President Obama will soon be reaping the harvest he sowed by not pursuing the Bush Admin. criminals

[MNBrewer]

Looking forward was a fatal error. We needed some heads to roll for the survival of our Republic, but that was out of the question. Too bad.

Cheney and Rumsfeld should be talking about the "Benghazi Scandal" from a prison cell, but alas.

[villager]

1. Yup. Repeated Democratic cowardice in the face of repeated Republican bullying and law-breaking

...has come home to roost. Once again.

[graham4anything]

6. The wisdom of the rope-a-dope is taking all the other has to give, and creaming them

where it counts

not in some macho fist fight dirty level

but in all time victory

Just like Jackie Robinson did.

A genius runs away from a fight and lives again another day


Dr. King did not hit back.
And forever, he is immortal and he won.

Building bridges is harder, but forever is longer than an instant gratificaiton

with the ACLU out there, anyhow, they would get all the people off like they got Oliver North off.

[villager]

23. Yes. Five years of "rope-a-dope" is working out quite splendidly. Clear for all to see.

Does bring up the question of who the real "dopes" are, however....

[xtraxritical]

124. If we can give the President a Democratic Congress in 2014 you'll see.

[villager]

136. You mean like the one he had his first two years in office?

[BanTheGOP]

111. We should have actually attacked the party itself

We should have rendered the republican party impotent in the first place by using RICO statutes. If that would have been the goal, the jails would be full of Bush and even Reagan-era rethugs while we would be swimming in a plethora of different, progressive political parties that actually cooperate in a democratic fashion.

But the fight is FAR from over. I'll be pontificating in a new original post tomorrow morning, "After the (faux) scandals: How the progressives must move on and lean forward." Get your popcorn.

[graham4anything]

2. Jackie Robinson named to Hall of Fame NOT stooping to their level. We will cream them in 16.

one should move forward and stop enabling Cheney/and Rove and Jeb by stooping to their level

Hillary will win 110 million votes and close to 500 electoral votes

matters little if nothing gets done til 2016

imho

sometimes the best punch thrown is the one not thrown

[MNBrewer]

9. There is a thing called "justice"

and "rule of law".

[graham4anything]

78. A public hanging? Then what? What does that accomplish? The USA never did that

It stoops to their level.
Bill Clinton was stronger after the crap they pulled against each of them

[go west young man]

107. Aside from the Old West, Slavery,

and most recently Saddam Hussein...we never get involved in hangings!

[sabrina 1]

112. Bill Clinton let the Iran Contra criminals off the hook and they are now back doing what they

do best, destroying this country.

When the Rule of Law is subverted, we get a Bush/Cheney administration. Democrats should have learned from Clinton's ending of the Iran Contra prosecutions, but sadly they did not.

And we've had years of Republican policies ever since, including during Clinton's own administration. Destructive policies that have ruined millions of lives, such as ending Glass Steagal, deregulation etc.

Prosecute criminals and we will not have any more Bush war criminals in office for a long time. But the US 'doesn't do that'. Right, it doesn't, with disastrous results.

[graham4anything]

118. The ACLU let the Bush's out of Iran/Contra. Bush also pardoned himself & everyone

but it was the ACLU that got Ollie North off.

You got a Bush/Cheney because of Ralph Nader and NH. not for any other reason but that.
Where NH went in 2000 decided the election. Gore had 270 before Florida decision if he won NH

[progressoid]

123. What sort of bizarro history book do you read?

[graham4anything]

126. The true one, not the Ron Paul version. Once the ACLU got ollie off, nothing was able to be done

the Judge said it was bad but said they got away with it.
end of story.

revisionist is to blame the democratic party for the republican/Naderwhoisarepublican/scandals.

[progressoid]

133. Dude, what's your obsession with Ron Paul?

Nobody mentioned him. You seem to be the only one that sees him in every thread.

Regarding Iran/Contra...how did the ACLU get these guys off? Robert McFarlane, Casper Weinberger, Elliot Abrams, Robert Gates, George Schultz, Richard Armitage, Robert Casey, Donald Regan, Robert Secord, Albert Hakim, Thomas Clines, Carl Channell, Robert Miller, Clair George, Duane Clarrige, Aan Fiers, Joseph Fernandez, etc. etc. etc.

[graham4anything]

134. Almost all who were alice got pardoned by 41 while in office.(and that meant 41 couldn't be)

Plus Reagan had convienient alzheimers so one could question him.

Remember this was on Reagan's term and the Bush's.
What in the world did Clinton have to do with any of that???

That is bizarre to blame Bill for that.
BTW, ask yourself which liberal senior senator of 2013 voted republican back then and ask why?

Reagan/Bush never should have been elected in 1980 at all.

[Phlem]

135. I know, right?

It's entertaining to read his posts though. The hoops and leaps his logic goes through is just, ..... oh just to many words I can't pick one.

-p

[progressoid]

137. Another DUer described it as "word salad"

That seemed apt.

[sabrina 1]

130. Lol, yes we all know that a Civil Rights organization is more powerful than Congress and the POTUS!

And the SC are innnocent bystanders to the crime that was committed in 2000.

[graham4anything]

131. FACT-the ACLU got Oliver North/Iran/Contra OFF. FACT 100%. Look it up.

People who voted for Ronald Reagan/41 gave us the court that decided.
the court did NOT break the law, they ruled unfavorable imho
but they did not break the law, they decided.

they decided because Ralph Nader threw the election in Nov.2000
like it or not
Gore got 270 with NH.
mattered nothing with later escapades in Florida.

If the same court ruled for Gore, you would not say they broke the law

it's like a baseball ump
bad calls happen once a week, and one doesn't fixate on something that can't be changed

Do you think they will seat Al Gore? Do you even want Al Gore as President if say in Jan.2017
they said Al Gore should get 4 years?

[sabrina 1]

132. Don't you ever get tired of trying to read people's minds and projecting your own

position on issues onto others? Here is an example of what I mean:

If the same court ruled for Gore, you would not say they broke the law

My position on the SC interfering in an election is that it is anti-Constitutional, regardless of who benefits from that illegal decision. Next time ask before you wrongfully assume things.

I noticed you are ignoring the main culprits in the Iran Contra scandal in order to distract from the issue. North was merely a puppet and not a very smart one. Lower level operative who could have been used as a witness in what should have been a major prosecution of the main criminals. It didn't happen so we are where we are.

Clinton allowed them off the hook, deciding to 'move forward' and that was a fatal mistake.

The SC committed treason in 2000 and it would not matter on whose behalf they did so. To those of us who care more about this country than about individual politicians.

[progressoid]

121. Exactly. The Repubs learned that they can get away with it.

[AnnieK401]

74. What about 2014?

[sibelian]

90. That's the position you have to adopt in order to make the status quo seem reasonable.

..... along with your pals.

[MrSlayer]

92. Oh it "matters little" if people don't go back to work for four more years?

What a ludicrous thing to say. People are suffering terribly and you say it "matters little" and that the corporate queen will come and save us in four years?

Ridiculous. Of course it matters.

[graham4anything]

93. How did those 2010 protest votes go for the workers? Yeah, Walker really got what they wanted

actions=consequences

nothing but 100% loyalty to the democratic party with zero fracture will do.

those that don't vote 100% to the democratic party, top to bottom, well, blame them.

this faux outrage is so faux.

btw, the economy is back to 2006 levels, best in 7 years, but don't let it spoil an anti-Obama rant.

Going against 80% of the people by not voting for Hillary makes one part of the 20 who don't want to get better
because Jeb, or racistRand will really do it.

[grahamhgreen]

119. If Obama had "put on his walking shoes" and stood by us in Wisconsin, the results would have been in

our favor.

He has fractured the party.

&feature=player_embedded

[juajen]

3. I agree. Let them get away with anything, and they multiply that activity exponentionally.neti

[elleng]

4. Oh right, repugs would treat President Obama,

SO MUCH BETTER if he had sought to indict cheney and rumsfeld!

[MNBrewer]

10. You think they would be in power?????

[bobclark86]

71. Who gives a fuck what they think?

They wouldn't have won the 2010 midterms if the biggest minds in their party were sitting in jail.

[elleng]

72. I surely don't care what they THINK (IF they do,)

But DO care about the way their 'representatives' behave in their highly faulty attempt to 'represent' their constituents.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. I agree

And I'm very much in President Obama's corner. He also could have at minimum acknowledge WHY every once in awhile a European country calls for Rumsfeld's head on a platter. . . Or Bush . . . or Cheney. Quietly feed the beast you know.

[msongs]

7. 4 years of appeasing republicans at every turn, and this is the reward lol. who'da thought? nt

[geek tragedy]

8. And how would prosecuting Bush have prevented

the IRS story from blowing up in his face?

Oh yeah, it wouldn't have. It would have made it worse.

But, never mind, soap boxes and all.

[MNBrewer]

12. This isn't about the IRS

Or the AP, or Benghazi. That is all theatrics.

It's about the Republicans in the House of Representatives. Why might it be that they did so well in the off-election?

[geek tragedy]

14. They did well because old white Republicans vote more regularly

than the Democratic base does.

Also, the economy was in the shitter, and voters wanted to punish someone.

[MNBrewer]

15. or...

Democrats were disappointed in the way Obama dealt with the crimes of the Bush Administration, thereby robbing his political base of the energy required to show up at the polls.

But I'm sure that was just Nth Dimensional jujitsu...Right?

[geek tragedy]

17. Cool story, bro.

Got any polling or data to back up your narrative?

[MNBrewer]

18. So is your, "bro"

[geek tragedy]

20. So, anything to support the theory you've concocted?

Besides your own personal outrage at the lack of prosecutions?

[MNBrewer]

21. You might be able to google as well as I can

I have faith in your abilities. How about you? any "statistics" to back up your "narrative"?

[geek tragedy]

29. For starters

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/democrats-dread-2014-drop-off/

It’s no mystery why Democrats generally perform better in presidential years while Republicans tend to excel in midterm cycles: Lower midterm turnouts tend to skew the electorate toward older, white and/or more affluent voters. Given the growing cleavage in recent decades between partisan preferences of white and non-white voters, cyclic differences in racial composition are particularly important.

Since the Census Bureau began collecting data on voting age turnout by race in 1980, white voter turnout is consistently higher in both presidential and midterm cycles. But the racial gap in presidential cycles post-1980 is consistently smaller than the gap in midterm cycles from 1982 onward. The gap is small but significant between non-Hispanic whites and blacks, but much more dramatic between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics. This overall pattern may be changing, however: For voters under 45, and especially those under 25, and in both midterm and presidential cycles, in the past decade the white/black racial turnout gap has either disappeared or even flipped to a slight turnout advantage for African Americans.

Can drop-off be mitigated?

So what, if anything, can Democrats do to drive up turnout in non-presidential cycles?

“There is little to nothing Democrats can do to mitigate the drop-off of turnout among their core constituencies that regularly happens — like a clock — when moving from presidential to midterm elections. Indeed, the primary way to stimulate midterm voters who do vote to support Democrats will not be present in 2014: a poorly performing Republican president that Democrats can rally against (e.g., Bush 2006 or Nixon 1974),” George Mason University’s Michael McDonald, one of the nation’s foremost experts on electoral turnout, explained to me via email. “The first step for Democrats is to prevent 2014 from becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy by recruiting quality candidates to run.” McDonald says Democrats will have to look to new strategies, including social media applications. “But, I caution that social media will likely not solve the Democrats’ problems since it failed to prevent the historic Republican landslide in 2010.”

Same thing happened in 2010 as happened in 1994.

[MNBrewer]

30. LITERALLY LOL...

SO, one person said there's little to nothing the Democrats can do.....

I suggested something that could have been done and you said? what?

[MNBrewer]

35. wait, whut?

Someone says nothing can be done about the 2014 drop off and you use that to bolster your claim that nothing could have been done to forestall the 2010 drop off??? HUH?

[geek tragedy]

46. Democrats have a structural deficit in midterms.

They've lost every mid-term since 1990 except for 2006.

1994--Republicans win the House
1998--Republicans hold the House
2002: Republicans hold the House
2006: Democrats win the House
2010: Republicans win the House.

This is due to base turnout levels.

[MNBrewer]

48. AND. WHY. MIGHT. THAT. BE?

[geek tragedy]

49. Demographics.

Midterms skew old, white, affluent.

Old white people ALWAYS vote. And old white people are the conservative base.

[MNBrewer]

50. k....

I give in. You're right. NOTHING could have been done. Regardless of what the Obama Administration did, they were destined to lose midterms. It's fate. Inevitable. Unavoidable....

[geek tragedy]

55. I'm not saying that NOTHING can be done.

But, there's no quick fix for this. Especially with gerrymandering that's gone on.

Democratic votes are concentrated in urban areas, where they run up the score with 80% of the votes. Then Republicans win more suburban and exurban districts with 55% of the votes. The Rpeublican votes are distributed more efficiently due to where people live and politically-motivated district boundaries.

To put 2010 in perspective:

There have been four times in the past 20 years when the same party controlled Congressa and the White House in a midterm election:

1994: Party in power gets its ass handed to them.
2002: Party in power wins due to cynical exploitation of 9/11, hyping of Iraq war threat.
2006: Party in power gets its ass handed to them.
2010: Party in power gets its ass handed to them.

[MNBrewer]

56. You're right, even the mildest exposition of the Bush Era Crimes would have been disasterous.

[geek tragedy]

60. What I'm saying is that it really had nothing to do

with why the Democratic base does what it always does under a Democratic president--sit on its ass during midterms.

[MNBrewer]

61. You're right. He was completely powerless. At the mercy of historical trends.

Trends that are beyond his slightest influence. He's not a President with a magic veto-pen or anything. I mean, what kind of fucking retards would fall for a stupid slogan like "Hope" and "Change"? He's powerless!!!!

[truebluegreen]

62. Why don't you apply that to 2006, if you are so convinced

it was only an off-year election, and nothing else.

[geek tragedy]

63. Backlash against Bush and Republican misrule.

When the same party controls Congress and the Presidency, they usually get spanked in the midterms.

1994
2006
2010

Exception was 2002, due to 911itis.

Bush was well overdue one by 2006.

[truebluegreen]

75. In other words, it isn't always just "off-year" elections

which bring lower Democratic turnout. Which was my point.

[geek tragedy]

77. Democrats have won a grand total of 1 midterm

since 1992.

Republicans won:
1994
1998
2002
2010

Democrats won:

2006.

2006 also saw the Republicans lose independents.

[truebluegreen]

80. So? Not always is not always.

If I had the time or inclination to examine the record you posted, there are a number of other factors I might point to. One of them being that Democrats stopped acting like Democrats.

But whatever.

[geek tragedy]

83. "Democrats stopped acting like Democrats"

When have Democrats ever "acted like Democrats" when in office?

[truebluegreen]

94. Decades ago, unfortunately.

But certainly not since the 80s, and it really got bad in the 90s.

[sabrina 1]

113. And why do you think this 'cycle' continues?? Maybe because when you don't prosecute criminals

see Clinton and Iran Contra appeasement, leaving them to return to power, Elliot Abrams eg who should have been jail, leading the public to believe that 'nothing happened' so they go ahead and vote for them again.

This 'system' you just helpfully outlined here for us, is the result of refusing to prosecute criminals and will continue until this country has leadership that is not afraid of applying the rule of law.

Thanks for proving the point people have been trying to make for years.

[chknltl]

138. Right on Sabrina

Thank you for expressing what I have felt for years. Perhaps i can add my further thinkings on this. Although I can have no facts to back up what I feel in my heart I just know that should the evil doers be tried in an open court the media will have little choice but to shift full focus on the proceedings.

President Jefferson said that democracy requires an enlightened electorate. The very last thing these nasty cockroaches want is is a bright spotlight illuminating their deeds. I firmly believe that had we impeached President Bush and brought his crime family to trial the electorate would have received a healthy dose of reality and that very reality would have translated to fewer votes for Republicans and more votes for Democrats.

Some in the media celebrate the fracturing of the Republican Party. I do not. For our democracy to survive we need at bare minimum two viable options for the electorate to choose from. Both of these options have been damaged by the influence of capitalism. Our democracy can not survive capitalism unrestricted. The proof of that is before our eyes now.

Obviously the Republican Party has been damaged the hardest, they represent corporate influence far more than they actually represent the needs of their electorate supporters. The Democratic Party has their own problems here as well but to a far lesser extent. IMO, the cancer needs to be cut from BOTH Parties and the only way to do this is with a sharp knife wielded by an enlightened electorate.

That enlightenment can only come at the hands of our media and they refuse to fill that position without prompting. The impeachment of President Clinton showed us how the media can go there....had we impeached President Bush it would have gone there again.

After the impeachment of the BFEE the newly enlightened electorate would have been quite sensitive to the lies and false advertisement of capitalism controlled politicians. The Republican Party as well as our own Democratic Party seeking election or reelection would have been forced away from their corporate influences and we could have had a better government-a government OF BY and FOR us.

Well that's what I feel in my heart....

[Sensible321]

102. Exposing the Bush-Crimes not only would have helped the Dems

in the next election cycle, it would have brought into question the Legitimacy Of the Government more generally - which is the Real Reason Corporate-Obama didn't do anything about it - and why Corporate-Clinton (former Wal Mart Board and CFR member with 'brother Cheney') would not have done didly either.

We seem to be forgetting that the Koch Bros created the DLC, appointing then-Gov Bill Clinton (who helped traffic Reagan-North's contra-cocaine via Mena) as director, and stole the Dem Party from the Labor Unions, who at least got us our share of the Imperialist Spoils of the wars and coups, which "our" (sic) government continually undertook no matter which "party" was in power.

So, now, in addition to knowing we support mass murderers via Despots and Death Squads around the globe (most recently, Al CIA-duh in Syria), we don't even get a payoff via good wages / jobs to shut up about it. Outsourcing and unlimited immigration, to ensure our wages are toast, are now "bi-partisan" issues masked under euphemisms like "free trade" and "humanitarianism," respectively (never mind that Koch-Clinton's NAFTA destroyed Mexican family-farms to create those 'surplus workers'). Guns, gays, and abortion 'wedge issues' are all that remains as a D/R "difference" - and those, not surprisingly, have zero effect on the Power Structure which runs the show. Get rid of the Rulers, and the reason and means to persecute each other over social differences disappears with them.

So I say, to spite my disgust with the ReThuglicans, I hope their mostly-useful-idiots drive this administration to the wall over Bengazi, AP-tapping, Guns to the Mexican Drug Gangs (caught laundering their money via Wachovia, HSBC, and BofA with no jail terms), and any other issue which shows how the sad excuse for "our" (sic) Government is nothing more or less than an the macro-economic Human Resource Management-Enforcer for the Transnational Corporate Cartel Mafia.

I expect a ReThuglican President in 2016, because it is time for the Billionaire-Rulers to take more of our liberties under 'right cover' again. But if I am wrong, and Hillary is elected, I won't be the slightest bit relieved, because I know where she is coming from, based on her associations and war-criminal activity as Secretary of State (in the Kissinger-Albright tradition).

Only if Dennis Kuchinch were to be elected, would I actually have some "hope" for the future of America, but something seems to have happened to his brain on that Air Force One ride, so I'm not holding my breath.

[Doctor_J]

100. It have said to them, "DON'T FUCK WITH ME"

He just doesn't have any fight in him. He continues to get bullied, because he never fights back.

[grahamhgreen]

120. LOL. They wouldn't have the guts or power to make it a national issue.

[LeftInTX]

11. When you're nice to a bunch of criminals what do you expect?

These guys are bullying thugs, not law abiding citizens.

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. If only somebody had pointed this out four years ago...

or even six years ago when the American people voted power to the Democratic Party looking for something different.

[MNBrewer]

16. Sowing the seeds if his own downfall

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[truebrit71]

19. The irony that Cheney thinks that Hillary should be subpoenaed is enough to make you choke...

....that evil motherfucker should be rotting in a jail cell somewhere...

[MNBrewer]

22. Now, now.... Look forward.

[MNBrewer]

25. Well, that's a very good question

But not one that the Obama Administration can answer, unfortunately. One option would have been to stop the pattern of criminality so pervasive in the Bush Administration while simultaneously prosecuting the perpetrators. Having continued some of the questionable policies of the Bush administration, they did taint themselves.

[MNBrewer]

27. Because it's what President Obama decided he wanted, clearly.

He is no "liberal". He is a centrist. He also, once occupying the chair behind the desk in the Oval Office, is reluctant to relinquish power. He, despite what some people who have No Sense might have us believe, is a human being with human fallibilities. Did I want him to be a better President the two times I enthusiastically voted for him? Absolutely. But, alas....

[on point]

37. I disagree. He is a moderate right of centrist. We have lost perspective w/ the extreme right shift

Let's not look at relative scales vs the last folks. Let's look at absolute scales. Obama is a right of center moderate ala Gerald Ford. He is NOT a centrist.

As the repukes push ever further off the cliff to fascism and delusion they drag the relative score along with them, but that is not where the country or reality is!!

[MNBrewer]

47. hard to compare politicians of today to those of the 70s

The spectrum has shifted SO far to the right.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. A valid comparison of Obama with Ford is they both gave de facto immunity to presidential criminals.

Other than that, not so much.

Ford never offered or pushed to cut Social Security, nor do any of the other strange things that Obama has been doing.

[rhett o rick]

28. There is a rumor that there was a Grand Bargain that included

hands off the Bush Killers. I hope to hell that pardons werent included.

[MNBrewer]

31. Barack Obama wouldn't know a "grand bargain" if it fell on top of him in a Costco.

[rwsanders]

33. I think the "grand bargain" was, 'hands-off' and no one has a nasty accident in a small plane

Just wish we knew who was on the other side of the table.

[rhett o rick]

40. I dont think it was quite so sinister. I think it was, hands off and we will see that a couple

of nitwits run against you and we wont steal the election this time.

I too wish to know who was across the table. I believe it was bigger than Rove and the Bush Crime Family.

[on point]

32. YEP!! They were down for the count, he let them get back up and in the game

[Ganja Ninja]

34. Obama needs to invite Dick and Rummy for dinner at the WH.

And send AF1 to get them. Then order it to fly directly to Iraq and let them off.

[OnyxCollie]

36. Impeachment is off the table!

Cowardice comes back to bite you in the ass.

[mother earth]

38. I could not possibly agree MORE...K & R...nt

[Junkdrawer]

39. Never too late.....

No statute of limitations on crimes THAT big....

[MNBrewer]

42. Requires the will

and what we have right now is the won't.

[rhett o rick]

43. A pardon can take care of that. At least for inside the USofA. nm

[fredamae]

41. "We" tried to warn

"them" about the GOP, we offered "the peoples advice", we were then called "fkg retarded", we tried to "hold feet to the fire" as We were told and have been ignored....
We got mad, we responded, then we re elected with Great hope..
I will likely change my views on all of this as this develops, however without trust in sources that "feed" us our "News"..
But, IF there is Any truth in anything we are hearing right now? I feel NO pain on behalf of those who were sent there to listen to and work For us.
I guess the bigger question is WHO Can be trusted to give us the actual facts?

[MNBrewer]

44. There might be some truth but I think it's all smoke, mirrors and political theatricality.

That hardly matters at this point. Did a semen-stained blue dress really matter? No, but you see what happened there!

[rhett o rick]

45. You cant handle the facts. You will be feed what you need. Please just drink your kool-aide like

some Democrats already have. It will go much easier if you dont fight it.

[adieu]

51. Completely agree

I don't advocate for the death penalty, but there are instances where as long as the person is alive, there will be a continued grating and chafing by the mere knowledge of the person's existence. A Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't warrant a death sentence because having him locked behind bars suffices to keep society safe.

Having a Rumsfeld or, especially, Cheney, even just locked behind bars is insufficient in that they can still spew their vitriol. Perhaps solitary confinement, which no direct contact or communication even with guards. And in that case, there's no effective difference between that and the death penalty. Just leave them in a windowless cell with no further contacts whatsoever. Two, three months later, quietly scoop out the remains and burn it.

[JHB]

52. "Fatal", probably not, but "mistake"? Yup. And a dumb one, because it had been tried before.

Apparently some people in and around the administration forgot that Bill Clinton did the same thing by not pursuing investigations of an assortment of Reagan/Bush scandals once Reagan and Bush were no longer in positions to stonewall investigators and hide information.

Nope, investigations "weren't on their radar screen". And we know how the Republicans rewarded him for his willingness to let all that fade away...

[lastone]

54. The act of prosecuting W should be looked at - -

As a simple matter of JUSTICE, not vindictive, not pay-back, simply goddamn JUSTICE. We wave our flag and say we are the greatest, we pass judgement on others who do not enact Justice and this hypocrisy is what is killing us. BO should have brought to bear the full weight of the federal justice system - international justice system even - to prosecute the lies told and the FUCKING WAR CRIMES committed by these treasonous bastards, albeit in a fully fair, just way. This is the foundation of our very democracy and is now (and has been for a couple decades) a joke. You got $, your probably not doing time, you've got power - same result. Your poor and a nobody - careful cause one slight fucking error and you'll be a statistic in one of the ways the USA actually leads the world, PRISON POPULATION!

THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY WITHOUT JUSTICE.

[MotherPetrie]

58. Bingo. But Obama couldn't afford to push for prosecuting his predecessor.

He needed to set the precedent for his successor.

[rickyhall]

57. What Dems need

An FDR backed by an LBJ

[forestpath]

59. K&R

[SleeplessinSoCal]

64. note to self: a party becoming extinct will resort to any method to survive.

Same as a wounded animal becoming even more dangerous.

And I agree that not prosecuting war criminals was a disaster. But it also makes OBL seem like a genius as fighting ourselves has done a far superior job at damaging, and possibly destroying, the USA than al qaeda ever could.

[MNBrewer]

66. When complicit hands are washing each other

does it really matter which is the left and which is the right?

[WillyT]

65. K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[JoePhilly]

67. So if Obama went after Bush, the GOP would not be investigating Obama now.

Is that really your argument?

The GOP doesn't govern. They investigate.

[MNBrewer]

69. THey can only investigate if they're in control of a body of the Legislature.

So no, my contention is that they would NOT be doing so.

[Buzz Clik]

68. Good plan. Put you political enemies in jail. Welcome to the third world.

[MNBrewer]

70. Some 3rd world war criminals wind up in jail

are you against that?

[bobclark86]

73. Here, let me fix that for you...

"Good plan. Put you WAR CRIMINALS RESPONSIBLE FOR A QUARTER-MILLION DEATHS in jail."

There, I fixed it for you.

Political enemies would be the GOP getting the president in jail for Benghazi. Benghazi =/= Random invasions based on 962 public lies by officials.

[Buzz Clik]

82. Did Congress give Bush the green light for hostilities in Iraq?

[bobclark86]

89. Yeah, they did...

and Bush lied about it to get them to do it...

Karl Rove called, he wants his talking point back.

[Buzz Clik]

95. Your delusion. Welcome to it.

[bobclark86]

96. Dude...

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline

It's not a delusion. Bush and his warwhores lied all the fucking time. Dems were shamed into the vote, and the liberal Republicans were run out of town on a rail or forced to retire.

Go type out replies fitting a neocon troll elsewhere while the grownups keep talking...

[Buzz Clik]

97. The delusion is that you think lying is a war crime. It is not.

Congress was completely complicit in the war on Iraq. Completely. Some resistance from the Dems, but not much.

DU just loves to call Bush a war criminal, and no one calls us on it because this is a friggin' echo chamber of leftwing thought. But to believe you could actually try and convict Bush for war crimes is nuts. And to do so would grind this country to complete stop.

Ya think maybe -- just maybe -- Obama had better ways of using up every bit of political capital he had than to attempt and FAIL to convict Bush and Cheney of war crimes?

[Babel_17]

105. Under our system of government you investigate first

The problem is that simply investigating was taken off the table.

At least one prominent mainstream Democrat has noted, it's not kosher for the POTUS to publicly announce that the DOJ won't be looking at the previous administration to see if crimes were committed.

I agree with those who say it's both wrong and a mistake to politicize the Justice Department and use it as a tool for revenge or to gain advantage.

But, imo, it is equally wrong to hamstring the DOJ so as to gain political advantage by looking conciliatory, reasonable, etc., etc.

To say that the whole "war crime" thing is a farce is too simplistic an argument imo.

It's the whole web of criminality that needs to be looked at. Look at former AG Gonzales. The main is practically hangdog in expression at times. Even he knows.

The political atmosphere would have accepted some low key non-partisan investigations, that were relatively narrow in focus, regarding the Bush administration malfeasances that were especially prominent and frightening.
The administration, imo, prominently and publicly gave that away in the expectation that they would be owed.

That was a tragic misjudgment, on several levels.

Now, today, we are left with the situation that any major investigation looks like a witch hunt.

[grahamhgreen]

122. Torture is a war crime, and Bush/Cheney have admitted to it.

[truebrit71]

125. Maybe not, but authorizing torture sure the fuck is...

Nice DLC talking points though "echo chamber of leftwing thought"...Careful, pretty soon you'll be calling us "the professional left" and "fucking retarded"....

[piratefish08]

103. enemies? criminals.

[BlueStater]

76. Taking impeachment for Bush "off the table" really worked out well for them, didn't it?

Sometimes, this party's own worst enemy is itself.

[YOHABLO]

79. Oh yeah, he's a shrewd political player .. I think he's incredibly naive ..>>

to think he could ever bargain with these criminals. Money trumps everything in this country. This Bush/Cheney crime syndicate got away with murder, literally murder. I think Obama has been a major disappointment .. and Oprah should be ashamed for ever endorsing him. Oh, but she's part of the 1% now, isn't she?

[stklurker]

81. no broad public support

There was NOT broad public support for this, there barely is on DU and this is way the exception. I think it would have gone over like a lead balloon and coupled with the economy would have been a disaster, and we would have president Rmoney at the moment. Please do not confuse DU with reality as far as the voting public is concerned...

[Buzz Clik]

84. +1

[Floyd_Gondolli]

85. That's how I remember it as well

It was all about "healing" and "moving on" from the Bush years. I'm not saying the OP is wrong as far as their desire for that to have happened, but the country as a whole was definitely not in that mindset at the time.

[grahamhgreen]

129. That's not true. 70% in this Gallup poll support major investigations of Bush crimes.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2006-10-25-poll.htm

[Blue_Tires]

86. k+r

[NCTraveler]

87. Once power is given to government, it is rarely turned back.

A lack of prosecution, or attempted prosecution, is the same as power gained.

There is no way the Patriot Act is going anywhere except to be strengthened. Just an example. There is no way the Justice Dept under Obama would ever go after Bush. Bush set precedent for powers that Obama can now use. If this Justice Dept went after Bush, Obama would not have the same tools at his disposal.

[spanone]

88. the republicans will probably impeach over these matters...we did nothing over war & torture

shame on the democrats. i understand forward, but it teaches politicians nothing.

[thucythucy]

91. Every time Cheney and Rumsfeld are in the headlines

Democrats gain. There are no better reminders of the absolute moral bankruptcy, not to mention flaming incompetence, of GOP rule than these two.

That said, I too wish there had been a much greater level of legal and political accountability. Forcing them both to testify under oath would have been a good start.

[OnyxCollie]

101. Rummy was on TV today.

He was yukking it up with Kathie Lee and Hoda. (The TV was left on for the dogs and I walked in to see that.)

Tell me how much Democrats gained from Rummy's appearance.

[thucythucy]

106. Didn't see it so can't comment specifically,

but I know even relatively a-political people who, when faced with seeing or hearing Cheney or Rumsfield, will mutter along the lines of "those assholes..."

I don't think either of them will ever be able to escape their connection to the Iraq fiasco. They are the face of Republican incompetence, in the same way that Sarah Palin is a plus for Democrats every time she makes the national news, as long as we stress the point that this obvious grifter airhead was the person the GOP wanted one heartbeat from the presidency. That, in my opinion, is why Fox News fired her. It wasn't because she was an incompetent bigot--since when has that ever been a problem for Fox? It's because every time she opens her mouth independents and even some Republicans want to gag.

And if the networks insist on airing Repubs--which they will--it's also far better for Cheney and Rumsfeld to be taking air time, as opposed to someone who might actually someday run for president and use the opportunity to build a consistuency.

This of course is just my opinion. It would be interesting, though, to check this theory out on a test audience, poll them before and after on their views on the GOP, and see the results.

[99Forever]

98. ****Ding****Ding****Ding****Ding****Ding****

We have a winner.

Capitulation is a losing strategy, always.

[Skittles]

99. it's WE THE PEOPLE who are REAPING THE HARVEST

[Egalitarian Thug]

108. +1 and look at the choices made available to us. n/t

[another_liberal]

104. Historians will shake their heads . . .

When historians yet unborn review the story of how no one in the Cheney/Bush administration ever served a day in jail, they will shake their heads in disbelief. What explanation could possibly clear us of our collective responsibility, our shared guilt for that epic fail.

[G_j]

109. +1

[WinkyDink]

110. I posted this idea in another thread. :-) He took the ride on the crocodile, and got surprised.

[Pelican]

114. No one cares...

Won't change a thing...

[Maven]

115. THIS

is all that needs to be said.

[Peregrine Took]

116. On a related note - Charlie Pierce said the "elite press" decided not to take down Reagan

over Iran Contra as they didn't want to be seen as bringing down several presidents.

Shows you how powerful these monsters are. That's why they gave creeps like Ollie North a pass and he is still around jawboning his mug on cable tv.

[grahamhgreen]

117. He has been since day 1. "If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind"

[gussmith]

127. Got that right

Heck yes. Cowardly 'principle' was Obama pretending to do the right thing. How was it right to not demand the most horrific political criminals in our history get treid for their war actions? No good deed goes unpunished.

[AtomicKitten]

128. Truth.