You are wrong.

You are right about the constitution, but wrong about the outcome.

Bush, Gonzales, Ashcroft, Cheney or Rumsfeld will NEVER, NEVER be dragged to the Senate or courts.

Why?

1) Obama already has done a Gerald Ford. He has vowed to move on, which means showing the middle finger to Law. He may have a done a deal with Republicans or he may have not. But he WILL NOT move to convict these lawbreakers.

2) Senate and Congress is deeply in debt to Bush & Cheney combo. A few strings pulled here and many congressmen and senators will lose their funding and their jobs. Plus their constituency will see a sudden massive unemployment as Big Corporates suddenly close down a few plants or offices. Suddenly impeaching Cheney would not be a bright idea to congressmen whose constituency has about 50% unemployment.

Morally & Legally

Its the EXACT same argument Waffen-SS & SA members claimed as their defense in Nuremberg Trials.

It didn't fly then.

It doesn't fly now.

When something is illegal, morally justifying the same doesn't make it legal.

Prosecuting someone for breaking the law is not just a fanciful idea. IT IS THE LAW.

I can hit my neighbor's teenage son with Rocks claiming i was morally right in doing so since he almost broke my 3-year old son's arm. That doesn't make it legal.

Legality and Morality are NOT the Same.

The Nuremberg Trials established that.

Why are you using Cheney's picture with this? I haven't read that he was involved in (the alleged) torture.

Nope. So was Adolf Hitler.

Single man, widowed, with a child, extremely rich, healthy seeks single/married women for one-night stands.

I mean the feminists lobby must be going bat-shit crazy over this.

Starting with the words "Female objectification", "irresponsible", "sadist", "macho weakling", "psycho crazed addict", etc., i mean the feminists in this forum have met their ultimate match and their ultimate enemy.

I waiting for the fireworks from these pseudo-feminists libs. Words that make Bernard Shaw cringe and Shakespeare proud.

Forgetting for a moment that these same so-called Equal-Rights-Activists do not rant against Letourneaus' and Lafaves', and keep a deafening silence when prodded about such teachers, lets celebrate Reuben...

Reuben makes James Bond look like a weakling...

Essentially it means you have become a very old gheezer.

...and hate yourself for it.

...and curse that no other man enjoy his youth since you can no longer be a youth.

...which means you have to grow up mentally my friend.

Stop being jealous of Youth. You were young once.

Suddenly its NOT her problem???

How come you feminists NEVER give the same advice to a man when his GF is an alcoholic or an addict?

How come you feminists state it is the SOLEMN duty of a man that he should look after his GF in sickness or in health (even when no such oaths are taken), but refuse to give the same advice to fellow women who have alcoholic husbands?

I thought EQUALITY meant equal treatment and equal advice.

eh?

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2009/04/09/husband_wants_kids/permalink/20a5df7a9441bd42aa52d71245a63929.html

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2009/03/30/no_impulse_control/permalink/fd9ba4978663b6e937cabb428a4e650b.html

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2009/03/30/no_impulse_control/permalink/68ee9f1af3488f375656e5d7dff30b78.html

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2009/01/05/creativity/permalink/a85316f93e9d6aeb1eee71c871699cc4.html

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2008/12/19/other_woman/permalink/dd93dc48a4c8cea96795532ce1c30a18.html

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2009/01/05/creativity/permalink/cfef730777734e1e6304f081b4d47fe7.html

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2008/12/19/other_woman/permalink/3c03626be42ca260da2084ae0a6ed2c0.html

Or do you want more?

Forgetting the fact his wife gave him HP of Liver, he led a wonderful, spectacular life, one that very few men can afford today and very very few men can aspire to be.

You should actually wait before posting and deciding something.

Kindly take a look once again to see my links.

Better yet, go through the letters. Might make you think twice (whom am i kidding).

Excuse me. Spitzer did NOT break the law.

The Feds did NOT charge him.

Nor was he convicted.

He was forced to resign by cowardly democrats who betrayed their own kind.

Elliot was the strongest of them all: He brought Wall Street jocks down to Earth and whipped them into shape.

If he still was in power when the meltdown happened, we would be seeing multi-billion dollar settlement funds from Lehman, AIG and not to mention JPM and Goldman. This is in addition to the some of the CEOs being forced to trade their Armani suits for prison garb.

Elliot was "taken out" conveniently.

If Dems had any backbone, they would steadfastly supported him as one man and forced the Republicans to back down.

After all Bush was PROVEN to break many laws. However Dems are cowards as is well known.

I would vote again, and again for Elliot. He was THE MAN in charge who had the guts to throttle Wall Street execs necks for their excesses.

What happened in his private life doesn't concern us. After all Bush's daughters were caught in underage-drinking and nothing was done.

Elliot was the man, and he is the man to clean up Wall Street.