|
impeachment and future prosecution, in order to get them to back off from nuking Iran, and to leave the White House peacefully when the time came (and to get Rumsfeld to resign)--which occurred circa late 2006--and this greatly complicates Obama's probable desire to restore the rule of law and the US Constitution. He can't very well okay the prosecution of CIA and other intelligence personnel, military personnel, or lesser Bush Junta figures--it wouldn't be fair, with the Bush Junta principles immunized. I do think that this, or some similar scenario, occurred (the origin of Pelosi's strange announcement that "Impeachment is off the table") (i.e., what table?), with some of those involved thinking they were doing the best thing for the country. I think Obama knows about it, and had to agree to abide by it to be permitted to win the election. But this leaves government accountability, our Constitution, our laws and our future as a democracy in peril. With the voting machines the way they are (controlled by private rightwing corporations, with 'TRADE SECRET' code), the Bushwhack fascists could be re-installed in power--easily!--and we would have no recourse. And, really, any leader can be tempted by unlawful powers--whether they gain office by a stolen election or not. The extrajudicial powers that the Bushwhacks asserted, and used, are extremely dangerous precedents to go without any consequences.
And we aren't talking any relatively minor shit like Nixon was involved in. We're talking about massive criminalty, unseen ever before in the history of the U.S.--the pervasive violation of numerous laws of every kind, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, several Constitutionally protected rights, massive domestic spying (and the probable assembly of blackmail dossiers on all US and other public figures), the torture of thousands of prisoners for purposes unknown, the invention of categories of prisoner by fiat, the politicalization of the Department of Justice, the use of the law for political purposes, the hiring of incompetents in many agencies, massive government secrecy, massive abuse of "executive privilege," the massive looting of the federal treasury, including the recent Bushwhack Financial 9/11 last September (in addition to leaving the government in trillions of dollars of debt, the outright giveaway of another trillion dollars to rich banksters and financial criminals), massive malfeasance as to financial oversight, billions of dollars missing in Iraq, the gruesome failures of FEMA during the Katrina hurricane, the no-bid contracts to Cheney's buds, lying about the WMDs, slaughtering a hundred thousand people with "shock and awe" bombing to steal their oil, outing CIA agents, and on and on and on and on.
The malfeasance alone would be cause enough to impeach a dozen presidents. The massive crime is just mind-boggling.
This is not unimportant, forgiveable, forgettable over-reaching or occasional foul-ups, or "a few bad eggs," or mistakes made in a crisis. This is a consistent pattern of massive criminality by the top Bush Junta decision-makers, with Bush Jr's name on it all. However stupid he may be, he was their willing tool. And I think part of what happened back in circa late 2006 is that Bush Sr stepped in to rescue Jr, with Leon Panetta's help (member of Bush Sr's "Iraq Study Group"--probably deep CIA--my opinion), which coincided with a movement within the military and intelligence communities, and others, to curtail Rumsfeld's power, to stop the nuking of Iran, and to restore order.
One of the things that convinces me that such a "deal" was made is the overwhelming nature of Bush Junta criminality. The top Bushites belong in a Nuremburg trial. They stole two elections and took us right off the cliff into a nazi state. I don't think the collusion of our more collusive Democrats on some of this, or the collusion of anyone else, sufficiently explains why nothing is being done to hold these criminals accountable for anything. And Obama's stance--he wants to look forward, not backward--is unreal. How could any progressive Constitutional lawyer--editor of the Harvard law review--say such a thing? True, he has his hands full--no question about that. But he is sending numerous signals that he doesn't care what they did--they could have been roasting babies in the White House basement (and that is exactly what they were doing in Iraq), and he would just brush it off as "past history." That's how it appears to me--and it's one of the things that causes me to suspect that he is operating under serious constraints as to restoring the rule of law. Have we become such stupid people during the Bush interregnum--that we don't suspect that a deal was made?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
