90 replies to this topic

[odd fellow 151]

I guess I should have re-phrased the partisan bickering part.  I really do agree that it is the pursuit of justice and in a perfect world, justice would be served.  I just also think that the rightful pursuit of justice will cause partisan bickering that isn't needed at this critical point.  I guess I'm just trying to look at this from Obama's perspective. There's a lot of Republicans who Obama is trying to work with and if he suddenly decides to investigate and possibly prosecute Bush or Cheney or whomever, he's gonna have a lot of trouble getting things done.

Prosecuting them may be the right thing to do, but right now it's not going to happen.  Politics is often about making difficult compromises, which is one reason I would never want to be a politician.

[pebbles]

I'd say just going about things more ethically, and putting into place policies and rules that prevent mistakes from happening again is more likely to achieve success.

Yeah, it'd be great on one level to roast people for what they knew and how they acted in spite of their knowledge.  But the reality is, that will only create a more tense partisan atmosphere. The last thing Obama needs if he is trying to create a "lets work together" country is to have it look like the dems are going after the republicans.

I also agree with the comparison to the fact that the republians fought for the impeachment of a president over one lie, but Bush can be seen to have lied too....  But I don't think you need to be held to the consistency of your past behaviour.  Just because one president got roasted for lying, doesn't mean it served the nation any good for doing so.  

The BEST way of having a positive change for future is for the voters to remember and think about these types of issues when they vote, and when they communicate with their elected officials in between elections. Sop electing people who engage in that type of politics.  Hold them to account in between.  Bush had great approval ratings when the iraq war started and when gitmo was first put together.  As I said elsewhere, it's not like bloggers and journalists and writers weren't calling out thier doubts about the WMD thing and the war.... The possibilities were out there for the voting public to be thinking about.

[wagtail]

pebbles said:

I also agree with the comparison to the fact that the republians fought for the impeachment of a president over one lie, but Bush can be seen to have lied too....  But I don't think you need to be held to the consistency of your past behaviour.  Just because one president got roasted for lying, doesn't mean it served the nation any good for doing so.

I don't understand the comparison.  Impeachment is an act of the legislature not the judiciary isn't it? Doesn't a conviction require  a two thirds majority of the senate...er..I think I have that right...fuck knows, but it's irrelevant because they can't Impeach Bush now obviously.  

What is being discussed here is a criminal investigation:

http://www.startribu...D3aPc:_Yyc:aUUZ

So, the way I understand it is that it's not the even the role of the executive branch of the government to call for an investigation, that it is up to the congress?

[pebbles]

wagtail said:

I don't understand the comparison.  Impeachment is an act of the legislature not the judiciary isn't it? Doesn't a conviction require  a two thirds majority of the senate...er..I think I have that right...fuck knows, but it's irrelevant because they can't Impeach Bush now obviously.  

What is being discussed here is a criminal investigation:

http://www.startribu...D3aPc:_Yyc:aUUZ

So, the way I understand it is that it's not the even the role of the executive branch of the government to call for an investigation, that it is up to the congress?

No, the comparison is that Clinton lied and got some pretty dramatic consequences.... what have been the true consequences for Bush if he did in fact "lie"?  Not much. But as I said above, I don't think "consequences for bush" is the best way to effect any type of true change or improvement.  It would just mire in the past and lead to the blame game.

[wagtail]

pebbles said:

No, the comparison is that Clinton lied and got some pretty dramatic consequences.... what have been the true consequences for Bush if he did in fact "lie"?  Not much. But as I said above, I don't think "consequences for bush" is the best way to effect any type of true change or improvement.  It would just mire in the past and lead to the blame game.

All justice is retrospective.  Based on your premise, all crimes should go unpunished, because criminal trials mire the victims in the past, and the perpetrators get 'blamed'.

[pebbles]

wagtail said:

All justice is retrospective.  Based on your premise, all crimes should go unpunished, because criminal trials mire the victims in the past, and the perpetrators get 'blamed'.

In many circumstances there is nothing wrong with blame.  I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with it in this instance either  - I just think that it would be nice to truly move forward.  To see the americans go through another fiasco where the two parties are pointing fingers at each other, rather than focusing on what changes can be made NOW....  what's the point?

I know many people would love to see bush and cheney's heads on platters.  But really, what good would it do?  Is there the desire to see that happen?  Or do people just want to be allowed to move forward.

As to your initial question: Never, ever forget.  That's where learning will happen and prevent this from happening again.

[remring]

wagtail said:

All justice is retrospective.  Based on your premise, all crimes should go unpunished, because criminal trials mire the victims in the past, and the perpetrators get 'blamed'.

Wartime governments have always been treated differently however.

[remring]

Gerald Ford had to make a brave decision in the case of Richard Nixon when he pardoned him. Ford at the time felt that a trial would not do the country any good and felt that there needed to be a time of healing. Many were upset at this decision but the decision now after 30 years has been one of the bright points of his legacy.

We can argue whether Ford lost the reelection bid to Carter in 76 due to these events or whether it was continual fallout from the Nixon resignation and any Republican would have lost in that environment.

In any case it was a brave decision by Ford.

[remring]

Christratton2007 said:

Do you think Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al., were encouraging torture or no? There is plenty of evidence to suggest they were, and a 9/11-style commission would find out more of the truth and expose it to the light of day. If enough evidence of criminality were found to support an indictment, I say enforce the law and indict the criminals. Torture, and aiding and abetting it, and flouting the law in so doing, should be stigmatized and, where appropriate, prosecuted.

The fact that Senate Republicans might obstruct this highly popular new Administration's basic functioning at this time of multiple major crises - an Administration with a clear, broad mandate backed up by pronounced majorities in both houses of Congress - because they don't want an Attorney General who - shudder! - might investigate crimes committed by prior occupants in the seats of power, hmmm. ... What do you think, Eric? Is that an indictment of the Republican Senators, maybe, rather than the popular new admin? I don't think that's a difficult call.

Chris,

re: Difficult call. There are a lot of things that I believe in that are not a difficult call but I also understand that there are probably many in the public who would completely disagree with me. I mean lets face it, Sarah Palin did have an audience this past fall even though she is an idiot.

Secondly, there is a difference between believing that someone did something and having the "Smoking Gun" proof that he did. What made the Blagojevich arrest so daunting for people in Illinois was the way that he was off the cuff about what he was doing. Read some of the comments and it made people both on the right and left upset.

If you ask me what I think it is irrelevant. Its like the cop that arrests someone for drug dealing but does not have the proof to get a conviction. I bet the cop believes that the person is guilty but can he charge him?

In the case of Bush, if they were to prosecute Bush it would have to be a "SLAM DUNK". You cannot bring a former president to trial with hearsay evidence.

[Driver Eight]

remring said:

Chris,

re: Difficult call. There are a lot of things that I believe in that are not a difficult call but I also understand that there are probably many in the public who would completely disagree with me. I mean lets face it, Sarah Palin did have an audience this past fall even though she is an idiot.

Secondly, there is a difference between believing that someone did something and having the "Smoking Gun" proof that he did. What made the Blagojevich arrest so daunting for people in Illinois was the way that he was off the cuff about what he was doing. Read some of the comments and it made people both on the right and left upset.

If you ask me what I think it is irrelevant. Its like the cop that arrests someone for drug dealing but does not have the proof to get a conviction. I bet the cop believes that the person is guilty but can he charge him?

In the case of Bush, if they were to prosecute Bush it would have to be a "SLAM DUNK". You cannot bring a former president to trial with hearsay evidence.

So you favor an investion via commission or otherwise, or no? Because we will not develop the case without the investigation. And not to investigate is to sweep it under the rug, no?

I'd settle for a good grilling of Rummy, Addington, Yoo, et al., and Cheney and Bush if we could get their testimony. They'd claim executive privilege, and this S.Ct. would back them up. That's the biggest difficulty with an inquest - they'd claim E.P., and the S.Ct. would probably back them up. International war crimes tribunal wouldn't have that problem.

-CS

[Binky1138]

I'd love to see it frankly.  I'd love to see a full scale witch hunt and would equally enjoy the backlash they would receive from the American public.  

This idea of seeing Bush and Cheney behind bars is a liberal fantasy and one you would do well to move past.  

Besides, I thought we were living in a new "grown-up"  "non-partisan" era of "Hope and Change"?

[Binky1138]

pebbles said:

I also agree with the comparison to the fact that the republians fought for the impeachment of a president over one lie, but Bush can be seen to have lied too....

Prove it.  When did Bush EVER lie under oath to a federal grand jury?

[Tronyé]

Binky1138 said:

I'd love to see it frankly.  I'd love to see a full scale witch hunt and would equally enjoy the backlash they would receive from the American public.  

This idea of seeing Bush and Cheney behind bars is a liberal fantasy and one you would do well to move past.  

Besides, I thought we were living in a new "grown-up"  "non-partisan" era of "Hope and Change"?

True, true, no kidding.  Someone should have chimed in with this earlier.  

It'll never happen, no matter how bad Hollywood, The Hague or Hezbollah want it.

[remring]

Christratton2007 said:

So you favor an investion via commission or otherwise, or no? Because we will not develop the case without the investigation. And not to investigate is to sweep it under the rug, no?

I'd settle for a good grilling of Rummy, Addington, Yoo, et al., and Cheney and Bush if we could get their testimony. They'd claim executive privilege, and this S.Ct. would back them up. That's the biggest difficulty with an inquest - they'd claim E.P., and the S.Ct. would probably back them up. International war crimes tribunal wouldn't have that problem.

-CS

Right, which is why any huge investigation will probably do little. The issue with Nixon and in the current case of Blagojevich is that they were recorded and this makes a world of difference legally. Having someone on tape making a statement is gold and avoids the "He Said-She Said-I Don't Recall" arguments that could be made. If that is the case (a "He Said She Said") argument against the Bush Admin, then it really is not a case that can be prosecuted.

Even if a commission can come to the conclusion that "Torture" did take place, without testimony it would be a very difficult argument to link Bush, Cheney, et. al. to that argument.

In watching Keith Olbermann last night it sounded as if the UN can also investigate the Bush Administration, however, I am vague as to how this would take place.

[purple scapolite]

A few thoughts -
Actually one way or another Bush and for sure Rumsfeld broke the law. They thumbed their noses at the U.S. ratification of the U.N. Conventions against Torture, to which we have signed and ratified. That means, as far as i know, we are obligated to do something about it. I don't see how there won't be at the very least an investigation for illegal torture/killing of innocent people and rendition, if not the invasion of Iraq.

I would love to say good riddance to the past administration, and get to work on repairing the damage done and working together. But if this isn't at the very least investigated and completely checked out, i think we'll guarantee it happening again. And that will not bring the base-level systemic change that people want.

Edited by shawna, 22 January 2009 - 11:58 AM.

[Driver Eight]

remring said:

Right, which is why any huge investigation will probably do little. The issue with Nixon and in the current case of Blagojevich is that they were recorded and this makes a world of difference legally.

It makes no difference as to the applicable substantive law. It can make a world of difference as to evidence, provable facts, is a more accurate way of stating it.

remring said:

Having someone on tape making a statement is gold and avoids the "He Said-She Said-I Don't Recall" arguments that could be made. If that is the case (a "He Said She Said") argument against the Bush Admin, then it really is not a case that can be prosecuted.

Plenty of convicts are in jail cells on such testimony. I think the real value of an investigation would lie more in exposing ugly facts to the light of day. Even if the top dogs never faced prosecutors in a courtroom, a fact-finding exercise such as a commission would perform an important service.

remring said:

Even if a commission can come to the conclusion that "Torture" did take place, without testimony it would be a very difficult argument to link Bush, Cheney, et. al. to that argument.

Several people were convicted by Lawrence Walsh's team in re: Iran Contra. Testimony could be gotten in much the way it is in mob prosecutions. Start at the bottom and work your way up. Prosecuting 101. I'd love to see Patrick Fitzgerald on the case, personally.

remring said:

In watching Keith Olbermann last night it sounded as if the UN can also investigate the Bush Administration, however, I am vague as to how this would take place.

International War Crimes tribunal, as some of us have referred to here.

[Driver Eight]

Binky1138 said:

Prove it.  When did Bush EVER lie under oath to a federal grand jury?

So you think evading a sham, baseless lawsuit trumped up on political grounds is worse than ginning up false "evidence" and a pack of lies to send a couple hundred thousand troops to war? Fibbing about a tempest-in-a-teapot sex scandal exceeds developing a policy of torture and then pinning the blame on the soldiers on the ground?

I'd respect Bush and Cheney if they had the balls to say, "Hell yeah, we tortured. And we meant it. And we'd do it again. And we're not sorry." But this bunch of chicken-hawks gutlessly hid behind the poor enlisted man and woman who did their bidding.

No surprise. These are the same guys who wimped out and skipped out on Vietnam, letting the poor, unwashed masses serve in their place. Either that or got their rich, connected daddies to get them into "service" such as absentee duty in the champagne unit of the Texas Air National Guard. No surprise at all that these guys never stand up behind their actions honestly and forthrightly.

The fantasy here, Binky, is that people are going to give your party the time of day, much less their vote, any time soon. Keep dreaming.

[remring]

[quote name='Christratton2007']
Plenty of convicts are in jail cells on such testimony. QUOTE]

True, but the Bush Administration is not just some ordinary convict. We need to put that in context.

[wagtail]

Binky1138 said:

I'd love to see it frankly.  I'd love to see a full scale witch hunt and would equally enjoy the backlash they would receive from the American public.  

This idea of seeing Bush and Cheney behind bars is a liberal fantasy and one you would do well to move past.  

Besides, I thought we were living in a new "grown-up"  "non-partisan" era of "Hope and Change"?

Yeah right, nice try.  The greatest victory for the neo-cons seems to be the absolute conviction on the part of a significant portion of the US population that truth and justice can not happen without leading to fear and division.


"We reject as false, the choice between our safety and our ideals"

[Binky1138]

Christratton2007 said:

So you think evading a sham, baseless lawsuit trumped up on political grounds is worse than ginning up false "evidence" and a pack of lies to send a couple hundred thousand troops to war? Fibbing about a tempest-in-a-teapot sex scandal exceeds developing a policy of torture and then pinning the blame on the soldiers on the ground?

I'd respect Bush and Cheney if they had the balls to say, "Hell yeah, we tortured. And we meant it. And we'd do it again. And we're not sorry." But this bunch of chicken-hawks gutlessly hid behind the poor enlisted man and woman who did their bidding.

No surprise. These are the same guys who wimped out and skipped out on Vietnam, letting the poor, unwashed masses serve in their place. Either that or got their rich, connected daddies to get them into "service" such as absentee duty in the champagne unit of the Texas Air National Guard. No surprise at all that these guys never stand up behind their actions honestly and forthrightly.

The fantasy here, Binky, is that people are going to give your party the time of day, much less their vote, any time soon. Keep dreaming.

Such anger in you...

Show me where Bush "ginned up false evidence".  I want proof.  And if you want to try him for sending our troops into Iraq you'd better be prepared to try all those in congress that supported it.  It's all nonsense and you know it.

Whatever ones beliefs about whether Clinton should've been investigated or not are they ultimately do not matter.  Facts matter.  Truth matters.  And the truth is he perjured himself in front of a grand jury.  No matter what you say about Bush this is a distinction he does not hold.

I hear again and again from people like you that Bush lied.  Prove it.

Also, it seems odd that you bring up military service when neither Clinton nor Obama have served in any capacity ever.  Now, I personally don't care one way or another but you brought it up...for what reason I have no clue.  Apparently so you could rail against their rich families and connections and...wait a minute, last I checked both the Clintons and Obamas are wealthy as well.  Again, I don't particularly care.  In fact I'm happy they're well off.  Then again I'm not into the whole class warfare thing that your side tends to propagate.

As far as the future of "my" party goes...well, the pendulum swings both ways.  This is your parties time.  I can accept that.  I'm not gonna scream for the next four years that Obama is "not my president" as I'm sure you did for eight years under Bush.  But if you think that the Democrats now have a monopoly on power in this country forever because they've won a presidential election you are setting yourself up for a major disappointment in the future.

A question for you though:  Where will you direct your seething rage now that Bush is out of office?  Surely you must have some other outlet...