Just as well then for both your current President and Vice-President that this trial you are talking about would have to rely on evidence and rules of evidence.

Some of the more rabid, dyed-in-the-wool Bush baiters on this forum should go and check exactly what that means. Statements, opinions and accusations presented on various anti-Bush Bloggs do not constitute evidence. Anti-war MSM Reporters spin and hype on statements made and taken out of context do not constitute evidence.

The defence arguements would be based on fact and supported by a clear paper trail that was verified and cross checked at the time decisions were made. 20 x 20 Hindsight will not be admissable.

Mind you in the subsequent coverage some of you might just learn that the decision to invade Iraq was not based on any single issue. In March 2003 that decision was correct and totally justified, and presented with the options available any person sitting in the White House would have done exactly the same thing, give or take a month or two.