I helped elect President Obama.

[Summer Hathaway]

51. As I pointed out to you

in our last exchange on this topic, this is not about semantics - it is about the law.

Cheney never admitted to committing war crimes. He admitted to using whatever means the Bush administration deemed necessary to protect the nation from further attacks after 9/11, and hid behind the banner of "protecting national security" as a reason for their actions NOT being equivalent to war crimes.

If you have a link to Cheney, or anyone else from the Bush admin, 'admitting' that they committed war crimes, I invite you to post them.

"Torturing words to pretend what happened somehow never did, appears to be your only superpower." Please point out where I said such crimes were never committed. In fact, I have stated clearly that I believe they were - but that proving such in a court of law is not as easy as stating what one of us - or millions of us - believe.

"Because Obama pardoned their actions by refusing to prosecute them ..." Well, we had this argument just yesterday. And as I pointed out at the time, failure to prosecute is NOT the same as a 'pardon'. If that were the case, it would mean that every DA in the nation who does not prosecute an alleged criminal (usually on the basis of there being not enough evidence to convict) is in fact 'pardoning' the alleged crime.

"looking past crimes because they happened in the past does not justify the sweeping immunity given them, or the fact that by not prosecuting them he held them above the law."

Again you reiterate the utterly ridiculous notion that not prosecuting someone is equivalent to a "pardon", or their being declared "above the law". As for 'sweeping immunity', there was no immunity given - nor would it be within Obama's powers to render them 'immune'.

As I said to you yesterday, words have meaning. And words like 'pardon' and 'immunity' have a very specific meaning in law. You may not LIKE the law of the land, but your dislike does not render the law meaningless, nor validly ignored when it suits you. Nor does your rhetoric change the rule of law in any way.

The law is what it is - whether you personally like it or not. And under the law as it stands, no 'pardon' was issued, and no 'immunity' was granted for the simple reason that under the law, they couldn't be - and your insistence that they were has absolutely no foundation in fact.