71% of Americans want to see Bush administration investigated

[iNow]

That's maybe not such a great example for you, since Michael Phelps wasn't indicted. Why not? He clearly broke the law -- you can see him breaking the law in that photograph. And yet the prosecutor declined to prosecute the case.

Well, I disagree with your interpretation. If he had "clearly broken the law," then the sheriff would have "clearly arrested his ass." The evidence wasn't there, and that's the only reason the case was dropped.

 

But, you walked around my point. There WAS a case... there WAS an investigation... and surely if we're willing to spend resources investigating something so trivial and which exemplifies the ridiculous laws enforcing things which have a "lack of harm to others," then we ought to spend resources investigating the potential breakage of laws at the presidential level, especially when the accusation under question revolves around actions which DO cause harm to others.

 

In addition, they investigated Clinton for getting some nookie. If that's okay, then SURELY we can spend time on things that matter... try to find resolution and seek truth and answers, instead of just sweeping it under the rug ("Nothing to see here... Move along folks...").

 

Bush wasn't accused of pot smoking. He wasn't accused of receiving fellatio. He was accused of breaking some of the more serious laws of our nation intended to protect people... things like warrantless wire tapping and torture... and you're here arguing that anybody who wants to see this matter looked into is simply some partisan hack hellbent on revenge?

 

Are you kidding me? Seriously? That's PRECISELY why The Bear's Key felt the need to discuss dissonance and doublethink.

[waitforufo]

If you believe that, then shouldn't you be concerned when a president signs an order explicitly circumventing a check by the judicial branch, namely the issuing of warrants as per the Fourth Amendment?

 

No, I am concerned about the president signing orders explicitly circumventing a check by the judicial branch. When that order was discovered, the courts and congress pointed out that the president had overstepped his authority and the situation was corrected. In other words the president was checked and the overstepping was balanced by the other branches of government. That is how the checks and balances of our system works. You think that this process should include people or a person going to jail. Well, I disagree, and I don't think you can find historical precedents to support your opinion.

 

Perhaps I am the only person who remembers the whole 9-ll happened because our intelligence agencies were not connecting the dots. The NSA, CIA, FBI could not talk to each other because we had to make double or triple sure the government was not violating constitutional protections. Thank you very much Janet Reno and her cronies. In my opinion this lead Bush to go the other route. He did what he thought was necessary until the other branches of government corrected him. He trusted our checks and balances to correct his overstepping. This enabled him to act with speed to prevent further 9-11s.

 

Now I personally have no problem with what the president did and how his steps were properly corrected. I see this history as our system working properly. Others exploited it for political advantage. I think that is a shame.

 

 

That's great, except in the case of the warrentless spying program it never happened, and no one was ever held accountable.

 

I don't understand how you can say "it never happened." If it never happened how do we even know about it and why did it stop? Again on the accountable issue, please read my comments above.

 

That contradicts your earlier statements.

I believe I have been consistent in saying no further investigations are needed and that no prosecutions will be forthcoming.

 

--------------------Edit------------------------------

 

I could not remember the name of Janet Reno's cronie. It was Jamie Gorelick. What did she do after 9/11. Well she went to work for Fannie Mae. She is now known as the Mistress of Disaster .

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Gorelick

Edited February 20, 2009 by waitforufo

[Pangloss]

In addition, they investigated Clinton for getting some nookie. If that's okay, then SURELY we can spend time on things that matter...

 

You're probably right about pointing out that we already have an investigation and judgment against Bush that could be followed-through on. But the above quote is certainly not legal reasoning and is actually a really good example of why NOT to pursue Bush. If this really is pursued then those kinds of statements really need to be left at the door, lest you make real the very thing that politicians are most afraid of and one of the things that brought down the Roman Republic -- automatic prosecution of all former leaders. Be careful what you wish for, lest you actually get it.

 

 

Bush wasn't accused of pot smoking. He wasn't accused of receiving fellatio. He was accused of breaking some of the more serious laws of our nation intended to protect people... things like warrantless wire tapping and torture... and you're here arguing that anybody who wants to see this matter looked into is simply some partisan hack hellbent on revenge?

 

Are you kidding me? Seriously? That's PRECISELY why The Bear's Key felt the need to discuss dissonance and doublethink.

 

Clinton wasn't impeached for pot smoking or receiving fellatio, he was impeached for lying. I happen to think that action was a huge mistake, but it is wrong for a president to lie. If you want to measure relative wrongs, go right ahead, but as above I recommend avoiding comparisons. They don't serve your case and if they are actually used they dig us deeper into a place we really don't want to go as a nation.

 

Anyway, like I said, have fun storming the castle. Who knows, you could end up getting what you want.

[iNow]

Anyway, like I said, have fun storming the castle. Who knows, you could end up getting what you want.

 

I think you continue to misunderstand my position on this. I'm not saying, "Well, they went after Clinton, so for that reason, they should go after Bush." That's not what I'm saying.

 

My point is that, if we are willing to spend the resources to go after Clinton for something so trivial, then certainly we should be willing to spend the resources to go after Bush for something which is clearly so much more nefarious.

[bascule]

I don't understand how you can say "it never happened." If it never happened how do we even know about it and why did it stop? Again on the accountable issue, please read my comments above.

 

Well that remark was specifically in regard to the "accountable" issue...

 

...and it didn't stop. Congress has modified FISA in ways that I do not think are compatible with the Fourth Amendment.

 

The problem is without judicial oversight we don't know who the government is spying on or why, unless someone happens to find out which is what occurred in the case of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. Bush.

 

I guess you're content with a wrist-slap over this matter. I'm still extremely angry about that, about massive amounts of data being funneled from various telco providers directly into the NSA, and about Congress granting the telcos retroactive immunity for that. Someone needs to be held accountable.

 

I hope that case goes to the Supreme Court.

[waitforufo]

Well that remark was specifically in regard to the "accountable" issue...

 

...and it didn't stop. Congress has modified FISA in ways that I do not think are compatible with the Fourth Amendment.

 

The problem is without judicial oversight we don't know who the government is spying on or why, unless someone happens to find out which is what occurred in the case of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. Bush.

 

I guess you're content with a wrist-slap over this matter. I'm still extremely angry about that, about massive amounts of data being funneled from various telco providers directly into the NSA, and about Congress granting the telcos retroactive immunity for that. Someone needs to be held accountable.

 

I hope that case goes to the Supreme Court.

 

I hope it does too. Again, our system at work. I just don't think anyone will or should go to jail.

[The Bear's Key]

That reeks of infinite Obama affinity. You're really going to toss out Bush-started-it? Give me a break. It's either right or it's wrong and no intellectual acrobats are going to change that.

You've misunderstood. I didn't say "Well, Bush did it first so it's OK". My point was that Obama very likely wouldn't have started the policy himself.

 

But I'll add that Bush's policies might have lots of other things entangled within, or be interconnected to other policies, and Obama might have to separate or review the entire thing first. He might not bother and simply continue the policy untouched, but only time will tell. And I'll be upset if he doesn't kill the policy.

 

However, Obama's tone and lack of swaggering rhetoric is far different then Bush's. So I have a little more faith in his actions than in Bush's.

 

And I'm pretty fair. See my my 6th thread, mentioning Bush. My views haven't changed much since.

 

Do you really wonder how so many people came to be angry on "The Bush Years" situation? It's not politics, trust me. The first sentences in my very 1st post will shed a clue.

 

Now, here's an interesting bit for waitforufo to chew on. The next two quotes have a connecting element.

 

Remember, we didn't find out about secret torture because Bush "told us" about it.

He did what he thought was necessary until the other branches of government corrected him. He trusted our checks and balances to correct his overstepping.

Find it? Yes, Bush didn't trust checks and balances, his administration kept it secret until discovered -- like almost everything they did.

 

For a last glimpse into my points of how Bush differs so highly from Obama, and why the Bush team's seemingly good deeds are smokes and mirrors, view the last sentences in my 3rd thread. If I believed what those media idiots spew about liberals, well then I'd suspect it's just politics, and want to move on.

 

He trusted our checks and balances to correct his overstepping. This enabled him to act with speed to prevent further 9-11s.

No, it enabled him to act with speed to crush opposition against unconstitutional policies. Because the checks and balances were few between, and only when they got caught red-handed.

 

Perhaps I am the only person who remembers the whole 9-ll happened because our intelligence agencies were not connecting the dots. The NSA, CIA, FBI could not talk to each other because we had to make double or triple sure the government was not violating constitutional protections.

Nice excuse the White House gave.

 

Let's try a different angle.

 

Freedom is supposed to be...dangerous. That's why adults face more real-world dangers than kids at home. Maybe it's time to examine exactly why it's a bad idea to temporarily diminish rights for safety.

 

I'll begin with a question. How did the administration ensure us that if the wrong leader got in, they couldn't wield the newfound powers against their political enemies -- or not just them, but us?

 

Hitler would've loved to use these arguments of necessary illegal surveilance. "We can't rely on the slow process of court warrants to protect against enemies of freedom. So tell ya what -- you let us do our things in secret, and we promise to inform you about it later"

 

I'll end with a question. How are we assured such things have been accounted for? What chacks and balances did they institute? Oh yeah, none. Still think it's about politics?

 

Benjamin Franklin had something for us to remember: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. Patrick Henry did too: "Give me liberty or give me death." I'd be embarrased to show them our nation's reaction after 9/11.

 

Yet I can be proud, that the U.S. areas most likely to be attacked -- New York, California, Washington DC, voted firmly against Bush even with all his party's rhetoric that electing Dems is a surrender to terrorists.

 

They are controlled by extreme groups that scorn the constitution. Are you kidding? Smoking bans. Homosexual unions. Environmentalism. Anti-war advocates.

• Smoking bans....unprofitable.
  
• Homosexual unions....unprofitable.
  
• Environmentalism....unprofitable.
  
• Anti-war advocates....unprofitable.
  

 

Or at least compared to.....

 

• Oil...billions
  
• War...billions
  
• Banks...trillions?
  
• Welfare checks to industry (aka subsidies)...billions
  
• Classified military budget (aka secret -- not even congress knows)...billions
  
• Polluting industries...billions
  
• Pharmaceuticals...billions
  

 

Let's see.....who's more likely to be criminal or have alterior motives?

 

There's more. But I'll leave you one thought. Dems' ideologies aren't opposed to business or defense -- only its abuse or unaccountable secrecy in the affairs of people and governments.

[Pangloss]

My point is that, if we are willing to spend the resources to go after Clinton for something so trivial, then certainly we should be willing to spend the resources to go after Bush for something which is clearly so much more nefarious.

 

Clear to you, certainly. But we've already established that you don't represent a mainstream view in this country. Want to see how your view that lying presidents are less important than spying presidents stacks up against the national opinion? You could be right, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out to be -- you're spinning the situation to justify you're predetermined position that Bush needs to be punished for his sins. If we actually put this out there as a normal tool for use on a regular basis, do you really think it will only be used for the public good, and never for retribution? Really? I think you're smarter than that.

 

Also, who's "we"? President Bush didn't go after Clinton. He damn well could have, not so much for Monicagate but for his arguably criminal handling of the Justice Department of Janet "I hire psychologists to teach children to say that their parents molested them" Reno, and probably dozens of other offenses hither and yon. Instead he chose not to. Do you understand why?

[ParanoiA]

You've misunderstood. I didn't say "Well, Bush did it first so it's OK". My point was that Obama very likely wouldn't have started the policy himself.

 

I don't agree. I'm not going to bust my butt looking for excuses for politicians. They all have their reasons, and Bush had his as well. It's no excuse so I'm not sure why it's relevent to even mention it really.

 

Perhaps I am the only person who remembers the whole 9-ll happened because our intelligence agencies were not connecting the dots. The NSA' date=' CIA, FBI could not talk to each other because we had to make double or triple sure the government was not violating constitutional protections. [/quote']

 

Freedom is supposed to be...dangerous. That's why adults face more real-world dangers than kids at home. Maybe it's time to examine exactly why it's a bad idea to temporarily diminish rights for safety.

 

First of all, love that opening statement, very true. But I think waitforufo's point has more to do with the branches of government playing their roles. It could be argued that it's not the job of each position in government to restrict one's self as much as it is to push the limits of their office, counting on the counter and subtending roles of other offices to oppose them respectively.

 

Not sure I entirely agree with that, or that I'm even interpreting him correctly, but I do see the sense in the executive office pursuing its mission statement passionately and vigorously; pushing the limits of their strength to administer the people. This is entirely subjective, so justice is a moving target depending on the observer. Other offices and structures are empowered to check the reach of that office and one could say that happened, to a point.

 

So, the mere fact that the Bush administration tried to "overprotect" the people, which Madison and his buddies warned us about (tyranny will come in the form of a foreign enemy, that sort of thing...) is not, in itself, a bad thing, so long as we check that overprotection. (Incidentally, this is why folks like me are so angry at congress, because they did not check the president in his bid to war with Iraq; Bush made his moves while congress appeared shell shocked).

 

So, when we talk about criminal investigations, I'm not interested in the President's attempts to overprotect, I'm interested in unethical wrongdoing. Did he seek to subvert the constitution, or did he seek to flex the constitution? One implies a contempt for the document he is sworn to uphold, the other implies a respect and arguably a duty for testing the limits of his office.

 

We see this with Obama's message to local governments concerning the bailout money as well. Is Obama abusing his office to put local Mayor's on notice and "call them out"? Or is he using his office, as he put it, "the full power of this office" to fulfill his duty? I think the latter. I do trust that he will flex his office to do good. And I depend on the other nodes of government to check him, respectively.

 

And that's why I think Bush should be investigated. He's done enough to earn an eyeballin'. I also think that's why intent does matter in the context of assessing criminal behavior. I does not matter in the context of assessing if it's good or bad for our country.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Smoking bans....unprofitable.

Homosexual unions....unprofitable.

Environmentalism....unprofitable.

Anti-war advocates....unprofitable.

 

Or at least compared to.....

 

Oil...billions

War...billions

Banks...trillions?

Welfare checks to industry (aka subsidies)...billions

Classified military budget (aka secret -- not even congress knows)...billions

Polluting industries...billions

Pharmaceuticals...billions

 

First of all, none of that is a relevant rebutall of the context. You charged that democrats were not steered by special interests and I countered that they are. Now you're providing what you believe to be a really good reason to like those interests. Well, that's nice, but it's also moving the goalposts.

 

But I'll play. Environmentalism is quite profitable (ever heard of carbon credits? what a joke...) and is being used to justify arbitrary taxation to adjust human behavior, same with smoking cigarettes. The precious "children" are being exploited to justify taking money from smokers - weird, strange, but dramatic associations to keep the public from fighting it. It's a subjective value judgement imposed by the government, accepted by the republic, since none of us learned anything from our shameful history, to promote subjective governing and moral policing. Freedom is an obstacle for those who put these interests ahead of our notions of rights and privilege.

 

Welfare checks to the "entitled" losers is quite profitable (think Section 8 housing) and a shrewd investment in a voter base that outnumbers the rich minority voter base, particularly when you add the rest of the poor that receive some kind of federal assistance. And even moreso when you consider the entitlement effect on all of the lower classes in general.

 

There's certainly plenty of money in all of the things you mentioned, as there is with most anything the government services, but that doesn't dismiss the voter base that supports all of those things and sees the profit as a byproduct, just as carbon credits don't invalidate the sincerity of environmental issues.

Edited February 21, 2009 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

You could be right, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it out to be -- you're spinning the situation to justify you're predetermined position that Bush needs to be punished for his sins.

No, again... I am saying that it needs to be investigated. That is all. We'll take it from there depending on what we find out during said investigation. If you call that spinning, then your definition of that term is MUCH looser than mine.

 

My "predetermined position that Bush needs to be punished for his sins?" Pangloss, I have a strong feeling that you are not reading my posts and you're confusing me with someone else.

 

 

Also, the slippery slope argument as a reason not to investigate Bush is both without merit or relevance.

 

If we actually put this out there as a normal tool for use on a regular basis, do you really think it will only be used for the public good, and never for retribution? Really? I think you're smarter than that.

Well, thanks for the kind words about my intelligence, but there seems to be good reason here to investigate the matter. The fact that "we might investigate people in the future for retribution" is no reason not to investigate now. Nor are we "putting this out there." This is nothing new. It's part of the process.

 

All I'm talking about is an investigation. We can go from there depending on what we find.

 

 

Also, who's "we"?

The country of the United States of America and the legal personnel put in charge of enforcing her laws. I'm not advocating that Obama pressure this, I'm just supporting the justice departments duty to do its job. It's not personal... it's not retribution... it's a series of acts by the administration of the former president which are of questionable legality which need to be reviewed and, if after that review it is deemed appropriate, further steps taken.

 

We can all argue about what those "further steps" might be after the investigation takes place, but right now, I'm just saying an investigation should be allowed. Slippery slope potentialities are not a good enough reason to prevent it.

Edited February 21, 2009 by iNow

[The Bear's Key]

ParanoiA, I'll answer your points. No time right now. But I want to pipe in quick into the general conversation.

 

I've never cared if the administration were punished for their actions, I just wanted all their scheming to be totally exposed, for the public would be rattled to the core on what these guys really did, and the sad reality is now without any light shed they are free to repeat it again -- except next time it'll likely be much worse.

 

Justice isn't what I seek -- rather, complete and utter exposure. They didn't just lie about the war or do torture and illegal wiretapping. That stuff is peanuts compared to the more grave stuff being glossed over. And it seems they're framing the debate, as the nation's focused on what I think is the least of their crimes (and most defendable by the propoganda networks).

[Pangloss]

I'm not advocating that Obama pressure this, I'm just supporting the justice departments duty to do its job. It's not personal... it's not retribution... it's a series of acts by the administration of the former president which are of questionable legality which need to be reviewed and, if after that review it is deemed appropriate, further steps taken.

 

Well that's your mistake right there -- you think the Justice Department is an instrument of justice.

 

iNow, that slippery slope point of yours is just an avoidance of the fact that such an investigation is inextricably political. If it does happen it wouldn't take place if it weren't for the opposition party coming to power, and you'd be using a partisan political instrument to conduct the investigation. So even if the Justice Department's motivations were pure and the hearts of congressional Democrats not hell-bent on revenge, you still cannot extricate politics from the investigation of a former president. Can not. It is impossible.

 

So don't sit there and pretend this would be a fair and impartial "investigation" into "criminal activity". That's just nonsense. Such is not possible, therefore whether or not such takes place is a political decision, not a decision regarding justice. Or at least not just that.

[bascule]

I don't expect Democrats to be any less partisan about investigations than the Republicans were when investigating Clinton. It's just in this case I think the investigation is a little more warranted.

[Pangloss]

Well and there at least we have some common ground -- I'm sure you would agree with me, then, that if Bush had, for example, cheated on his wife Laura, and then lied to the American people about it, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation, yes? We'd be moving on, albeit with that additional taint on the tatters of his reputation.

 

Unfortunately that's not how most partisan Bush-bashers see it, and I think there's be just as much clamoring for his prosecution under those conditions as there is right now.

 

Put another way, I might agree that it's unfortunate that those actions that you view (and I don't entirely disagree) as more serious than Clinton's are going to be insufficient to overcome the political ramifications of such an investigation.

[ParanoiA]

That's just nonsense. Such is not possible, therefore whether or not such takes place is a political decision, not a decision regarding justice. Or at least not just that.

 

I do appreciate your larger point about persecuting political ideology disguised as "criminal activity" and such and your references to the fall of the Roman republic do not fall on deaf ears.

 

With that in mind, maybe it would help if you could give an example of the kind of behavior from the former president that you believe would warrant an investigation. As you say, we can't extricate politics from the investigation of a former president, but I'm fairly sure you don't mean to conclude an investigation can never be done because of that nature.

[iNow]

So even if the Justice Department's motivations were pure and the hearts of congressional Democrats not hell-bent on revenge, you still cannot extricate politics from the investigation of a former president. Can not. It is impossible.

 

So what? An investigation is still warranted. It was never my intent to suggest that the motivations of anyone besides myself were pure, nor anywhere did I argue that this could be done without political implications. You're arguing against points I've not made.

 

 

So don't sit there and pretend this would be a fair and impartial "investigation" into "criminal activity". That's just nonsense.

Are you familiar with term, "strawman?"

[npts2020]

I agree with The Bear's Key that the investigation should be with an aim more toward exposing the process for undertaking a war in Iraq, warrentless wiretapping, etc. than prosecuting people for it. IMO the main reason people don't want any light shed on this matter, is that it would show repeated criminal activity at the highest levels of our government in a breadth of activities spanning many years. Just being able to follow the money trail, I think, would be revealing but who has the authority to do something like that?

[waitforufo]

I think waitforufo's point has more to do with the branches of government playing their roles. It could be argued that it's not the job of each position in government to restrict one's self as much as it is to push the limits of their office, counting on the counter and subtending roles of other offices to oppose them respectively.

 

Not sure I entirely agree with that, or that I'm even interpreting him correctly, but I do see the sense in the executive office pursuing its mission statement passionately and vigorously; pushing the limits of their strength to administer the people. This is entirely subjective, so justice is a moving target depending on the observer. Other offices and structures are empowered to check the reach of that office and one could say that happened, to a point.

 

So, the mere fact that the Bush administration tried to "overprotect" the people, which Madison and his buddies warned us about (tyranny will come in the form of a foreign enemy, that sort of thing...) is not, in itself, a bad thing, so long as we check that overprotection. (Incidentally, this is why folks like me are so angry at congress, because they did not check the president in his bid to war with Iraq; Bush made his moves while congress appeared shell shocked).

 

So, when we talk about criminal investigations, I'm not interested in the President's attempts to overprotect, I'm interested in unethical wrongdoing. Did he seek to subvert the constitution, or did he seek to flex the constitution? One implies a contempt for the document he is sworn to uphold, the other implies a respect and arguably a duty for testing the limits of his office.

 

ParanoiA understands my point completely and articulated it very well. Thank you ParanoiA.

 

To carry the point one step further. When a politician, a president in particular, pushes the limits of their office, it is likely to raise eyebrows. Push too far or push too often and political backlash is likely. Well, now we have a new president from the opposition party. In fact now we have a congress with majorities in both houses from this same opposition party. Looks like the backlash happened. That’s just another part of our checks and balances. Those newly in power may choose to point out further overreach by the former administration for political points if they like. Perhaps it will gain them further political mileage. That is their prerogative. Personally, I think they should be careful. If the people perceive it as "little more than petty partisan revenge" there will likely be a backlash the other way.

 

My guess is the new president and his administration will move on to other things. I believe this is the prudent course, both for his success and for the good of the country.

 

If you are holding your breath waiting for someone to go to jail, I think you are going to be disappointed.

[Mr Skeptic]

What do you think? Should the Bush Administration be investigated for the multitude of crimes they've been accused of? Is it important that presidents be held to the rule of law? Or should we just put the whole mess behind us and pretend it never happened? Are attempts at investigating Bush merely a petty act of partisan revenge, or are they an essential function of a democratic society, ensuring its leaders are held accountable for their crimes?

In other words, if we don't prosecute Bush, future presidents could use it a a justification for their own illegal acts.

 

I think that an investigation and appropriate punishment is necessary, as ecoli says, lest we give the president implicit power to be above the law. If the laws are not enforced, they will be meaningless. As to partisanship, I think it is important that any prosecution be for something serious and clear. Smoking pot, stealing office pens, getting a blowjob, etc, I could care less .. but when we are talking about a president breaking the laws that restrict what a president or the government is allowed to do, that is some serious stuff. Ie, even if we were to give the president free pass on the "mundane" laws, we absolutely cannot give him a free pass on the laws specifically for presidents or governments. In this case, breaking these laws affects three hundred million people, not just a few. Partisan reasons or not, this is serious business and these laws have to be enforced.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

...

Wow, this thread has certainly degenerated. What is with the claim that Bush can't be investigated/punished because it would be partisan ... so what? If some serious crimes were committed, some serious punishments are due. I would see the point if this was about some minor crime, or a technicality. But we are not going the way of the Roman Empire (which I must really point out lasted longer than the United States, and was the recordholder for longest lasting empire from what I know).

 

Anyhow, how about a compromise? Let there be a full investigation, and let the facts be made public. Then let the Republican party be made responsible for any punishment or lack thereof.

[bascule]

I think that an investigation and appropriate punishment is necessary, as ecoli says, lest we give the president implicit power to be above the law. If the laws are not enforced, they will be meaningless.

 

Yep. The President shouldn't be above the law.

 

What is with the claim that Bush can't be investigated/punished because it would be partisan ... so what? If some serious crimes were committed, some serious punishments are due.

 

Indeed, it's a red herring to insist that the investigation will have partisan motivations. Of course it will! However that's irrelevant to whether or not crimes were actually committed.

 

The investigations into Clinton were certainly as partisan as you can get. But it is true he lied under oath. He did commit a wrongdoing.

 

It appears Bush has committed crimes substantially worse than Clinton. Should we not endure partisanship as bad as the investigations of Clinton for the sake of exposing the crimes Bush has committed? While it's bad such investigations cannot be completed without severe partisanship, it's our only option for exposing the truth of what crimes have been committed.

 

If you disagree, you should denounce the investigations of Clinton. But personally, I would advise you don't. If the President has committed crimes, they should be investigated and exposed.

 

Pangloss insists Clinton committed crimes, and I don't disagree. So Pangloss, shouldn't we investigate Bush as well?

[The Bear's Key]

Anyhow, how about a compromise? Let there be a full investigation, and let the facts be made public. Then let the Republican party be made responsible for any punishment or lack thereof.

Brilliant!

 

At first I was going to suggest Democrats investigate, make open all details to the public, then let Republicans handle it from there.

 

However, it'd be much better to have an independent team investigate, the assignment process made completely transparent, equip the investigators with a high-ranking investigatory powers so no one can hinder them, and open all details/revelations of criminal activities to the public.....then let Republicans handle the assignment of consequences. Or lack thereof. I fully support it.

 

Obama can do this and hardly be accused of political revenge -- if he asked that only Republicans in Congress were given sole authority of how justice shall be dealt...if at all.

 

 

(ParanoiA, I didn't forget about responding to you post)

[Pangloss]

The investigations into Clinton were certainly as partisan as you can get. But it is true he lied under oath. He did commit a wrongdoing.

 

It appears Bush has committed crimes substantially worse than Clinton. Should we not endure partisanship as bad as the investigations of Clinton for the sake of exposing the crimes Bush has committed? While it's bad such investigations cannot be completed without severe partisanship, it's our only option for exposing the truth of what crimes have been committed.

 

If you disagree, you should denounce the investigations of Clinton. But personally, I would advise you don't. If the President has committed crimes, they should be investigated and exposed.

 

Pangloss insists Clinton committed crimes, and I don't disagree. So Pangloss, shouldn't we investigate Bush as well?

 

Well since you ask I feel obliged to reply, but I feel like a party pooper in just repeating my refrain of "have fun storming the castle". Like I said, you can certainly toot this horn all day long, I just don't think it will go very far in the end. But I've been wrong before, and I really have no problem at all with your reasoning.

 

In further answer to your inquiry, no, I don't think Clinton should have been impeached. In my opinion it was a pointless, partisan waste of time and money (though it certainly doesn't seem like so much in terms of post-bailout dollars, does it?). I also don't think such things are necessary. Neither man's crimes have gone unnoticed or unaddressed, so it's not as if they got away with anything. I would have advised Republicans not to impeach Clinton because even if it had resulted in a conviction and a removal from office it would not have resolved a single thing and would have created a further rift standing in the way of future bipartisanship (as it was, even without the conviction). And that's exactly how Obama is being advised today. He believes in change. This is not change, it's more of the same.

 

The thing of it is, ultimately what rules this country is not the Constitution or the rule of law. It's actually the willingness and ability of individual men and women who are willing to stand up for what's right and ignore negative and distracting influences that stand in the way. Bush failed -- he's already been judged. So to slap Bush around some more and then pat ourselves on the back and call it a day would be a violation of their trust -- an undermining of the men and women we need to have in government. What we need to be doing is figuring out what went wrong and then work hard to prevent it from ever happening again, not punishing people the crowd point at just because they may have conveniently broken a law or two along the way. ("He's out of office? Somebody get a rope!")

 

That's why I harp about recrimination and precedent. iNow calls it a slippery slope argument, and I recognize that he's not wrong, but then so is any argument about precedent, and yet precedent is the very centerpiece of the American justice system. In this case, in my opinion, we need to break the cycle of recrimination against the previous administration before it sets in. We need to make sure that the extremists never have that kind of voice, no matter how popular the opinion may be, because once we cross that threshold there won't BE any more well-intentioned men and women going into government to "do the right thing". And then there won't be anyone willing to stand up before the crowd and tell it something it doesn't want to hear.

 

But will that happen just because we prosecute George W. Bush? I admit it may not. If there's one thing this country is good at, it's going well beyond the brink of potential disaster and yet somehow managing to find a solution anyway.

[The Bear's Key]

Expanding on what I just said above...

 

Obama can even go one further and give Republicans the same investigatory powers into his administration in 2012.

 

After all, Obama wants to open government more, and that's one good way.

[Pangloss]

Obama can even go one further and give Republicans the same investigatory powers into his administration in 2012.

 

In what way? Not sure what you mean here.

[The Bear's Key]

Read post #46.

 

In there I explain how Obama can investigate and not be viewed as political revenge, by doing what Mr Skeptic proposed. But to make it even more nonpartisan, Obama can announce that he'll give Republicans an equal chance to fully investigate possible wrongdoing by his own team (but Dems likewise set the punishment if any crimes are discovered). The message? He's got nothing to hide, and no president should.

 

Hopefully it'll set a precedence, and make headway towards open government.