71% of Americans want to see Bush administration investigated

[The Bear's Key]

What evidence? (And if you have to look it up, it doesn't count.)

I don't have to look it up. Right here on this page waitforinfo supplied one example.

 

...a bulk of the emails sent between 2003 and 2005 were deleted from servers in the Executive Office of the president and unrecoverable.

That is against the law.

 

You cannot hold up public opinion as your banner when it is on your side, and write it off as meaningless because the populace is misinformed and manipulated when it is not.

It's meaningless either way. The important thing is government not be interfered with or high-ranking officials getting away with breaking the law -- especially as it affects us.

 

But our entire argument stemmed from iNow's post and the response by Pangloss, "And yet most of the issues currently aimed at Bush were present in the 2004 election cycle."

I perceive a lack of understandnig about just how much people hate leaders who act like they are above the law and who get a free pass after engaging in illegal activities, or who don't even get investigated when their activities were certainly questionable. I find that passion and hatred to be much more profound than a simple distaste for what a relatively small group might see as potentially partisan politics.

Sisyphus, I tend to ignore manipulated public opinion. It's less manipulated now as we have more coverage of the facts, it's more widespread.

 

Intelligence doesn't always matter. In the follow-up to 2004, I encountered plenty of intellectuals (I mean freakin smart people) that dismissed warnings about the Bush team, defending everything and repeating talking points. It was disgusting. Yet in 2005-2006, they made a complete and utter turnaround.

 

Cognitive dissonance is what's at play. No one got smarter now than in 2004, it's just they lost the battle happening in their mind, for the propagandas could only keep stoking its fires so long.

 

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

 

The effects of dissonance wears off in time.

 

Sometimes.....because the propandas aren't the only ones with tricks. A friend liked to dig out a report of abuse made on the Bush administration, then replace all mentions of Bush and Republicans with that of Dems, and show it to Pro-Bush Republicans. After they go on a rant against the Dems, she'd hand them the original. It's fun to watch their reactions.

 

However, soon enough cognitive dissonance takes over, and excuses for the Bush team start to come out anyway. But who cares, she's accomplished the task: forcing the person to decry something their beloved party did -- a quite almost impossible task. She does enjoy having paradoxes explode in their hopelessly stubborn minds.

 

If the person adopts her trick and uses it against Dems, so much the better. It's really great when people recognize *all* politicians are just that -- politicians. Not something to be idolized.

 

The main difference between her and the propagandas, is that she doesn't let the person walk away believing the falsehood.

[iNow]

I think he's certainly got a point about such things, and probably The Bear's Key is just over-expressing a similar point. There's no question people are disappointed with the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and other issues.

 

But that's a far cry from the kind of anger or outrage commonly expressed by the far left. I don't see that kind of emotion coming from mainstream America. I think people are focused on the economy and not really thinking about Bush much at the moment at all. And I think President Obama is very much in tune with that sentiment.

That's certainly a fair point. I tend to agree, but I urge you not to underestimate the inherent desire for fairness we all feel. Like I said early on, if the authorities are willing to investigate Phelps, then surely (at the very least) an investigation into the more egregious issues with Bush isn't crossing any lines.

 

However, I too have bigger issues on my list of concerns right now. I'm just not willing to simply write off the lines which were crossed by the Bush administration and say, "oh well," ya know? Simply dropping it and sweeping it under the carpet seems even more unfair... to me, at least.

[bascule]

But that's a far cry from the kind of anger or outrage commonly expressed by the far left. I don't see that kind of emotion coming from mainstream America. I think people are focused on the economy and not really thinking about Bush much at the moment at all.

 

Your guess would appear to contract this poll. Have another poll which backs it up? Or do you have a magical Pangloss "mainstream America" detector with a "far left" filter?

 

Not to sound insulting, but that's the kind of rhetoric I hear out of Bill O'Reilly... he likes to try to marginalize the opinions of liberals by equivocating them with the "far left" and overstate the opinions of conservatives by attributing them to "mainstream America"

 

I suspect indignation towards Bush is more vast than you have lead yourself to believe, and this poll would appear to back me up. Would you have suspected that this large a percentage of the population wished for Bush to be investigated?

[npts2020]

Much as I would like to see light shed on the activities of the Bush2 administration, I tend to agree with waitforufo that it isn't going to happen. Even if the Dems in congress had the intestinal fortitude to do it (they probably don't), there is a strong recent (past 50 years) history of glossing over possible criminal activity of the outgoing administrations. Iran-contra was the last time anything close to this magnitude was in popular consciousness, what happened then?

[Pangloss]

Your guess would appear to contract this poll. Have another poll which backs it up? Or do you have a magical Pangloss "mainstream America" detector with a "far left" filter?

 

Not to sound insulting, but that's the kind of rhetoric I hear out of Bill O'Reilly... he likes to try to marginalize the opinions of liberals by equivocating them with the "far left" and overstate the opinions of conservatives by attributing them to "mainstream America"

 

I suspect indignation towards Bush is more vast than you have lead yourself to believe, and this poll would appear to back me up. Would you have suspected that this large a percentage of the population wished for Bush to be investigated?

 

First of all, you're putting Bill O'Reilly's words in my mouth, which is not appropriate or accurate at all and quite insulting. I firmly believe that there are mainstream liberals and that they are quite distinct from the far left, and I've done absolutely nothing to equate the two in this thread.

 

Second, in answer to your question, your own poll draws a SHARP contrast between investigation and prosecution/trial, showing only 41% support for the latter. Not exactly "vast".

 

This 2007 poll showed that only 40% of Americans supported impeaching President Bush. 55% opposed.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15689

 

This Wikipedia article lists several other polls, none of which show a higher "impeach" preference (all show a lower level of support).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

 

Bascule, my purpose on this subforum, as always, is to talk about politics, not demonize people's honestly-held opinions. President Obama's approval rating is somewhere between 62 and 68%. In political terms, that's basically a credit line. In my opinion he can spend it overhauling healthcare and fixing the economy, or he can spend it on throwing his predecessor in jail. Not both. That's a statement about political realities, not whether liberals are crackpots.

[iNow]

President Obama's approval rating is somewhere between 62 and 68%. In political terms, that's basically a credit line. In my opinion he can spend it overhauling healthcare and fixing the economy, or he can spend it on throwing his predecessor in jail. Not both.

 

I'm curious. Can you explain why you continue to suggest that this must be done directly by Obama, and why it wouldn't instead be handled like other legal matters directly by the DOJ?

[Pangloss]

Because any investigation by the DOJ that's as politically charged as this one would in fact equate to an investigation by the White House.

 

As I said before, Congress can investigate on its own. It appears increasingly likely that it will do so, in fact.

[waitforufo]

...a bulk of the emails sent between 2003 and 2005 were deleted from servers in the Executive Office of the president and unrecoverable.

That is against the law.

 

Golly your right! And now Obama and his Department of Justice is part of the conspiracy! Quick! Email Keith Olbermann! He'll save the day!

 

KOlbermann@msnbc.com

[iNow]

Golly your right! And now Obama and his Department of Justice is part of the conspiracy! Quick! Email Keith Olbermann! He'll save the day!

 

KOlbermann@msnbc.com

 

waitforufo - You often make very useful and insightful posts here at SFN, but I'm sorry to say that the above appeal to ridicule and ideological labelling is just plain stupid. How many times will you be sharing the email address to Keith Olbermann before you start making useful comments again?

 

 

Come on, dude. You were doing so well. Don't resort to the stupidity we have all come to expect at every turn from neocon cranium/colon crowd. You'll convince a lot more people that you are correct by spending more time articulating your argument than denegrating people with whom you disagree like O'Reilly would.

[Pangloss]

Rofl.

[iNow]

More news keeps turning up about the actions taken during the last eight years by the previous administration. Full story at the link, applicable sections quoted below.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101360891&ft=1&f=1001

The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terrorism memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA had destroyed 92 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terrorism suspects.

 

The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.

 

The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions, but the documents themselves had been closely held. By releasing them, President Barack Obama continued a housecleaning of the previous administration's most contentious policies.

 

"Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech a few hours before the documents were released. "Not only is that school of thought misguided; I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good."

 

 

The Obama administration also acknowledged in court documents Monday that the CIA had destroyed 92 videos involving terrorism suspects, including interrogations — far more than had been known.

 

Congressional Democrats and other critics have charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a contention President George W. Bush and other Bush officials rejected.

 

The new administration pledged on Monday to begin turning over documents related to the videos to a federal judge and to make as much information public as possible.

 

The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

 

Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combating terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.

 

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

 

On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence-gathering. In that memo, he said the government's interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.

 

That memo did not specifically attempt to justify the government's warrantless wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation.

[bascule]

"too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," attorney general eric holder said in a speech a few hours before the documents were released. "not only is that school of thought misguided; i fear that in actuality it does more harm than good."

 

qft

[Mr Skeptic]

It's nice to see Obama making public the Bush administration's activities. But if he wants me to consider that he is taking the moral high ground rather than just burying Bush, he better have his own administration be transparent as well.

[Pangloss]

Wow. He's really standing in the way of investigation, isn't he.

 

Somebody ought to dig around in there and see if there might be eighteen or nineteen minutes of semi-used mag tape lying around.