Obama advisers: No charges likely vs interrogators

yes, it would seem we now have mr nochange, too bad, i think the democratic economic policies will be a failure, but like many independents are interested in many of the same social issues that the democrats have an interest in. same old washington, no change, no change, and more no change. look forward to many democrats in the congress and senate losing their seats in the midterm elections in 2010. god bless america.

I posted several seeds regarding the democratic and OBAMA policies, which includes Bush's war criminal as security advisors, and the democratic capitulation to the corporate financial crooks.   People, it is all about ideology, class polcies, and not about Bush or Obama.   These people get picked by the elites who ram them down our throats, when we could have had better people, like KUCINICH OR NADER.

Today Democracy Now, Amy Goodman's one hour show, hosted Naomi Klein, who pointed out the bi partisan corporate, imperial criminal policies being played out with OBAMA.    I suggest everyone become familiar with the liberal warhawks, democratic NEOCONS, Zionists, and war criminals that have so far polluted ...."CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN"

here are the links:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/17/obama_taps_ex_cia_officials_tied   http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/17/as_obama_reiterates_call_to_close http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/17/naomi_klein_on_the_bailout_profiteers

       It is not about individuals, Bush or Obama, it is about ideology, class policies, imperial policies, and it is time people move beyond this narrow vision.  He represents the Black face of Empire.    He has surrounded  himself with war criminals from Bush, NEOCONS, and Zionists that will continue Empire.

Now I think that's a bit premature. If Obama were continuing Bush's policies on torture and unlawful detention, then I would see your point. Instead, it seems he's changing the policies for his own administration, but has decided not to chase down those from a former administration. It's also worth noting, this isn't backpeddling, because he never said he would file charges.

It seems fair, actually. The interrogators are the ones who would be tried, and while they were the blunt object to deliver the torture, they weren't the ones making the decisions. It was Bush and his ilk that allowed it to happen. Punishing the people who carried it out when they were under an administration that told them it was fine wouldn't be chasing the right people.

Lets see what happens. This might be a moot point if Bush pardons anyone involved.

And this also does not preclude (as Leahy hinted at) war crimes tribunals at the Hague.

If Bush is brought up on charges there, I would be interested to see how the Obama administration moves. perhaps the charges will not be made public and Interpol or some country's military/police will pick Bush up when he is in their country. I doubt the world organizations have the balls to even bring charges against a former US president, but if they do, it will show how far the US has fallen in power since Bush took office.

To put this in historical perspective, There is a long history of presidents showing restraint in order to reconcile with former presidents and rebels and traitors to the American Revolution.

Behind the Screen:

(as Leahy hinted at)

Beware political "hints."

They are made to give the impression of action over the fact of action.

Since the senator has no ability to get the Hague to do anything, I don't see it as an action, rather, a point that the world court is the proper venue for such things.

it's not just the crime that must be punished, it is the precedent. this issue transcends politics and it is the responsibility of a responsible leader to bring to justice those who so deliberately broke not only international law, but OUR law - our constitutional law.

any and every future american president who fails to fully investigate the bush administration is no better than bush himself. our nation is supposed to be one of laws, not men.

i dont want my kids learning about what really happened 30 years from now when some of the records are released and bush and cheney are both long gone. i want my children to grow up in a nation that respects the rights and freedoms of everyone, not one which looks back on my generation as just another group of people who looked the other way, hoping it "will never happen again."

Mr Obama is already reviewing executive orders to be rolled back upon taking orders, this is the change. However history WILL tell the tale. Should the International Criminal Court, as their responsibility, decide that war crime charges are justified, I have no doubt that Mr Obama will act accordingly.

To prosecute this unilaterally will have roots far and wide in this issue. At this time, I think our country has run out of eyes to blacken.

personally, i value the constitution of my country ahead of international law. while i appreciate that the global community has a mechanism to handle things like this, i would like to see america stand up for the high standards it has always claimed to have.

http://obamacto.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/73480

Obama October: "They should be charged for those interrogation tactics."

Obama Turkey Day: "Well, I'll cut them a break"

Obamabots: "Aw, Obama is soooo compassionate".

How about actual quotes, not made up tripe. Thanks.

I did not vote for Obama. I really did not like what he had to say and what he did not say. The media bias made me nauseous. What I do think is that he is not going to go to the Whitehouse with guns blazing. He will be briefed about security issues and realize that most of the policies of the Bush administration were more necessary than his liberal supporters could or would ever admit. He may even think that the concept of Guatanomo Bay or Gitmo is wrong simply because it gives the world a negative view of us rather than being illegal or immoral. We all know what positive media coverage means to the man. I like the idea of prisons on the high seas; prison ships kinda like the loveboat only with pork sandwiches and iron maidens.

Did you ever wonder what the first serious question an incoming President asks an outgoing one? I wonder how many have asked about the truth about UFO's. Bush will probably feed him a good line to see how gullible he is.

Behind My Screen

How about having a slight sense of humor or understanding of satire.

Guess not. You could probably produce diamonds.

How about actual quotes, not made up tripe. Thanks.

If you want to see where we are heading. The criminal elites, corporate fascists, and OBAMA are on one side..........and the public is enraged that these elites get away with murder and crime.   Here are two video segments that reveals the anger against the corporate imperial criminals supported of course by the corporate media cheerleaders and judicial nazis vs the public that had had their fill of this criminal hypocrisy.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/37738      video

any officials including bush actions should be investigated and prosecuted as war criminals to prove america is a real democratic country which maintain law and order, justice. otherwise rest of world the will never trust united states as it now.

We don't trust other nations either.

They envy us.

You shouldn't tell the criminals in advance that you are going to prosecute them, escpecially when their boss can give them a 'Get out of Jail Free' card.

Will Obama rescind the Hague Invasion Act? If so, then there is a chance of justice. The hypocsrisy of dragging enemies in front of the court while refusing to recognize its jurisdiction makes the world's police look so corrupt to everybody else.

Eric, I just seeded your first link......this is bull@!$%#....bring 'em down...

"If we don't police ourselves, then it will be those who understand us far less who will be looking to do it for us" Hog Farmer, at the Dallas pop festival, 1969

It has to stop...the lawless must be brought to justice....

Thanks for bringing that up djd.  The law you cite can not be rescinded by the Executive though.  It could however be repealed by Congress. 

The law prohibits cooperation with the ICC forbidding extradition from the US, transfer of any national security or law enforcement information to the court and prohibits investigations in the US on behalf of ICC cases.  Under this law a real hardnose might be able to prosecute US citizens who investigate prosecution of US agents in the ICC.

With the economy teetering on the brink of disaster, let just bring the whole thing down!!! YAY!!!!

Need to prosecute Paulson too.  He changed the deal after the bill.  Lets just lock up everyone in Washington.  They are all in it.  Then we can split the country up.  The Sovereign Reoublic of Ga... The Free Land Of Texas. Who gets the nukes?  Who gets the gold reserve? Who gets the oil?

Sound familiar? Can you say Russia?

Need to let this economy get back into balance FIRST and FOREMOST.

If we lose sight of who we are and what our Constitution stands for in the process does it matter Brammy if we save our economy in the short term?

Look no one is talking about losing sight of the constitution, HOWEVER, just as all of us do, this country has to have its priorities.  To bring this at a time like this would have irreparable effects, not only on the economy but global standing.  Are you really ready for our debt holders to see the country in chaos?  Are you really ready for them to call our debt on that 10 Trillion dollar deficit?  Are you ready for foreign nations to start selling US currency wholesale?  Any ONE of these could result in the crumbling of the very foundation of this country.  The country is one the verge of an economic downfall add a politcal one to that and you have chaos.  What do you think if the US is perceived to be in the midst of revolution?

That being said, as you can see in my earlier post, if the ICC decides to persue this, so be it.  It seems like most posters on this board want to see more cowboy justice.  Haven't we had enough of that already?  I don't think the President Elect will go against the reccommendation of the ICC.  We all saw how well that worked out for Bush and this country when we refused to heed the reccommendations of the UN.

I have said it before and I will say it again, history will win out.  I have no doubt as hearings have been had in the past, that justice will be served.  If I believed anything different, I could not love this country as I do.

Where are the impeachments for Dodd and Barney that sank our economy?

Where are the documents of Dodd that he promised?

Why Barney is barking to Paulson, et al when he had a lot to do w/the failure of the housing?

Obama will not be challenged to answer ICC recommendations.

if the ICC decides to persue this

On what basis?  Bush renounced the US treaty with the ICC.  A US law, American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002 (the Hague Invasion Act), prohibits US cooperation with the ICC. (also see 1.19 above)

I understand Brammy, it was a question designed to make people think.  Nothing more. 

Meloney Did you actually READ what you posted... see below?

On what basis?  Bush renounced the US treaty with the ICC.  A US law, American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002 (

The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court. This provision, dubbed the “Hague invasion clause,” has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

Hon this is only in cases of recusing HOSTAGES.  It does not support a full scale invasion.

LOL  JaRagga

Thanks  you need to clue me in occasionally!!!!

If I had you wouldn't have thought and posted what you did, which was you believe the economy is more pressing a problem.  Not saying that's right or that's wrong just one of many opinions.  I'm more of the opinion if we let this slide the damage is far greater and more enduring than the short term suffering we may experience for a failed economy.  Failed morality is worse in my opinion, but at the same time does not diminish your belief otherwise.

It does not support a full scale invasion.

Huh?  I was talking about ICC authority and the US.  The US is no longer a party to the treaty.  It has no jurisdiction, no agreement, under which to lodge charges.

Sorry Meloney I see nothing that indicates that the US is no longer part of the ICC.  I believe that ast was passed for soldiers that were captured and xfr'd to Hauge custody. Not if they are requesting extradiction from this country through our court system.  I would seriously doubt that if there were proof of war crimes our country would refuse to relinquish those that are guilt of those crimes.

JaRagga

I am not saying that these peole should get away scot free... by no means.  Just like there are hearings (which I am watching ATM) on the misuse of TARP funds. I have faith that our country will also address this issue.

It seems as if there is a blood cry for immediate action and I believe that the economy must be stabilized first.  To detract from that would be to the detriment of all.

Let us get balance, then let us look over the books.  Unfortunately, what will be done will have to be reported at some future date.

I believe the first order of business to try the prisoners at GITMO and possibly get innocent people home, is more of a moral issue for me.

Found it Melodyt.  Thats what you get for being old.  However. I still believe that should war crime accusations have basis in fact, this may in fact be a viable option.  The US could do no less.

Older than me? I don't believe it  ; )  I do believe the accusations of war crimes are based in fact.  Under current US law it would be criminal to cooperate with the ICC.

I believe the first order of business to try the prisoners at GITMO and possibly get innocent people home, is more of a moral issue for me.

I can get behind that as a starting point at least it shows we recognize certain errors on our part and a solid step in the right direction called justice.

EEEEEman,

So true, History is unfolding as we speak, thanks to a closet full of whistle blowers, observers, witnesses & victims of this administration. See it isn't JUST about war crimes in other countries. It's about all of the nameless people that have been violated and hurt right here in the good old USA. They deserve THEIR day in court.

Let Freedom Ring

Let FrEEEEEdom Ring. ;P

Ms CYPRAH:

Exactly. That is the key action. One can't spend every new government looking back to prosecute whomever was there before,

Not even for war crimes?

How about rape and murder? If a president is suspected of having raped or murdered someone, should we just let it go, so that we can look ahead and make sure that other presidents don't rape or murder people?

And how do we do that, when we've already let one president get away with it?

Or should we make it clear to the whole world -- particularly the American people -- that the legal system in the United States actually means something, and that this is truly a nation of laws and not of men?

How about rape and murder? If a president is suspected of having raped or murdered someone, should we just let it go, so that we can look ahead and make sure that other presidents don't rape or murder people?

No, we shouldn't let war crimes go, but I would bet that immediately after 9/11 a lot of people were in agreement with whatever Bush did. It was when he invaded Iraq that opinions changed. the point is so much as happened in these past 8 years, where do you start and end with seeking real justice?

Or should we make it clear to the whole world -- particularly the American people -- that the legal system in the United States actually means something, and that this is truly a nation of laws and not of men?

Absolutely! It's about JUSTICE! It's about showing future leaders that they are not above the law and that if they commit crimes then as soon as they're out of office they're somehow home free. We can not allow their crimes to go unanswered for or why not just say they are above the law!

MsCYPRAH:

but I would bet that immediately after 9/11 a lot of people were in agreement with whatever Bush did.

Agreed.

But this is exactly why we need to be a nation of laws.

Revenge. Xenophobia. Hatred.

These forces should never enter into our lawmaking or judicial policy. As soon as they do, then we're no longer the United States of America. We're just another dysfuntional nation.

And it is up to our leaders to make sure that these things never drive us to act, even when we, the mob, want so badly to achieve retribution.

But, rather than do this -- rather than uphold the Constitution of the United States, which requires a president to truthfully apprise Congress of potential dangers and to then seek their considered counsel, Bush lied to Congress and seized on and stoked the mood of we the mob to execute a pre-existing political Neocon agenda. (PNAC)

If Bush had respected the oath he made to uphold the Constitution of the United States (Which he refers to as just a damn piece of paper), and we had simply stuck to existing legal and Cosntitutional protocol right after 9/11, we would never have gone to war with Afghanistan or Iraq, and Bush would not be facing potential war crimes and murder charges.

He brought this entirely upon himself, and if he had an ounce of integrity and character, he would acknowledge that fact.

He brought this entirely upon himself, and if he had an ounce of integrity and character, he would acknowledge that fact.

You are so right on this point, upswing, but which president would? I am not saying that there should be no investigation or comment on what happened but if Obama came in on the 'change' ticket, hanging back there in the past doing the same old things is not about change.

Cyprah:

Obama is following the same imperial, fascist, zionist policies of Empire.  He has surrounded himself with criminals from the Bush administration.   He, himself, will become a war criminal, and failing to uphold the Constitution is itself a crime.

Ms CyprahI admire you very much. You are such an asset to the vine. I'm always reading your posts.

The main function of congress: make laws and provide oversight. They make laws...but they must provide oversight, they took an oath of office. As unpleasant and costly as it may be, we are obligated, truly and officially obligated, to research and properly record the destruction that has happened.

Even if we don't prosecute, we must investigate for posterity. History must be recorded officially by Congress.

I think war crimes should be brought by the appropriate body, that is the world court. If the other nations think Bush committed war crimes, then he should be brought up on the charges. The American people kicked the Republicans from power because they saw their policies as being egregious, that is our "court" for such things. Those who committed breaches to our constitutional rights have already been pardoned by Bush, beyond that, anything else was done to another country and I think it is up to the world to decide if such behaviors constitute a crime. The new administration should not spend its resources and capital on things that do not move the country out of this area. We need the political capital and time resources spent on reforming the government so behaviors such as those practiced by the Bush administration can never happen again.

The new administration should not spend its resources and capital on things that do not move the country out of this area. We need the political capital and time resources spent on reforming the government so behaviors such as those practiced by the Bush administration can never happen again.

Great Comment, BehindMS, because that's what it should all be about!

Even if we don't prosecute, we must investigate for posterity. History must be recorded officially by Congress.

I don't see a problem with that, Grammie'sC. In fact, that would be the best thing to do for history and posterity. It will never be forgotten or brushed under the carpet. But anything else which will use up valuable resources, yet get very little result, I think would be counter-productive.

Thank you so much for that wonderful compliment, you are so kind. :o)

As much as I believe Bush & Co have committed crimes, I see two reasons to not press for prosecuting:

1. we were all complicite (the administration, members of Congress, half of the American public), but perhaps more importantly...
2. as bitter blue/red fights continue you'll have more administrations going back and charging prior administrations for crimes over policies with which they disagreed. that's a very dangerous precident to set.

not everyone in the american public was silent about it.

you're saying that a precedent might be created wherein partisan politics in america is aggressive and unproductive? how is that worse than the precedent of torture? and dont we already have partisan fighting about crimes?

we cant not do the right thing because we think we might not handle it well. if thats the case, what are we defending? what is the point of america in the first place?

i mean - this is a lot of nonsense and illusion - are we really that worried about the possibility of something bad happening if we pursue this? SOMETHING BAD HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. it is patently illogical, if we are to believe anything about our constitution, to avoid seeking justice because we're afraid of what the idea of justice might do to our nation.

this is what it means when we say we are a nation of laws, not men. this is the point of our constitution - this is the point of a free society. if we do not pursue justice because we are afraid of what it might do to the nation, especially when it concerns the very workings of our government, then we do not believe that a free nation is possible. if we are afraid to pursue justice because of who may have committed the crime, we become VERY LITERALLY a nation of men, not laws.

how do we not get this? this is easy.

write owwn, firsty.....couldn't have said it better....have some courage, YES WE CANNERS!!!

Now, on that part I will definately agree with R. Donald. The order-givers, at the very least need to face charges. The order-takers though... I still have to think, I'm afraid.

Thank you for this article.

WE the people can make any investigation happen. Just threaten Congressional leaders with their JOBS...we just pulled off the greatest grass roots turnover election in history, ALL PARTIES. We can sure as hell do it again. Even if WE  won't prosecute, The international community can. We can at least formally admonish, and pass laws, build constitutional structures so that NO PRESIDENT can do what Bush/Cheney did ever.

We need to hold the corrupt feet of both corporate, imperial parties, and their class ideologies to close examination, to see the problem is not one of individuals, but of ideology, and corporate interests.   We have a corporate fascist state, yet no one seems to understand that can include liberal class appeasers, who always capitulate to the criminals. 

Actually, the mandate he was elected on is changing the policies in washington. He never promised or mentioned war crimes, thus is was not part of his mandate.

He never said it, but he was well aware that it was one of his supporters main reasons for supporting him. Besides, charging and imprisoning war criminals would be a major change in Washington policies. So it is indeed very much part of his mandate.

Hey Eric Albert,

How many times can you use the words  "corporate" "fascist"  "zionist" and "imperial" in one post?

You're just like a neocon, you repeat the same terms over and over again in hopes people will believe it.

Obama hasn't even taken office yet and some of you people are harder on him than you were on Bush after his first 4 years in office.  Truly pathetic.

Copzilla:   More pathetic are the liberals and neocons who deny the role of terminology and ideology in history, and always corrupt or deny its existence.

Fascism is still fascism from day one to the end.   Corporate fascism is still what it has become since Hitler's and Mussolini's corporate state, now morphed into American Empire.  

Zionist policies or Neocon policies are still the same ideologies, whether under Bush or Obama.....and middle class delusions cannot make them go away.

Copzilla

RAmen. Proves that even after the election of a real president the lunatics on the right wing fringe will still be around pissing in the wind.

Sickntired:

But on the other hand, How far down do we go with it if we do that? The aides?... The agents?... The janitor?...

As long as they all get their day in court, what does it matter how far down the chain of command you go..?

If someone is charged with committing a crime, then they need to face a grand jury.

If that grand jury indicts them, then they go to court.

There's nothing novel here.

The ONLY obstacle to letting this ordinary process play out is Obama's blatant hypocrisy.

The rest is just noise.

This is not rocket science, guys.

As long as they all get their day in court, what does it matter how far down the chain of command you go..?

It does matter because it will be using up valuable time and resources looking backwards and distracting attention from more important aspects instead of benefiting the country now.

It is NOT looking backwards! It's prosecuting criminals for their crimes so future leaders don't try the same war crimes over again. I mean would we not prosecute a murderer just because his crime was say 20 years ago. Of course we would and this is the same idea. Sending criminals to prison is not a waste of time or resources, it's called justice!

Donald, normally I am in agreement with you, but this time it is about priorities. And I cannot see the most urgent priority for America now being prosecution of past president/vice president. If there was a smooth handover, with money in the kitty, that would be another matter. But with jobs falling like dominoes, are you seriously saying that is the best use of the country's money, time and personnel?

Ms CYPRAH

After WWII we had a lot of high priorities too. We had an entire continent to help rebuild and our own nation to heal, but still we do not say that prosecuting the Nazi war criminals was looking back to the past and that we had more important things to do. No, the crimes must be investigated and the criminals punished, no matter how hard it is or what it takes, if we are to hold ourselves up as a just nation with real laws that everyone must obey. It IS one of the highest priorities we face today.

Okay, now this would be why I said I had to think because as we go down the line further and further away from those who gave  those orders- we get further and further away from justice and more and more towards vengeance.... this does not just make this a question of politics but also of philosophy and, in my experience philosophical questions should never be answered in the heat of the moment... Rocket science? No, but it does require more then a little thought for me, Donald, I'm sorry.

well, the united nations did not want to go into iraq, afghanistan, congo, somalia, sudan, gaza, and so many other places. how about a trial for all those in government that leave all the helpless in the world behind to be abused, murdered, raped and discriminated against. whos going to help them if not the usa, gods greatest nation., the un cant or wont. america has a great responsibility to make the world a safer and better place for human and civil rights and the government must be more proactive when we see injustices like we have in places like iraq, sudan, congo, somalia, ethiopia, afghanistan, north korea. do all the left wing flakes, actually care about anyone other than those that are in america.

Ms CYPRAH:

It does matter because it will be using up valuable time and resources

You consider prosecuting war criminals a waste of time?

freedom-372362

Except we did not invade and conquer Iraq to make the lives of Iraqis better. We invaded and conquered Iraq because war is very very very profitable for the war contractors that had Bush and Cheney in their pockets. The reason to invade Iraq, was to invade Iraq for a profit, not for the American taxpayers of course, but a profit for the "defense" industry. What happened in Iraq was not a war, it was and is a war crime, with Bush and Cheney and friends the war criminals.

Ron, Cyprah

Thank you for a cogent debate about such a passionate issue. Please see my comment #3.7

:-)

Frankly, I would rather see the Obama administration spend its hard earned political capital on fixing health care, fixing the economy, getting much needs tax breaks to the hard working middle class (who actually spend the money they get and help keep the economy moving), etc.

Wasting resources on something the world court should deal with is ridiculous and does not server anyone.

Behind My Screen

So then you believe that Bush and Cheney are above American law? This is supposed to be a country based on laws that NO ONE is above! Or are the words "justice for all" just words we say to browbeat other world leaders, but that we won't do ourselves? This is not a waste unless you think enforcing our laws on everyone equally is a waste. SOME of us believe in our laws and don't think enforcing them is a waste of time. In fact some of us think it's one of the most important things a nation can do.

You consider prosecuting war criminals a waste of time?

Not at all, upswing, but I will make a bet here with you that no matter how much they are prosecuted, nothing will come of it. Better to have an investigation and a report, perhaps an international one for the records. That would have longer term consequences for them and their families than trying to prosecute slippery eels who will not be charged anyway.

No, the crimes must be investigated and the criminals punished, no matter how hard it is or what it takes

Agreed, Donald, but being entirely realistic, prosecuting those criminals didn't seem to carry much effect with the current rogues, did it? However, it did help to give a sense of justice because it was easier to get the evidence then. I think Rove, Cheney and Bush will just lead the courts a merry dance. What results will the country actually get for all that resources, manpower and time that will be spent o any prosecutions?

Ms CYPRAH:

but I will make a bet here with you that no matter how much they are prosecuted, nothing will come of it.

Why bet?

Let's prosecute and find out for sure...

R. Donald Snyder,

do you like putting words in my mouth? He broke international law, let the international courts deal with him. There is a law out there to take care of these actions, it is just not our law or resources that should be spent on it.

Put down your torch and think about the logger jam it would create. Nothing would get done and this would consume his entire first term, making it, most likely, his only term due to allowing the economy and health care and important policy changes to languish.

Put down your torch and think about the logger jam it would create. Nothing would get done and this would consume his entire first term, making it, most likely, his only term due to allowing the economy and health care and important policy changes to languish.

That's precisely what I fear, BMS, because court charges like the ones being proposed do not resolve themselves overnight. :o(

Yes he broke international laws, but he also broke American laws. Also while we can't force the world court to go after him we can damn sure go after him ourselves. And it simply does not matter if it's unlikely we will be able to convict him or anyone. That is NOT the point of doing it! The point is that if we do NOT go after him then we are condoning his criminal behaviour and in fact are supporting it! It's not putting words in your any one's mouth to say that if you don't support going after him then the only reason that can be is that you think he is above the law.

What US laws did Bush himself break? What laws did he break where the people who did his dirty work will not be getting a pardon the night before he leaves office?

What laws did he break where the congress was not complicit by passing laws that let him act as he did?

And again... don't put words in my mouth. I do not think he is above the law.

Please tell me and I am interested.

He violated the law by illegally authorizing warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens by making an illeagl end arond past the FISA court. He admitted on television that he did it and said he would continue to do it. That is a crime and he needs to be prosecuted. The fact that he may hand out pardons is NOT the point. The fact that we will probably never get a conviction is NOT the point! The point is the principle of it! If we don't go after him then we are saying our laws are meaningless to the president. Sp why bother having a Constitution or a president? If we do not go after him and Cheney then we might just as well tear up the Constitution and declare the President to be a King or Dictator!

And I did not put words in your mouth. If you don't support going after him then you are saying he is above the law. It is that simple.

I have to agree with Donald on this one, In its simplest form if you do something you would have to face the consequences.

This is something that we teach our children but lose its value when things become "complicated"

When My Daughter took that little tiny piece of candy from the Big Ole Walmart I marched her butt right back in there gave it to the clerk and told my daughter to apologize, Now Most likely the clerk threw it away, (I mean she was working to unwrap the thing which alerted me to the fact that she took it in the first place) but  that is besides the point. I can not let my daughter think that if she can walk out the store with it... if she can bring it to the car.... that she can hurry up and unwrap it. that she is beyond getting in trouble for it.

Very good point. In this case it's equivalent to shoplifting the treasury, steeling a country, and murdering and injuring hundred of thousands. But who's counting?

We have so much to get done here at home, we can't afford to waste time or taxes on recriminating the previous administration.  Let's move on. 

Hear, hear. Exactly that. The country is in a very bad way economically, yet people would still want to waste time and energy chasing the past? That would not be sensible, especially when it could drag on for years.

Might/Power:

"...partisan opportunistic vengeance..."

Does this same standard apply to all law enforcement? i.e. If you're of the same political persuasion of a potential criminal, then, are you saying that by definition, any prosecution of that criminal is partisan vengeance?

Your comment seems so dismissive of ordinary US law and any sense of the need for personal responsibility and answerability.

upswing,

it is not dismissive of the law, it is pragmatic. There is no room in governing to be puritanical as we have learned over the last 8 years. we need to make priorities and the welfare of the American people and the health of the American economy are the top priorities. Maybe if Bush had left the country as stable as Clinton had there would be time to consider criminal investigations.... there is not time for that and we cannot in good conscience allow ourselves to be distracted from what NEEDS to be done.

Let the world court handle it, that is what it is for.

What about the American citizens here in the USA who were violated, mistreated, fired, blackballed, harassed, etc etc etc....by this administration over the last 8 years? Will they be made whole again? Will they be given the right to see justice prevail? Will they even have a right to testify as to what happened to them?

If it takes 5 years and millions of dollars...it is the mandate set down by our Constitution, that we the people, Congress...must investigate any and all despots, those who would commit crimes against us...here at home.

I voted for Obama, but I do not feel he can take the Oath of office, to

 PROTECT AND DENFEND THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC....

And then say...oh yeah I swear to do that...but not that part.

Grammie's Cookies

Sadly Grammie, for some people here the idea of "justice for all" is just hollow words that they don't care about.

Behind my Screen:

it is not dismissive of the law, it is pragmatic.

Pragmatism is not justice.

The US Constitution is not pragmatic.

Personally, I'd choose justice and the US Constitution over pragmatism any day, even if it did mean hiring a few extra US Federal Prosecutors.

You are right... it si not justice, but some times, more important things need to occur.

Behind my Screen:

it si not justice, but some times, more important things need to occur.

If you don't have justice, what else do you have that's worth anything?

And the disillusion begins. Let’s all keep score on his promises. It is already being reported he simply cannot uphold all of them.

But he has the almighty on his side, can I get an Amen!

If you don't have justice, what else do you have that's worth anything?

Excellent point, upswing, but I am still not convinced that's the right direction.

Ms CYPRAH:

Excellent point, upswing, but I am still not convinced that's the right direction.

Just curious. What's holding you back?

Time will tell,

what promise has he broken in the article above?

For the reasons stated earlier: lots of resources and manpower diverted away from the real issues to the country at this time, leaving Barack to be also 'prosecuted' when he leaves office for all kinds of spurious reasons. Time to break the negative trend and just concentrate on positive things. It is not ideal but a lot of people losing their homes or their jobs, for example, would not care a hoot about Bush and Cheny just now.

Enforcement of the law IS a real issue to some of us. but I guess the law does not matter to others who don't think it's worth the effort. How in the hell did we as Americans reach the point where we think our president is above the law or that it's not worth the effort to enforce the same laws on everyone?

upswing Absolutely. Without justice we do not have an America. It is one of the things that make us America and to turn our back on it is disgusting to anyone who cares about what this country is supposed to stand for! this is not about revenge or democrats or republicans or even about Bush and Cheney, it's about the principle of what we as a nation are! I for one do not want to see us piss that away because it's nor "worth the effort" to take a stand on it.

R. Donald Snyder:

this is not about revenge or democrats or republicans or even about Bush and Cheney, it's about the principle of what we as a nation are! I for one do not want to see us piss that away because it's nor "worth the effort" to take a stand on it.

AMEN!

We're a magnificent free society, not a sordid little Tin Pot dictatorship.

ms cyprah, you're a brit.....maybe you don't take it personal, like a lot of us do...Some of us have been worrying for a long time that the repubs were going to so totally screw up our country that they couldn't wiggle or slither out of it....This is our time...I'm a progressive, and, It'd do you some good to read 'The Conscience of a Liberal', by Paul Krugman, where he spells out what the dynamic is here, between the pubs and 'all others'...it's about feeling like we need to lead a bloodless coups, routing the republican party, for their lock-step dismantling of our union...  I personally feel that ANY compromise with them is a lost battle between the haves and have-nots... They've thrown the bricks all along the path to our recovery...You're just not one of us, who takes to heart, what has been done to US....you should inform us of what YOUR government will do, to support international law/Geneva convention type rhetoric, backed up with some moral courage, to stand beside us as we try to purge our government of incompetents and pigs...

....you should inform us of what YOUR government will do, to support international law/Geneva convention type rhetoric

Lovetrust, sadly nothing. Bush was Blair's friend so they will behave exactly like politicians: stand behind him and put everything to rest. Yet the decision to support America to go to war in Iraq bitterly divided our country. They will all be supporting each other mainly because if one is impeached internationally, Brits will also be calling for Blair to be impeached too. So, frankly, I don't see anything at all being done, either in America or Europe, no matter how much Americans might think it was deserved. it would open up too many cans of worms as they all support each other. Just being realistic, and NOT because I am a Brit either.

I feel sorry for the labor party....Tony Blair, in the house of commons was fun to watch on C-Span occasionally....he kept your 'conservatives' hopping mad...exposing all their empty rhetoric....Bush screwed things up for him..and the labor party...I think...because he went along with Bush on Iraq...England got better under Blair...just what I think...

Bush screwed things up for him..and the labor party...I think...because he went along with Bush on Iraq...England got better under Blair...just what I think...

You're right. Blair was doing really well with us, one of the most popular prime ministers, until he went along with the war and everyone went off him. Hence why it was like a damp squib when he retired. :o(

MS CYPRAH:

You're right. Blair was doing really well with us, one of the most popular prime ministers, until he went along with the war and everyone went off him.

Don't you think Blair was only selected to be PM due to his membership in Rockefeller's elite groups -- Bildeberg etc?

As far as I can tell, Blair's only agenda was to serve the globalist, NWO agenda.  The rest was just killing time.

So that, when it came time for Blair to answer Rockefeller's call, and get the UK into the Neocons' war on Iraq/terrorism etc, he did.

It's that, I believe, that made Blair unpopular.  But I don't think Blair cares about that unpopularity at all.  His allegiance is the the New World Order lunatics, not the British people...

Don't you think Blair was only selected to be PM due to his membership in Rockefeller's elite groups 

No, Upswing, it doesn't work like that in the UK. The average Briton is very parochial. They don't care what is going on abroad when they vote. Blair was the protege of the party leader, John Smith, who died suddenly. Everyone knew he was a kind of second in command because he was close to Smith and was getting a lot of speaking engagements. That's a sign of popularity. They couldn't count on Neil Kinnock to be the new leader as he was considered old hat so they 'skippped a generation', as we call it, and went for Blair. 

It's the Members of Parliament here who have to vote for a leader and they chose Blair because he was viewed as the rising star at the time. Blair supported Bush because we have always been allies of America and did not want to lose the 'special' friendship we're supposed to have.  it would have been unthinkable not to support him, though the public clearly wanted otherwise. :o)

Yes, Blair, was rather ambitious and was looking to his future, and building up his networks, but we would NOT have gone into war if the MPs had voted against it, and Parliament had the last word. In fact, the vote was going against until the last month when he made a very stirring speech and some people were won over. But it was definitely going to be a NO vote all along because the public were not convinced and MPs dared not vote against the people they represented.

Bush, Cheney,Rove and Rumsfeld in the meantime should definitely be charged in the Hague.

I think you could have a point there, but convicting them could be the slippery key! :o(

raja, these people will be in the private world soon. i wouldnt appreciate that said about me, but that is my own personal feeling. let the justice system or whomever, deal with whatever issues there are. its party politics to criticize and that criticism comes from the democrats perspective. as an independent, im more concerned that many democrats agreed with the dismantling of the disgusting dictatorship of saddam hussein, you must also agree that iraq is somewhat better than the past, and that iraq and more importantly its minorities, have a faired chance of living in peace and harmony. it would never have happenned with hussein, and nothing would have changed as a result of the impotent united nations. so with some good, there is some bad. only history will really sad how things panned out, maybe everything done winds up for the good... or maybe not so good... god bless america.

Bush, Cheney,Rove and Rumsfeld in the meantime should definitely be charged in the Hague

Questions.  Does the world have the stomach to bring the leadership of the United States to task in the Hague?  If we won't enforce the laws of our country that were violated because of the ramifications that it may bring, what makes us believe that the International community will?

However, if we do what is right and just by our laws, we shall reset the example in the world and regain our place as the shining city on the hill that all other nations may aspire to.

I do remember them and they were scapegoats for the real criminals who we're discussing right now.  If people want to think those soldiers were doing what they were doing in Abu Ghraib without approval from on high, they would be very sadly mistaken. 

The UN will not act without the US giving a nod to them in some way I don't think Joules.

JaRagga:

The UN will not act without the US giving a nod to them in some way I don't think Joules.

The UN will do whatever David Rockefeller tells them to do.  And that assuredly will not be to initiate a serious investigation into a group of his own globalist lackeys...

Obama has to leave office someday, and we don't need the next President to get even with Obama because Obama got even with Bush and his entourage.

That is what is likely to to happen to every president down the line, never endingly: each political side seeing 'just' reason why a president should be charged for something. Very depressing.

I am really starting to love your comments Ms. Cyprah!

Obama needs to move this country foward. Charging Bush and Co. is not going to solve much of the problems and that turns the issues off and just creates another media circus. I think this was Clinton's problem as president. He had some excellent ideas and, compared to Bush, was a fantastic president. However, just like hes showed in the primary, he is out for revenge and partisan politics. He is quite good at it, but thats not what we need now!

this country will have the shadow of torture, spying and illegal imprisonment (nevermind war profiteering) hanging over it until it is resolved, either by history or the simple lawful courage of a real leader. hiding things like this isnt viewed well by history. and this isnt about political revenge. this is about whether or not we value the constitution. if we do, how can we allow the worst violations to go unpunished? - forget the punishment part - it is about establishing for the nation and the world that our constitution means something to us. if we let this go, we are saying that the constitution is nothing more than bush's goddamned piece of paper.

this country will have the shadow of torture, spying and illegal imprisonment (nevermind war profiteering) hanging over it until it is resolved, either by history or the simple lawful courage of a real leader. hiding things like this isnt viewed well by history. and this isnt about political revenge. this is about whether or not we value the constitution. if we do, how can we allow the worst violations to go unpunished? - forget the punishment part - it is about establishing for the nation and the world that our constitution means something to us. if we let this go, we are saying that the constitution is nothing more than bush's goddamned piece of paper

What else really needs to be said?

Bravo and well said firsty! It's about do we or do we not believe in what our nation stands for all of the time, not just when it's convenient or easy for us to do it.

jopocop,

what illegal activities did Clinton commit?

i find it sad that the idea of american justice has been twisted to imply some kind of irrational vengeance. i think it has something to do with our vicious support of the death penalty and our horrible prisons, not to mention the fact that our legal system has become little more than an extension of our political business interests. but there is a place for peaceful and reasoned justice - and there is a time when it is necessary regardless of the bitter complaints it will cause.

Or we could just actually catch and prosecute him. You know, like Bush hasn't been able to? Instead of intentionally letting him go at Tora Bora and then holding him up as a boogieman to frighten small children and republicans with so they'd blindly support a trumped up phony war in Iraq?

Oh,oh. Another candidate for SecState.

You left out "blew up the towers."

Actually, will you please say something sensible just so I get the impression Obama voters had some logical process in their thinking? I need the reassurance right now. All this brown shirt talk about arresting everyone has me nervous.

Will it still be ok to say the president sucks after January?

Actually, will you please say something sensible just so I get the impression Obama voters had some logical process in their thinking?'

Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Sensible enough for you Judge?

I have more if you would like to see them, would you?

JaRagga, are you speaking of out Bill of Rights that aren't RIGHTS anymore?

They are to me.

You left out "blew up the towers."

Bush and Cheney weren't intelligent enough or creative enough to have come up with the idea of bombing the WTC, but they were sure happy enough to take advantage of it when it happened to twist it into an excuse to invade a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11.

Well, if I thought I could prevent a few hundred deaths, or possibly thousands,  yes, I would make the holder of that information uncomfortable. It is ...or has been, up to the president. That has changed. But it was up to the president. So there is no basis for trials.

I don't of anyone who died as a result. Even the worst slime..Khalid, who planned the attacks,  is awaiting trial  And he has no scars, and no ill effects. Which is too bad.   He was waterboarded.  I've been to the dentist, without anesthesia. That sucked too.  Kidney stone? That would make you talk.  Or have a baby. I hear that's pretty rough.

So eff Khalid. Really. No sympathy here.  That's actually one of the things I disagreed with McCain about.  He thinks that our own people are protected if we don't waterboard a man who killed thousands, and might have known about future plans.  

He is nuts. Obama is naive and he really should shut up until he gets a clue about the responisbilities of the president.  Those responsibilities are different than a senator's.. And you don't really  get that until you've been on the job.

These comments, and these positions, assume you aren't in favor of terrorism in the first place. But if you are, push for that statue and the tomb. It should help you get over it.

R Donald..

There must be a Hussein statue still intact in Iraq somewhere too. This tomb of the uknown terrorist is turning into a mall.  Bin Ladin as you walk in.  Gardens around the unknown terrorist tomb.  Hussein as you leave.  Maybe a museum nearby, where you could see depictions of buses and planes blowing up.  A mass grave. Someone having their head cut off.

Something for the whole family.

Well, if I thought I could prevent a few hundred deaths, or possibly thousands,  yes, I would make the holder of that information uncomfortable. It is ...or has been, up to the president. That has changed. But it was up to the president. So there is no basis for trials.

Funny thing, the President doesn't get to decide what laws he will and won't follow.  Bush violated both US and international law in authorizing torture.  There is basis for investigations, we are a bit early yet for trials, both in the US and the Hague.  Don't believe me though, I'm fine with that.

I don't of anyone who died as a result. Even the worst slime..Khalid, who planned the attacks,  is awaiting trial  And he has no scars, and no ill effects. 

Nah, this guy didn't have any ill effects from torture.   Nor did we violate the Geneva conventions by taking those pictures shown in the article.  /sarcasm off

Come to think of it Bush also violated his oath to office where he swore to uphold the Constitution, not just the bits he liked.

I'm really really sorry folks, I should put a warning about that link, some people will be disturbed by the images contained at the link I put in #15.10.

My most sincere apologies.

We know about Abu Ghraib, since it was on the front page for a year. Graner got ten years for his part in the photographs, and other activities involving humiliation of prisoners.  England...I don't know what she got. Does that work for you?  The photo, of the same person, is consistant with the written account...struck with the butt of a gun. Then not taken care of properly, obviously.

Abu Ghraib was wrung out for all the political mileage already. It was primarily the result of a lousy reserve commander at the site, not up to the task, and poorly disciplined soldiers.

You know Judge, you attempt to change your position I believe.  Up at #15.8 you said the following:

I don't of anyone who died as a result. Even the worst slime..Khalid, who planned the attacks,  is awaiting trial  And he has no scars, and no ill effects. 

Now you want to claim, bah we know all about that.  That's old news well, old news or not it proves your previous statement incorrect does it not? 

Regardless of Graner getting 10 years for what he did, it doesn't excuse the orders and instructions from the administration that permitted the behavior in the first place and was a crime.  Yeah, you go right ahead and blame the little guy, the scapegoat, and play like no one in the administration knew that sh!t was happening. 

They knew and it stunk all the way from the prison to the White House.  Go ahead and delude yourself and say bah that piece of sh!t Muslim got what he deserved.  He was a human being and as a prisoner of war, and as such should have been treated according to the Geneva Conventions, he was not.  I can dig up some nearly 100 other deaths of prisoners who died in our custody and you'll do your best to shoot them all down with this same wrong headed logic of yours but I'll not waste my time. 

No change of position. The article is about trials or charges that some would like to take place. You gave an example of something that was already investigated, and people sentenced, and it really had nothing to do with any secret installations, or prisoners at Gitmo. No one died as a result of waterboarding.

The dots have to be connected by more than speculation. I have almost, but not quite, gotten used to wild speculation assumed to be fact, such as the one that claims that Bush ordered that behavior at Abu Ghraib. At some point, you have to be able to tell the difference between what you want to believe, and facts.

You, being certain becaue you THINK you are certain, is where the delusion lies. But you simply have to demonstrate the link. Just because you saw two hundred Hollywood movies where the government or some corporation was taking over the world, leading you to see this as yet more proof...is YOUR problem, and YOUR susceptibility to nonsense, not mine.

On the other hand, it IS a war, and bad stuff happens. I am MUCH more concerned about the people murdering masses of people on purpose, for movements that don't concern themselves about fair treatement of the people they murder, then I am about US soldiers who are generally well disciplined and well led, and who have consequences in the system for when they diverge, even to the point where there are too many accused for wrongdoing in very difficult situations.  But I tend to be biased for my fellow Americans, of course.

While showing very little patience or respect for those who are not.

hahaha, it was investigated by those that committed the real crime of authorizing the torture.  Nah, they didn't have anything to hide.  The truth of Abu Ghraib, which was known by the administration, didn't come out until after word about the pictures was leaked and someone blew the whistle.  That "investigation", if you want to call it that, is akin to letting the bank robber investigate his own crime, or the murderer, I'm sure a just and complete trial will be had right?  Whatever Judge. 

Judge: Your reference is actually opposite of reality.

"All this brown shirt talk about arresting everyone has me nervous."

Brown Shirts actually were responsible with turning in people who DID not succumb to the rule of HITLER and the NAZI regime....example..turning in people that spoke out loud against racism, unlawful arrests of citizens, or just because of their religious affiliations or political beliefs, or heritage....they would be reported by the BROWN SHIRTS, and then investigations and arrest, torture, illegal trials would follow.

Also known as LACK of Habeas Corpus....

Welcome to the USA under George W. Bush.

When the citizens gather together and demand that the NAZI type of behavior stop, they turn over the goverment and clean it up...unlike Germany....America stood up and is fighting back....so we DON'T let history be repeated.

JaRagga

The activities at Abu Ghraib were ordered by Obama. But we will never learn the truth because he and the Dems own the next government.

That's fun. Don't have to know anything. Just say it.

Its a thought...

Think deeper.  The Brown Shirt mentality is evident. It starts with ignorance, requires no proof, and demands mob justice, where the victors justified their actions with whatever happened be bouncing between cranium walls at the time.  Rather than make a reference to Habeus Corpus, it is closer to a less thoughtful Anglo Saxon tradition...rape and pillage.

Funny judge, I'm the one who used facts (#15.10).  What do you have?  Oh, and Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales have been indicted in Texas for events dealing with prisoner abuse in Texas, still laughing there Judge?  Here's some links of the story if you don't believe me yet again.  Guess there's more than one way to skin a cat, eh?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/18/171157/23/24/663070

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h9PvQtj8plxTnRZS7hHmJap_Rt2AD94HOCQ00&ei=SI4jSbW3H8iQmQftiOVc&usg=AFQjCNHLck0dZ0iXdeA2UksRgU8ML6mucA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=7&q=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/cheney-gonale-indicted/&ei=SI4jSbW3H8iQmQftiOVc&usg=AFQjCNHY_PTWVVofveImgN3ZcUjBYWwg7g

No, I never laugh at these symptoms. They are sad, and the consequence of the symptoms,  where disjointed conspiracy theories are brought into one unified conspiracy theory are too obvious in elections.

The real proof is in a chest at the bottom of Loch Ness, guarded by you-know-what.  That's why the governent doesn't want you to believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

Yawn.

We do know that over 100 detainees have died in detention.

I am all for moving forward like Obama says but we as a nation cannot move forward until this issue is addressed.  Leaving something like this does nothing to promote justice, it allows our crimes to fester and boil till our liberty is overridden with cancer.

After some thought on the matter, I have to agree with you Wes.  All one has to do is look what Ford's pardon of Nixon brought us. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld come to mind.  Just like cancer: given time to establish roots, the disease advances from dangerous to devastating.  

After some thought on the matter, I have to agree with you Wes.  All one has to do is look what Ford's pardon of Nixon brought us. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld come to mind.  Just like cancer: given time to establish roots, the disease advances from dangerous to devastating.

You know until you posted that it never crossed my mind.  Just another reason need to do what's right and clear the gunk from the system.

Of course, if he tries and fails to convict, he's finished.  And there's that nasty bit about ALL of the documented evidence being destroyed...  Anyone remember the mysterious fire that broke out in Dick Cheney's office adjacent to the White House?  These guys are wayyyyy too smart to ever get convicted of even petty crimes, much less WAR crimes.

I gotta tell you, if Obama staked his presidency on restoring the republic and exposing this mess for what it is, he would be the greatest president since Geo. Washington and my lifelong hero.

This fire? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/19/cheney-office-fire_n_77484.html

Yeah, funny huh?

Hmm, I dropped one of my links.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/20/nation/na-fire20

Only moot here in the US, the international community could come after them still.  And it's what Bush should do if he really cares about the mess he's made of our country.  As everyone would see the pardons as an admission of guilt and allow us to all move forward without the stain of torture. 

no. the reason bush wasnt impeached was because the congress was republican and then weakly democrat and overall weak. and because the administration created an atmosphere of fear and hatred which branded all dissent inherently un-american. it even actively spied on those who dissented, and used the no-fly list to harrass people who spoke out in public. i could go on, but those reasons suffice.

Please, firsty, no need to go on.  In only three minutes you've read my post, thought about it, and composed a reply.  You've made my point quite nicely, thank you. 

I am to understand that all those who fueled the hate-bush fire were putting their lives at risk, Nancy Pelosi included?  Wow, I didn't realize how narrowly the multi-millions who constituted the high disapproval rating of Bush had escaped the dire consequences of their dissent

The evidence would have impeached Nixon if he hadn't resigned in the face of it.

The evidence was enough to impeach Clinton in the House.

If Bush is such a terrible criminal, why didn't the evidence support his impeachment? Aren't his alleged crimes so much worse than Nixon's and Clinton's?

I am to understand that all those who fueled the hate-bush fire were putting their lives at risk, Nancy Pelosi included?

nancy pelosi announced right after the 2004 election that impeachment was off the table. what are you talking about?

If Bush is such a terrible criminal, why didn't the evidence support his impeachment? Aren't his alleged crimes so much worse than Nixon's and Clinton's?

i am working on the assumption that impeachment has become largely a political exercise. that is precisely why this issue should be investigated in the court system.

if you feel the idea of impeaching bush et al during the administration was devoid of political rhetoric, then i can see where you're coming from. i simply disagree. i'm sure you can understand why someone might think that our congress has been less than effective. if a precedent about torture might have been dangerously set, surely it was almost just as bad, if not worse in the long run, to have set the precedents about executive power, which congress allowed, and which i'm sure will be points of contention by the republicans come obama time. both should be rectified before it gets even worse.

JuGA

As it got closer to the election, Dems wanted no part of letting their nut-wing put on display. They were trying to portray themselves as thoughtful and reasonable people. There are certain people who are shoved into the back row. You don't even see much of the relatively sane nuts around...Schumer, Leahy, until after the election.

An impeachment circus would say more about Democrats, and reveal more about them,  and still be lacking in any proof.  The leadership, in the end, knew when to shut up.

This is what Obama has to deal with now. Keeping his own whack-jobs in the cage. That's the problem when you run on hope and change, without specifics. It is intended that you make everyone think you are exactly what he hopes for. But after, fifty million different visions have to be reconciled...gently.

: )

Actually, if they had impeached Bush, the seriousness of the crimes would have resulted in his resignation.

Then what? PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY? hell no, I'm so glad they didn't push for that.

<----Shivers at Cheney being President.

Actually, if they had impeached Bush, the seriousness of the crimes would have resulted in his resignation.

Then what? PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY? hell no, I'm so glad they didn't push for that.

ok, but lets talk about reality, not just the simplest interpretation. some say we're afraid to impeach because "of what might happen," implying that something would happen - of course something would happen. one point here is that we cant avoid taking responsibility for ourselves based on the fear of the outcome. i'd rather deal with the ramifications of dispensing justice than deal with the ramifications of not dispensing justice.

next, most people who are familiar with the bush administration can easily see that cheney is at least as culpible as bush, and if bush were impeached, cheney would follow. in fact, there was an "impeach cheney" movement that arose for just this reason.

finally, does anyone really doubt that many of bush's most deliberately criminal acts (as opposed to his idiot criminal acts, like putting michael brown in charge of FEMA) was masterminded by cheney? cheney was a key neocon remnant from the nixon days whose primary goal was to establish an all-powerful executive branch. much of bush's wrongdoing related to his abuse of power. cheney orchestrated all of that.

if we're going to be frightened of doing the right thing, at least make it a rational fear.

There's a reason you guys are writing here, and not being called upon to put your sleuthing skills into practice by any reputable agencies.

And, there's a difference between what sounds logical among a  group of people working on the tenth round in a bar, and the standards of proof..let alone standards of logic, required in a court.  Or even in the much lesser standards required in a congressional committee, where political motives ARE the standards of justice for Democrats. They still don't purposely try to look foolish.

That difference= no impeachment.

Judge:

And, there's a difference between what sounds logical among a  group of people working on the tenth round in a bar,

Funny.  I thought this was how most of our laws are put together. (Old Saying: Two things you never want to see being made:  sausages and laws...) :-)

Also, would you offer the same argument if the people in the bar were calling to not impeach Bush/Cheney?

Is it the fact of who the bar-dwellers are that determines their ability to be right about the character of another human being?

Or is it the fact of who they are not?

so now the reason is because there is no legal argument or evidence that bush might have broken some laws?

and, by the way, i dont drink.

Also, would you offer the same argument if the people in the bar were calling to not impeach Bush/Cheney?

lets make a distinction. while our language conveys a judgment - that the president should be impeached, the guts of this story, and our point, is that the president should be investigated. nobody is saying that we should ignore the rule of law. in fact, thats one really big reason for us wanting an investigation. if the evidence shows no wrongdoing, then we'll have the good fortune of being able to look these last few years in the eye and know that things were done the best way they could be done. nobody wants to invent a guilty american president - no one here anyway - we want to address the overwhelming apparent evidence that some crimes may have been committed - the public suspicion in the face of real news already reported is valid, and it is in part (only in part) this perception that demands an investigation - a nation's ideals are only as good as people know those ideals to be. not how good the nation wants them to be.

so, to answer the question you tried to ask, i would be offering the same argument if other people were insisting that we dont find him guilty- these both presume that there is a thorough and public walk through the legal system, which has been set up for precisely these kinds of situations.

Firsty:

My comment was directed at Judge, not you...

Interesting response, though..

"I don't drink."

Maybe you should. But I think that was more of a LIKE the people at a bar on their tenth round,  where rationality left the building long ago.

Would I think the same way if...

Well, I think the people I talk to tend to be more rational.  Really. I never have poltical discussions with drunks or crazy people, except for on Newsvine. : )

See, I believe in the possibility of every theory, but I require some proof, otherwise I am lost, chasing every possibility without any limits of IMprobablilty entering my mind.  I understand, for example, that Bush and Cheney PROBABLY could not have had the time to personally surpervise every nut-job conspiracy that is attributed to him. There are millions of people in the service. Coming and going, even if not at the same time. I was one. My son. My father. Now, my grandson. Neighbors. Nephews.

Good people, actually, but some take every crime, assume it true, AND assume it typical of our own people. Remember the plane that blew up out of New York a few years ago, over the Sound? People saw flame traces going up, and then it was found that a US ship was operating in the area.

It requires that a few hundred people on a ship, people who come from your family, mine, would do this, and then remain quiet about it. But some are convinced.

The 911...government conspiracy. At one point, forty percent, it was said, were convinced. 

Doesn't that worry you? How people are unable to apply logic and reason and fairness to an issue?  Then..they vote for president?

Is it possible that, after 911, where you have to understand that a quicker collapse could have tripled the casualties, fifty thousand people work in those buildings, that there MIGHT have been a fear, a justifiable fear, that other plans were in the works? So some of the worst get the equivilant of a bad day at the dentist, and now...we must restore our standing as a good, democratic nations.  I barf.

Isn't it possible that Bush thought Iraq had WMDs? It SHOULD be very possible, in any rational mind, IF that mind was willing to consider the people who made the claim previously, President Clinton, Al Gore, to begin with, and making it in the run for the presidency in 2000. One assumes, as president and VP, they knew.

But here we are, on an law and justice thread, and the same chit is noted. BUSH LIED. Therefore, the next lie, presumed because of the first, and the third presumed because of the second, etc, all brought forth as claims of proof..where there is none.

So, no, I would not take part in a discussion with the irrational haters, in real life. I would nod, uh huh, and move.

I have, and would, offer LOTS of things wrong with Bush, and do it more rationally than his detractors.  NOT among them, really, the lousy running of the war in Iraq, which can be found actually to be no less bumbling than any other war. But, as it is a war that requires soldiers to present themselves as targets, while protecting more often than attacking, it is a more difficult problem than any we have faced.

But in fact, what is going on in Iraq is the greatest most dramatic attempt at change than has ever been attempted, at no small cost in dollars and lives. And very important, because the policies of the last fifty or sixty years...tweaking uselessly, have resulted in greater and greater risk to the rest of the world.

The trick is in viewing these things away from bars, and away from crazy people, and not getting caught up in nutty theories, and impossible expectations.

Judge:

Thanks for getting back to me.

Have you read the Project for a New American Century? (PNAC)

If you have, would you consider that as acceptable evidence that:

a. Bush and his adminsitration are Neocons

b.  That the Neocons, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and many other in the Bush administrtion were planning to invade and occupy Iraq even prior to 9/11? (Possibly to acheive what you describe as the "greatest, most dramatic attempt at change that has ever been attempted"?)

Take your time answering these questions (assuming you're going to). I'm off to bed.  But I'll be logging back on tomorrow to see if you responded.)

I dismiss anything with the word "neocon." It is another excuse to stop thinking.

It would be irresponsible if the military did not have invasion plans for Iraq, and probably going back twenty years. I am assuming I don't have to explain Saddam's record in the region, and that he was already more than ten years into sanctions which kept him up late laughing. The Kurds were in permanent refugee status in their own country.  The information about nukes carried over from the Clinton years. So there was nothing "neocon" about the suspicions.

What is odd, is that once invaded, which really should have been no surprise given that so many were fed up with what was called progress in the Mideast prior to 911, and given Saddam's record,   that the subsequent attempt to install something different...seems odd to so many. As if...democracy ...was a odd choice. Granted, and this is where knowledge of Muslims comes in, it is a strange word which requires that you can say it upside down while drinking a glass of water to recognize that it is present.

You can say "Neocon" a thousand times, but it won't cover up the stench of Democrats doing everything they could to derail the process, finding friends in some despicable people, and finally proving that there was no enlightened Liberlal remaining in the liberal claims of that party.

If able to find some of the nuttier theories of Jewish/Republican conspiracies completely logical, it shouldn't be hard to understand why failure in Iraq was so important to the Democrat Party.  There can be no success, and screw the people of Iraq, if success means liberation did not come through Democrat overseers. YOU must see the Repbulicans as evil. YOU must see the Democrats as good, the only ones who hand out freedom to people.

Party, before anything else.

The Kurds were in permanent refugee status in their own country. 

The Kurds have villages, they weren't roaming around like lost sheep.  This is why it was so easy Saddam to strike them when he did following their uprising which we abandoned them in failing to support them.  We failed the Kurds in the north like we did the Shia in the south in 1991.

As if...democracy ...was a odd choice

Who's choice was this form of "democracy", the Iraqis?  Hardly.  We hand picked this form of government, as well as many of those in the government, because it allows us some measure of control in Iraq, make no mistake about that.

If able to find some of the nuttier theories of Jewish/Republican conspiracies completely logical, it shouldn't be hard to understand why failure in Iraq was so important to the Democrat Party.  There can be no success, and screw the people of Iraq, if success means liberation did not come through Democrat overseers. YOU must see the Repbulicans as evil. YOU must see the Democrats as good, the only ones who hand out freedom to people.

That statement is insanity.  Not one Democrat I personally know has ever said they wanted us to lose in Iraq.  Do you have such a quote for proof?  We will wait for you to provide it if you can. 

As far as seeing Democrats as good, some are and some aren't, just like some Republicans are and some aren't.  You are generalizing for effect and to make a point that Republicans (in general) really are the ones on the higher ground here, I laugh in your face because.  .  .  .

Party, before anything else.

Describes you better than it does most others posting on this seed.  And don't try to label me as a Democrat because I'm not, I'm an Independent and proud of those Democrats and Republicans I've voted for including Reagan and GHWB.  And I stand 100% behind the actions President Bush (GHWB) took to eject Iraq from Kuwait but his son was wrong for what he did and we'll pay the price for a long time to come for it.

a large quantity of unrelated false accusations hardly justify the categorical dismissal of the few valid ones. and bear in mind - part of what the bush administration did was intentional obfuscate the truth and their plans. so part of why we dont know everything, and why these accusations are still so muddy, is because that may have been part of the crime.

i'm not trying to settle the case here. i'm saying there should be an investigation. i'm not claiming to know what happened. i'm saying that we all deserve to know what happened.

Are you blind, or did you just arrive? Democrats have consistantly undermined the efforts in Iraq.  From the first, or within a few weeks, claiming that the man they had previous called The Chimp, fooled them.

There is no contesting Clinton and Gores actions (I bombed Saddam's nuclear facilities) and statements.

Saddam had five hundred tons of yellowcake already acquired, and already found by the UN inspectors before they were removed from the country by Clinton. So the whole Plame deal was a charade, and a purpoeful distraction.

The effort was to discredit Bush, make it seem like he made up the WMD stuff, and then call that a lie. Then, make the effort a lie, and wasted.

It demonstrates ignorance of the effect of the rule of thugs and theocrats in the Mideast, which, Obama himself claimed to be the root cause of terrorism...the oppression of Arabs under these dictatorships. This, he said, when he announced famously now that he was agaisnt the war, in 2002, making that his qualification for president.

But when he said it, he included that he believed that Saddam had WMDS, and "probably" a nuclear weapons program, and that in any case, Saddam SHOULD BE REMOVED.

But only if the UN approved.

So your claims have always been BS, lies, and proof of gullibility. Obama's pretense at desiring that a mass murderer be removed, but only when (never) China and Russa agreed, is nothing but cowardiice.

Nevertheless, none of that is excuse to give up now. Or excuse to give our enemies hope in the last few years, that if they could only kill enough Americans, Democrats would take advantage politically, and reward terrorists by leaving.

I could put this into two words, though.

Grow up.

And, no, the US did not abandon the Kurds. They had been driven into the mountains by Hussein, and then protected for years by Bush 1, and then Clinton and the UN,  with US and UN airpower. The Kurds have been, for the most part, the exceptional supporter of the US in Iraq.

Judge:

Thanks for such a thorough response.

To be sure that I understand it (I'm a little confused by your reaction to the use of the word "Neocon." which seems central to your response) --  Are you saying that there are no such things as Neocons?  Or that Neocons do exist, but they're not that bad? Or that Neoconservstisim is irrelevant to the issue at hand? Or is there another take that I'm just not seeing?

As for the US having plans ready to invade Iraq, I'm not so concerned that these plans exist. As you say, there could be legitimate reasons for them to exist.

What concerns me is that the incvasion of Iraq was a contingent part of the Neocons' (sorry, I can't think of any other way to describe them...) plans to preemptively wage war globally to expand the United States' empire.

 i.e. Preemptively planning to attack -- and then attacking -- a nation with no purpose other than to install a particular ideological mandate is not the definition of a good war, or of a war that should be planned for.

The truth, which Neocons happily admit to, is that they want to preemptively invade many countries as a way to install their version of democracy in those countries -- to use US might and killing innocent civillian populations as a political tool.

Party, before anything else.

Are you using "party" here as a noun or a verb..?

 i.e. Preemptively planning to attack -- and then attacking -- a nation with no purpose other than to install a particular ideological mandate is not the definition of a good war, or of a war that should be planned for.

That was covered.  Plenty of reason to get rid of Hussein, and few of those even in opposition to the war disagreed with them. One person had the responsibility of deciding if the threat was justified,  and that was Bush. Among the issues, if he was developing nukes, do you wait until Obama is sure that he has them? Or other Senators, watching their eletion possibilites, and not giving a damn about anything else?

No, not if you are sane.

Neocons...is bull@!$%#. If you think Hussein was a threat, and think waiting until the threat has nuclear capability beyond a doubt, then you don't have anyone who might be involved in going after a nuclear powered Hussein. Or the number of Amrican deaths in that circumstance is worth the warm and fuzzy feeling you get knowing the attack was then justified.  Then you and I are wasting our time. Since nearly all agreed that he had a nuke program, and the later proof to the contrary having nothing to do with a decison made before, and since nearly all wanted Hussein removed, then I am not one who will reverse my thinking and erase what made sense, and call Bush wrong in his decision. Those who did reverse themselves, who backed down from their own decisions, are liars and cowards. Make that nearly every Democrat in Congress.

Given that, then yes, even if you find it shocking, the US would probably opt for a democratic form of governemnt, otherwise not waste lives and money creating something that exists in the rest of the Mideast...thugocracies and theocracies.

Now, all those who agree with that are "Neocons?"  All those who think we should get the mass murderer, as much as you might love him, or as much as your patience with his murders might be infinite, you are such a good person, but some of us disagree, then we are "neocons"?

Neocons is a term that hides antisemitism. You might as well use "Jew," or "Jew lover."

I have no patience with it.  I give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is most often used to disguise the feelings of people who want Israil destroyed.  It makes a nice, almost acceptable way of disguising that. 

Judge:

Thanks for getting back to me and for taking the time to address my points individually.

However, it's a little difficult for me to follow your responses without you including block quotes of my comments that you're responding to.

If you're not clear about how to use the block quotes function, then I'd be happy to respond with info on how I do that.

As for the parts of your response that I'm clear about:

Plenty of reason to get rid of Hussein

Bush said he attacked Iraq because Hussein was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. That's how he got permission form the US Congress to begin the attack. 

Bush now admits that he knew all along that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. (He has stated that he "never" said Iraq was connected with 9/11.)

That would seem to take away the legal justification to attack Iraq, wouldn't it?

If you think Hussein was a threat, and think waiting until the threat has nuclear capability beyond a doubt,

 You can't invade another country on a hunch. A hunch isn't an acceptable reason for me to send your son or daughter to die, and to kill others.

If we allowed hunches to be acceptable causes of war, then we could assume that any nation that possesses a nuclear weapon is a threat to the US, and we'd be justified in attackng any of them.

In fact, that's exactly what Neocon policy entails, that's what a preemtive national security policy is -- shoot first and ask questions later. It's not just me saying this. The Neocons say this themselves.

It's an immoral and evil policy of unprovoked invasion and bloody conquest that no humane person could sign on to.

The bottom line per Hussein is that Bush had absolutely no credible intelligence saying that Hussein, who Bush knew had nothing to do with 9/11, planned a nuclear attack on the US.

Also, if getting rid of Hussein was the point, why go to war? There were much cleaner and easier ways to get rid of Hussein than a war.

Clearly what Bush really wanted was the war and the occupation, not simply the "removal of Saddam Hussein."

the warm and fuzzy feeling you get knowing the attack was then justified.

It's not a warm fuzzy feeling that's at issue here. It's international law, plus the immorality of killing thousands of inncoent people on a hunch that they might (or might not) need to be killed -- just in case.

I am not one who will reverse my thinking

 I understand this.  I'm not asking you to.

something that exists in the rest of the Mideast...thugocracies and theocracies.

I'm not clear how the internal domestic policies of other soveriegn nations is any of the United States' business.

Why do you assume that the US has the responsibility to preemptively use military force to correct the wrongs of other governments in their treatement of their own citizens?

Now, all those who agree with that are "Neocons?" 

 Not sure why you're saying this. My point is that the Neocons wrote PNAC, not that everyone who agrees with PNAC is a Neocon. 

For instance, there are plenty of Democrats who are vehemently against gun control in the US. 

This position is generally a Republican position. 

So, do the Democrats who agree with it automatically become Republicans?

Of course a person can agree with and disagree with all kinds of policies without having to label themselves one thing or another.

Neocons is a term that hides antisemitism. You might as well use "Jew," or "Jew lover."

I have no patience with it.  I give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is most often used to disguise the feelings of people who want Israil destroyed.  It makes a nice, almost acceptable way of disguising that. 

Sorry. I'm not clear why you raise the issue of anti-semitism. If you could explain this a little further, I'll be able to address the issue.

Personally, I think of the Neocons as being Fascists/Nazis.

Indeed, George Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was punished by the US government for funding and supporting Hitler and the Nazis before and during WWII. 

Bush's grandfather was also involved in a failed (to that point) fascist plot to overthrow the government of the United States.

Generally, I sense that you're very comfortable with the Neocons' policy of aggressive and preemptive invasion and occupation of sovereign nations, with the intent to establish total world economic and military dominance.

I'm obviously not comfortable with that policy, since it involves wilfully murdering millions of innocent people to acheive a totalitarian political and ideological end.

Again, let me know if you need info per using block quotes, so that it will make it possible for me to respond to any further correspondence that you'd like a response to.

UPswing,

I"ll try to keep them shorter.

Bush never blamed 911 on Iraq.

The governments of the Mideast,  and Islam,  are the source and cause of terrorism. That makes it our business. Endless diplomatic forays over fifty years failed. 911 is related, in Iraq, only in that US patience with dictators and Islam as justification for terrorism is over. The consequences of idiot diplomats awarding each other Nobels for accomplishing nothing was obvious. Each US president, and each new US Secstate, CERTAIN that he has the unique skills to make Muslims behave like they are part of the human species, and each proven a fool. Sometimes a fool with a Nobel prize.

Hence, surprisingly only to you, and others like you, teople doing the killing of civilians in Iraq are other Muslims. Muslims looking for revenge toward other sects, who dominated them and killed them, or from a sect who preferred being a dominant minority. Or, by Al Qeida. Or, by nuts from various Muslim countries who were also taught the "peace" of Islam,  who prefer Al Qeida,  or Sunnis, or Shiites being killed, vs one of the other being killed. Governments in the area help in the killing of Iraqi civilians. . Syria, because a democratic Iraq is a bad example for them. Saudi Arabia, because Iraq is an outlet for their particular brand of hatred, taught, and released in Iraq.  Iran, because they want a Greater Shiite State, if not a Shiite government, undemocratic, and owing its power to Iran.  Turkey sits up there almost neutral,  self absorbed with a moral vein evident, not caring who is killed,  or who does it, as long as their own Kurds are not using Northern Iraq to hide in.

It is, and has been, a cesspool of hate. Now, each government was happy to preach hatred for Jews, and allow their repressed minions to vent toward Israel, and to form terrorists groups in other countries, as long as there was some cutout of direct responsiibility that could be tied to any country. The commonality of hatred..Jews.  How DARE a country exist that is not Islamic, among Muslims?

The answer to that is...enough. You know, It was my thought that a few nukes sprinkled carefully across the Mideast would have been a better answer to the cesspool of Islam and Mideast governments. But, given it a bit more thought, a last chance might have been in order.

Now you can think...how terrible, but you should understand that that is exactly what is going on in Iraq.  A last chance.  And if you really care, and this isn't all nothing but a chance for you to work in every nutty conspiriacy to promote whatever it is you want to promote, you had better hope that it works.  The next response to an increasing export of Islamic inspired hatred will NOT be met with US troops trapsing around as targets, with the naive view that Moslmes, given the opportunity, will live in peace and except the rights of other sects and other religions.  And there will be no attempt to wake up the UN, or to depend on the good will of China, or France, or Russia, for permission to respond.

These countries HAVE to come into a century within a thousand years of where Western Democracies are.  If they don't, they will be destroyed. No permission asked. No fretting about what France thinks. If there is anything like what happened in the past, to the US, THEN it will be too late for you to wake up and realize what was at stake.

All this BS about neocons, Bush lied, Prescott Bush, the poor oppressed people who are so lovely, as they kill each other and us over the psychotic visions of Muhammed...won't mean a thing. 

Get a clue.

Judge wrote;

The governments of the Mideast,  and Islam,  are the source and cause of terrorism. That makes it our business. Endless diplomatic forays over fifty years failed. 911 is related, in Iraq, only in that US patience with dictators and Islam as justification for terrorism is over. The consequences of idiot diplomats awarding each other Nobels for accomplishing nothing was obvious. Each US president, and each new US Secstate, CERTAIN that he has the unique skills to make Muslims behave like they are part of the human species, and each proven a fool.

I've been reading this dialogue for a while and keeping silent. The above paragraph, I feel, needs to be addressed by more than one person.

The cause of terrorism on U.S. soil and foreign installations does not belong solely to Middle Eastern governments and certainly not to Islam. The U.S. has stuck its nose and its military and its influence in places it had no place being. We have deposed leaders around the world to insert our own form of government and hand-picked individuals to lead countries around the world to our own benefit. Bush repeatedly has said that bin Laden and his ilk hate us because we have "freedom." That is a bald-faced lie. There are many underlying reasons for the dissension among Islamic peoples and radicals, just as we have our own extremist Christians right here at home who would seek to crush Islam into the ground. 

I strongly encourage you to open your mind and be ready to accept truth rather than propaganda, and then read Why They Attacked Us. There is more truth in this one, single document than you have ever received from your government (which should come as no surprise). This is not a simple task, nor is it one that will make you feel warm and fuzzy about your government, which is separate from your country. I feel compelled to add that last clause because too many Americans think that when you call out the American government on its crimes and bad behavior, you're not patriot. That is simply a lie. However, if you want to know why 9/11 happened, I hope you will take the time to absorb this information with a spirit of honesty.

Further, please do not categorize all Muslims as killing machines. This only feeds the miasma of hatred of people of the Islamic faith. Muslims as a group are not deserving of this prejudice. If you do some research on Islam, you'll see that it is an off-shoot of the very basis of Christianity—Abraham and a monotheistic faith—and that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving people who do not desire the destruction of the United States or Israel.

Actually, the most obvious fact about terrorism, and the problems in the Mideast, is the commonality of Islam. Bin Ladin is not some freak who cannot read. He LIVES Islam according to the example of the Last Prophet, and the Last Word, In Islam...Muhammed. It is no accident that Moslem leaders paid him, and considered those payments their duty as Moslems.

There are no governments in the West, and no people of sanity who wish there were more Muslims in their country. But no one kills Muslims more than other Muslims, so they can't stand each other, either, espcially if there is some difference in the sacred voodoo that no one but another Muslim cares about.

I wish they could form a government that didn't need an army to keep them from killing each other. Given the opportunity, they resist the "interference" that would otherwise lead them to being treated like dirt by another Saddam, or another Assad, or a king or a prince that keeps all the money in their families, or the rule of mullahs in the holy State of Iran. Where they hang young girls from lamposts for adultery.

Now I actually offer them a chance to rule themselves, through my support for Bush.

You like them better as pets of a dictator, hiding your "enlightenment" under the fifteen hundred year example of their not yet having the word "democracy" in their vocabulary...Islam finding the most basics of human rights impossible to reconcile with itself, yet you feel that the will no doubt figure it out by themselves, and another thousand years is ok with you.

Now without their needing to share the wonders of Allah with every other country infected with Islam, I wouldn't care if they ever crawled out from under the rock that crushes them...Islam. But since they do want to share their view of goodness with us, by blowing up bulidings and murdering passengers on planes, boats, trains, buses, market places, then time is running out for them to get it on their own.

My answer to why they attack us is to kill them. Any mullah, and any goverment that promotes violence in their children, and makes that filthy book the standard for right and wrong, in children.  In two or three hundred years, history can come up with some self hating liberal theory as to why we were wrong, and we can apologize.

I laugh at the nonsense here. Obama and the Dems play back what the left wants to hear, but when they sit down to talk about their own policy, they won't embarrass each other with talk about Prescott Bush, or neocons, or any of the stuff that makes idiots vote for them.  It will most likely be along the lines of putting Iraqis back under the thumbs of anyone who will kill them if they utter a peep of protest about their new government. Which they, and you, will call an accomplishment.

Then they will resume the diplomat dance, and pass out some more Nobel prizes for brilliance.

Judge:

Thanks again for taking the time to get back to me.

Reading your response makes me feel as though someone snuck into my house and turned Fox News up really, really loud.

What you say -- or maybe the way you express it -- doesn't seem to correspond to some of the sentiments you express.

For instance, you talk about saving countries (with enforced democracy) in the Middle East at the same time that you use phrases such as:

to make Muslims behave like they are part of the human species, 

the cesspool of Islam

This is as anti-semitic as it comes.

Why save a cesspool?

Also, let's say that these countries you mention do become "democratic."  Would that suddenly make the people who live in them, who you say are not now part of the human race, humans beings? Or would they have to be Republicans, first?

And I would have thought that someone is affronted as you say you are by the "hate" and killing that you say is part of Islam would know better than to express that dismay in words that are filled with hatered and killing.

You throw out charges of wild conspiracy theories, which have not been expressed, yet you offer nothing at all to specifically confront any of the evidene that you have been provided that supports what you claim to be those kooky conspiracy theories.

Specifically, why, aprt from your say so, is PNAC not relevent? And why is bringing it up, along with other statements that the Neocons have made, and are proud of having made, a conspiracy theory?

And what is so unusual about me and others refering to the Neocons by the name they have given to themselves. You say that this bothers you, and that the use of the term Neocon is somehow antisemitic, yet you offer no support whatsoever for that.

Why is the point that Pescott Bush supported and funded Hitler and the Nazis before and during WWII not relevant in a discussion in which we are talking about Neocon policies that resemble closely preemptive-war Nazi policies?

The Neocons do not run from this comparison. In fact, through organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, which is an openly fascist organization, they embrace these comparisons. 

You talk so loudly, and you make such confident declarations that it would be easy to assume that, not only are you saying somethng, but, also, that  what you are saying is important.

Maybe it is. Who knows?

What I do know is that you're not looking to engage in a conversation. That doesn't seem to be a skill that you particularly value.

If you were, you would try to address at least a few of the points that have been made, rather than steamroll over them like they aren't there, simply so that you can empty the contents of your spleen onto my computer screen.

I think it's time for me to return to my "warm and fuzzy" place, in which pussies like me believe that genocide and colonization probably isn't the way to go to make the world a better place -- after all, making the world a better place is the wram and fuzzy thing we're both interested in. Right?

So, just to make sure that the break ius clean, here's all the reason you'll need to not have to get back to me, while, at the same time, allowing everyone to know how right you are:

Yes, I'm a lifelong anti-semite.

Yes. I am a conspiracy nut.

Yes. I have an irrational hatred of George Bush.

Yes. It is stupid to refer to and use the word Neocon.

Yes. Hussein was a threat and was going to nuke the US.

Yes. Islam and Muslims are subhuman and democratizing their country is just the blessing they need to humanise them.

You're right. No sane country in the world would want Muslims in their country.

Yes. You're right that _____________— (fill in the blank.)

And I'm wrong that _______________(fill in the blank.)

It was great having this conversation with you.

I'll be moving along, now.

Muslims have become, to many Americans, the "whipping boy" and target of hate for the 21st century and will be vilified, degraded and assaulted for years to come I'm afraid.  We've elected our first African American President, yet we see open discrimination against Muslims (regardless their country of origin) and to a much lesser degree than in the past those of African decent even now.  I'm proud of our step forward but we've so far left to go.  I apologize to anyone who may be offended as that's not my intent with this comment but what's happening to Muslims today is no different than how we treated blacks in America for 120+ years following emancipation.

So very far yet to go.  .  .  .

Judge wrote:

Now I actually offer them a chance to rule themselves, through my support for Bush.

I laugh at the nonsense here. Obama and the Dems play back what the left wants to hear...

I should've known better. There is simply no reasoning with an individual who holds such beliefs. Truth will not prevail because you will not allow it.

Judge, you need to back up the truck and do some homework on how the U.S. operates when it evicts a foreign dictator for the purpose of placing its own preferred ruler. Until you do, you will not understand authentically how and why the U.S. government often interferes with other countries. You will remain ill-informed, disinformed and uninformed.

And, if your support of Bush has continued throughout the Iraq War, you are endorsing an illegal war: the Bush doctrine of preemptively striking a country that has not threatened us. If you don't like these facts, you're in opposition to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law.

It's just more basic than you make it.  And the necessity of success is more important than your silly theories.  More important than you or me.  So yes, right and wrong are not subject to  votes, changing because the ignorants are in a majoirty.

Anyone who hasn't figured out the relationship between the teachings of Muhammed and terrorism, between the teachings of Muhammed and violent, forced submission,  should not be taking on any new conspiracy projects. Should not embarrass himself trying to appear privy to hidden secrets, while praising all the goodness of Islam so indispensible to his life.  He has proved he cannot add 1 and 1.  He has missed the most obvious in his life, the endless examples of the monstrousity of Islam, while he searches the ancestry of Bush for clues in the problems of the world.

Such a person struggles, with all his mental powers, to figure out why Hamas has in its charter the killing of the Jews in Israel as prerequisite to a Palestinian state, quoting Muhammed, wondering why that might be any barrier to peace. Then he explains the "Neocon" problem, and waits for you share his wisdom. He sees Iranian and Syrian support for Hezbollah, with all the justice and benevolance of Iran and Syria to encourage our feelings of good will, wonders why we can't figure out the goodness he sees as obvious. But then he is off to explain Boosh's grandfather, and the neocons, and we are to have added up this logic, by now, making it all clear.

I have never said that Muslims are individually all evil, but Islam IS evil.  As a Molsem, you promote  a murderous ideology.  The less devout you are as a Muslim, the better you are. In many cases, that means Muslims who are themselves unaware of the truth of Islam.

That's why women like Syrian Wafa Sultan and Somalian Hersi Ali have renounced Islam, having been subjected to the violence of Islam in and out of Muslim countries,  and they dismiss as nonsense the silly ideas about  reforming Islam. It cannot be done. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of women who have escaped Islam where it is a dominant majority. And, of women whose lives are threatened by Islam, even in countries where Islam is minority, for speaking out.

I kinda doubt that these Arabs are anti-Semetic.

I am sure there were some Nazis who thought that some of Hitler's more violent writings and examples should be ignored, and that Nazis could live in peace if they ignored the violence, while somehow still greeing that Hitler was the last prophet of Nazism, and his word was sacred, and final.

It doesn't work.

Anyone who hasn't figured out the relationship between the teachings of Muhammed and terrorism, between the teachings of Muhammed and violent, forced submission,  

Terrorism wasn't born of Islam Judge.  It was born of the Jewish resistance to Roman occupation around the 1st century AD. 

More than 2,000 years ago the first known acts of what we now call terrorism were perpetrated by a radical offshoot of the Zealots, a Jewish sect active in Judea during the 1st century ad. The Zealots resisted the Roman Empire's rule of what is today Israel through a determined campaign primarily involving assassination. Zealot fighters used the sica, a primitive dagger, to attack their enemies in broad daylight, often in crowded market places or on feast days—essentially wherever there were people to witness the violence. Thus, like modern terrorists, the Zealots intended their actions to communicate a message to a wider target audience: in this instance, the Roman occupation forces and any Jews who sympathized or collaborated with the invaders.  Source: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761564344&pn=4

Terror in Antiquity: 1st -14th Century AD
The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men , they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open, and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada.  Source:  http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php

Then 1000 years later came the "Assassins" or the "Hashshashin (origin of the word assassin)" , a Shia Muslim offshoot, terrorism was later very famously used during the Inquisitions, and so on and so on and so on but nah, let's just place all the blame for terrorism on Muslims regardless of the actual roots of it being Jewish zealotry and anti-Roman resistance.  Even so, these 2 were not the beginning of what most would argue as the forerunners of modern terrorism.  That dubious honor goes to Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution.

1793: The Origins of Modern Terrorism:

The word terrorism comes from the Reign of Terror instigated by Maxmilien Robespierre in 1793, following the French revolution. Robespierre, one of twelve heads of the new state, had enemies of the revolution killed, and installed a dictatorship to stabilize the country. He justified his methods as necessary in the transformation of the monarchy to a liberal democracy:

"Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic."  Source:  http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/p/Terrorism.htm

The French Revolution provided the first uses of the words "Terrorist" and "Terrorism". Use of the word "terrorism" began in 1795 in reference to the Reign of Terror initiated by the Revolutionary government. The agents of the Committee of Public Safety and the National Convention that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as 'Terrorists". The French Revolution provided an example to future states in oppressing their populations. It also inspired a reaction by royalists and other opponents of the Revolution who employed terrorist tactics such as assassination and intimidation in resistance to the Revolutionary agents. The Parisian mobs played a critical role at key points before, during, and after the Revolution. Such extra-legal activities as killing prominent officials and aristocrats in gruesome spectacles started long before the guillotine was first used.  Source:  http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php

Perhaps you should put down the blind zealous and irrational hatred of Muslims just because they're Muslims and read up on terrorism throughout history and you'll see the Muslims while not innocent certainly aren't histories worst terrorists at this point.  Many other worthy candidates exists and are plying their trade even today.  It's one thing to hate a group of people because it's the "in" thing to do, it's entirely another matter of doing so when you stop buying what you're being told and studying this stuff yourself before you start drinking the kool-aid you've been handed to poison yourself with. 

Oh and one last thing, if you don't think terrroism hasn't been used to great effect on the American people by the American government itself need I remind you of the "terrorist alerts" during the run up to the 2004 elections?

The 18 months prior to the 2004 presidential election witnessed a barrage of those ridiculous color-coded terror alerts, quashed-plot headlines and breathless press conferences from Administration officials. Warnings of terror attacks over the Christmas 2003 holidays, warnings over summer terror attacks at the 2004 political conventions, then a whole slew of warnings of terror attacks to disrupt the election itself. Even the timing of the alerts seemed to fall with odd regularity right on the heels of major political events. One of Department of Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge's terror warnings came two days after John Kerry picked John Edwards as his running mate; another came three days after the end of the Democratic convention.

So it went right through the 2004 election. And then not long after the champagne corks stopped popping at Bush campaign headquarters, terror alerts seemed to go out of style. The color codes became yesterday's news. With the exception of one warning about mass-transit facilities in response to the London bombing on July 7, 2005, that was pretty much it until this summer. I live in lower Manhattan and my wife works in a building overlooking Ground Zero. So I want to know when something's really up and not worry that I'm getting bamboozled to amp the President's approval rating.  Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211369,00.html

The following Orange Terror Alert was active and in place from Aug. 1, 2004 through November 10th, 2004.

WASHINGTON Aug. 1, 2004 — The federal government warned Sunday of possible terrorist attacks against "iconic" financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J., saying a confluence of intelligence over the weekend pointed to a car or truck bomb.

Specifically, the government named these buildings as potential targets:

The Citicorp building and the New York Stock Exchange in New York City.

The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank buildings in Washington.

The Prudential building in Newark.

"The preferred means of attack would be car or truck bombs," Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in a briefing with journalists. That would be a primary means of attack."

The government said the new intelligence indicated the meticulous planning of al-Qaida.  .  .  .

Ridge said it would be up to New York City officials to decide whether to move to the highest level, red. The city has remained on orange since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The secretary said the government took the unprecedented step of naming specific buildings because of the level of specificity of the intelligence. "This is not the usual chatter. This is multiple sources that involve extraordinary detail," Ridge said.  Source: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040801_723.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20040804020410/http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040801_723.html

Very specific and real threats that never materialized and no arrests were ever made public that would be grounds to lower the heightened threat levels.  Interesting stuff, eh?  Ah well, you'll throw this out as made up too probably.  Can I get you another glass of kool-aid?

Ciao

The Romans? We COULD go back to Cain and Abel, but let's not.

After neocons, the crusades variation of presenting Islamic violence as normal, I also ignore.

We are concerned about the progress not made by Islam, and we are not looking for more ways to excuse Islam.  Romans, Christians, Jews, and just about everyone else not having so much trouble avoiding murdering each other, if they still exist.

Terrorism is what gets the most attention, because it kills the most people at once.  The intolerance of difference, even among sects. The intolerance of other relgions, when they are not in a submissive minority. But the misogyny of Islam is another manifistation of Islam ugliness. A thirteen year old girl, found guilty of being raped, stoned to death in Somalia, a few days ago.  But punishing women for allowing herself to be assaulted is quite common. Death threats for printing material unfavorable to Islam. Ongoing. Constant. But yes, terrorism is the most frequent example of Islam, and it goes on all over the world. It is not that other groups didn't exist in barbarity, and occasionally return to their roots, it is that Islam still condones and encourages these things.  Has built it in, such that Islam is not just a religion, it is an ideology. Last I looked, Muhammed, a terrorist, is still considered the LAST Prophet, and his word and example are considered sacred by all Muslims. The basics of Islam ..."and Muhammed is His Prophet," unchallenged by any sect of Islam.

Its not that the Roman's weren't bad, it is that they are all dead.

You have to be able to separate the irrelevant, stay in the same time frame, avoid distractions of theories that have you arguing the dead ends and the unprovable, and mostly have the ability to see, and judge, separate from the forces that require you argue these irrelevancies endlessly, and therefore remaining among the hopelessly lost.

I don't care what a HS czar did, or thought. I expect that there will be overreactions, which are better than the underreaction that caused FBI agents to ignore one of the twenty murderers of 911, prior to 911,  fearful that they would pass information between agencies illegally.

See, I GET the threat of Islamic terrorism. I get the relationship to Islamic teaching. And I get the weird need for people  so desperate to ignore these realities, and desperate to disprove that which is right in front of them.

.  .  .  . tired of speaking to the selectively deaf, later.

JaRagga:

.  .  .  . tired of speaking to the selectively deaf, later.

About time! ;-)

I'm surprised that anyone would have the patience to last as long as you did...

I'm always a little surprised why anyone would log on to a site such as this if all they want to do is to run in place, intellectually speaking..?

Opposing opinion and the challenge of enlightenment seem to me to be the point of inviting the engagement of other minds on this site, not the threat...

Oh well.... So it goes.

yep, so it goes.  On to other topics with more sensible people ;^)

More sensible people...

Yes. People who research Prescot Bush, think Islam is a peaceful religion, and think airport security measures were implemented to prevent attacks from neocons. LOL

Yeah, that makes sense.  Get upset about something that hasn't happened yet, and may not even happen.  Two anonymous sources make a claim, and suddenly your very confidence in your candidate is shaken.

Brilliant.  Comments like this make me ashamed of the average American voter.

What's the right thing?

PE Obama belongs now to the super elite of the #43 elected Presidents and of course that politicians when in campaigning promises go away when they are aware of the real intel.

well, the constitution prevents a president from going to war, too. but that hasnt seemed to have much an effect recently.

You are so right. AP used to be a great news source, now they just editorialize, mostly for the right.

.angry american.....naysayers don't count....who knows the future???...you're kicking and screaming...protesteth too much over matters mishandled in the past, still in need of 'correction'.....that just doesn't go away because it did before....stagnant, flawed thinking is never good....this crap will keep coming back until we correct it, IF we're so lucky to be able to do it without inciting too many more foreign enemies....