Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
31. Point taken
Fri Jul 5, 2013, 09:54 PM
Jul 2013

But also realize that there is some degree of politics involved and the American people need to be provided a plausible excuse.

"With all of this terrorism, the FBI is simply stretched too thin."

This is what they would have us believe.

Actually, President Bush did immediately pull 500 FBI agents off of active investigations to begin the terrorism campaign. There is some truth to it. In 2001 that is.

Consider that the 2008 economic debacle was a full seven years after 9/11. In other words, even after seven years, they were "stretched too thin" to adequately investigate the greatest heist in human history.

So why does it have to continue to this day? A full 12 years after 9/11? With Bin Laden dead? With Al Qaeda decimated?

Because the Justice Department is corrupt. Absolutely corrupt. "On the take".

There is no other viable reason for "Too big to prosecute" Eric Holder's refusal to take this on. Further, they obviously are not stretched too thin to storm pot dispensaries that are 100% compliant with state law. No sir. Not stretched too thin for that.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Oh hells yes. Fuck Wall Street! n/t Fire Walk With Me Jul 2013 #1
I get the impression that the Obama administration would rather go after every jaywalker and yurbud Jul 2013 #3
Heh...it would appear that way, wouldn't it? n/t Fire Walk With Me Jul 2013 #9
Yes! leftstreet Jul 2013 #2
How "aggressive" are they actually being about Snowden? Recursion Jul 2013 #4
They apparently put on enough pressure to force the landing of a President's aircraft. 1-Old-Man Jul 2013 #5
The plane had a mechanical problem Recursion Jul 2013 #6
bullshit. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #10
Possibly the president of Bolivia can shed some light on the subject. nt. sibelian Jul 2013 #13
Now that is just inaccurate. morningfog Jul 2013 #19
Lol! sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #23
Denial is not a good state to get stuck in. think Jul 2013 #26
+1 treestar Jul 2013 #16
a president does not usually "go after" his peers nt msongs Jul 2013 #7
He should. He won't...they're his buds. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #8
Obama shouldn't stop at Wall Street banksters and Cheney meow2u3 Jul 2013 #11
good point yurbud Jul 2013 #12
Voted Other - because this is a Push Poll jazzimov Jul 2013 #14
Leave it up to experienced prosecutors treestar Jul 2013 #15
Too late for that. Memories fade, fabricated stories confirmed, and things get shredded. Luminous Animal Jul 2013 #17
Great question, yurbud. Octafish Jul 2013 #18
k/r Good question. nt limpyhobbler Jul 2013 #20
Maybe if Warren was POTUS we'd see a return to law, ethics and regulation Corruption Inc Jul 2013 #21
Yeah, maybe burnodo Jul 2013 #25
I guess our right wing "Democrat" friends took the day off yurbud Jul 2013 #22
Here is why we will never prosecute the 1% thieves for past or future crimes in my lifetime: mick063 Jul 2013 #24
I think it is less a matter of resources than will. If you weighed who did more damage to the US yurbud Jul 2013 #30
Point taken mick063 Jul 2013 #31
I'd be happy if he went after the banksters as aggressively as he goes after MMJ clinics hobbit709 Jul 2013 #27
"and" not "or" n/t Greybnk48 Jul 2013 #28
Wish there was an option Caretha Jul 2013 #29
good point yurbud Jul 2013 #33
Barack Obama? flvegan Jul 2013 #32
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should Obama go after Wal...»Reply #31