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.
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.
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:
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 *not. No matter what supposed justifications you choose to cloak it in.
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.
Nitpick:
Fellatrice is the adult spelling. * Fellatrix* is for kids.
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)
Now that would be an interesting breakfast cereal.
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)”.
Maybe that’s the sort of thing we need. Bush drastically extended Presidential powers during his term- something’s got to reel 'em in.
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.
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.
Am I reading the same quote?
He was asked a direct question - recapped by the reporter
His answer: Crimes would need to be investigated, and he’d need to find out if any were committed. But dumb policy are not crimes and there is a danger in being caught up in what can appear to be a witch hunt. Just as he as a Senator doesn’t feel that impeachment would currently be worthwhile, chasing things that fall short of “high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront” would not be fruitful as President. If there was evidence of that then of course, “nobody above the law” applies.
Seems pretty reasonable to me. We’ll look at what was done but it would have to be a serious crime with cover-up to prosecute it … not just stupid choices or minor stuff. If anything he was answering as much in the “No” as a Democratic candidate could answer. What? He’s going to say, “No, I will look away from and ignore anything that looks like it was criminal. What gets covered up in the White House stays covered up in the White House.”?
Be real.
I hate all this sniping. If Obama gets elected, I for one hope that he will be the uniter he promises to be. I’ve had enough of “The Decider” mentality, and I don’t think that Obama would be wise to start a Ken Starr style investigation upon achieving office.
If he REALLY wanted to set a pristine example to the American people that he is whom he says he is, he would take the moral high ground on this issue and focus on repairing the “why’s” of America’s many problems and not the “whom”.
As someone else stated upthread, we ARE all fellow Americans, and I am tired of this bipartisanship crap that creates an environment of indecisive, bickering and hostile relations across party lines.
We NEED to stop swaying on the fence and come together with a leader that does what he says he is going to do.
We are a nation, not two countries that are red and blue.
Exactly. It would be nice if politicians remember they’re not employees of the Republican or Democrat parties. They work for the public. The day after the election’s over, they’re supposed to be working for all of us, including the ones who voted against them.
I hope Obama goes after then full bore. It will be…interesting…to see how it all pans out, one way or the other. Personally I’m militantly neutral about the whole thing. If Bush et al have done illegal stuff then nail their hides to the wall, ship em off to Europe for war crimes or send em out on a chain gang in the deep south picking up litter on the sides of the road or breaking rocks. If Obama goes after them full bore and nothing comes of it…well, then maybe people will finally shut up about this and move on to something else.
Sounds like a win/win for me!
You guys are dreaming though if you think Obama is going to do squat in the time remaining before we shake Bush and his merry men (and women) off our coat tails. Not. Going. To. Happen.
But we’ll see. Maybe we’ll still invade Iran too…
-XT
How about, “If criminal activities come to light, my administration will of course take action. But I will not use my office to engage in any partisan witch hunting. The President of the United States doesn’t work for the Democrats or the Republicans. He works for the American people.”
That would have made a nice sound-bite.
Wouldn’t be throwing the raw meat the partisan wolves are craving though…
-XT
It’s time to kill the partisan wolves. It’s too bad Obama isn’t more experienced with firearms. Maybe if he becomes the Democratic nominee he’ll start showing up at exclusive hunting resorts during his campaign with brand new gear and accidentally shoot John Kerry in the face.
The question though wasn’t about Democrats or Republicans. I know that the art of the sound bite is to ignore the question, but silly him, he actually answered what was asked: Across the country and across the world people believe that crimes were possibly committed - will you aggressively pursue this? His answer was a carefully phrased “No.” Not aggressively pursue this. But not ignore it if it is there either. He will have his Justice Dept and AG “review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued” (bolding mine) - and only take action if evidence of real crimes is apparent. As much as he’d want to avoid the distractions of something that might be perceived as a partisan witch hunt, evidence of serious crimes with knowing cover-up couldn’t be ignored. Would ignoring extant evidence of serious crimes (if it existed, and it would be foolish to say that it is impossible that such evidence can already be extant) be working for the American people?
I am entirely non-partisan about this. Any Dems who were invovled in these disgraces should be subject to precisely the same scrutiny. Fair’s fair.
Yes. It’s not partisan if you’re right.
“Cheney strangled a man to death with the Force. We have evidence and a confession.” “Partisan witch hunt!”