Obama says he would, as POTUS, have his AG look into prosecuting Bush Admin crimes

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
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.
[/QUOTE]

That Obama doesn’t seem to share this attitude is one of the reasons he’s getting widespread support.

When half the country makes it their goal to fuck the other half, and then that other half returns it in kind, we’re all fucked.

I worry that such is the nature of the democratic process.

62

Its’ more like 10 percent of the country convincing half the country to fuck themselves.

63

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Wouldn’t be throwing the raw meat the partisan wolves are craving though…

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Actually, the real partisan wolves are the Neocons. They aren’t conservatives by any stretch of the imagination once you get past their rhetoric and observe what they actually do. Such as try to police the world. Drive govt. spending through the roof, on credit no less. Expand invasions of people’s personal privacy beyond what they do in their bedrooms to reading their emails and tracking their phone calls (and movements if you’re using a cell phone) to keep us nanny safe. Expanded the roll of government by turning it over via corruption to corporate interests. How is any of that classic conservatism?? They spent 30 years honing a message that won them a lot of elections over half that time but once they were fully in the driver’s seat most people are starting to see what kind of backroads they’re taking us down.

They have created a wedge by demonizing liberals and shoo-shooing what they call paleo-conservatives out of the picture. Not that the Democratic Leadership Council on the Democratic side and their followers haven’t played along as the goofy, loser sidekick.

But with the average person’s dismay with the country these days at 80%, progressive Democrats starting to regain control of their party at the grassroots level, and traditional conservatives getting fed up to here with the GOP, I think a through housecleaning of gov’t if it actually happens would be welcomed by about 80% of Americans.

Someone has to start laying down the law and holding public officials accountable on both sides of the aisle. Good on Obama if he wins and actually does this. Maybe John Edwards as AG would be up to the job.

64

Neocons are a lesson in why it’s dangerous and stupid to be blindly loyal to your party. Necons don’t actually represent at all most of the ideals of the republican party in any way, and yet people have blindly decided that they’re going to blindly support the [R] next to their name because that’s how most people in our political process work. They pick their side and shut off their brains.

Democrats are not morally superior, as they tend to show the same partisan brainlessness. They haven’t managed to fuck up the country as bad in recent years, but that’s more a sign of the lack of power than philosophical superiority.

65

[QUOTE=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. It’s just retribution after the fact.
[/QUOTE]

Are you of the opinion that if someone breaks the law and isn’t immediately caught it isn’t worth punishing them?

Note that I’m not talking about the statute of limitations here, I’m talking a year or two? Your house gets burned down and your whole family dies. Should we ignore looking for the arsonists? Is it just retribution after the fact?

Your argument is unconvincing.

66

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Neocons are a lesson in why it’s dangerous and stupid to be blindly loyal to your party. Necons don’t actually represent at all most of the ideals of the republican party in any way, and yet people have blindly decided that they’re going to blindly support the [R] next to their name because that’s how most people in our political process work. They pick their side and shut off their brains.

Democrats are not morally superior, as they tend to show the same partisan brainlessness. They haven’t managed to fuck up the country as bad in recent years, but that’s more a sign of the lack of power than philosophical superiority.

[/QUOTE]
Voting for the man and not the party sounds all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that when you vote, you’re voting to support (or fight against) a certain philosophy of governance.

I vote for candidates (on the national level anyway) based on which one’s political philosophy meshes most closely with how I think government should be run. In my case, the mere fact that he may or may not be a true Republican in the old school sense makes little difference because he’s the only Republican candidate I’ve got and he’s still far more likely to govern in a way more to my liking than would the Democratic candidate. The same holds true for most Democratic voters as well.

67

I remember back when I used to post frequently on some gun boards, the issue of particular republicans who were fairly anti-gun came up. People would ask “why would you vote for that guy? he’s anti-gun” and the response was basically “well… yeah, but at least he’s not a democrat” - essentially acknowedging “yes, this guy will screw me on the issue I find most important, but at least it’s MY guy screwing me, and not the other guy”

I have a hard time believing that most of the people who’ve been republicans for years are war mongering, fiscally irresponsible, rights-violating assholes at heart. So why do they vote for people who will run the government in that way? Because of the ingrained idea that the other side is always the ultimate evil, and you have to keep voting for your side, no matter how much your own side screws you or diverges from your principles.

When you get a two party system, with blind allegiances, partisianship, and genuine hatred towards The Other Side, everyone is screwed. Politicians no longer have to really represent the people voting for them - they just have to give the perception that they’re a little closer to being on their side than the other side is, and that you’re locked into this us-or-them choice. Governments are given free reign to do whatever they want because they’ll have legions of followers willing to support them no matter what because it’s Their Side.

It saddens me that there weren’t a massive number of republicans over the last 8 years who believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, and all that to react to the current president and congress by saying “wtf is this shit? I’m out”. Because they’re so ingrained into the mindless allegiance to your party idea that they can’t consider doing anything but blindly supporting it. People who, 10 years ago, would scoff at the idea of expanding the government faster than anyone since FDR and would fight tooth and nail to stop it if The Other Side was doing it instead suck it up and mindlessly defend it because Their Side is doing it.

68

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
I remember back when I used to post frequently on some gun boards, the issue of particular republicans who were fairly anti-gun came up. People would ask “why would you vote for that guy? he’s anti-gun” and the response was basically “well… yeah, but at least he’s not a democrat” - essentially acknowedging “yes, this guy will screw me on the issue I find most important, but at least it’s MY guy screwing me, and not the other guy”
[/quote]
IMO, he’s acknowledging no such thing. He’s saying, "Yeah, I might get screwed on gun control but the isn’t going to champion it either and given that I disagree in the main with the Democrat philosophy of governance, I’m gonna vote for the Republican.

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
I have a hard time believing that most of the people who’ve been republicans for years are war mongering, fiscally irresponsible, rights-violating assholes at heart.
[/quote]
They aren’t.
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
So why do they vote for people who will run the government in that way?
[/quote]
Several reasons:

One, they don’t necessarily agree that their candidates are war mongering, fiscally irresponsible, rights-violating assholes.

Two, if they have come to believe that their candidates are war mongering, fiscally irresponsible, rights-violating assholes, they don’t think it necessarily follows that the next guy will be as well.

Three, even though they may have come to disagree with the actions taken by their candidate (vis-a-vis the Iraq war, because that’s what you’re talking about here), they may feel it’s nevertheless the right thing to do to follow through and not abandon the Iraqis until their country has been stabilized and its citizens’ safety can be reasonably assured, but the Democrat wants to withdraw as soon as possible.

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Because of the ingrained idea that the other side is always the ultimate evil, and you have to keep voting for your side, no matter how much your own side screws you or diverges from your principles.

When you get a two party system, with blind allegiances, partisianship, and genuine hatred towards The Other Side, everyone is screwed. Politicians no longer have to really represent the people voting for them - they just have to give the perception that they’re a little closer to being on their side than the other side is, and that you’re locked into this us-or-them choice. Governments are given free reign to do whatever they want because they’ll have legions of followers willing to support them no matter what because it’s Their Side.

It saddens me that there weren’t a massive number of republicans over the last 8 years who believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, and all that to react to the current president and congress by saying “wtf is this shit? I’m out”. Because they’re so ingrained into the mindless allegiance to your party idea that they can’t consider doing anything but blindly supporting it. People who, 10 years ago, would scoff at the idea of expanding the government faster than anyone since FDR and would fight tooth and nail to stop it if The Other Side was doing it instead suck it up and mindlessly defend it because Their Side is doing it.
[/QUOTE]
So what you think a person should do if they become disenchanted with the politicians they’ve voted in office is:

a.) Expect that the next candidate is going to perform identically.

b.) Abandon completely his overall philosophy of governance and instead switch to and support the party whose policies and philosophy he has previously vehemently opposed (and likely still does) simply because he’s unhappy with two or three areas in which the guy he elected let him down, and he should completely ignore the dozens or hundreds of other things that politician might have done that are in line with his philosophy.

c.) Have complete and utter confidence that he will be happier with life in this country for years to come as a result of the actions, programs, supreme court nominations, etc. carried out by a president who is his philosophical opposite.

I would suggest that voter motivations are nowhere near as simple, cut-and-dried, stupid or mindless as you seem to think.

69

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
IMO, he’s acknowledging no such thing. He’s saying, "Yeah, I might get screwed on gun control but the isn’t going to champion it either and given that I disagree in the main with the Democrat philosophy of governance, I’m gonna vote for the Republican.

[/quote]

I summed up long discussions in a sentence or two. The general observation I made is that they’re far more likely to accept gun control legislation from republicans.

Ironically, because of this, it may be easier for the opposing party to enact laws contrary to the wishes of their constituencies than the parties generally advocating such things. Bill Clinton is the guy who put through welfare reform whereas if Bush were doing it, it would probably meet fierce resistance. Bush and the republican congresses of the 2000s expanded the government in a fiscally irresponsible way at a ridiculous rate that would’ve never been tolerated if the democrats had tried to do the same.

Then they’re seriously delusional.

It’s not just Bush - it’s a whole movement that involves the republican controlled congress.

I’m talking about plenty more than that. Increasing spending massively while cutting taxes, expanding government programs, gitmo, torture, illegal wiretaps, expanding the power of the executive, all that good stuff.

I’m generally in agreement with this. Pulling out of Vietnam lead to the slaughter, oppression, and “re-education” of the South Vietnamese people. The history books don’t really cover that because it’s pretty bleak and makes us (and the protesters) look bad.

Since what has been done in the last 8 years has been done with the support of the majority of congress, it seems to be the new platform of the republican party.

Nope, this is the false dilemma that people buy into that locks us into the shitty situation we’re in. Because you’re dissatisfied with republicans doesn’t mean you have to go vote democrat.

For instance - what do you think my political alignment is? I suspect different people on these threads would both have opposite assumptions, trying to pigeonhole me into the “if you’re not us, you’re them” mindset.

I doubt it. I see it here every day, and this place is smarter than average.

Either major political party could suddenly become the party of puppy stomping and orphan cannibalizing and it would only minorly shake up their constituency.

70

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Nitpick: The word “bipartisanship” means the opposite of what you seem to think it does.

71

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I’ll oppose or support such an investigation depending on the predicate for it.
[/quote]
No, you will support such an investigation of any Republican, and oppose it for any Democrat.

Fortunately, the Democrats in Congress have been unable to achieve much of their Contract with America, and even so, have failed to try the partisan witch hunt you suggest as a distraction from their failures. It will be (if possible) even less credible if they try it if and when Obama makes it to the Oval Office. I grant you, if America does elect its first affirmative action President, he is likely to need a distraction from his failures even more than Pelosi does now. If that is a precedent he wants to set, fine - as mentioned, what goes around comes around. Come 2013, ex-President Obama and his toadies may have several reasons to hope that incompetence is not defined as criminal.

As I said, no doubt you and the Usual Suspects will flip-flop with the facility of long practice, but those motivated by principle instead of partisanship will see thru you then as we do now.

Regards,
Shodan

PS -

Dear Polycarp -

‘Clinton was impeached for a blow job’ was a tiresome tu quoque years ago. Until you’re able to come up with anything worthwhile, I suggest you save the stupid-ass hijack. BrainGlutton is trying to recover from his blunder by limiting the discussion to the witch hunt he hopes Obama is fool enough to try in 2009. Let’s humor him.

  • S
72

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Ironically, because of this, it may be easier for the opposing party to enact laws contrary to the wishes of their constituencies than the parties generally advocating such things. Bill Clinton is the guy who put through welfare reform whereas if Bush were doing it, it would probably meet fierce resistance. Bush and the republican congresses of the 2000s expanded the government in a fiscally irresponsible way at a ridiculous rate that would’ve never been tolerated if the democrats had tried to do the same.
[/quote]

“Only Nixon could go to China.”

73

[QUOTE=Shodan]
No, you will support such an investigation of any Republican, and oppose it for any Democrat.
[/quote]

I don’t recall defending William Jefferson.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Fortunately, the Democrats in Congress have been unable to achieve much of their Contract with America . . .
[/quote]

Their what?

Certainly their performance since the 2006 election has been disappointing, but that just means they need to grow a spine. Maybe having a Dem in the WH will help.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
. . . and even so, have failed to try the partisan witch hunt you suggest as a distraction from their failures.
[/quote]

That’s not why I’m suggesting it.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
It will be (if possible) even less credible if they try it if and when Obama makes it to the Oval Office.
[/quote]

Why? Congress has already tried to investigate certain stinky things but they keep running up against Bush Admin resistance, defiance, claims of executive privilege . . . If Obama becomes POTUS all that goes away. You lose no credibility by acting when you can.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I grant you, if America does elect its first affirmative action President . . .
[/quote]

You did not, of course, actually mean to type that.

[QUOTE=Shodan]
BrainGlutton is trying to recover from his blunder by limiting the discussion to the witch hunt he hopes Obama is fool enough to try in 2009.
[/quote]

I committed no blunder of any kind in my formulation of the OP, and the possibility of investigations of Bush officials under an Obama Admin is the only topic I proposed for discussion. As you know. (Impeachment discussions, as I have pointed out, belong in a different thread.)

74

[QUOTE=Shodan]
No, you will support such an investigation of any Republican, and oppose it for any Democrat.

[/QUOTE]

Isn’t it great that we have Friend Shodan here to tell us how we *really *think, regardless of what we think we think?

75

Bleh…

76

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Bleh…
[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

77

[QUOTE=Shodan]
As I said, no doubt you and the Usual Suspects will flip-flop with the facility of long practice, but those motivated by principle instead of partisanship will see thru you then as we do now.
[/QUOTE]

Wow. My irony meter just shattered.

And stop calling this a witch hunt. It’s clear from what he was talking about that he is not suggesting any such thing. I’m sure there are many in Congress and many on this board who would love to see a witch hunt, but Obama isn’t one of them. Of course, one way to prevent a witch hunt is to not provide such a target rich environment that it makes Halloween pale in comparison…

78

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Wow. My irony meter just shattered.

And stop calling this a witch hunt. It’s clear from what he was talking about that he is not suggesting any such thing. I’m sure there are many in Congress and many on this board who would love to see a witch hunt, but Obama isn’t one of them. Of course, one way to prevent a witch hunt is to not provide such a target rich environment that it makes Halloween pale in comparison…
[/QUOTE]

Well why doesn’t the Democratic controlled congress start the investigation now? Are they pussies? Or maybe its more like there is nothing at all out of the ordinary. Was Abraham Lincoln investigated for what he did during the Civil War? Were any number of presidents throughout various wars tried or impeached?

79

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Well why doesn’t the Democratic controlled congress start the investigation now? Are they pussies?
[/quote]

Partly, but haven’t you been following the news? They’ve been trying to investigate. The House Judiciary Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, have subpoenaed key Admin figures (past and present) like Miers and Bolten and Rove to appear and testify, and the Admin keeps responding that the subpoenaed parties are not legally obliged to comply, and any actual prosecution for contempt is complicated by the fact that Bush’s own Justice Department would (probably) have to initiate it.

That all changes if Obama or, for that matter, Clinton becomes president next January. (Not so much if McCain does.)

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Was Abraham Lincoln investigated for what he did during the Civil War?
[/QUOTE]

He might have been if he had lived. He actually expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some of the things he did, but justified them because the very existence of the United States was in danger. Which it has not been, at any time, these past eight years. When come back, bring relevance.

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Were any number of presidents throughout various wars tried or impeached?
[/quote]

Which ones (other than Lincoln) are you suggesting should have been?

80

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Well why doesn’t the Democratic controlled congress start the investigation now? Are they pussies?
[/quote]
Yes.

So, it’s either that they are pussies or that nothing of note happened? Of course, given my temperament, I don’t have any problem calling them out, but some with a more deliberative temperament, or some who are more politically savvy, might suggest some vast swath of options that are not considered in your dichotomy.

I don’t think you grasp the full breadth of Bush’s wrongdoing.