England now wants to talk to Buh's administration

United States
February 10, 2010 8:38am CST
Now that the English government has grilled Blair and members of his cabinet about the Iraq war...now they are asking to talk to Bush's administration. Sence Bush's administration lives in America, and are American citizens. I don't think they HAVE to go to England and talk to them. I also don't think they have to talk to them even if they come to this country to ask the questions. But I could be wrong. Does anyone know? England has not said wether or not they will try to talk to President Bush about it. What do you think about this? Should England be allowed to ask Bush's adminstration questions....should they be required to answer them?
4 people like this
4 responses
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
10 Feb 10
Talk, or interrogate and berate so they can parade Bush's head around on a stick like a great Caesar triumph? It's okay that other nations have a bad opinion of America and think Bush is a joke and all that. Enough in our own country think so. To each their own. But an American President shouldn't be put on one of those public displays on humiliation for the sake of some holier-than-thou, we-never-hurt-anybody BS. I wouldn't want them doing it to Obama or Clinton or any American in general, so I don't think Bush and them should be put through it either. Maybe it's not that. I don't know for sure. They can extend an inventation. And if Bush and them want to engage, that's on them. But as far as having authority to grab 'em up and get all p1ss and malt vinegar with 'em, I say F off.
2 people like this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
10 Feb 10
They want Tony Blair's head but will use Bush to get it. I hope no one from the Bush administration agrees to talk to them.
• United States
10 Feb 10
so far they are saying talk. They know they do not have a legal leg to stand on as far as demanding they talk to them. So for now they are only "requesting" to talk to them. They don't have to. It will be interesting to see if any of them do talk to them. I don't think they will though.
• United States
10 Feb 10
Well, I don't often immerse myself in the UK's affairs like they love doing ours, but as I understand it, many feel Blair and Bush are two heads of the same monster - so it's all the same to them. And I also have a feeling that carrying Bush's head alongside Blair's would be a great "BOOYA" moment for the folks abroad. Regardless... Bush might smack a fool now that he's out of office. They might wanna watch out.
@RobtheRock (2433)
• United States
10 Feb 10
Corrections. There is no Bush administration. And Bush is an ex President, former President,..., take your pick. England can ask questions of the former Bush Administration. But the former Bush Administraion doesn't have to answer.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Feb 10
Actually a President is called President for life. President Clinton is called President Clinton...not ex president...not former president...but president. So is Bush. Wierd I know...how can you keep the title if you don't have the job anymore....but somehow they get too. I wonder who made that stupid rule.I bet you it was a past president who did not want to loose the title when he left the job. LOL. Look at the news....it is talking about how President Clinton is heading back to Haiti...not former president or ex president...but president. The same thing with Bush. Most reports call him president Bush (when they are being polite). Not former president or ex president. But I can tell you I am glad Bush is not longer our "active" president.LOL As for Bush's administration. Yes there WAS a Bush's administration. Well those poeple still exist. So yes they are his former admin...but even though they no longer do their jobs (unless they are now working for President Obama)they still exist as part of his admin.I think it is kinda a given when I said it that sence Bush is no longer president that his admin was not still on the job. But are still part of his admin. as far as when he was president. Nickpick much? You are right about England. they can ask all they want...but they don't have to answer.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Feb 10
Hi Lilwonders456. I have to respectfully disagree. I mentioned it because I hear them say "former President so and so" and if you look at the news feeds, AP or any other news, you will see them call the past presidents "former". Some newsman might say President Bush or President Carter by mistake. I've heard it done. But most news sources call them former Presidents.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Feb 10
One more thing. Now as a frame of reference they will do it, which makes sense. For example saying "President Dwight D. Eisenhower" did this or in 2008 President Bush did so and so -- in that time frame. And I guess just like some people affentionately call Muhammad Ali, "Champ", there are those who call Bush, President. But is the first time I've never heard Bush referred as President Bush. When I hear the word Clinton, I either hear former President or Clinton or Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton's husband, but calling him President Clinton, if not referring to his period in office, is not done. And I'll put money on the table that if you look for news about any of the former Presidents, the news article will refer to them as ex or former. I wish I could put links on here because there are thousands.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
11 Feb 10
Bush and anyone else that the British government would like to ask question to from the administration could tell them to take a hike. Now should they is the real question. Bush and his admin did convince the British government through faulty info to go to war against Iraq. I personally would like Bush to answer their questions, but only on his terms. Bush and the members of his admin are Americans, and protected by our laws.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
11 Feb 10
This is true
• United States
11 Feb 10
EOE- I will be keeping an eye on how things go over there in England with this inquirey. I know you said it was not an indepent one...but still...I am hoping it comes out with some answers. We will not have anything remotely close to it in this country..(as much as the american public would love to know the answers)..so this may be the only chance any of us have of getting any kind of an answer as to who knew what and when and WHY we went into Iraq...the real reason.
• United States
11 Feb 10
I don't think he should talk to them. If he owes anyone some answers...it is us the american people. Blair made the decision for England....Bush did not MAKE him go in...he decided to. So Blair holds the responsibility for England....Bush hold the responsibility for America.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
10 Feb 10
I'm pretty sure England has no jurisdiction over American citizens but I'm not sure if they could do something if the people they want to talk to went there. I remember there had been a warrant for the D1ck Cheney's arrest in Germany but it was meaningless unless he happened to show up in Germany. I WISH we could someday know the whole truth but I doubt we ever will. Blair was nothing ore than Bush's lapdog, that I believe. Annie
• United States
10 Feb 10
I would also love to know some answers from Bush....but it won't happen. Our government will not open a President up to that kind of international scrunity. There isn't anything England can do. They are only "requesting" to talk to them. But they don't have to. England knows it can't force them to talk. I don't know if Blair was a "lapdog" or not. For all we know Blair could be just as bad as Bush and they were completely in it together. I hope they do come with some answers over there so maybe we know what probly happened on our end. But you know they won't ever go after Bush. HEck even Nixon got pardoned. Why? Because our government does not want the international embarressment of having one of it's presidents tried for a crime.
1 person likes this