Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes

[janedrake]

(Disclaimer: I've just finished two Hot & Dirty Martinis)

This is from my "what white liberals don't understand about being elected the first African-American president"-book.

But even that aside --

Barack Obama took office during a global economic meltdown primarily caused by the U.S.

During almost-10% unemployment.

In the midst of two unpopular and badly-administrated military conflicts.

During a time when 60 votes were needed in the Senate and we only had 58 (remember the ongoing early 2009 bullshit around Al Franken's election - and does she really think Joe Lieberman - uberchickenhawk - who was willing to be John McCain's running mate -- would have voted with Dems on prosecuting Bush?!)

But let's say none of that was happening. The first black president comes in - a president who campaigned on bringing the country together -- and his entire focus is on "getting" the former president. His entire focus - which is not his call alone to make, but the Department of Justice's -- is that a feasible move? No.

What do you think?

[KonaKane]

You mean besides the teensy weensy little factoid that a president does not have the authority to "prosecute" anyone?

[janedrake]

(04-04-2012 07:47 PM)KonaKane Wrote:  You mean besides the teensy weensy little factoid that a president does not have the authority to "prosecute" anyone?

That would be it!

[SeattleGirl]

I hear what you're saying Jane. While I would have LOVED to see BushCo frog-marched over their war crimes, I know what would have happened if Obama had made that move, given that he is a) the first African American President, and b) a Democrat. All hell would have broken loose, the jobless rate would probably be really high now, the auto industry would have gone under, both wars would still be going on, and the Republicans would be hounding the President in a way that would make the crap they're doing today seem tame.

A lot of white people really don't understand what a hell-storm would have arisen had Obama gone after Bush. They would be saying (in extremely rude ways) that the "uppity n****r was going after the white man, and how DARE he?"

[jaxx]

I think it's easy for people to scream prosecute, but the laws say different. If President Obama had gone that route there is a very big IF anything could have been proven in court. My guess is no.

Rachel has always been PL about things she doesn't like about PBO, that is one thing I find odd in her make up. It's almost like she says the worst hoping to hear she is wrong. Most things aren't black and white, but she can talk circles around her own findings...but still come across as 'why is she saying that'. I saw it in 2008 as the election came closer, Rachel seemed afraid to get on board all the way. This says here we go again. Rachel is as smart as a whip, sometimes that can be an asset, sometimes not when second guessing.

[janedrake]

(04-04-2012 07:57 PM)SeattleGirl Wrote:  I hear what you're saying Jane. While I would have LOVED to see BushCo frog-marched over their war crimes, I know what would have happened if Obama had made that move, given that he is a) the first African American President, and b) a Democrat. All hell would have broken loose, the jobless rate would probably be really high now, the auto industry would have gone under, both wars would still be going on, and the Republicans would be hounding the President in a way that would make the crap they're doing today seem tame.

A lot of white people really don't understand what a hell-storm would have arisen had Obama gone after Bush. They would be saying (in extremely rude ways) that the "uppity n****r was going after the white man, and how DARE he?"

Thank you, SeattleGirl - my thoughts exactly. Now, should Obama have done it regardless? I still don't think so - 59 million Americans voted against him - I believe he felt this would tear the country apart - and also, that as Commander-in-Chief charged with resolving the conflicts Bush launched us into, the best action he could take was to resolve them in the present - not to "go after" the former CiC, whom many in the military most likely still had an allegiance to - especially with Rush on the military radio network.

That said, I myself would have loved to see the neo-con culprits frog-marched in matching orange jumpsuits for their despicable actions - but Obama as a candidate made a convincing case to my ears for why that would not be his focus as president. His argument convinced me - not as is the case, with Romney, where he is being led by the virulent arguments of the Tea Party.

[There Is No Spoon]

This is so odd - I just watched her show and didn't catch this segment.

What I did see was a show that was amazing as always - there is no better, more honest liberal host on the planet.

[janedrake]

(04-04-2012 08:09 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  This is so odd - I just watched her show and didn't catch this segment.

What I did see was a show that was amazing as always - there is no better, more honest liberal host on the planet.

I will admit, I caught the tail end of the first half-hour - did I hear it wrong? And although I tend to agree with your assessment of Rachel, I had stopped watching her at one time, because although she is smart and honest, she is also capable of getting it really, really wrong sometimes.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-04-2012 08:20 PM)janedrake Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 08:09 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  This is so odd - I just watched her show and didn't catch this segment.

What I did see was a show that was amazing as always - there is no better, more honest liberal host on the planet.

I will admit, I caught the tail end of the first half-hour - did I hear it wrong?

I don't know - I just don't recall this topic.

[janedrake]

(04-04-2012 08:21 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 08:20 PM)janedrake Wrote:  I will admit, I caught the tail end of the first half-hour - did I hear it wrong?

I don't know - I just don't recall this topic.

Fair enough - I will re-watch online tomorrow - when hopefully the martinis will have run their course - however, I believe I did hear her correctly - but I am also capable of being wrong!

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-04-2012 08:23 PM)janedrake Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 08:21 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I don't know - I just don't recall this topic.

Fair enough - I will re-watch online tomorrow - when hopefully the martinis will have run their course - however, I believe I did hear her correctly - but I am also capable of being wrong!

Wouldn't be surprising is she had mentioned this and I simply was distracted at the time.

[janedrake]

(04-04-2012 08:31 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 08:23 PM)janedrake Wrote:  Fair enough - I will re-watch online tomorrow - when hopefully the martinis will have run their course - however, I believe I did hear her correctly - but I am also capable of being wrong!

Wouldn't be surprising is she had mentioned this and I simply was distracted at the time.

Fair enough - I just checked for a transcript, but I couldn't locate one yet - but will keep checking to see if it was indeed what I thought I heard!

[PoliticalTiger]

Bush will never be prosecuted. It's just not going to happen. Right or wrong, it's simply not in the cards. Hell, they are going to have a hard enough time prosecuting George Zimmerman assuming he's ever charged.

The law is a funny thing. It's full of holes and loopholes, and if George W Bush was charged with a crime even in Obama's first years, his dream team of high priced lawyers would have any case against Bush tied up in knots in the courts and Bush would still be home on his ranch drinking whiskey watching Obama defending himself from the rabid right wing attacks he'd sure to be enduring .... I mean, the right wing are sweet puppy dogs compared to what they would be if Bush was facing charges. Think 2010 was bad? Imagine how much worse it would have been if the Reich felt they and their president was under attack by that 'Muslim Kenyan Socialist/Communist Usurper!"

There would have been no stimulus, Detroit would have gone bankrupt, no Obamacare, DADT would still be in place, etc. Nothing would have gotten done. Obama knew that and perhaps the best thing he has done is not going after Bush.

And there is no statute of limitations when it comes to war crimes or crimes against humanity so maybe one day it will happen. Just not now.

[SeattleGirl]

(04-04-2012 08:09 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  This is so odd - I just watched her show and didn't catch this segment.

What I did see was a show that was amazing as always - there is no better, more honest liberal host on the planet.

It was at the top of her show.

[jaxx]

This may be the part being discussed. It says in the side that the Zelikow memo re-exposes Bush to legal liability for torture.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/.../#46959508

It takes around 3 minutes to get to this part.

[Willinois]

She's right and it's important. Someone high up in the administration, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, or at least a high appointee, should be investigated and held publicly accountable. Whether or not they spend time in prison isn't as important as having a public process where they're called to account for their actions.

The reason it's important is that failing to do so sends a message loud and clear that future Presidents are free to do the same without facing consequences. The proof of this is that all the key criminals in the Bush administration were leftovers from the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations who had committed war crimes and acts of treason in Vietnam or Latin America. They learned they could get away with it and when they got back into power they kept repeating the same behaviors. Right now Obama is sending a message to the next generation of Cheneys, Norths and Rumsfelds that they're free to keep committing war crimes without ever being held responsible for their actions. He's practically writing them an invitation to do it again and that's completely unacceptable.

One high level prosecution is enough to make a senior official for a future President hesitate and say, "this sounds illegal and I'm not sure I want to go to prison for it like xxx did." Sending the opposite message, as we are now, is dangerous.

[There Is No Spoon]

(04-04-2012 10:08 PM)jaxx Wrote:  This may be the part being discussed. It says in the side that the Zelikow memo re-exposes Bush to legal liability for torture.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/.../#46959508

It takes around 3 minutes to get to this part.

Ahhh! Thanks for posting that! I did see and paid attention to most of that, though I think I faded a bit toward the end.

I think perhaps there is a misinterpretation of what is important in this segment now that I've had a chance to re-watch it. This is new evidence. This is damning evidence. This is evidence of a cover-up. And yes, her point about the WH not wanting to tackle this issue due to political considerations at this time is well taken by me. I think when everybody watches this segment they will see that it is NOT a rehashing of the tired old ramblings of the PL. In fact, it supports my previous statement that Rachel is one of the best reporters in this country at this time. As far as I'm concerned, there aren't enough awards to be given for this type of reporting. You won't see this anywhere else. This was a cover up for the justification for torture. This is a pretty big deal IMO and I won't "look the other way" just to protect the WH's political calculations in an election year. Besides, this story will fade just as fast as her noting the politics of this issue faded from my memory. At least the story was reported - as it should have been.

[janedrake]

Jaxx - thanks so much for posting the whole clip!

I'm trying to figure out what is actually new about this story; this has all been public information since early 2009. Philip Zelikow testified in May 2009 about this memo; Rachel interviewed him in April 2009 about the memo - the only "new" news about this story is that Wired now has a hard copy of the memo - so, when she says the Obama administration had to know about the memo, it doesn't make sense to me -- of course they knew of it - this information was publicly discussed - Zelikow publicly testified to it, and Rachel publicly interviewed him about it. How helpful of her to imply there was some "coverup" by the Obama administration over this public information. She also could have done a better job on this by clarifying that it was the "Bush" White House that wanted the memos destroyed, not the Obama WH.

I'm sorry, but I not doing any to Rachel for her slant on this story - which she predicts will "split the Democratic Party" and which she appears to not mind wielding the ax to do so. Great timing!

[There Is No Spoon]

This story could not have been reported any other way - unless it simply wasn't reported at all.

BOTH parties feet were held to the fire in her report as they should be; because we as a country should not want to "look the other way" when evidence exists that Bushco KNEW that there was an opinion that what they were doing was a war crime and covered it up. Her question is simple - if the Obama justice department doesn't pursue this, then who will? It's a reasonable question and I will not "look the other way" when a hardcopy of this memo exposing possible war crimes is available for all to see. Anything less is against everything this country stands for. If we don't follow our own laws (think Nixon), then how are we any better than a banana republic? What are the limits? What happens if a nitwit Republican gets into office and figures they can basically do whatever they want? These are good questions and we are obligated as citizens to discuss these sorts of issues.

[janedrake]

(04-05-2012 07:24 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  This story could not have been reported any other way - unless it simply wasn't reported at all.

BOTH parties feet were held to the fire in her report as they should be; because we as a country should not want to "look the other way" when evidence exists that Bushco KNEW that there was an opinion that what they were doing was a war crime and covered it up. Her question is simple - if the Obama justice department doesn't pursue this, then who will? It's a reasonable question and I will not "look the other way" when a hardcopy of this memo exposing possible war crimes is available for all to see. Anything less is against everything this country stands for. If we don't follow our own laws (think Nixon), then how are we any better than a banana republic? What are the limits? What happens if a nitwit Republican gets into office and figures they can basically do whatever they want? These are good questions and we are obligated as citizens to discuss these sorts of issues.

Here's the question - does quashing a dissenting opinion within an Administration constitute a punishable crime? Or would the charge only amount to destroying government property? Zelikow wrote a dissenting opinion - his one memo, quashed or not, does not seem to me to represent a smoking gun that gives the Justice Department a firm basis to proceed with prosecution. It was an opinion memo as I understand it (lawyers among us, please feel free to school me).

Here's my other question - would it have been worth it for NOTHING to be accomplished during Obama's first term (because knowledge of this has been public since 2009) except for starting legal procedures to prosecute Bush officials (which would still be ongoing today).

This reminds of the first two years of Obama's presidency where "we" wanted what we wanted when we wanted it - and did not want to wait for the foundation to be built as carefully as possible so that the result would be as strong as possible. My main problem with Rachel's presentation of this piece is that it is strongly reminiscent of her attitude while Obama was laying the foundation for the repeal of DADT - as I recall, she gave him a lot of grief for what looked like to her to be very little happening on that front - yet, behind the scenes, Obama was lining up military support and structure for the repeal. Here, she implies the Obama administration is trying to cover up something, when it seems to me that's not the case. But what crime exactly does this memo uncover? Is it prosecutable? If not, this is getting people worked up about something that is not feasible.