all of a threat to our national security, held ithe foreign land as a siege, and executed the former leader... internationally he could be brought to trial for war crimes?

just let him go?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?