Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(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.
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(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?
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
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?"
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(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.
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
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.
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
04-04-2012, 08:20 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 08:21 PM by janedrake.)
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(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.
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(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!
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(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.
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(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!
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
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.
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(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.
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.
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
04-04-2012, 10:10 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 10:13 PM by Willinois.)
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
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.
04-05-2012, 03:57 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 04:07 AM by janedrake.)
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
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!
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
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.
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(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.
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
Seems to me the justice department could have a continuing investigation without tying up any of Obama's time spent governing.
It's not for me to decipher whether or not this memo points out a possible war crime - this is why we have a justice department. It's more than just "quashing a dissenting opinion" when the memo used good legal arguments against the use of torture. This is not some insider trading mumbo jumbo. We are obligated as citizens to be concerned that the United States may have violated the Geneva convention against torture.
Here's a question for you since this seems to be what you're suggesting here:
Do you think political calculations should factor into whether or not we investigate whether potential war crimes were committed in the name of you and I, the citizens of the United States of America?
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
04-05-2012, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 08:30 AM by janedrake.)
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(04-05-2012 08:13 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: Seems to me the justice department could have a continuing investigation without tying up any of Obama's time spent governing.
It's not for me to decipher whether or not this memo points out a possible war crime - this is why we have a justice department. It's more than just "quashing a dissenting opinion" when the memo used good legal arguments against the use of torture. This is not some insider trading mumbo jumbo. We are obligated as citizens to be concerned that the United States may have violated the Geneva convention against torture.
Here's a question for you since this seems to be what you're suggesting here:
Do you think political calculations should factor into whether or not we investigate whether potential war crimes were committed in the name of you and I, the citizens of the United States of America?
Here's the thing - it's not about whether Pres. Obama's time governing would have been impacted - it's about what would happen to his ability to effectively govern with the right-wing noise machine using the prosecution of Bush officials as a catch-all with which to explain why they refuse to cooperate on any Democratic legislation. Yes, they've done that anyway, but they are all on their own - with no convenient excuses with which to blame Democrats for their own choice to attempt to make the president fail.
In terms of political calculations - yes, the timing does make a difference. Not for Obama's career, but for what he wants to focus on accomplishing for the country. Who among us doesn't want to see the Bush administration in orange jumpsuits? But at what cost to ourselves? You posted an excellent story on the Affordable Care Act - would the Obama administration been able to garner the support of Blue Dogs if they had immediately gone after Bush officials? Would it have been worth it to trade the ACA for say, Karl Rove in jail? Maybe. I don't think so.
But further than that, even though I clearly see the political implications of this, I tend to feel that if the prosecutable evidence were strong enough, the DoJ would proceed. And maybe they will based on this memo. At the moment, though, I don't see how an internal opinion memo would constitute the tipping point to start war crimes proceedings -- what is the actual crime? - save destruction of government property?
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
04-05-2012, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 08:48 AM by janedrake.)
No, I'm asking, what actual crime does quashing this memo represent? In other words, it wasn't obstructing an investigation, etc. Why does Rachel feel this memo is some kind of smoking gun on which the DoJ should immediately proceed? Edited to add: To clarify what I'm asking, the article itself describes the memo as "an internal bureaucratic push against an attempt by the Justice Department to flout long-standing legal restrictions against torture." The Bush Justice Department chose to ignore and quash this internal memo. What is the law on this that they can be charged with?
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(04-05-2012 08:35 AM)janedrake Wrote:
(04-05-2012 08:33 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: War crimes.
No, I'm asking, what actual crime does quashing this memo represent? In other words, it wasn't obstructing an investigation, etc. Why does Rachel feel this memo is some kind of smoking gun on which the DoJ should immediately proceed?
She was hoping for a moment of sanity from Republicans and Democrats now that this memo has been made public, that's all. There's nothing more to her plea than that - do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. She's just too optimistic for this cynical country - lol.
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
04-05-2012, 08:47 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 08:48 AM by janedrake.)
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(04-05-2012 08:39 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:
(04-05-2012 08:35 AM)janedrake Wrote: No, I'm asking, what actual crime does quashing this memo represent? In other words, it wasn't obstructing an investigation, etc. Why does Rachel feel this memo is some kind of smoking gun on which the DoJ should immediately proceed?
She was hoping for a moment of sanity from Republicans and Democrats now that this memo has been made public, that's all. There's nothing more to her plea than that - do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. She's just too optimistic for this cynical country - lol.
Yeah, okay, I hear you on that! But they've got to build a sound legal case in order to do the right thing - maybe that takes more time than we think. Maybe it's happening right now. Maybe we don't know all the details yet. Who knew when it was happening that Obama was methodically mapping out the capture of bin Laden? Admittedly, I don't hold out much hope that we'll ever see the Bush Administration prosecuted - I think it's a very complex issue - but if it is, it's going to have be an almost-perfectly constructed case.
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(04-05-2012 08:47 AM)janedrake Wrote:
(04-05-2012 08:39 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote: She was hoping for a moment of sanity from Republicans and Democrats now that this memo has been made public, that's all. There's nothing more to her plea than that - do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. She's just too optimistic for this cynical country - lol.
Yeah, okay, I hear you on that! But they've got to build a sound legal case in order to do the right thing - maybe that takes more time than we think. Maybe it's happening right now. Maybe we don't know all the details yet. Who knew when it was happening that Obama was methodically mapping out the capture of bin Laden? Admittedly, I don't hold out much hope that we'll ever see the Bush Administration prosecuted - I think it's a very complex issue - but if it is, it's going to have be an almost-perfectly constructed case.
As stated below, perhaps the Obama administration can look into this more in their 2nd term - that would be satisfying to a lot of people!
The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort. Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity. They are the old voices of fear and impotence. - Anonymous
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(04-05-2012 08:56 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:
(04-05-2012 08:47 AM)janedrake Wrote: Yeah, okay, I hear you on that! But they've got to build a sound legal case in order to do the right thing - maybe that takes more time than we think. Maybe it's happening right now. Maybe we don't know all the details yet. Who knew when it was happening that Obama was methodically mapping out the capture of bin Laden? Admittedly, I don't hold out much hope that we'll ever see the Bush Administration prosecuted - I think it's a very complex issue - but if it is, it's going to have be an almost-perfectly constructed case.
As stated below, perhaps the Obama administration can look into this more in their 2nd term - that would be satisfying to a lot of people!
and as you are leaving with your loot, you set the house on fire you are more than likely going to get away with the robbery.
That's how I see the Bush war crimes. Had the nation not been in economic crisis and teetering on the bring of economic destruction, President Obama would have had a chance to deal with the war crimes. However because the Bush administration and GOP had set the nation'es economy on fire, they were able to cover up their crimes. It sucks but I don't see how the President could have changed the outcome. After all if he had focused on the crimes he would have never had been able to pass the much needed stimulus, the stabilization of the banks would have been more difficult, he wouldn't have had the national attention needed to address the auto industry and odds are millions of Americans wouldn't have gotten the badly needed health insurance they got through healthcare reform.
Sadly to be be effective in government one needs to be political and frankly politics is not fun and the process and the things it requires one to sacrifice to achieve the greater good is not fun. So critics who don't actually have to produce or accomplish anything are free to stick to high minded principles and condemn those that have to do what it takes to full fill their moral obligations.
To sum up the President had a choice, go after the Bush war crimes or save the nation. He opted to save the nation which is the choice he should have made.
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
Is there any statute of limitations on war crimes? Could Obama's justice dept go after Bush/Cheney in its second term?
In any case, both Bush and Cheney have had to cancel overseas trips because of outrage over their crimes. They are prisoners trapped in this country. A small thing admittedly but it is a reminder to them that their crimes are not forgotten.
"I give thanks for this perfect day. Miracle will follow miracle and wonders will never cease."
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(04-05-2012 08:48 AM)azmouse Wrote: Is there any statute of limitations on war crimes? Could Obama's justice dept go after Bush/Cheney in its second term?
In any case, both Bush and Cheney have had to cancel overseas trips because of outrage over their crimes. They are prisoners trapped in this country. A small thing admittedly but it is a reminder to them that their crimes are not forgotten.
Upthread, I think it was PT who mentioned there isn't a statute -- and I believe that's correct.
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
This seems to be a never ending conundrum for Democrats and the goings-on of the Bush years. We want to hold their feet to the fire in court of law, but we are deathly afraid of the perception that this is nothing more than partisan vengence for the Clinton impeachment. It looks like that perception fear usually wins out over the completion of justice, which is unfortunate.
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(04-05-2012 12:38 PM)KonaKane Wrote: This seems to be a never ending conundrum for Democrats and the goings-on of the Bush years. We want to hold their feet to the fire in court of law, but we are deathly afraid of the perception that this is nothing more than partisan vengence for the Clinton impeachment. It looks like that perception fear usually wins out over the completion of justice, which is unfortunate.
Do you appreciate that little other business got done during the impeachment?
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(04-05-2012 12:54 PM)NJMaverick Wrote: Do you appreciate that little other business got done during the impeachment?
It's worth noting that getting nothing done was the entire point of impeachment. It provided an excuse, not a reason.
If Obama moves forward it will probably be through a slow, methodical process that respects the rule of law, as he does on other issues. I hope it becomes a bigger priority.
RE: Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes
(04-05-2012 12:38 PM)KonaKane Wrote: This seems to be a never ending conundrum for Democrats and the goings-on of the Bush years. We want to hold their feet to the fire in court of law, but we are deathly afraid of the perception that this is nothing more than partisan vengence for the Clinton impeachment. It looks like that perception fear usually wins out over the completion of justice, which is unfortunate.
I think the Clinton impeachment was payback for Nixon having to resign under the threat of impeachment.
We have nothing to lose going after Bush/Cheney crimes during a second Obama adminstration.
"I give thanks for this perfect day. Miracle will follow miracle and wonders will never cease."
Just listened to Rachel opining about Obama not prosecuting Bush for war crimes 
Post: #1
![[*]](images/twilight/ndxdragns.gif)
![[Image: haironfire.jpg]](http://d21c.com/SassyYank/dc_5/haironfire.jpg)
![[Image: 6z8obo.jpg]](http://i46.tinypic.com/6z8obo.jpg)
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!
But they've got to build a sound legal case in order to do the right thing - maybe that takes more time than we think. Maybe it's happening right now. Maybe we don't know all the details yet. Who knew when it was happening that Obama was methodically mapping out the capture of bin Laden? Admittedly, I don't hold out much hope that we'll ever see the Bush Administration prosecuted - I think it's a very complex issue - but if it is, it's going to have be an almost-perfectly constructed case.
![[Image: iafdg.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/iafdg.jpg)