The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-15-2008, 09:34 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Obama says he would, as POTUS, have his AG look into prosecuting Bush Admin crimes

He's still ruling out impeachment, but:

Quote:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
Lots of caveats and reservations, not a "Nail the bastards!" message. Still, I haven't heard anything of the kind from HRC yet. Anyway:

1. Would such investigations of the previous other-party administration be wise for a new POTUS? Would they be dismissed as a "partisan witch-hunt" no matter how cautiously the AG proceeded or how strong the case for prosecution? Is it better to forget the past and move on? (That seems to be what most new administrations have done.)

2. Should such investigations proceed, what, exactly, might they find that would be actual indictable crimes rather than bad policy decisions?

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 04-15-2008 at 09:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:03 AM
Phlosphr Phlosphr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in a Moot
Posts: 11,619
I think that kind of "sewing up the old trash" is commendable. I'm not sure how much the public would get to watch, meaning I doubt we'd see a public spectacle of the whole thing but you never know. Obama seems to be eluding to cleaning up the wreckage of the past and at the same time forging a path for thr future. I'll say it again, if he does 30% of what he purports during his first term I'll be very happy.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:09 AM
Mosier Mosier is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
I think Obama knows that public prosecutions of his political rivals would NOT be a good way to unite America. It would be the most divisive thing he could possibly do as POTUS, which is why he's so reserved in the wording in your quote. Lots of us (and understandably so) want Republican blood right now, but Obama seems to have a level head about it. Good for him.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:10 AM
Dumbguy Dumbguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
If he's really going to change the nature of American politics like he claims he can, this wouldn't be a good way to start the process. The irrational rancor between the parties and our tendency to divide ourselves into polar camps defined by catchphrases is as big a problem with our political system as corruption and incompetence. The best way for him to lead us away from that is to set an example of how a president can and should should conduct himself.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:11 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbguy
The irrational rancor between the parties . . .
At the moment, such rancor is not irrational.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:26 AM
E. Thorp E. Thorp is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbguy
If he's really going to change the nature of American politics like he claims he can, this wouldn't be a good way to start the process.
On the contrary, I'd say finally having some accountability would certainly change the nature of American politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbguy
The best way for him to lead us away from that is to set an example of how a president can and should should conduct himself.
He could do this and pursue accountability, I think. He'd face a lot of hysterical opposition from the other side and from the media, but if elected he's going to face that anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:28 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Gee, that's a pretty bold position to take during the Democratic primary. He's really going out on a limb there...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:39 AM
Mosier Mosier is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace
Gee, that's a pretty bold position to take during the Democratic primary. He's really going out on a limb there...
I think he's going out on a limb by being rational about it and ruling out impeachment.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:49 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 26,313
How exactly does one impeach someone who isn't holding office?

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:53 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
How exactly does one impeach someone who isn't holding office?

Regards,
Shodan
See this thread. W is still in office and there's still time to impeach between now and January '09, and Obama, as a senator, would be part of (the trial end of) that process if it happened.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:56 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 26,313
And what exactly does that have to do with the OP? Obama was talking about he might do as President. See the title?

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:58 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosier
I think he's going out on a limb by being rational about it and ruling out impeachment.
What does the executive branch have to do with the impeachment process? (Hint: nothing.)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:03 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
And what exactly does that have to do with the OP? Obama was talking about he might do as President. See the title?

Regards,
Shodan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama
You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.
He was responding to questions that have been directed to him as a senator. Can we drop this silly hijack now?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:11 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 59,236
Quote:
Would such investigations of the previous other-party administration be wise for a new POTUS? Would they be dismissed as a "partisan witch-hunt" no matter how cautiously the AG proceeded or how strong the case for prosecution? Is it better to forget the past and move on?
In my opinion; no, yes, and yes. I think it would be a terrible idea to establish a precedent of an incoming President having the Justice Department launch an investigation of the outgoing administration.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:26 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
In my opinion; no, yes, and yes. I think it would be a terrible idea to establish a precedent of an incoming President having the Justice Department launch an investigation of the outgoing administration.
Why? I should think it would be better for such to be routine and expected.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 04-15-2008 at 11:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:38 AM
Cervaise Cervaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
I should think it would be better for such to be routine and expected.
You realize, by this argument, that you are surrendering to the real problem, which is that it should be "routine and expected" for an administration to police itself.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:42 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 26,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
He was responding to questions that have been directed to him as a senator. Can we drop this silly hijack now?
So you think as a Senator he was speaking of "his" AG and "his" Justice Department?

And where your title said "POTUS" you meant Senator, right?

So now you are alleging that Obama doesn't know how the Senate works, or that there is only one President at a time? Or do you not know that?

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:43 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cervaise
You realize, by this argument, that you are surrendering to the real problem, which is that it should be "routine and expected" for an administration to police itself.
That's like saying each individual should let his/her conscience be his/her guide. Unobjectionable on its face, but not sufficient; you need a third party watching you. Our whole system is predicated on that assumption.

Relevant proposal.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:50 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Perp walks? Orange jumpsuits? Nah, fuhgeddaboutit! But turn over every rock for a vermin inventory, cold light of dawn? Oh, yeah. Hell, yeah.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:52 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
So you think as a Senator he was speaking of "his" AG and "his" Justice Department?

And where your title said "POTUS" you meant Senator, right?

So now you are alleging that Obama doesn't know how the Senate works, or that there is only one President at a time? Or do you not know that?

Regards,
Shodan
Obama, very, very clearly and obviously, was saying that as a senator he will not push for impeaching W during the remainder of his term; but if he becomes POTUS he will order his AG to look into the possibility of prosecuting Bush Admin officials for crimes committed while in office.

And this debate, as I stated clearly enough in the OP, is about the wisdom of the latter.

Really, Shodan, is this the best you can do? This kind of nitpick/hijack is pathetic and embarrassing and ignorant even by your forensic standards.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:02 PM
yojimbo yojimbo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
So you think as a Senator he was speaking of "his" AG and "his" Justice Department?

And where your title said "POTUS" you meant Senator, right?

So now you are alleging that Obama doesn't know how the Senate works, or that there is only one President at a time? Or do you not know that?

Regards,
Shodan
Wow. I'm not that up on how the US system works but come on! At least try.

BO says that he as a Senator doesn't think that an impeachment now wouldn't be useful/helpful.

BO says that if he is made president then he'll have his AG look into the actions of the previous admin from a criminal POV.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:02 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 34,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
That's like saying each individual should let his/her conscience be his/her guide. Unobjectionable on its face, but not sufficient; you need a third party watching you. Our whole system is predicated on that assumption.
How much of what has gone was the result of their assumption of a permanent Republican majority where they would never be investigated? Even if a third party is not watching you now, the knowledge that one will be later should help.

This seems to be a special case because of how covered up they kept everything. I think an investigation, confidential, to find out what really was going on would help. It's not like the Bushies haven't been caught in lies again and again - witness the current torture flap.

But for those who think this is a bad idea - can't you conceive of an administration with a majority in Congress doing things so bad that criminal penalties are required? How about secret rendition of citizens? Widespread domestic wiretapping without court orders. Plumbers who weren't stupid enough to get caught?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:23 PM
Dumbguy Dumbguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
At the moment, such rancor is not irrational.
Seems irrational to me. Weíre all on the same team. The Republicans and the Democrats arenít warring superpowers. We all want peace and prosperity and unlimited access to cake and whatever else it is that people band together into nations to create. We may disagree about methods, but viewing each other as enemies to be ground into the dirt at every opportunity is self destructive.

We want our president to negotiate with Iran and China (at least some of us do), but we donít want him to negotiate with Wyoming?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:28 PM
Stealth Potato Stealth Potato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbguy
Seems irrational to me. Weíre all on the same team. The Republicans and the Democrats arenít warring superpowers. We all want peace and prosperity and unlimited access to cake and whatever else it is that people band together into nations to create. We may disagree about methods, but viewing each other as enemies to be ground into the dirt at every opportunity is self destructive.
Umm, none of this should give any administration a free pass to commit all sorts of heinous crimes with eternal impunity.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:44 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Obama's statements actually sound pretty measured to me. I don't see him as expressing any intent to go on a crusade, only that he won't rule out possible prosecutions if it can be shown that something indisputably criminal happened. I actually see this statement as kind of telegraphing to the left that he is not going to spend a lot of energy and capital pursuing a political vendetta. As he says, really stupid policies aren't going to be enough. He's saying he would need provable crimes to really be aggressive. I think that's a position he has to take. He can't say he would ignore real crimes, but he's saying isn't going to try to contrive anything just to please people like me either. I see his comments as perfectly reasonable, but do not read them as a declaration that the current aministration has anything to fear either.

Last edited by Diogenes the Cynic; 04-15-2008 at 12:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:54 PM
zamboniracer zamboniracer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,723
I think the idea that the Administration ISN'T accountable to its successors is one that is relatively new. If one knows he is accountable and cannot rely on a pardon, he is more apt to not break the law.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:55 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 59,236
Quote:
I should think it would be better for such to be routine and expected.
What would it accomplish? If an Obama admistration locks up Bush, Cheney, and a hundred other members of this administration in 2010, it won't do anything towards undoing their mistakes. It's just retribution after the fact. If Senator Obama thinks government officials are breaking the law now, he should address it now. And President Obama should address the problems that occur during his administration not look back to the past.

And if President Obama launchs a sweeping investigation of the Republican administration that preceded him, count on the next Republican president to do the same on the Obama administration. We'll have added a new way in which legitimate tools of the government can be misused for partisan point-scoring.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:00 PM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Seems to me a better approach would be to investigate - say - war profiteering. Would be less open to attacks as politically motivated.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:09 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
And if President Obama launchs a sweeping investigation of the Republican administration that preceded him, count on the next Republican president to do the same on the Obama administration. We'll have added a new way in which legitimate tools of the government can be misused for partisan point-scoring.
Fine with me. That would not be "misuse."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:18 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 26,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
Obama, very, very clearly and obviously, was saying that as a senator he will not push for impeaching W during the remainder of his term; but if he becomes POTUS he will order his AG to look into the possibility of prosecuting Bush Admin officials for crimes committed while in office.
And your title, very clearly and obviously, referred to what Obama might do as President. And there was some chat about how Obama was being rational by putting impeachment off the table. Unfortunately, it was never on the table, since by definition Bush would not be in office when Obama has the opportunity to use his Justice department.

So Obama is not being "rational" by ruling out impeachment after Obama is POTUS.
Quote:
And this debate, as I stated clearly enough in the OP, is about the wisdom of the latter.
Then the very first line of your OP is irrelevant and stupid.
Quote:
Really, Shodan, is this the best you can do? This kind of nitpick/hijack is pathetic and embarrassing and ignorant even by your forensic standards.
No, you said something stupid, and I called you on it. I know you don't like it, but that doesn't matter. Saying Obama is ruling out impeachment as an option when and if he becomes President is like saying he is is a great guy because he won't take Bush out behind the barn and have him shot. He can't do that either.

OK, now Obama claims he might want to have a witch hunt. That's pretty low-class. Even Bush and the Republicans didn't stage investigations after Billary stole furniture from the White House and sold pardons for money.

Look, you lost the fucking elections. Both times, fair and square. You aren't going to be able to get Bush. Somehow or other, you are going to have to deal with that. Maybe Obama isn't motivated with the kind of petty spitefulness that that many of y'all seem to rejoice in - perhaps we'll see.

Just keep in mind that it is not guaranteed that Obama will be the next POTUS. You want to play the game that way? Then I expect y'all to keep your yaps shut if McCain decides to launch an investigation of whatever he might find out about Hilary - or Obama.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:25 PM
Bosstone Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Diogenes summed it up exactly. I can't imagine that the incoming administration, whether it's Obama, Clinton, or McCain, wouldn't examine the material that the previous administration covered up. If there's something clearly illegal in that material, then not prosecuting would frankly be unethical. But it would have to be something that's undeniably illegal or treasonous; I wouldn't want to see Bush hounded over irrelevancies or bad but legal actions in the hope of nailing him on something.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:26 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
OK, now Obama claims he might want to have a witch hunt.
Cite? Please quote single thing Obama said that would indicate any such thing.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:44 PM
MovieMogul MovieMogul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Cite? Please quote single thing Obama said that would indicate any such thing.
POTUS = Witch.
Accountability = Hunt.

You must have missed the memo.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:45 PM
yojimbo yojimbo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
And if President Obama launchs a sweeping investigation of the Republican administration that preceded him, count on the next Republican president to do the same on the Obama administration. We'll have added a new way in which legitimate tools of the government can be misused for partisan point-scoring.
He never mentioned anything about a sweeping investigation. They're your words not his.

If President Obama broke the law while president and that was brought to light by the next admin I don't really see where the problem is. It will go in front of the court and if there was illegal activity he/they should be punished.

Do you think former Administrations(no matter what party) should be immune from scrutiny? That hardly seems like the actions of a mature democracy IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:05 PM
Mosier Mosier is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
1. Would such investigations of the previous other-party administration be wise for a new POTUS? Would they be dismissed as a "partisan witch-hunt" no matter how cautiously the AG proceeded or how strong the case for prosecution?
To some people, like Shodan, there is no circumstance in which a democrat president could proceed with a criminal investigation into the Bush administration that would be anything other than a partisan witch-hunt.

I don't share his opinion, but plenty of other people do. Obama could not possibly order a criminal investigation of this nature without deeply dividing the country along partisan lines.

To Shodan: stop with the hijack already. Obama himself compared the appropriateness of impeachment vs. future investigation without anyone jumping down his throat and calling him stupid, and you should give the same courtesy to Brainglutton. The post makes perfect sense without your belligerent insistence on fighting over semantics.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:16 PM
Cervaise Cervaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosier
To Shodan: stop with the hijack already.
When the only tool one has is a hammer...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:17 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
. . . after Billary stole furniture from the White House and sold pardons for money.
Hmmm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
Look, you lost the fucking elections. Both times . . .
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
. . . fair and square.
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
You aren't going to be able to get Bush.
This isn't limited to him, it's about the whole Admin. But an ex-POTUS has no immunity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
Just keep in mind that it is not guaranteed that Obama will be the next POTUS.
Certainly not. It's not even guaranteed he'll be the nominee. The OP -- like Obama's comments quoted -- is based on a hypothetical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
You want to play the game that way? Then I expect y'all to keep your yaps shut if McCain decides to launch an investigation of whatever he might find out about Hilary - or Obama.
I'll oppose or support such an investigation depending on the predicate for it. Investigating the loser after a presidential election has never been done before, AFAIK, but that's no reason not to investigate if they have done anything to warrant it.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:19 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosier
Obama could not possibly order a criminal investigation of this nature without deeply dividing the country along partisan lines.
This is a bad thing? The Dems in Congress have been accommodating the Pubs long enough. What we need in the coming four years is a Dem POTUS who is not so ready or eager to reach arou-- across the aisle.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:25 PM
Bosstone Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
This is a bad thing? The Dems in Congress have been accommodating the Pubs long enough. What we need in the coming four years is a Dem POTUS who is not so ready or eager to reach arou-- across the aisle.
I don't agree with this. I would much rather people woke the hell up and got together on the straight and narrow, whether it be with a Democrat president or Republican. There's been more than enough nastiness to go around on both sides, and I just want to see people acting with some integrity.

Obama's been a strong advocate of transparency in government. It's not really surprising he's keen to know what, if anything, has been held back by the current administration.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:43 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 59,236
Quote:
He never mentioned anything about a sweeping investigation. They're your words not his.
"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued."

Look over everything and see if anything's illegal. That sounds like a sweeping investigation to me.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-15-2008, 02:52 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued."

Look over everything and see if anything's illegal. That sounds like a sweeping investigation to me.
He said he would "review the information that's already there," and THEN determine if anything needed to be further investigated. Review is not investigation.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:06 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 59,236
Oh, so you're figuring that the Attorney General is just going to reread some old issues of Time and Newsweek in the evening or on his days off. Nothing that will be part of his official duties during business hours.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-15-2008, 07:01 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Dear Shodan:

Ignoring the question of what is legally permissible, which Bricker has addresed quite adequately in other threads, which of the following is,in your opinion, morally wronger?

A. Uttering a falsehood about whether one has received oral sex from a willing fellatrix.

B. Uttering a series of falsehoods about another nation which successfully bears out your wish to plunge this nation into war with them, resulting in the deaths of thousands.

Further, I think Sen. Obama's position is quite clearly stated in the quotation which Brain Glutton included in the OP. Just in case you missed it, I'll re-quote it here, with the relevant phrase bolded and highlighted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack H. Obama, United States Senator
You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.
This has been, in general, my stance all along. In case it's still not clear, try this: An effort to subvert the elections process to remain in power is, IMHO, impeachable. Acting contrary to the favored policies of the Republican Party, again IMHO, is [i]not[/u]. No matter what supposed justifications you choose to cloak it in.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-15-2008, 07:07 PM
Cluricaun Cluricaun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
This is a bad thing? The Dems in Congress have been accommodating the Pubs long enough. What we need in the coming four years is a Dem POTUS who is not so ready or eager to reach arou-- across the aisle.
I'll be damned, but I'm afraid I agree with you. It's my feeling that if a Dem POTUS doesn't play pubbie style hardball with this administration as soon as he takes the job then it'll be another case of "Hey, fuck it, let Jimmy Carter have the job for a term" all over again and the Republicans will come back dangerously strong in 2012, well before all of the mopping up can be done.

The Republicans aren't nearly as strong as they pretend to be, send them flying for cover and they'll turn on each other faster than mobsters in front of a federal grand jury. If someone doesn't have the spine for it, it may be to late to ever fix the damage that we've had done.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-15-2008, 07:55 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polycarp
...A. Uttering a falsehood about whether one has received oral sex from a willing fellatrix....
Nitpick:

Fellatrice is the adult spelling. Fellatrix is for kids.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-15-2008, 08:00 PM
Anomalous Reading Anomalous Reading is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
At the moment, such rancor is not irrational.
I think there are dueling definitions here. Irrational can mean without reason. It can also be taken to mean decidedly unhelpful to the point of detriment.

In that light I think you are both right...

And as is oft the case - perhaps talking past each other. I know it's a nitpick, but it continues to amaze me how simple distinctions like this seem to be where conversations turn into something less adult (imo) on both sides of any issue.

(not that I've never done that... cough)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-15-2008, 08:27 PM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator
Nitpick:

Fellatrix is for kids.
Now that would be an interesting breakfast cereal.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-15-2008, 08:32 PM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
What would it accomplish? If an Obama admistration locks up Bush, Cheney, and a hundred other members of this administration in 2010, it won't do anything towards undoing their mistakes.
No, it won't undo it. However, it'll go a long way towards preventing it from happening again. "Do this kind of shit in office, and we'll hold you accountable for it when you're out (if we can't get you while you're in)".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
And if President Obama launchs a sweeping investigation of the Republican administration that preceded him, count on the next Republican president to do the same on the Obama administration. We'll have added a new way in which legitimate tools of the government can be misused for partisan point-scoring.
Maybe that's the sort of thing we need. Bush drastically extended Presidential powers during his term- something's got to reel 'em in.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-15-2008, 09:19 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomalous Reading
I think there are dueling definitions here. Irrational can mean without reason. It can also be taken to mean decidedly unhelpful to the point of detriment.

In that light I think you are both right...
No. At this point, Dem rancor against the Pubs is rational, helpful and nondetrimental. It's best for America that the Pubs be politically marginalized, at least in the near term. They need a triple dose of the shit they've been dishing out the past eight years. Nothing less will do the job.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-15-2008, 09:21 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosier
I think Obama knows that public prosecutions of his political rivals would NOT be a good way to unite America. It would be the most divisive thing he could possibly do as POTUS, which is why he's so reserved in the wording in your quote. Lots of us (and understandably so) want Republican blood right now, but Obama seems to have a level head about it. Good for him.
But the point Obama makes is that it is probably the right thing to prosecute ACTUAL CRIMES. Do the Republicans get a "gimme" on the crimes they've committed in office because it might piss the Pubbie electorate off? I don't THINK so. As Obama said, you have to make a distinction between bad policy and actual crimes, but I for one think the Republicans HAVE committed actual crimes while in office, and should be prosecuted for them. Same for any Dem administration that commits actual crimes. As opposed to getting consensual blowjobs.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.