From here.
Good.
Of course, not really what he said on the campaign trail. But good.
What’s the debate? Are we supposed to debate “good”?
And I assume you have a cite for Obama saying previously that he would seek criminal charges, right?
(Also, “unlikely to bring criminal charges” does not mean “no criminal charges.” Different words mean different things, you see.)
Well, yes. As I see it, an opposite position is: “No, not good!”
Yup. “Obama would ask his AG to “immediately review” potential of crimes in Bush White House”
Sure, which is why I said “…not really what he said…”
But if you seriously contend there’s no real difference between then and now in terms of the message being conveyed on the issue… I suggest you’re not reviewing the issue with an open mind.
Good why?
On the face of it it appears as though you’re saying it’s good that the President is not going to encourage investigation into certain criminal act. Do I have you right?
-FrL-
Well, actually I’m saying, “Good that the President isn’t going to investigate acts to see if they may be construed as criminal.” Your phrasing presupposes the criminality of the acts.
I really like this defense. I never disregard laws recklessly either. I usually go for ‘skulky and nonchalant’.
Not sure I agree with this. He said he’d investigate on the campaign trail, the cited article said that criminal charges were not likely.
What do I think that means? Well, if I investigated Bricker for murder, criminal charges wouldn’t be likely, right? Cause, chances are, you probably didn’t murder anybody. Maybe. Just Maybe, the same logic applies here.
That’s what I meant, thanks for pointing out my mistake.
Is it that you think there should not be any investigation along these lines, or just that the President shouldn’t be the one encouraging them?
-FrL-
I never expected anything better; the elite always protect the elite. And the Democrats always give the Republicans what they want. No matter what he’s guilty of, there’ll be no investigation or punishment for Bush.
And of course, the next President who goes into office wanting to break the law, lie, undercut the Constitution, torture and mass-murder will be that much more likely to do so knowing that he faces no personal consequences for doing so. Just one more step on America’s path to fascism.
You think there’s a contradiction between (1) Obama will investigate and (2) charges are unlikely. That means that you think an investigation would likely lead to charges. Bricker, you radical!
There is nothing contradictory in Obama’s statements. He said that he would have his AG review the torture issue, and if he found blatantly illegal actions, he would prosecute them. I’ll go out on a limb here and assume that you believe there is “little, if any chance” that blatantly illegal actions would be found. Thus, I think you would agree that based on Obama’s statement there was never any intention to charge anyone in the Bush administration with a crime. The only way that his statements could be contradictory is if you believe (a) there were blatant crimes committed by the Bush administration, and (b) Obama has changed his mind and won’t pursue those criminal activities.
Wow.
Yes, I agree that parsing carefully, there’s nothing contradictory here.
I contend that the tone of the two statements, the general impressions the listener is left with, vary dramatically. Do you agree?
Let’s read his entire quote before we judge a difference in subjective impression of tone, shall we?
Well, I find it difficult to extract Obama’s tone from anonymous statements by two senior advisers, but no, I don’t see much difference. The clear and obvious implication from Obama’s first full statement is that a review would be conducted, but charges filed only if blatant violations of the law were found. I don’t see anything contradictory there between that statement and the fact that charges are unlikely.
OK.
The paragraph makes perfect sense – calm, measured approach. Attorney General investigates, weighs issues, calm and deliberative decision made.
When did that stuff happen?
See, THAT is why the tone is different. The message pre-election was fair but firm: we’ll look at the issue and make a reasonable judgement.
But now, it’s “unlikely” that any charges will be filed. DO they know something now that they didn’t know then? If they don’t, then it seems to me it would have been fair to end that calm, deliberative paragraph by saying “…but it’s ultimately unlikely that criminal charges will be brought.”
Or have they learned something between now and then that changes the picture?
OK, obviously the sense of different message is mine alone.
No comments on the “good” part of it? Sure seems to me we had plenty of people around here saying that Bush and Cheney should go to prison at one point.
“Harsh interrogations”? Is thaaaaaat how it’s being covered up? Well, instead of pursuing criminal charges, the Obama administration should pursue “legal reconciliation.”
If they now said an investigation seemed unlikely, I would understand the contradiction. Is there any suggestion that they will not not even be investigating anything?
As to whether being reluctant or unlikely to bring charges is good, I think it is. Whether there is anything to charge aside, I’d rather Obama tackle AGW than GWB.
Bad.
This is key. According to the link in the OP, plans aren’t final so they’re not spilling the beans. But even from the quote in post #13, he seems to be saying that criminal charges are likely… he’s just saying that he’ll investigate. And now aides are also saying that criminal charges are unlikely, and apparently plans aren’t final about whether or not there’ll be an investigation.
So, I see no contradiction… yet. We should all keep an eye on it and find out of he really does renege.