Obama Should Pardon Bush (Read, *Then* Flame Me)

[MannyGoldstein]

I was hanging out with some of my fraternity buddies in the Boston area today, at one of our kids' birthday parties. These are some scary-smart people - all Ivy Leaguers with serious graduate degrees of various sorts from Harvard, MIT, etc.

We got to talking about the current dilemma facing Obama:

1. if he continues to try to suppress prosecution of confessed war criminals, he tramples on our Constitution and international obligations.

2. if he prosecutes the war criminals, he'll create a huge rift - the vast bulk of Americans aren't ready to see their former president and much of the upper echelon of his infernal administration go on trial and sent to prison. We'll be punished badly in future elections.

Two terrible options.

Then we came up with a third option - pardoning Bush and his band of scum. Obama can face the country and say "Look, these people have definitely committed some of the most heinous crimes people can commit, and posterity will condemn them forever as war criminals - but for the good of our country, I'm pardoning them so we can move on." With malice toward none, with charity for all, as Abe Lincoln said after an ordeal far, far more terrible then we've just endured.

This is essentially what Ford did in pardoning Nixon (but without the "definitely guilty" part) - and it worked. We moved on.

Yeah, it would seriously suck, but it avoids using the Constitution as toilet paper, and can keep the Republican Party from gaining in the next elections. We'd still be violating our international obligations - but I don't think any other country truly wants to put our ex-administration on trial, so they'll mumble for a short while then get over it.

Look, if it were up to me, Bush and his gang would be in prison, as Stephanie Miller says, "trading cigarettes for their lives". But this just may be the least-awful alternative.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Should "moving on" be the goal? Is the process by which it happened not important? nt

[rwheeler31]

7. As smart as some think they are, if these deaths go unpunished

they will continue.

[Pirate Smile]

2. People have said Obama isn't Jimmy Carter. He also isn't Gerald Ford.

[NoSheep]

92. Those people can at least be counted among those who have a pulse.

[tekisui]

3. He is neither suppressing nor prosecuting war criminals.

He is allowing the Justice Department and Congress to do what they will. He is not impeding them, nor is he the one doing the prosecuting.

The dumbest thing he could do is pardon Bush and Bush's cronies.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. He Has Clearly Stated That CIA Interrogators Are Off Limits

Even though they have clearly committed war crimes by any accepted definition. As to the rest of the bunch - he's playing hot potato with Holder. His words, inflection, and body language simply scream it.

[tekisui]

10. He has said those who adhered to the legal memos in 'good faith'

are off limits. That is a very narrow group. We already know that much of the torture was done before the memos, or after they were withdrawn, which they were in Dec. of 2004. And, it only protects those who did not exceed what was prescribed in those memos, and we know many went much farther.

As for the 'hot potato', it is up to Holder. Obama is the President, not the AG, not the prosecutor or the investigator. He is governing and sticking to the political fight. The previous administration's torture is simply not his jurisdiction, unless he pardoned, which would be tragic.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. It's Still A War Crime, By Any Accepted Standard

"I was only following orders" is not permitted as a defense - only as a consideration at sentencing.

[tekisui]

43. I don't disagree. That is for international war crimes, though.

For US trials, they would probably get off under the memos. I want prosecutions, not show trials or mistrials. I am okay with waiting for it to be done right.

[NoSheep]

93. THIS is the most succinct version of the truth I've heard to date.

[Colobo]

4. Good solution. I've always believed that Ford condemned Nixon forever by pardoning him.

[zeemike]

31. I agree with you

Because a pardon implies that he was guilty. And in Nixon's case there was never a trail to prove that one way or the other.
And the same it true for bush. If he is pardoned it is because he has done something wrong. And that will make him not too popular with the garden party crowd.

[Fire1]

47. But Nixon ultimately admitted guilt after leaving office.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

38. FORD SAVED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

SO AMERICA COULD BE ABUSED BY A RAYGUN AND TWO BUSHES.


THANKS FORD

[Overseas]

69. That's how I see it too. //nt

[FoxNewsSucks]

5. No, it is the absolute WORST alternative.

Had Gerald Ford possessed the testicular fortitude to stand aside and allow prosecution of the Nixon-era criminals, many of the bastards causing problems today would have been jailed. An example would have been set that criminals would be punished. That no one was above the law and just because the President did it does NOT mean that it is not illegal.

Instead, these pieces of shit learned from that, and went farther during Reagun/Bush years. Farther still with the lying criminal George Bush.

Because no one ever holds them accountable.

[Orsino]

44. Second worst, perhaps, but pretty damned lousy.

Because the fascists are just waiting to install the next bunch of torturers. And worse, if that's possible.

[Astrad]

8. He'd refuse the pardon

Pat Buchanan said that the other day on Chris Matthews about both Bush and Cheney. It surprised me as I didn't know you could refuse a pardon. But if you can, in their twisted minds it makes sense. They will stick to their 'acting in the best interest of the nation' defense and to some they will look like heroes.

[mikekohr]

20. When a pardon is accepted so is guilt

Not that I think a pardon is wise in this case. And I am dumbfounded to find myself in agreement with Pat Buchanan, neither Chimpy McFisterbottom or Five Deferment Dick would ever accept the pardon as it implicitly infers gulit and wrong doing.

mike kohr

[Just-plain-Kathy]

9. If Obama pardons Bush, Obama will be a one term president.

To admit knowing Bush is a criminal yet let him walk, Obama would look like a putts.

[kristopher]

11. There are a lot of assumptions in that...

First and foremost is the one where you assume that "a huge rift" would occur in a manner that is negatively significant to the dems chances moving forward on their agenda.

I wouldn't assume any such thing. The case against the Bush Cabal is compelling and as it rolls out I think the need for re-establishing the rule of law over the Office of the Presidency is going to create a lot more consensus than you and your frat buddies believe.

[MUAD_DIB]

14. Exactly. As more and more dirt comes out

on what they (BushCo) have done the more likely the chances the American people will see them as what they truly are: war criminals.

[MadHound]

12. It didn't work with Ford, and it wouldn't work this time around for the same reason

The big fish don't matter, it's the little ones you've got to take care of.

Watergate was going along swimmingly, and despite pundits and various mouthpieces saying the same thing you are, the country was pretty much for cleaning out our government, seeing justice done once and for all. Then Nixon resigned, and that kind of slowed things down. Then Ford pardoned Nixon, and virtually all investigations ground to a halt.

Sure, Nixon suffered, as did some of his aids, but the ones in the belly of the beasts, the "Stay Behinds" of their day were allowed to live, thrive and survive, without taint of scandal or crime touching them.

So they grew and prospered and became the evil incarnate we know today as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush I and a host of other current neo-cons, etc. They got their start under Nixon, and if justice was allowed to proceed, they would have been blown out of politics by the Nixon scandals. Instead, they were allowed to survive, and now we've paid that price.

That's why we need to pursue justice, not just because of crimes past, but to prevent crimes future.

[MUAD_DIB]

13. And then if/when there is another Republican administration

they can do this kind of thing all over again...or worse?


It has to stop someplace.

[Clio the Leo]

15. I CANT flame you ..... I'm too busy laughing. ;-) NT

[karynnj]

25. Why laugh, it is a serious suggestion and presented in an intelligent way

Anyone who has seen his posts knows that he has been consistently anti-war, antiBush and holds everyone accountable for things they have done. In fact, I can not think of a better poster with more credibility to post something like this. The fact is that, much as some want it, Bush and Cheney are extremely unlikely to be tried either here or at the Hague. This proposal states that evil was done and labels Bush/Cheney forever.

[xchrom]

16. then it's true that some of us are more equal than others --

simply by virtue of their station in life.

[Jennicut]

17. Ford ended his political career by pardoning Nixon. The election worries would be worse for Obama.

He would lose the left completely. Never going to happen.

[karynnj]

26. I don't think so

Especially if his statement includes a clear statement of what the Bush/Cheney administration did. I seriously doubt Obama would face a serious primary battle. Give me one Democrat, with any gravitas, who would run against him if he did this. Some, maybe even many, on the left will be angry when he does it, but their opinion of him will be based on what he has done --- and even if they are still mad, their choice may be between Obama and (gingrich, Palin, Pawlenty, etc) and though they might not be thrilled, they will vote for him.

[liquid diamond]

28. No he wouldn't. He would be the lesser of two evils......

[rwheeler31]

18. Manny please keep talking sense to your friends.

[chollybocker]

19. Number 2 is a false meme.

Obama has handed the folder to Holder. As for Obama's part, the release to the memos, that's all the rage in the court of public opinion, and the media is now fully focused on torture and other abuses of the * administration. Meanwhile, Obama quietly goes about fixing the nation.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Half The Country Thinks Torture Is OK and Valuable

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/26/obama-administration-barack-obama

Terrifying, but here we are.

Every one of those people will be outraged if justice is served on those vermin. And a large number of people who think torture is bad will also be livid at seeing ex-officials on trial. All told, likely 2/3 of the country will be very, very upset by prosecution.

[merh]

39. Would those be the same type of polls that said Obama didn't

have a chance to win the office?

You really need to accept the fact that the polls are imperfect.

I agree that #2 is a flawed meme.

There is no way in hell that Bush should be pardoned.

The rest of the world needs to know that the "nation of laws" is a nation of laws again and that no one is above the law. The world needs to know that those who committed the crimes of the last 8 years are no longer in power and will be held accountable.

[NoSheep]

90. "Thinks" is really a misnomer here, and we should start treating it as such.

They don't "think". That's the fucking problem.

[NoSheep]

88. Ding!

[NoSheep]

89. chollybocker is scary-smart. And these "theorists" are too comfortable to give a damn.

[karynnj]

22. I think you are right, with one condition

that a list of the most severe violations by issued and Bush and Cheney must agree that they did indeed do these things. In addition, there should be an agreement on the lawyers. Their opinion seems to be 180 degrees from what the law requires (I am not a lawyer), this suggests that they are either completely incompetent and lawyers or they completely violated their own ethics. Either way, none should have high level judicial positions. As they did this as lawyers, is there a process through which the ABA deals with things like this?

I do agree with you on the two options and everything you said about each. Requiring the Bush administration to agree to the facts of what they did might correct the one flaw in Ford's pardon - that Nixon apologists still argued that he had been impeached for political reasons.

[MADem]

24. The Ford Definition of Pardon is that the Accused, in accepting the pardon, also accepts

responsibility for his crimes.

It's not such a bad thought. He goes down as a PARDONED (i.e. criminal) President. Legacy is everything at a certain level.

[csziggy]

27. When Ford pardoned Noxin that left the door open for further abuses against the Constitution

And our system of checks and balances. And let Reagan and his cronies go directly against the explicit will of Congress with no consequences. Which then led to the appalling actions of the last eight years.

Our country cannot allow this destruction of our morals and our system continue.

I am pleased with how things are going - the truth is coming out in all its vile detail. As more and more information gets out I am confident that the majority of the American people will realize how corrupting Bush, Cheney and their cronies have been to our government and our country.

We just need to keep the pressure on President Obama and Attorney General Holder to keep the investigations going.

No pardon, but no prosecution until the country is ready for it.

[OwnedByFerrets]

78. You are SO correct. We cannot allow these abuses to go

un-investigated.

[Canuckistanian]

29. Let's have a full investigation first. Everything on the table.

Even Cheney's "success stories" (which are probably pure BS anyways).

THEN we can start thinking about who's to blame, who to pardon and who to put on trial.

AND, I would argue that even a pardon would trample Constitutional guarantees of justice. I DON'T think that Ford's pardon "worked". It just saddled us with the disgusting lineage that culminated with Cheney and Rumsfeld.

To let them get away with AGAIN would allow their dream of a permanent conservative majority government to live on.

And then we'll be dealing with this again in 30 years.

[Aethertek]

30. No flame just a cynical disgusted head shake.

"2. if he prosecutes the war criminals, he'll create a huge rift - the vast bulk of Americans aren't ready to see their former president and much of the upper echelon of his infernal administration go on trial and sent to prison. We'll be punished badly in future elections."

What an empty illogical supposition & I mean that in the most literal sense.
Dubious grounds indeed.
So where do your loyalties lie.

Vast bulk? Please, perhaps some number of the 20 percenters might get their shorts in a bunch about it, but to hell with them.

No convictions for crimes committed in the past is what brought those ghouls back into power.
Think nixon & reagan era.
Hell if bushies grandpa & his crew had been convicted for treason in the forties we wouldn't even be having to concern ourselves with this nonsense.

I can't help but wonder where this ridiculous talking meme crawled from.

No Peace

Kevin~

[Chisox08]

32. Yeah Ford did pardon Nixon and how did that work out for him?

If Obama pardons the Bush adminstration he would be asking to be a one term President. They need to prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not only because they broke the law but to deter it from happening again.

[glowing]

33. Ford was wrong.. when he pardoned, look who came back around.

Cheney and his band of evil doers did worse the next time around. I say send them away and protect America from these evil bastards.

[Skip Intro]

34. No. Justice, if we hold that to be one of our guiding priciples, is thwarted. No. Hell no.

[global1]

35. I Really Believe That If All The Facts Are Brought Out In The Open......

the American people WILL be ready to see their former president and members of his upper echelon go to jail. I even think the Repug party and many of the MSM's talking heads will also accept the fact that their former president and members of his upper echelon go to jail.

The crimes committed are so vile and blatant - they can't possibly still protect these criminals - lest they lose all credibility themselves and any chance of ever regaining a position of power as the Republican party again.

As I recall in Nixon's days - the powers that be in the Repug party at that time - went to the WH and asked/demanded that Nixon resign for the good of the party and the nation and save them the embarrassment of impeachment. Watergate is penny ante in comparison to the crimes of the Bush administration.

The powers that be in the Repug party can't march to the WH now to force Bush/Cheney to resign as they aren't in office anymore. There is no face saving move that they can force Bush/Cheney into doing. Their only face saving move - to save themselves and the Repug party - is to support any prosecution of these war criminals - that is - acknowledge their crimes - support prosecution - and vow that they've never let that ever happen again. The American people that support them will have to support this as well.

Sure there will be some diehards out there - but they will be of the minimum.

This has to be done. No free passes - no pardons - no mercy.

[PufPuf23]

36. The danger in your solution is the opinion and blowback from the

world community. The USA is not invincible, particularly now.

[BlooInBloo]

37. You yourself stated the obvious and correct conclusion: "it would seriously suck"....

I'm not sure why you are advocating for Obama to do something that "would seriously suck".

Oh, wait. Yes I am.

[Politicalboi]

40. I would rather see Obama have one term

Which I believe that wouldn't happen if he prosecuted Bush/Cheney. Rather than VP Condi Rice anyday.

[snake in the grass]

41. Yeah, we moved on...

...and what good did it do? The same criminal scum from then regrouped and pounced on the opportunity to continue their crime spree.

No, no, no, you have it entirely wrong. If we don't hit them with real consequences, they will be back. Perhaps not Rumsfeld or Cheney (assuming he runs out of puppies for his daily blood dose), but mark my words, this will not end. We cannot move on until these people are held accountable. The 20-something% who still adore Bush shall never be swayed, but the more information about the illegal activities of the last administration that is made known, the more the decent majority (from both parties) will recognize that justice must be done.

[rasputin1952]

42. The difference is, Nixon was about to be impeached when he resigned,,,

and he never, (as far as we know), condoned anything so heinous as torture.

bush apparently not only condoned torture, a grievous offense not just under International Law, but a gross violation of US Law as well. Those responsible, and those who carried out the acts need tobe held accountable. We cannot hold this miscreant responsible for the numerous lesser violations, and not hold him and his cabal accountable for heinous acts. At the very least, his acts in this situation need to be investigated and if warranted, charges and a trial.

The president has left it open to the Justice Department to follow up. We shall see where this goes.

[Orsino]

45. He'd have to specify what "good of the country" he meant...

...and fire a couple of AGs who botched the job of prosecuting.

The pardons would be an admission of failure, and I don't think he's quite doomed to fail. It would be uncharacteristic of him not even to try.

[Spazito]

46. The US , as a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture...

has an obligation to investigate and punish those who...commit or conspire to commit torture:

Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Nixon broke no International law, his crimes were wholly domestic. Bush and his officials broke BOTH US law AND International law.

Pardoning Bush and his officials would be a breach of the US obligations under International law.

[Overseas]

70. I agree. Nixon's crimes were puny compared to the Bush-Cheney Gang or Papa Ron

Papa Ron and Poppy Bush's Iran-Contra abuses, then W's wars of choice, torture programs and indefinite detention of suspects without habeas corpus protection

are more serious crimes than those of the Nixon plumbers.

The Bush Gang did Nixon-style spying on domestic political enemies as just a sideline, thanks to their having put the national security justification onto their warrantless wiretapping.

[rucky]

48. The facts that will be revealed in the process of prosecution...

will build support for it.

If it doesn't, then the case isn't strong enough against the high-level Bushies and their high-priced attorneys, and they'll probably get off anyways.

Call me crazy, but I feel that justice has a ways of sorting these things out.

[yowzayowzayowza]

49. A qualified assurance of pardon might be the lubricant...

that enables a thorough investigation. I've thought that for some time. Tiz more important to get the truth out, make the victims whole and maintain our polity than go to the mat for prosecutions or sweep the whole thing under the rug.

[damonm]

58. More details , please.

How, exactly, would this work?
It sounds like it might be just crazy enough to be a viable third way.

[yowzayowzayowza]

68. Pretty much a statement of the sort Obama has already made.

As it's apparent from a preliminary review of evidence that overall:

1. this torture was not engaged in as a form of genocide or mass political retribution,

2. this torture was not wantonly metered out in a systemic way, and

3. many throughout the chain of command demurred in one way or another,

all who acted in good faith within the prescribed parameters and the spirit of the law will be pardoned at the conclusion of the investigation.

Such a statement would leave out the heinous acts at Abu Ghraib, the potential of political torture for Iraq war excuses and the justification contortions. I dunno. :shrug: As I said, I more interested in gettin the truth out, making the victims whole, repairing our honor and maintaining our polity than prosecutions. I'd like to see a few lawyers impeached/disbarred and perhaps a congressional rebuke of the torture policy, but we're never gunna get there playin politics the whole way.

[glitch]

50. Dumb idea, we probably wouldn't have to deal with these criminals now if we'd hadn't pardoned Nixon.

Continuously pardoning war criminals really hasn't worked for us, they have no incentive to not come back and do even worse.
And who says the country doesn't want to see the whole Bush Administration put on trial? It is the only way we'll ever have a chance at getting clean again.

I see what you mean by "scary-smart" though.

(sorry)

[zeos3]

83. Agreed!

Stupid idea. Nixon was pardoned and the right tried to whitewash his legacy just like they did with Reagan (Iran-Contra). It would not be "moving forward", it would be excusing criminal acts. For fuck's sake, doesn't G. Gordon Liddy have his own radio show now? What about that traitor Oliver North too?

No, thank you.

Clinton got impeached for a blowjob and we're going to turn a blind eye to this??

Why would our side pay for it in the next election cycle (I'm so fucking sick of this excuse, BTW). Let's get the facts out and maybe our side will be rewarded for this.

"Let justice be served, though the heavens fall"

[Gregorian]

51. So what good did the Nuremburg trials do?

I'll admit that I've always seen this from a different perspective than most people. Yes we lost four thousand troops. But what about a million Iraqis? I'll also admit that no amount of punishing will bring them back. But a million dead people? I can't pardon that, and I'm as close to being a passivist as it gets.

And doing this would further shift the country to the right, in my opinion.


Having said that, what good did the Nuremburg trials do? 80 million people died in that war.

[ClarkUSA]

52. It doesn't matter what ideas you and your buddies come up with; it's up to AG Holder now.

[windbreeze]

53. yep...and then we become them..

because we know what they did was wrong, so by pardoning, we allow that, hey, it's ok..we didn't do it, and we just wanna move on now, bury that bullshit in the back yard, pretend it never happened, it will be all right, no one will care...I can't help but wonder how all the people who lost their lives, between the "terrorist" attack on 9/11, and those illegal wars would feel about it?? wb

[cwcwmack]

54. not a bad idea...

because I GUARANTEE you...

someday if/when the pubs get back in the WH... they will make up shit for retribution. Obama, etc will end up being prosecuted for not washing the toothpaste off the bathroom sink in the WH...

[bvar22]

62. Clinton let the Iran/Contra criminals go.....

...and that stopped the NeoCons/Republicans from persecuting him....
Oh wait...
No it didn't.

Appeasement of the Republicans won't gain the Dempocrats anything.

[struggle4progress]

55. Ford's pardon did not lead the country to "move on" -- the impeachment of Clinton

was payback, motivated by the fact that his wife had worked for the Watergate committee

[cwcwmack]

56. Clinton impeachment

was payback for Watergate?

Hmmm... haven't heard that one before.

[struggle4progress]

60. Really? Anyone paying attention during the Clinton impeachment heard

rightwingers regularly describe the story in terms like "Watergate-style coverage." Conservatives talking heads and columnists regularly used such language. That well-coordinated message was a nice clue, but there's more direct evident. Henry Hyde, who played a major role in the Clinton impeachment, gave a vague answer when asked the question directly. But Nixon White House insider John Dean, who was involved in the Watergate scandal, says several Republicans explicitly told him the Clinton impeachment was payback

Stop Comparing Clinton Scandals to Watergate
by Joe Conason <1997>
http://www.albionmonitor.com/9706b/whitewatergate.html

JUDY WOODRUFF'S INSIDE POLITICS
Claude Allen Speaks Out; Senate Troubles Deepen, Wendy's Chili Finger Planted
Aired April 22, 2005 - 15:30 ET
... WATSON: Checking the items in our Friday edition of "Political Bytes," retiring GOP Congressman Henry Hyde says he's not sure he would lead the impeachment of President Bill Clinton if he had to do it all over again. Hyde also gave an interesting answer when asked by Chicago's WLS-TV if the Clinton impeachment was somehow a political payback for the long ago impeachment proceedings against President Richard Millhouse Nixon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HENRY HYDE, (R) ILLINOIS: I can't say it wasn't ... http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/22/ip.01.html

"Conservatives Without Conscience" by John Dean - Part 2
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 07/21/2006 - 3:32pm. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by John Dean
Part 2 of 3. Click here for Part 1
An excerpt of the introduction to "Conservatives Without Conscience." Get your copy of "Conservatives Without Conscience" from BuzzFlash
... Some Republicans told me that Gingrich was betting his Speaker's seat on the impeachment drive's adding additional Republican members to the House. DeLay, it was clear, had influence because the rank-and-file House Republicans feared his wrath, and he was determined to impeach Clinton. Several Republicans told me that this was payback to the Democrats for what had been done to Nixon, and when I pointed out that Republicans had been part of that undertaking, a typical response was, "Yeah, but they weren't conservative" ... https://buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/315

[William769]

57. Of all the stupid things I have read...

I'll let readers finish the thought.


"all Ivy Leaguers" thats pretty much when I decided that this is what I should use for toilet paper.

BTW I would not even put Nixon in the same league as Bush.

[butterfly77]

59. NO..

[backscatter712]

61. Absolutely not!

No pardons for that gang of thugs.

Obama is doing the right thing - passing the buck to Holder in the DOJ, who's making sure the DOJ is independent and apolitical, while at the same time, allowing evidence in the forms of documents and photographs get out to the public, causing the GOP to be set ablaze with sunlight. Let the torture evidence continue to dribble out over the next few months, showing more and more evidence of Bush Administration sociopathic behavior and atrocities, keep the public outrage at a steady boil. Make sure plenty of evidence sees the light of day through leaks (though not through Congressional investigations - they'll get politicized all to hell, and Bushies testifying will have to be granted immunity.)

Then once the torture controversy's cooked for a few months, then Holder can independently conclude that there's sufficent evidence for prosecution and let the prosecutors do their jobs.

When the Rethugs screech, we just have to call them the Party of Torture, and Obama can shrug and say "What, you want me to have Holder act like Alberto Gonzales? He's acting independently - I can't call him off."

Voila! Bushies go to prison, GOP becomes the Party of Torture and can't even get a Republican elected dogcatcher. We win.

[bvar22]

63. I like your "out of the box" thinking, but....

I couldn't ever support a pardon for these criminals.

For me, it would be the bow on the package that finally drives me to a 3rd Party after voting Straight Democrat for 40 years.

[berni_mccoy]

64. The Nation Will Move On when Justice is Served. No one can move past this if pardons are handed out

If these criminals receive pardons then the people will see that the U.S. still is two Americas: 1 for the little people and a different America for the rich and powerful. It would destroy Obama's presidency and legacy and he would violate everything he ran his campaign on.

If you took a moment to read Obama's writings or a moment to understand him, you'd realize how truly a bad idea this was.

Yes, he's for bipartisanship and reaching across the isle. But he's not going to subvert true justice.

[hvn_nbr_2]

65. Ford's pardon of Nixon DIDN'T work, dammit.

It may have seemed to have worked to defuse things short-term and to avoid some short-term pain and conflict.

What it did long-term was say to all the young up-and-coming criminals in Nixon's administration--Cheney, Rumsfield, et al--that you can get away with it. The result: the up-and-coming criminals came back and did far worse than Nixon ever imagined.

If Obama pardoned the BushCo criminal syndicate, all the young up-and-comers of the last 8 years will be back in 20 or 30 years and make us long for the good old moral days of Bush.

[adamuu]

66. but it didn't work. we didn't move on. they same a-holes came back for another round! n/t

[ieoeja]

67. Future Republican Secretary of State Jack Abramoff thinks that is a wonderful idea!

[diane in sf]

71. Pardoning doesn't work because psychopaths have no conscience. If Cheney, Bush 1

Rumsfeld, etc. had all gone to jail for their past crimes we would not have had to suffer such brazen criminality as the bush 2 regime.

[MasonJar]

72. I do NOT agree with your premise that Americans are not ready

for the Bushistas to be investigated and prosecuted. I think Americans believe that the president should be held to account for breaking the law just as any other American citizen would be. And more will join the bandwagon when the dirty details become front page news. In addition, when Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, he wrote his own demise as president.

[Two Americas]

73. hmmmm

If the Republicans who trashed he country are not held accountable, what good is it if "we" - those who identify with certain politicians and with the party above all, I presume - "win?"

What does "we move on" mean? Why is that valuable? Who is the "we" and in which direction are we moving on?

For which "country" is ignoring the law a good thing?

You say "if it were up to me.." If the stand you are going to take on this is not up to you, who is it up to? If what you say about this does not reflect your stand on it, what does it reflect?



...

[burning rain]

74. That Ford did the right thing there, is a typical bit of establishment poo.

Establishment media hate the idea of trying high government officers -- it... it's so messy! The US might fall apart! Crazy peasants and rabid dogs might invade our editorial board meetings! Baloney. Pardons such as Ford's amount to putting a facade of magnanimity over something rotten and ghastly. Holding powerful criminals accountable is goodness. Jail should not just be for the poor and the weak.

[ProSense]

75. Wait, you've been criticizing the crap out of Obama and now want him to pardon Bush?

I smell stench.

What are you going to tell the children?

[MannyGoldstein]

80. I've Been Criticizing Obama Because He's Ignoring The Law

He cannot refuse to prosecute, since a high crime was obviously committed - ignoring it would be a tremendous breach of our Constitution. However, he can legally issue a pardon.

I don't like it, but it's legal, and allows Obama to do what he wants which is to avoid trials for the former administration.

And that's exactly what I'll tell my boy.

[ProSense]

82. That makes no sense. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

85. One Of Us Has Fuzzy Thinking

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[harun]

76. He needs to do what he is doing. Getting info out there which makes it easy for

them to be brought on charges from other countries i.e. Spain. Then at home say the AG is handling it. Keeps those guilty on edge and afraid. Which means there on defense so Obama's offense can continue with the other parts of the agenda.

[OwnedByFerrets]

77. So, what you are suggesting is that MOST of Americans

are ok with torture? That most Americans are ok with the breaking of laws and that those guilty of such laws should walk free. That YOU are ok us setting up a precedent that the president IS above that law and what Nixon said is true " if the president does it, its not illegal."
If you don't agree with ANY of those statements, then we push HARD for criminal investigations and prosecutions if any are found guilty. Otherwise, future generations look on us as the TORTURE generation.
And IF America is so fucking stupid that they wouldnt re-elect any President that allowed the Judicial Branch do its job, then we are fucked anyway.

[spanone]

79. i'd only endorse that if we get cheney in the deal

[onetwo]

81. This doesn't even work politically.

A pardon for Bush and friends? Way to confirm the public's most cynical fears about how things work in DC.

[and-justice-for-all]

84. And the Nuremberg trials should have never happned...

good grief..nt

[Political Heretic]

86. Worst idea I have ever fucking heard in my entire life. And yes,

I read your post before responding.

[NoSheep]

87. Your friends seem much too scary-young to understand this issue.

They've become accustomed to the bull-shit. That is not scary-smart.

[salguine]

91. Okay, I read it first...

[ima_sinnic]

94. this idea just makes my blood boil. what "huge rift"?

if you want to see a "huge rift," see what would happen if the torturers and traitors were "pardoned."

guess what? Americans can "handle" justice. So a few dead-ender 20-percenters would get their panties in a wad--who the hell cares? their "beloved" Bush/Cheney et al. are war criminals and traitors--they don't belong in prison, they belong at the end of a gallows. And more than just a few Americans and people around the world know this--everyone in the world has been their victim in one way or another.

guess what else? some of us have not "moved on" after these goddam pardons. I know I am not alone in being outraged, still, by Clinton's pardon of the Iran-Contra pigs.

How many lives would have been spared, in the long run, if the Iran-Contra TRAITORS and thieves had been brought to justice? A million dead Iraqis, a country in ruins, millions of lives around the world and here in the U.S. damaged beyond repair, wanton greed and destruction and blood and suffering--all ultimately beginning with Bush Sr. and his henchmen many, many years ago.

go back to the "think tank." this idea is an EPIC FAIL.

[cornermouse]

95. In lieu of a picketing smilie pretend I'm standing here with a "I protest" or "He's full of it" sign

[secondwind]

96. I say prosecute, convict, THEN pardon!!!! n/t

[BR_Parkway]

97. If we "win" the next election because we don't enforce the law of the

land - not only have we trashed our Constitution - but we don't deserve to "win" any election again.

We don't beat what we hate by becoming them. And this concept of doing the politically expedient thing versus the right thing is the underlayment of most of the worst problems facing this country.