Unlike Pelosi, Obama is NOT taking indictments against Bush & Cheney off the table

[mtnsnake]

after he gets into office. He would not rule it out this morning in his interview with Stephanopoulos.

When asked about it, Obama did say he would look more to the future (figuring out what will work best for us) than dwell on the past (things that didn't work), but he did not say he wouldn't go after Bush and Cheney either. I would SO love to see those 2 scoundrels handed their asses on a silver platter once they're out of office in the form of jail time. It would be like a dream come true.

[Jennicut]

1. OMG, you mean Obama is not being controlled by Pelosi as a puppet?!

Obama has more than half a brain so I expected he would say this.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Pelosi's brain don't even come close to Obamas so as to influence him

He will lead with class and wisdom....and, unless sabotaged, he will succeed.

[create.peace]

26. pelosi's brain....i'll have to think about that n/t

[EraOfResponsibility]

2. man, progressives are ready to rake Obama over the coals

because they THINK he's gonna let Bush/Cheney get away with torture. But the truth is, they do not know that for sure. They are bellyaching and panicking over nothing. The man said repeatedly this morning that "no one is above the law". Yes, maybe he was sort of ambiguous about whether he'd prosecute Bush/Cheney, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it.

[mtnsnake]

4. Yup, just by virtue of him saying "No one is above the law"

in the context he said it in, I think he WILL go after those two assholes. I'm keeping my fingers crossed anyway.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. exactly. We need to fester longer,

worry more, have our hopes dashed three dozen more times before we start bitching.

[EraOfResponsibility]

11. no, smartass, you need to wait and see what he's gonna do

THEN if he doesn't pursue prosecution you can start bitching

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. duh. THAT WAS MY POINT!

there's a word in this big book, called a "dictionary" that is defined like this:

Sar-casm |ˈsärˌkazəm|
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment. See note at wit .
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French sarcasme, or via late Latin from late Greek sarkasmos, from Greek sarkazein ‘tear flesh,’ in late Greek ‘gnash the teeth, speak bitterly’ (from sarx, sark- ‘flesh’ ).

[EraOfResponsibility]

15. My bad, I am so sorry. Next time you gotta use the sarcasm smiley

I apologize. LOL (See, I can admit my mistakes) :)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. no worries.

at least not until we libruls have our hearts broken a few more times.

I see a first year of manic-depression happening. High highs, and low lows. Even the conviction of Cheney might provide only temporary relief.

[Raven]

3. Obama's answer was perfect...let these guys twist slowly in the wind.

There will be plenty of time to bring them to justice.

[mtnsnake]

7. You took the words right out of my mouth

I thought his answer was perfect, too.

[realFedUp]

8. A sweet talkin' guy

SWEET TALKIN' GUY
(Doug Morris / Eliot Greenberg)
The Chiffons

Sweet talking guy, talking sweet kinda lies
Don't you believe in him, if you do he'll make you cry
He'll send you flowers and paint the town with another guy
He's a sweet talkin' guy (sweet talkin' guy)
But he's my kind of guy (sweet talkin' guy)

Sweeter than sugar, kisses like wine (oh he's so fine)
Don't let him under your skin, cause you'll never win (no you'll
never win)
Don't give him love today, tomorrow he's on his way
He's a sweet talkin' guy (sweet talkin' guy)
But he's my kind of guy (sweet talkin' guy)

Why do I love him like I do?

He's a sweet talkin' (sweet talkin') sweet talkin' (sweet talkin')
guy

Stay away from him, stay away from him, don't believe his lyin'
No you'll never win, no you'll never win, loser's in for cryin'
Don't give him love today, tomorrow he's on his way
He's a sweet talkin' (sweet talkin') sweet talkin' (sweet talkin')
sweet talkin' (sweet talkin') sweet talkin'
(sweet talkin') guy

Stay away from him (sweet sweet, sweet talkin' guy)
No no no you'll never win (sweet sweet, sweet talkin' guy)...

[EraOfResponsibility]

12. *plays violin* n/t

:nopity:

[Me.]

9. No He Didn't Take Them Off The Table

Which was smart but, did he set a place for them? That was not clear, wait and see can mean anything. I'm with John Dean on this and the concept that if we don't do something about this the world beyond us may. I'll be interested in seeing what happens to Berlusconi in Italy. Right now a number of people there are trying to overturn the law which made him exempt from prosecution. He and Sismi were involved in all the nastiness that *co was, in fact very much hand in glove. If Berlusconi goes down I will consider him the first domino. In addition, both Dean and Turley have made the point that if we don't do anything and the world at large takes a hand in the matter it could be very humiliating for this country. The let's move forward and leave the past behind was the attitude towards Nixon and Regan and that has proven to be a huge mistake, When we start to hold people accountable we will truly have change we can believe in.

[mtnsnake]

10. Good post

Thank you!

[truedelphi]

25. Applause for your post and for

Dean and Turley always setting our leaders straight about what it really means to live in a democracy.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. The time is coming when he will have to take clear stances

I'm not even referring to this issue; I'm referring to his constant habit of being non-committal or trying to seem on both sides of an issue. He's going to have to make his feelings known on a whole host of issues where vast groups are standing expectantly, totally confirmed he's "with them", even though they're on different sides of the issue at hand.

The yet-untested and constantly promised "fact" is that he will suddenly become forthright and executive-like, morph into a man of the people, and carry our standard at the head of the column. He raised mightily, and we called him, so it'll be an interesting showdown.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that he will initiate any proceedings against Bush or Cheney. It's in keeping with his M.O. to maybe let others do it in the legislature and claim that he shouldn't be tampering with the separation of powers, but even that seems rather remote. He also doesn't want to establish any precedent for allowing foreign courts some kind of jurisdiction; that would be political suicide and all the reactionaries he's been so gallantly courting will snub him at the drop of a handkerchief. He also doesn't necessarily want to leave that door open for some of the adventures he may be planning. (Going into Pakistan is a tad on the illegal side, after all, even in hot pursuit...)

I'm just very interested, and for one of the rare times in American politics, we're actually going to get a really obvious answer to a really big question: upon taking the reins of power, is he going to make good on inferences and promises to the left and rat fuck the reactionaries he's "suckered", or are WE the suckers, OR will he continue playing the same non-committal game of playing both sides of all the issues he's unable to duck.

He's got a really tough job ahead of him, and frustrated though I am, it's still conceivable that his extremist followers are correct and that I'm wrong. The wonderful thing about it is that we're going to REALLY know who and what this guy is during the next two weeks. I can't think of anyone who's ever gotten so powerful in American politics (certainly in my lifetime) who was such an unknown quantity, so the sheer theatre of it has me on the edge of my seat.

[DevonRex]

14. I got two really positive things from his answer. One, he hasn't taken it off the table.

Two, he is not going to treat the Justice Department as his personal political revenge machine OR his personal political "ignore the bastards that broke the law" machine. What a refreshing and needed change.

If Holder finds crimes that must be prosecuted, he will do it.

[mtnsnake]

17. Yup, like someone else upthread said, his answer was perfect

...well, as perfect as it could be for a politician to say, anyway.

Good point about him letting this fall in Holder's hands. Now let's hope someone follows through on this.

Oh, and thanks for the assist last night. :)

[DevonRex]

20. You're quite welcome.

I hate it when my friends get attacked like that, especially when all the evidence is to the contrary. :)

And you have defended me in the past, too, which has been greatly appreciated. :hug:

[terisan]

16. If Bush does not do a blanket pardon, it means he and Obama have made a deal.

The Dem congress would be in on the deal also.

I think this is a no-brainer.

Bush Sr pardoned his Secy of Defense (indicted by Special Prosecutor) just before he left office so that Weinberger had no incentive to implicate Bush in Iran-Contra.

Clinton pardoned the not yet indicted Marc Rich before he left office-precedent for halting investigation into whether crimes might have been committed.

Carter issued blanket pardons for Draft Resisters.

Ford issued pardon for whatever Nixon might have done illegally

Lots of precedents here.

GW Bush and Cheney do not seem the least bit afraid.

If Dems just do a show investigation they need to be tossed out of office.

A serious and frank report on illegal actions taken would be welcomed by me however---but I am not hopeful.

[awoke_in_2003]

23. "Carter issued blanket pardons for Draft Resisters"

Please, do not lump this one in with the other pardons. This pardon was right.

[terisan]

27. I agree but together they all illustrate the breadth of the Power to Pardon.

[awoke_in_2003]

31. In some cases...

it is good, but in most it is bad.

[90-percent]

18. you want to think about the future?

Well, alrighty then!

Think of a future time when America elects another socipathic idiot and this time this guy wants to take things a few steps farther than the damien-duo of Cheney-Bush.

No prosecution of GWB high crimes and misdemeanors will allow some future sociopath some full blown Mussolini-Hitler caliber fascism!

Prosecution is an absolute must if we have any obligation to prevent future generations from experiencing their new "worst president ever"!

-90% Jimmy

[mtnsnake]

19. I agree. Prosecution is an absolute must for the reasons you mentioned. n/t

[polichick]

22. imo there's no way to look to the future without restoring the Constitution...

...and that requires a full investigation, and most likely prosecution.

I think PE Obama knows that and will do the right thing.

[Hawkowl]

24. Cagey

Obama is playing a very cagey strategy. Right now he's going to deal with the economy first and foremost, then the wars etc. However, it might be that he also deals with torture and crimes by Bushco in stealth mode.

We have to remember that in order to catch the criminals, law enforcement often lulls them into a sense of complacency, lest they scatter like cockroaches when the lights come on. If Obama comes out guns blazing, witnesses die, evidence is destroyed and BUSH PARDONS EVERYONE. So I don't expect a very public, aggressive prosecution right now. More of a slow building, overpowering, inevitable tsunami of justice to strike sometime in 2010.

We just have to keep insisting on investigation and justice and I believe that Obama will do the right thing.

Good OP off to the greatest page.

[Beacool]

29. He's not going to go after Bush & Cheney.

He said that the AG was the people's attorney and that he (Obama) was looking into the future. To me that meant that he will not go after either Bush or Cheney.

:eyes:

[tomp]

30. me too. i predict he will not prosecute bush/cheney, inc.

he's already embraced powell. that was the sign.

still waiting for change.

[Beacool]

32. Maybe Poppa Bush will adopt him too.

Read this:

Bush and Barack, Bedfellows
Why the current president is rooting for the next one.
Published Dec 28, 2008



By all accounts, including the president’s, the postelection courtesies extended by George W. Bush and his people to Barack Obama and his team have included everything short of rolling out a welcome mat in front of the White House. “I worked hard to make this transition a smooth transition; I want him to succeed,” Bush declared the other day at an American Enterprise Institute event. Bush went on to note that when he met his successor face-to-face last month, he was “impressed by the questions asked,” though he refused to divulge details. “I told him I wouldn’t reveal them, so that if he ever asked for my advice again, he’d feel comfortable doing it knowing that it wouldn’t be out there for public consumption.”

The idea that 44 might in the future continue to seek the counsel of 43 would until recently have struck partisans on both ends of the ideological spectrum as absurd. But that was before the transition commenced and Obama began to tip his hand in the area of foreign policy. Before the appointment of the power troika of Bob Gates, Jim Jones, and Hillary Clinton, each of whom plausibly could have filled the very same jobs in a John McCain regime. Before the hints that Obama might not be fully, rigidly committed to the rapid timetable for drawing down combat troops in Iraq that he advocated during the campaign. Before, in other words, the pat assumptions of the right and the left were blown to smithereens.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/53165/