What about what happened to this guy?
President Bush is supposed to get impeached because “Pulitzer Prize-winning Photojournalist Completes One Year in U.S. Military Custody in Iraq”???
According to a May 7, 2006 e-mail from U.S. Army Major General Jack Gardner, "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces."[1] Gardner continued, "The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities."
Oh, and you might want to read < href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004976.htm">Malkin's coverage, which is eye-opening to say the least. Some how I don't think Bill Clinton would have been impeached for this, or that any FReeper would have called for his impeachment on this basis. More to the point, even if Hussein was detained improperly, the President would not be remotely liable for it.
Now...I'd like an explanation from you. Did you know about the terrorist sympathizer evidence on this guy? If so, why did you present him to me as a political prisoner? If not, doesn't that indicate a high level of prejudice in your thought process regarding the President? I mean, somebody says to you (in effect) "George W. Bush is locking up innocent journalists in Iraq" and you just believe it without evidence?
Which one happened here and why?