Yes.

No. The damage is beyond done, and at best he was an impressionable manboy surrounded by monsters he appointed to make the decisions for him. Just...let him go. We've got enough problems already.

He should be tried, yes, but it's not worth spending the political capital to do so.

Anybody over $200,000 a year should be straight up executed and their ashes strewn to the four winds, but yeah, let’s pick a safely non-consequential figurehead.

Well, I'm shocked! Who knew that drinking warm water would shrink my prostrate overnight?

Quite possibly the only instance in history where the answer to a rhetorical headline is, "Yes."

Cheney, too. Otherwise, he'll acquire and spend every resource on the planet to keep that snarling bald head of his alive.

2000 is the year they should have broke with the tradition of nominating the vice president, not 2016.

I had a friend in Italy who promoted the idea of automatic trial for any prior Prime Minister ~5 years after they leave office. The delay is to allow for medium-term implications of their term to manifest themselves, and for investigations to finish. The implied charge is corruption and incompetence, and they have to defend themselves to avoid prison.

I don't think Bush should be on trial. I think trials are usually more about legalistic bullshit than justice. They give the power to determine and administer justice to powerful people in the same general class as politicians like Bush. I think we should democratize justice by putting his entire administration, and everyone in Congress who voted for the war, and every op-Ed writer who promoted it, in stockades in public squares in Iraq. There justice could be administered democratically, on a first-come basis. Then we should give the entire budget of the military to the government of Iraq for a few years as reparations. It'd be a start anyways.