The President-Elect with four US Presidents, including a war criminal

[ProSense]

Philippe Sands Considers A Legacy Of 'Torture':

Fresh Air from WHYY, January 7, 2009 · Although the Bush administration has stated that the interrogations techniques used at Guantanamo Bay came from the bottom up, British lawyer Philippe Sands disagrees.

In his book, Torture Team, Sands argues that the harsh interrogation policy that emerged after Sept. 11 came from high-ranking government officials and top military figures.

Republicans seeking to lead party blame Bush for woes:

WASHINGTON — Republicans vying to lead their national party praised President-elect Barack Obama's election campaign on Monday and criticized President George W. Bush for spending too much, mismanaging the Iraq war and bungling the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

Obama gives Bush credit _ for years of deficits to come

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama Tuesday ripped outgoing President George W. Bush for "irresponsibly" doubling the federal debt, then warned that he could preside over trillion-dollar-a-year deficits for "years to come."

Somebody should go to jail.






edited title.

[ProSense]

1. Does this mean he isn't a war criminal? n/t

[blm]

2. 'a' war criminal? BushInc IS a criminal operation that was served by more than the dictatortot

A Bush2 couldn't have even happened without Bush1 and his key protector in the 90s.

[wyldwolf]

3. a label you'll soon bestow on Obama, no doubt

[ProSense]

4. Why? What are you anticipating? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

5. Hysterical overreaction to the mundane, I'd bet. nt

[ProSense]

13. You know what isn't mundane: It took a President like Obama and a desire for a cabinet position

for Hillary to finally get the Bill Clinton to offer transparency.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Agreed. Bill Clinton's secrecy, even throughout the campaign, was in my eyes

a violation of the public trust.

[wyldwolf]

7. consistency from blm if called for

blm has been such a critic of Clinton for not going after Bush I. It would be logical for her to attack Obama daily if he shows no signs of going after Bush II.

[blm]

8. Bush1 was already 'gone after' and being exposed before Clinton took office. What Bill didn't 'have'

to do was go after Bush. He CHOSE to protect secrecy and privilege of Bush and his cronies OVER wyldwolf's right to accountability and you let him convince you that was what you and the country needed.

[wyldwolf]

9. ok, so if no one goes after Bush II first, Obama is off the hook, right?

:shrug:

[blm]

16. Are you insisting that Obama wouldn't cooperate with a serious senate investigation into a criminal

operation that required further scrutiny?

[wyldwolf]

20. no, but you seem to be avoiding the core question

Will you hold Obama's feet to the fire like you've done Clinton's? Simple yes or no will suffice and end any further angling in this thread.

[blm]

22. No, I didn't. IF Obama refuses to cooperate with senate investigations into criminal operations

of GWBush, then he will deserve my criticism for not fulfilling his promise of openness and accountability, and he'll get it.

You seem to forget that I WITHHELD my criticism of Clinton for his decision to move past IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning matters UNTIL I heard his reasoning for doing so - reasons I expected to read about in his book. Add to that his consistent support and public defense of GWBush on matters crucial to the 2004 election, and you should understand exactly why some Democrats are not fond of and do not trust Bill Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

23. So UNLESS there is a senate investigation, Obama is off the hook?

[blm]

27. YOU think Obama WOULD do exactly what Clinton did and DEEP-SIX investigations

and matters already investigated and that reuire further scrutiny? I don't. THAT is the actual point of comparison, isn't it? Especially since executive branch isn't SUPPOSED to investigate executive branch - congress is.

[wyldwolf]

29. you just won't answer the question. Assuming there is NO congressional investigations...

... does that mean Obama is off the hook?

[blm]

32. Then why compare him with Bill Clinton who DID deep-six ACTIVE investigatory matters?

Obama will get criticized by me if he acts to cover up for Bush2 even HALF as much as Bill did for Bush1.

[wyldwolf]

34. Assuming there are no congressional investigations, is Obama off the hook?

[blm]

38. YOU assume there won't be - I KNOW there wil be. Obama is in for hell from me if he covers for Bush2

even half as much as Bill did for Bush1. YOU will probably look the other way and not care about accountability for Bush2 the same way you do for Bush1.

[wyldwolf]

39. No, I'm sure there won't be. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be.

But the question you're so scared to answer is: If there are none, is Obama off the hook?

[ProSense]

40. Really?

You're sure nothing will be investigated by Congress?

[wyldwolf]

41. Still, you avoid the question. IF there are none, is Obama off the hook?

[ProSense]

45. It's a stupid question because it's based on the premise that

Congress will not conduct any investigations.

[wyldwolf]

47. I think it's a perfectly legitimate premise. But for such a "stupid" question, blm sure has run

from it

[blm]

53. I never ran from it - I would criticize Obama if he covered for Bush2 the way Bill did for Bush1.

Would YOU approve of Obama covering up for Bush2 if investigations ARE proving massive criminal wrongdoing by Bush2 - you know, the way Bill did for Bush1?

[wyldwolf]

54. this thread has me asking you the question countless times and it took forever for you to answer

you repeatedly dodged it.

[blm]

57. Not true. I WOULD criticize Obama deep-sixing criminal matters for Bush. YOU approved when Bill did

it for Bush1, so I expect you will approve if Obama did it.

There will be investigations into some of those matters, will you approve if Obama deep-sixed those matters being exposed the way Bill did for Bush1?

[wyldwolf]

59. all one has to do is look at each time I asked it and then read your non-answers in reply

[blm]

64. Baloney - I would criticize Obama, unlike YOU who has consistently APPROVED of the protection

given Bush1 by Clinton even AFTER the investigations were revealing how extensive and how criminal those operations were in nature.

[wyldwolf]

65. I count 12 times I asked the question, and it took the 12th time for you to anwer

[karynnj]

48. In my book - no - he has the ability to use the Justice department to investigate

I don't know if the Congress or the Department of Justice is the correct forum, but I will be disappointed if there are no investigations into things that happened - if only to expose them and make them less likely to happen.

Yes, I will hold Obama accountable. The first step though is to stop practices that should never have started.

[wyldwolf]

49. good answer!

And easy, too.

[karynnj]

73. Thank you - I didn't know it would be graded

Seriously, one of my regrets about the Clinton years is that I did not hold him to the standards I held previous Republicans. I can make excuses - that in 1993, I had 3 kids under 7 and a job - but one of the hardest questions I had to answer was from a my middle kid as a high school senior - when she asked why I never criticized the Clintons, even though she knew my values and knew that I should have been disappointed in the ethics shortcuts. (Some might say I've made up for that in the last 4 or so years :) )

Now, I know Obama will not always do 100% of what I think right - and he may even do things that all of us know HE may not think right - any politician will - it's a question of how often and how important the differences are. But, even accepting that sometimes I and all of us may be disappointed - or even angered, it is better to know, care and say when we think things are wrong. I wonder if Bush might have had second thoughts had his base questioned any of the things he did.

[blm]

50. Do you think Obama SHOULD deep-six investigations of Bush2 the way Bill did for Bush1?

Let's assume there ARE senate investigations - would you APPROVE of Obama covering up for Bush2 on the matters being exposed by the investigations?

I wouldn't. And I would show up here and say so.

[wyldwolf]

52. Assuming there are no congressional investigations, is Obama off the hook?

[blm]

55. Assuming there ARE, do you want Obama to deep-six those matters exposed the way Bill did?

I already said I would criticize Obama if he covers up for Bush - would YOU approve of Obama deep-sixing serious matters for Bush2 the same way you approve Bill Clinton's deep-sixing of serious matters for Bush1?

[wyldwolf]

56. I would prefer not.

[Captain Hilts]

17. Exactly. nt

[blm]

19. Why? Are you saying Obama NEEDS to cover up for Bush2? I don't think he has a Jackson Stephens

to please and protect along with Bush2, and I doubt any of you can find one. If he does, then I will be greatly disappointed to have lost another chance to preserve our right to accountable and open government.

Wouldn't you?

[wyldwolf]

21. Will you harass Obama daily on DU if he doesn't go after Bush II? Simple yes or no question

[blm]

25. If Obama acts in any way to block congressional investigations into Bush's criminal operations

then I will point it out.

YOU keep claiming that Clinton gets crap because HE didn't go after Bush1, but that is a false claim. The fact is that Bush1 was NAILED and cornered on many issues ALREADY when Clinton took office and Clinton did not COOPERATE with or facilitate those investigations and further inquiries - and that SHOULD be criticized by the citizenry.

Obama isn't going into office handcuffed by Jackson Stephens is he?

[wyldwolf]

26. now wait a minute. What if there are NO congressional investigations. Is Obama off the hook?

[blm]

30. Then why compare him with Bill Clinton who WENT INTO office with investigations nearly completed

and deep-sixed the matters FOR Bush1?

There WILL be investigations into some of Bush's operations by some in congress - if Obama acts in any way to thwart or cover up for Bush and Cheney, he will deserve constant criticism from ALL of us. Even you.

[wyldwolf]

31. you just won't answer the question. Assuming there is NO congressional investigations...

Will Obama, then, be off the hook?

[blm]

35. I will criticize Obama if he covers up for Bush2 even HALF as much as Bill did for Bush1.

Will you?

[wyldwolf]

37. thank you. Finally! Like pulling teeth, but you finally came through! YAY!

[ProSense]

42. The comment you responded to is almost the same as response #25.

You know, there are ongoing investigations in Congress, and members of Congress stating that they will investigate specific actitivies. I doubt Obama is going to impede those investigations.

[wyldwolf]

44. funny thing is, I've not said or implied Obama would impede them. Quote me if I have

But blm has gone WAY out of her way to avoid answering a simple question.

[blm]

63. Answered your question a few times, even though you avoid the real difference between Obama

taking office after Bush2 who was never investigated in depth and how heavily Bush1 was investigated and being EXPOSED ALREADY on matters so serious they came back to transform this nation TRAGICALLY on 9-11-2001.

[wyldwolf]

66. yeah, after the 12th time or so I asked

[blm]

67. one would have to be deficient if they were unable to comprehend my simple statement

in reply to your question.

And you again avoid the advantages Clinton had when he took office as a few Dem lawmakers had already done so much investigation of Bush and his operations and had him well-positioned to be held accountable LEGALLY, while the facts surrounding Obama's ascension to office after Bush2 who has received nowhere NEAR the scrutiny.

Senate lawmakers were doing their job in exposing Bush1 and what did Clinton do with those revelations? You better hope like hell that Obama won't make that same decision Clinton did to protect BushInc.

[wyldwolf]

68. ... or if they can't answer a simple yes or no question

[blm]

69. which I answered even though your premise wasn't relevant since Clinton deep-sixed matters already

on course to fully reveal BushInc.

And how many times have you avoided THAT reality and your approval of and constant support of Clinton's decisions to side with BushInc?

[wyldwolf]

72. after I asked 12 or so times

[blm]

74. You asked because you wouldn't take the answer for an answer - just as you ignore your right to open

government and accountability all these many years as you seek to defend those who protected secrecy and privilege.

[wyldwolf]

75. because it wasn't an answer to the question

[blm]

77. You prefer the way YOU answer questions about your longtime defense of Clinton deep-sixing matters

that were being exposed by years of grueling investigations into Bush and his cronies?


Funny how you can approve of that, defend it vigorously for years, and yet dare others to declare that they will not approve IF Obama did the same. I have integrity - if Obama does even 1/4 of the covering up for Bush2 that Clinton did and still does for BushInc, I will object.

[wyldwolf]

80. No, I prefer "yes" or "no" questions to be answered in relevant way.

[blm]

43. YOU said like Clinton....that was a false claim as Bush1 was already cornered by investigations that

a few honest lawmakers risked their lives and careers to expose criminal operations......and Bill SIDED with Bush and actively protected him.

Now why don't YOU ever address the reality of the two situations? You can't. Because then you'd have to admit that you know full well that covered for Bush1 and you just don't care enough about accountability or open government to be concerned. And, of course, that attitude is exactly what led to Bush2.

[wyldwolf]

46. ha ha. No. I said will you hold Obama's feet to the fire like Clinton's.

Changes the whole meaning when taken in context. :rofl:

[blm]

58. You assume Obama would act as irresponsibly as Clinton did after being handed the BCCI report

that was crucial to exposing much of Bush and his cronies' criminal operations.

I don't believe he would.

[wyldwolf]

60. I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you to consider the possibility...

... which you've continuously avoided.

[blm]

6. He'll have a great chance to show himself to be a leader who believes in open government that

is transparent and accountable. Just as other Dems had the access and had the opportunity to side with open government and instead sided with the secrecy and privilege of the Bushes.

Obama has that chance. What he does with it will determine how honest he has been about his commitment to transparency. I am 100% behind his opportunity to be an open government president who respects the people's right to accountability....aren't you?

[baldguy]

10. The PE with 3 Presidents, one of which is a war criminal

appearing with the war criminal's son, who is also a war criminal.

[bdamomma]

11. being sandwiched between two criminals poor Obama.

it's nice that Jimmy Carter is there.

[bigwillq]

12. And what will Obama (and the DEMS)

do about these criminals? :shrug:

[bdamomma]

18. well with comments coming from Cheney

like if illegal practices were done he would have been impeached? both Cheney and Bush must pay for their crimes. Or we as Americans will never live it down, that we let these criminals go free.

[bigwillq]

24. I hope we do something.

I don't think Obama can be the spokesperson but, as the soon-to-be most powerful man in the free world, he could call for more investigations. I hope so. These criminals need to be held accountable.

[Captain Hilts]

15. Man, Obama, Clinton and Carter are so much smarter than the other two folks there. nt

[JuniperLea]

36. I see something else in their faces too...

The Bushies both look smug and evil; the other three look as if they are sleeping well at night.

[Fire1]

71. And why does it appear that Obama is 'sucking up' to the Bushes?

[JuniperLea]

76. I'm not seeing that at all...

I'm seeing him taking the high road. What makes you think he's sucking up?

[PresidentObama]

28. Hey NonSense...ProRove....hope all is well.

(only joking of course)

:P :hi:

In a perfect world, he would be in jail.

But with Kerry becoming the SFRC chairman, Obama as President, and Bush going back to Texas never to be heard of again...this is about as perfect as we probably will get!

[JuniperLea]

33. One might consider it criminal...

To allow known criminals to skate...

I'm waiting.

[gauguin57]

51. How come President Gore isn't in the photo???

[Cleita]

61. Actually, two war criminals. Poppy Bush lied us into

the First Gulf War as well and thousands of Iragis died in that one too.

[mitchum]

62. The 3 Democrats should have been posed in the middle...

and leaning rightward because that seems to be where they are most comfortable

[Fire1]

70. Or, all three dems standing together, anywhere in line.

I will always love Clinton and Carter.

[blarbushie]

78. WANTED

[Aristus]

79. That sure is a pained smile PE Obama is wearing.

It seems to say: "I get to stand in the same room with Presidents Carter and Clinton. But I have to stand with these two asshats, as well..."