Poll: if Bushco tries to negotiate with the Dems for immunity from prosecution...

[Fridays Child]

...and impeachment, in return for withdrawing troops and ending the Iraq misadventure by a date certain, would you be in favor of accepting such a deal?

After casting your vote, I'd be interested in hearing more about your position on the question.

[Greyhound]

1. To negotiate with a terrorist only generates more terrorism. n/t

[Fridays Child]

4. Bravo!

Excellent answer! :thumbsup:

Do you think that B*sh and his accomplices might try such a thing? I don't know if my premise is "way out there," or not. I wouldn't put anything past them but their hubris just about blots out the sky, and it's hard to say whether they actually understand the magnitude of the disaster they have wrought.

[Greyhound]

15. I, like you, wouldn't put anything past these craven, clueless, criminals...

...up to and including an attempt at blackmail. I have no doubt that they would take the whole world down with them if they could, "If you prosecute, I'll nuke Iran", crash the economy, declare martial law, or something along those lines.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

11. nice

:toast:

[ThomCat]

2. No. We can force the withdrawl of troops

without granting him immunity. He needs to be held accountable.

[central scrutinizer]

3. you grant immunity only to get the higher-ups

if you don't have enough evidence any other way. Doesn't apply here

[Fridays Child]

8. I agree that getting higher-ups is why immunity is usually granted.

But, considering the lives that could be saved by quickly bringing this mess to an end, I wonder if it might happen. Bush and his accomplices have to know that the Iraq war and the massive loss of life was a huge reason that they lost Congress. And, while I don't think they really care about that, they might see it as leverage in making a deal that could save their own hides.

[datadiva]

5. Hell no.

I want both. I want us out of Irag and I want those responsible held accountable. Period

[SutaUvaca]

6. Hell no

That would be disingenuous,
dishonest, disgraceful,
a form of appeasement,
and contrary to constitutional duties.

[enuffs_enuffs]

7. They didn't "check" w/the dems before their actions...

So, the dems shouldn't give a shit what they say now... TAR AND FEATHER!

[wryter2000]

9. I voted wrong

I'm the "it depends" person. Initially, I read "BushCo" as people other than Bush. I'd certainly grant people around him immunity to get the goods on him. Then, I realized that the way it's worded, you could only mean Bush/Cheney, to which I say, "Hell no!"

[Fridays Child]

10. As the poll author, I'm in the "not only no but hell, no" camp.

But the interpretation can be up to the reader. That's what makes the responses interesting, don't you think?

I think that Bush and Cheney should be impeached and brought before the ICC for crimes against humanity. I also think that the war needs to end now, and that it never should have happened.

In any case, your post and another one got me to wondering about the possibility of giving immunity to Cabinet members, or others, in exchange for smoking gun evidence against Bush and Cheney. But I doubt if someone like Condi Rice would ever turn against Bush. In fact, I think she'd go to hell for him, and that's one thread in this whole dirty carpet of lies and greed that would be most interesting to unravel.

[wryter2000]

12. I'd give them personal immunity

But giving up on impeachment, no way. I'd like to see them on trial in the Hague, too, but I'm not sure of the logistics.

[Bobbie Jo]

13. Looking for the Hell No option....

If he won't bring 'em home in a way that makes sense, then let's take him out and do it ourselves.

Better yet....lets just take him out regardless.

[Fridays Child]

14. "Hell, no" should have been an option, since it's...

...my choice, too!