Class Action Law Suit against G.W. Bush


by Faramarz_Fateh

Lets face it, if the U.S. was a public corporation with stocks, its share price would have been at its historical low just about now. Isn't George W. Bush the Chairman and CEO of the U.S.? He likes to keep referring to himself as the "commander in chief" but in reality someone who did not graduate from West Point, a man who has not seen any thing even resembling combat and a numb nut who has an MBA is a lot more like a CEO than a Commander!

Lets review some facts and see if we have a case. In Jan 2001 when G.W. was given the presidency by the U.S. Supreme Court, our country had its highest ever budget surplus. The dollar was very strong but not to point where exports were being hurt. Unemployment was less than 4%. My personal business was doing very well and so were the businesses of all my friends and associates. I hardly ever met anyone who complained about business.

In 2008, our national debt and budget deficit is bigger than its ever been. As a matter of fact, the total amount of $$$ that G.W. has pissed away in the past 7 years equals the GDP of plant earth (exluding the U.S.) x 4.

U.S. dollar's exchange rate is 64% of the Euro. Japanese Yen, both Chinese currencies are now 12 and 15% stronger despite China's attempt to devalue its own currency against the green back.

Granted many of G.W.'s friends are now a lot richer than they were 7 years ago. But what about the rest of us?

If G.W. was the CEO of XYZ corporation and had done to XYZ as he has done to the U.S., we could sue him. Couldnt we? For driving the stock price to nothing. For fraud (insider trading), for incompetance, for purgery, for for for.

So, I call upon you my Iranian-American bretheren and sisters. Join me as I file the first class action law suit against CEO G.W. Bush. I am thinking the best thing to do to this guy is to hit him and his clan where it hurts the most. In his bank account.

Thats my opinion. What is yours?



more from Faramarz_Fateh

Law suits and impeachment

by Anonymousv (not verified) on


where is my $80,000?

by IRANdokht on

Anonymousv says: "In the United States if you wear an anti-Bush T-shirt, you'll be awarded $80,000 in court."

Bush is not the reason for people's freedom of expression in this country, if anything, he's the one trying to fight the country's constitution line by line!

anyway, I think it's a great idea but I did some research and Ali P is right (again)

the only way to actually hold these guys accountable is by impeaching them first.




Those who talk about democracy

by XerXes (not verified) on

If anyone talks against this system or the behavior of American policies than they are anti American. This is a democracy and freedom that you all brag about and want to export to the rest of the word?
My suggestion to all American people:
Just freaking exercise because you are just too fat, ignorant and lazy!


In the United States if you

by Anonymousv (not verified) on

In the United States if you wear an anti-Bush T-shirt, you'll be awarded $80,000 in court. In Iran, if you wear, speak, think or write anything anti-Islamic Republic, you'll be arrested and sent to Evin-prison's "suite 209".




(and "Hepting v. AT&T" NSA surveillance case)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

San Francisco, August 15, 2007



Let's do it too.

by payman (not verified) on

And I guess if he is recognized to be liable, he can't be pardoned, since it is a civil law suit. Right ?

If it was possible to launch a criminal case against him, then he would have been liable for war crimes and crimes agaist humanity.

I am for it. however that you can hurt them.

US is nose diving into recession perhaps depression and Bush'es buddies at Enron, KBR, Lockheed Marin, Boeing, Bechtel are laughing all the way to the bank.

Where is it written that you hire a guy for a job, he hardly comes to work and when he does, he ruins your life and your business and wantonly kills people half a world away and there is nothing that can be done against him ?

Ali P.

To: future lawyer

by Ali P. on

 Good point. Clinton claimed "absolute immunity" against Jones, pointing out Nixon. Justices narrowed it's focus :Absolute immunity is extended to acts, while in the Office. Jones argued that Clinton's acts occured before he took office. The Court, while still validating Nixon , agreed and granted her motion.


What about Clinton v Jones?

by Lawyer Wannabe (not verified) on

Didn't Paula Jones sue Clinton in 1998?
There is no such thing as absolute immunity.


Lets do it

by The Wannabe lawyer (not verified) on

This is the best idea I have heard! Lets do it.
Where do you I sign up?

Ali P.

Long shot

by Ali P. on

In 1982, the Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of immunity for the President of the United States in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

In a 5-4 decision the Court determined that the President should enjoy the protection of absolute immunity from civil damages suits.

This is the law, as it stands today.

It's a long shot, but maybe worthwhile, at least for it's publicity's sake.