And in another Presidential cycle or two, when there’s another Republican President in office, he’ll do the same things as Bush or worse, building on what Bush has already done. After all, he’ll know there’s no penalty for doing so. And things will get that much worse.
When WILL the time come to hold Bush or any other Republican President accountable ? For anything ? Ever ?
I can.
Avoiding a full blown depression, minimizing a serious recession, providing for at least near universal health care, doing something significant about global warming, moving towards more energy independence, improving our educational capabilities and outcomes, getting out of Iraq without causing even more harm as we go, respecting the privacy rights of our citizens, providing security for our citizens, preventing future abuses and crimes by public officials … all of them and more.
The other major problem with the OP’s idea is the above is the kind of thing you would have to prove.
Congress already investigated the idea that Bush and Co. manipulated the intelligence, and kept finding that what Bush believed was generally supported by the intelligence.
Nobody in their right mind really believes the kind of “no blood for oil” crap printed above, and a Congress that tries to investigate it with an approval rating less than half that of Bush is going to wind up looking even more stupid than they already do.
Cripes, get over it. You won the fucking election. Now we will see if St. Obama can lead us all to the Promised Land. Or is he another hack politician from the corrupt state of Illinois.
That is a more interesting question than hashing over “Bosh lied about Irag” for the zillionth time.
Regards,
Shodan
Two words: Impeachment.
It can be done after the president leaves office, too.
Oh, and regarding this… There is no way the Dems (even Obama) are going to pass the so-called economic stimulus package by themselves. It has nothing to do with bipartisanship-- they don’t want to be saddled with 100% of the blame if it doesn’t work. The Republicans would be doing the same thing, btw.
I’d to file a discrimination lawsuit please. On behalf of “the middle”. It’s being excluded.
No saint, no hack. The best person who ran and someone who is not powerful enough to accomplish much of a very full agenda in the toxic political environment that some here would desire to create.
As to what his plans are - we had a thread about this back in April after which it had been noted that Obama said
(Bolding mine)
So he’s on record. AG to review what is there and if there is extant evidence of consciously breaking the law and covering it up - well pursue it. But interpret the edge between dumb policy and crime erring on it being just stupidity.
Honest question; Impeached for what?
If you’re going to impeach him for causing people to die in IRaq, why on earth do you think this is a new precedent? Lyndon B. Johnson was probably responsible for killing two million people in Vietnam. Reagan pulled stunts, Bush invaded Panama, Clinton had missiles shot into apartment buildings, so on and so forth. What conceivable justification could there be for charging Bush with a crime when the last 42 Presidents haven’t been held to the same standard?
A lot of those problems were caused by the policies of BushCo. Nobody but the NeoCons wanted to invade Iraq and put Afghanistan on the back burner. The Bush admin & the republican congress have been against sustainable energy, they’ve weakened the EPA, they were against the Kyoto Protocol (which wouldn’t have solved Global Warming, but it was a step in the right direction), Hell they even hired “scientists” to challenge evidence for Global Warming and imply that it’s a hoax, They were against Universal Health coverage, the Patriot Act trampled the privacy rights of our citizens, Gonzalez and Ashcroft were corrupt attorneys general and stacked the Justice Department with loyal stooges while firing democrats. The housing finance crisis came about from faulty loans which wouldn’t have been made if the protections put in place under FDR’s watch hadn’t been repealed. The Bush administration and the Republican congress caused those problems you want to solve.
In other words, we can’t fix the mess that the Oil & defense contractor industries made with their little adventure for profit in the Middle East if we try to prosecute them for doing it in the first place?
The Republicans will just take more from us every time they get elected if the Democrats don’t stand up to them, take the money back and throw someone in jail.
We already have whitehouse staffers writing tell-all books alleging that Bush told them to manipulate the intelligence to support his position. We need to investigate Cheney’s profits from Halliburton.
Just because some republicans say “everyone else does it” doesn’t make that a fact, nor does it make the routine Republican abuse of power acceptable.
Say what? Who said civil war?
Obama should focus on being the best President that we in the USA need right now. As much as it’d be satisfying to see all of the shit of the Bush administration corrected by him, he doesn’t want to spend political capital doing it. He wants to spend it on making the country better, so that’s what he’ll do.
Now if non-involved parties have the power to do so, then he probably also wouldn’t do much to stop it. Unfortunately the parts of the government that would take up such cases would likely be under his control.
Maybe people can start filing criminal suits against the Bush Administration? I have no idea if this is possible or not, but it seems like a pretty good way to get some justice. I wouldn’t doubt that there are a few people out there that can provide egregious examples of Bush and Cheney’s unconstitutional overreaching of power.
The risk is, of course, that we will be doomed to repeat this and elect another guy of a similar mold (Sarah Palin is an example). A nice criminal investigation of the Bush admin would do wonders on that front, airing all of the dirty laundry, but unfortunately we are in too much deep shit at the moment for Obama to waste political capital on doing it. He’s taking a bit of a gamble. He’s thinking that he’ll be able to achieve the same effect by sheer contrast between his administration and that of Bush’s. Time will obviously tell. I’m sure Obama wants to go around rooting out every bit of incompetence and explain what is wrong with it, but at the very least he’s appointing people that are a vast break from the thugs that Bush had hired.
Yes, but impeachment is a political mechanism that is difficult to obtain and correctly so. I was talking more of taking a legal avenue through the courts.
Very well said. My heart goes out to him for presiding, as he will, over the biggest bunch of whiners, cry babies, and spoiled brats the nation has ever seen. I’m glad he has such a good sense of humor, and is a good dad.
The vice-president admitted that waterboarding was officially signed off on by the White House.
After WWII: “After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan’s military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.”
All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (of which the US is one) have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition. This was affirmed by Saadi v. Italy in which the European Court of Human Rights, on February 28, 2008, upheld the absolute nature of the torture ban by ruling that international law permits no exceptions to it.
Even if the president and vice president are not accountable for authorizing torture, “The New York Times reported on July 11, 2008, that ‘Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes.’”
That’s one issue, without going into the fact that bypassing the FISA court was a violation of the 4th Amendment, holding prisoners of war at Gitmo without the right to a trial or having a lawyer present is at least in violation of the principle of the 5th and 6th Amendments (legal evasiveness notwithstanding), and your standard, garden variety corruption with respect to granting government contracts to cronies with no oversight, etc.
Even if we’re not talking about impeaching Bush, there should be investigations, and if the evidence is found, prosecutions. This is necessary in a state governed by the rule of law.
The current legal system can do that. Obama’s AG can investigate Bush as much as he/she wants. What people are saying is that it won’t happen for actions he took as president, and they explained why. So that brings us back to impeachment.
The current legal system **can **do that, but the courts will more likely than not refuse to hear the case. Political question doctrine and what not.
Which also brings us back to impeachment.
So much the better! Let every administration make all its decisions aware of the threat of being investigated/prosecuted by the next one! Can you think of a better way to keep them honest?
Are you referring to Congress, or to the whole American people?
I’d say most of one, and a big chunk of the other.
I’m amazed that the OP actually thought this was on the radar at any point. AFAIK, Obama’s *never *said anything about doing it.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris