Would you support the prosecution of Bush war crimes even if it costs Obama a second term?

[Cali_Democrat]

Obama is obviously making a political calculation here. He probably thinks there will be a political backlash if he prosecutes Bush Administration officials for war crimes.

So what do you think? Would you support the prosecution of Bush Administration officials even if it costs Obama a second term?

[mvd]

1. I'd have to say no

But there's nothing that says for sure that Obama will not prosecute anyone.

[jkshaw]

2. I think the president made his decision

for the reasons that he outlined in his remarks.

[flvegan]

3. This will be a VERY interesting poll.

[mvd]

The big reason I said no

is that with a second Obama term, torture will not be policy, and we won't have to endure other Repuke problems.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. Costs him a second term to a Democrat or to Bobby Jindal or Newt Gingrich or someone that will just

pardon everyone anyway?

[rpannier]

8. That's what I think makes this poll so interesting

You don't know. You just have to be willing to take that risk

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. It is a good point. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, FDR interned the Japanese

Would McClellan or Dewey have been better for America?

[Pirate Smile]

30. No Democrat is going to beat him in the Democratic Primaries and Caucuses in 2012.

It means a Republican President.

[anonymous171]

5. Would there evem be backlash? Bush really isn't that popular. nt

[xxqqqzme]

76. I don't believe there would be a backlash.

I think an investgation/prosecution would disgust most Americans and finally reveal how corrupt that administration was. The whorporate media certainly isn't going to tell you.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. yes of course

political expediency does not trump prosecution of crimes against humanity. we have a moral obligation to do the right thing here, as these crimes were committed in our name. we collectively have blood on our hands.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. You do realize that could possibly mean President Palin in 2012?

Just sayin'

[laconicsax]

13. Just like how voting Democratic could possibly mean another 9/11?

Just sayin'

[rug]

14. Sarah Palin has as much chance of going to the White House as John Yoo has of going to prison.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. It doesn't have to be Palin

It could be any Republican nominee.

If Obama loses in 2012, then the Republican nominee will win. There is no 3rd party capable of taking the presidency any time soon.

[Control-Z]

68. You forgot the sarcasm thingy. n/t

[geek tragedy]

9. Why not pose it as:

Would you favor a war crimes prosecution if it meant:

War with Iran

No possibility of health care reform

A return to Bushian Global Warming policy

President (Jeb) Bush.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. Many here would prefer a Republican president

They can then vent their various outrages without having to encounter any opposition. Consequences be damned, as it were.

[geek tragedy]

19. Well, fortunately no matter of public interest--great or small--

has been altered by the opinion of DU'ers.

[HamdenRice]

64. Exactly. Some people are programmed on permanent outrage

There's not enough stuff to make up about Obama, so they would rather have a republican to bash.

[PBS Poll-435]

10. Depends of the definition of "Bush Administration Officials," I guess

I would say NO if it was just some middle-bureaucratic officials.

If they had proof that would link all of this stuff to the very top, ie: Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc, then YES.




Then again, if they could prove the latter, most likely it wouldn't cost Obama a second term.

[oviedodem]

11. your idiots if you voted yes; what you are saying is

you would sacrifice this country to ASININE republican ideology on ALL fronts for maybe one prosecution??/

that is truly dumb.

[jobycom]

18. At least we can spell you're.

[Hanse]

22. Fixing typos is a minor issue.

But you can't fix stupid.

[jobycom]

25. I've noticed that. nt

[oviedodem]

29. hope YOU'RE happy that if Obama is a one term prez, and you have no job

no Health ins. BUT Gonzalez was prosecuted.

[jobycom]

34. IF there were any reason to suspect that Obama would lose for prosecuting Bush

it would mean that he would lose anyway, because it would mean that Bush's party had more support in the first place.

But that's not even the issue. Nor is it the main issue that we have to look forward not just three years, but ten, twenty, and thirty years. Congress declined to impeach Reagan for Iran/Contra, and the key architects of the crimes and failures of that administration were hired by Bush, and they perpetrated the same crimes on us over the last eight years. If Congress or the independent counsel or Clinton had gotten convictions then, we might not have had Bush and Cheney in the first place. In another ten years, we will be stuck with the criminals we refused to prosecute this time, even if Obama wins reelection in 2012.

The real issue, though, is this. Obama was elected to run the nation and do the people's work. If he refuses to do that, if he plays politics only--and I'm not talking about compromising here and there to accomplish greater goals, but the outright abrogation of duty out of fear of political repurcussions--then he's not doing what he was elected to do. That puts him at much greater risk of losing his job. Notice the OP didn't conclude that he would win if he didn't prosecute Bush? He could still lose it, and then he'd have compromised for nothing.

[onenote]

65. No, it would mean that a lot of independents whose support is necessary

for Obama to win might be turned off

[laconicsax]

23. I voted yes because I have this misguided idea that the rule of law means something.

By voting no, you are saying that you don't give a shit about the rule of law unless its politically expedient to do so.

The notion that prosecuting war crimes is political suicide is based on nothing but a hunch--a cowardly fear that doing the right thing will cost Obama the election three years from now.

[jobycom]

16. Would you want Obama to act different than Bush if it costs him a second term?

Power without purpose is tyranny.

[rhiannon55]

17. No. In another Republican administration

the torture would start again. At least now it has stopped.

[mmonk]

20. Absolutely. I doubt if what many of us know were known more broadly

that Obama would be in any trouble for it anyway. But regardless, my freedom is not for compromising, not even for his job security.

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. I reject the false premise of this poll

Anybody who would actually oppose the Bush Crime Family being prosecuted wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, and they didn't vote for him last time.

But if we do NOT prosecute them now, they will be back. Every Repuke President since 1952 has been part of the Bush Crime Family. And each one worse than the one before. Do you really want to see who they have that is WORSE than Chimpy?

Prescott Bush should have been executed for the treason of funding Hitler. Instead he was allowed to become a goddamned United States senator. Eventually his son became President, but not before a career of smack peddling and terrorism in the CIA. And his grandson became pResident despite not having a 3 digit IQ, or even a valid election.

It stops now. It has to. Or we will NEVER restore this country.

[leftstreet]

47. +1

Well said

[Cali_Democrat]

53. I reject your premise

"Anybody who would actually oppose the Bush Crime Family being prosecuted wouldn't vote for Obama anyway"

I think that's just wrong. There could very well be people who oppose prosecution of Bush war crimes and still vote for Obama.

[Number23]

60. You are absolutely right.

[bigjohn16]

24. Definitely Yes.

This issue is bigger then one man. It's about the future of America and if he doesn't prosecute this will set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.

[Pirate Smile]

26. Do we have President Palin or Sanford or Romney then? How many Supreme Court Justices do they get

to pick? Republicans only need one more vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. How old will Stevens be by then? 90's, Ginsberg's can make it another 8 or 12 years.

Getting another Republican President can't cause much damage, can it?

Or it doesn't matter because Democrats and Republicans are all the same ..... That seems vaguely familiar....

[NRaleighLiberal]

27. Hell, yes.

[Clio the Leo]

31. First of all, where's the "Hell No!" button and secondly...

... some of yall have gone screwy in the head.

Here.... look at these people again and see if you can go back and revote (in the poll.)







'cause as sweet as THIS guy is.....



... it ain't happenin.

[depakid]

32. It's a false dichotomy

but one should note that, in the end- the rule of law and assurances of accountability are more important than the fortunes of any one man.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. One man, one party, and millions of people

War with Iran, more tax cuts for the wealthy and more torture are all on the table if a Republican wins in 2012.

[quakerboy]

33. Its not a fair question

I think it is far more likely that not prosecuting could cost us more presidential elections than prosecuting would. I doubt it would loose Obama his next one. But laying out all the facts for the record could mean we keep the white house even after Obama finishes his second term, when we might not otherwise.

[SpartanDem]

37. It is fair

going after them may right, but politically the average American and let's fact this place isn't average is far more concerned with theeconomy than prosecuting Bush. You at least have to acknowledge the potential of backlash for the party. I have vote no this after the last eight years I'm sorry its way too soon to go back to another GOPig president.

[mvd]

41. Right - no action this entire term will set a precedent

Another reason not to allow a Repuke administration.

[quakerboy]

45. Even if it means that we lose the next 4 after that?

If there is no follow up on this, then they will come back again.

I think the potential for backlash is damned minimal. If the proof is laid out in the public record, it will be the public calling for the action. The teabaggers will oppose it. Whoop-te-do.

[kas125]

35. I absolutely would. Part of the reason I worked so hard and

gave money I couldn't afford to get him elected was so that those criminals WOULD be prosecuted. If he doesn't uphold his oath to defend the Constitution, he won't deserve a second term.

[HopeOverFear]

40. ^^^^^^^stupid going somewhere to happen^^^^^^^^^^^^

[kas125]

50. If your reply was supposed to make some kind of sense,

it failed miserably.

[Chan790]

81. See, you'd have cancelled me out...

because the first people I eliminated from the pool of potential nominees I'd support were the morons who would do something dumb like prosecute the Bush idiots. I like the notion of a permanent GOP minority too much to waste any more capital on those Bush era f^ckwads.

If he'd have come out in favor of prosecution, then I'd have kept my time, money and efforts or given them to someone who clearly wasn't demented. I think one has to be detached from reality to think a witch hunt is a good idea. That's how any prosecution will be framed for the idiot masses...as a witch hunt.

[Frank Booth]

36. I assume everyone who voted "Yes" was born in the past 90 days,

and didn't have to live through the Bush years, and doesn't understand that Sarah Palin will probably be the Repub nominee in 2012.

[amborin]

39. NO, at the cost of a 2nd term???? the devastation that would bring!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. You mean Obama would step aside, realizing the prosecutions had damaged him too much, and

some other Democrat runs in 2012 and wins, which they would...

Yeah, that's acceptable.

(And not precluded by the phrasing of the OP. If you are ever granted three wishes be very careful!)

[PufPuf23]

43. Keeping my powder dry is becoming ever more difficult.

Obama is expanding war.

Withdrawal from Iraq means 50,000 troops left behind.

AFRICOM is alive and under the radar coming into existence October 2008.

A surge in Afghanistan and an expansion into Pakistan.

A new military base in Columbia (to replace Ecuador) where the DoD is already playing cynical games in the region using contractors so official troop numbers are low.

What does the DoD have planned (or is doing) for space and the cyberspace?

Military budget up 10% plus separate financing for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Drones. Dov Zakheim.

[TheKentuckian]

44. I've never seen this rule of law before but I've seen several Republican

Administrations.

I settle for keeping the foxes out of the hen house, if that's my choice. We've got by for like 230 years without rule of law, I'll take 4 more minus the batshit insanity.

[bigjohn16]

46. That sounds like "change I can believe in"

:sarcasm:

[The Traveler]

48. Fair question

but I do not submit to limits imposed by your answers.

Folks, Obama has reasons aplenty not to go towards prosecution. It would totally undermine what we his administration is trying to accomplish ... only because of the partisan fires the proceedings would ignite.

It is up to US to make the government do the right thing ... it is up to US to make it politically necessary for every fuckin' US senator to call for a special prosecutor. The Obama Administration has a full plate. There are some jobs we the people are going to have to take on ourselves ... and this kind of special, and specially icky, house cleaning is one of them.

Time to hit the streets and let the tea baggers see our numbers. Who's with me?

Trav

[TankLV]

49. I a heart beat - but I hardly think it would cost him that - I think the OPPOSITE would happen...

if he prosecuted bush WAR CRIMES - that's why we VOTED FOR HIM!!! He'd be ASSURED a double term!!!

[Chan790]

82. I didn't.

I won't vote for idiots. He'd be an idiot to prosecute. I voted against my congressman because he hinted at being even remotely amenable to prosecuting the Bush morons.

[Political Heretic]

51. Yes. Some things are more important that someone's political career.

[Cali_Democrat]

52. Obama's political career is important to all Dems

If he loses in 2012, the Republican wins. There is no 3rd party candidate that can win the presidency in the United States any time soon.

President Palin? President Jindal? President Gingrich?

Not a good thing if you ask me.

You may not have a problem with that, but I do.

[Political Heretic]

70. Thay may be. But some things are more important.

[FrenchieCat]

54. Did I NOT vote for Bill Clinton because he didn't prosecute Bush Sr.

For his involvement in Iran-Contra?

[LittleBlue]

55. If? That's a false dichotomy. Would you support gay rights if it cost Obama a second term?

Would you support a woman's right to choose if it cost him a second term?

How absurd. Doing the right thing and getting a second term are NOT mutually exclusive.

[SpartanDem]

56. No they're not

mutually exclusive,but the odds of either of those issues costing him a second terms are no where near this issue. You to admit this much more politically charged issue.

[LittleBlue]

58. IMO the election hinges on the economy: if it recovers, he's an easy victory

if it doesn't, I think he will lose.

IMO prosecuting torturers will not be an issue compared to the economy.

[elana i am]

57. i had to vote yes because otherwise

i'd be a huge fucking hypocrite.

[namahage]

59. Prosecution, by the way, does not equal conviction.

Given your scenario, it is entirely possible that we will get a Repub president(who will probably waste no time reversing Obama's policies) AND Bushco will go free.

[Number23]

61. That is simply a fascinating question.

And I really don't know how I would answer it. I'm amazed that anyone could be so dogmatic in their thinking as to have an immediate answer to that question.

Very well done. This is the first DU poll that has ever given me pause. :)

[seaglass]

62. Without a doubt. Sometimes you need to do what is right no matter what the cost.

Frankly, if Obama has the courage to champion prosecutions for those responsible for our torture policy, he will be my hero. And I would bet that when our ancestors look back at this time he would be seen as one of the greatest Presidents in our history.

We talked a lot about HOPE during the last election but I didn't see any, I didn't have any for anyone. I still don't have hope, but this is my wish now, that I am mistaken in my belief that Obama is just another Democratic President - that he REALLY IS the right LEADER for this unique time and he will begin the process of holding those in our government accountable for the illegal activities they perpetrated in our name. That justice will be done without regards to personal interests.

We shall see.

[jewishlibrl]

63. I don't see prosecutions costing him a second term

I don't think Americans would be angry that Obama brought justice to torture victims.

[jefferson_dem]

66. No.

It's all conjecture but if we knew his Adminstration's pursuance of charges would lead to a defeat in 2012, the answer is obvious for me.

[polichick]

67. imo politics shouldn't enter into the decision - that's how we got here.

[Phx_Dem]

69. Yeah, because putting a Republican back in charge to do the same

thing all over again, is such a great idea. Let's prosecute everyone involved in torture even if it means putting a Republican back in the White House so they can start torturing all over again! I think that's called cutting your nose off to spite your face.

:woohoo:

[redqueen]

71. Yes, that's what it's called. (nt)

[Dawgs]

74. +1

:hi:

[Phx_Dem]

78. Back at ya!

:hi: :D

[spoony]

72. Yeah, ok, so we play it sooo safe

in his first term, and let me guess in his second term we can't do anything controversial either because we don't want to hurt the next Dem candidate's chances, and so forth until we'll have had our guys in the WH for two decades and nothing's been done about health care, war crimes, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

What's the fucking point of having the power to do what's right if you haven't the nerve?

[Dawgs]

73. The problem with voting YES, is that you assume it would stop war and torture.

There is only one guarantee in this scenario; we get another four of republican rule.

[baldguy]

75. Today's low-level staffers from the Bush Regime will be tomorrows war criminals.

Just as yesterday's low-level staffers from the Nixon Admin are today's war criminals.

[cwcwmack]

77. no, nt

[DevonRex]

79. No. First of all, I don't believe Poppy Bush's CIA left enough evidence

lying around to convict anybody, much less his idiot son and the idiot son handler.

[butterfly77]

80. I believe that ...

they will be prosecuted.

[burrowowl]

83. A Special Prosecuter should be named

If Obama loses the next election because the US cannot stomach that war crimes were committed under Bu$hCO, then the Nation is unworthy of it Constitution and would be unable to claim its legitimacy as a moral force in the world.