Interesting legal tidbit that makes you wonder why Bush isn't in handcuffs

I'm using Lexis/Nexis to research news articles from around the country to see if there are high numbers of men and women discharging themselves from the military. I haven't found something to write home about yet, but I also haven't had much time to research it yet.

In fact, my research time so far clocks in at 5 minutes. However, that was enough time to find this little tidbit from AP article placed on the wire yesterday:

Quitting the military comes at a price, says Army Lt. Col. Susan Danielsen.

Danielsen, provost marshal at Fort Bragg, wants possible deserters to imagine being on the run for the rest of their lives.

"They should turn themselves in, because eventually they'll be caught," Danielsen said. "That federal warrant remains valid for 40 years."

Oh really? Do these warrants apply to sitting Presidents? Who can I goto to find out if there has been a warrant issued for Bush? If one has been issued, how come he hasn't been arrested? If one has not been issued, then why not? Can one be issued so Bush can be arrested for his crimes? Is this an impeachable offense?

If you ask me, that quote is pretty conclusive. An army official is telling the AP that going AWOL is illegal and the crime's statute of limitations is 40 years. Bush, who went AWOL, is still in violation of the law. Why hasn't the law been enforced on him?

And to beat the dead horse of rhetorcial questions, can you imagine the reaction fromt he rabid right if Clinton committed these crimes?

Update: I found a link for this article.