Mr. President, I believe it's time to set aside your personal beliefs and open an investigation into

[Sub Atomic]

the crimes by the Bush/Cheney administration.

The Repukes are going to do everything in their power to try to tie you to the BP leak and their subsequent failure. They are trying to rewrite history by ignoring the transgressions of the Bush/Cheney administration.

I believe now is the time that you open up those investigations of your predecessors. 9/11. Secret Energy Committee Meetings. Iraq. Medicare Drug Bill. All of those things that we know weren't done on the up-and-up but for whatever reason you seem to think it's OK to ignore.

Mr. President, it's not OK to ignore those things. And by doing so, you are aiding the Republicans in rewriting history and letting our Liberal Media (tm) inform the uneducated masses that you are the worst President in the History of the World.

Screw that. Open the investigations and let the chips fall where they may. At the very least, you owe that to those of us who supported and voted for you.

[LaFeminist]

1. That would be backward-looking

And we were told to look forward.

[Sub Atomic]

3. Exactly. DON'T LOOK BACK! SHE'LL TURN YOU INTO A PILLAR OF SALT!!

[tom_paine]

41. It's OK to look forward to prosecute whistleblowers, though.

Damned Lib'rul troublemaking "Little People".

[roguevalley]

51. we're supposed to 'reflect' and some such shit instead. another

splat of shit on his legacy.

[papadog]

113. Why Not Look Forward and Empty All the Jails.

It would save the taxpayers lots of money.

[Lost4words]

2. Investigate Bush admin crimes NOW! there is no looking forward otherwise!

crimes were committed on a daily basis.

[burrowowl]

70. YES!

Investigate!

[Scuba]

4. How can we ever be any better...

...if we refuse to face up to our past? How can we ever deter future crimes of this nature, if we don't punish them now?


If the Democrats had committed such crimes, the Republicans would have an army of Special Prosecutors at work.

It's time to look back.

[howmad1]

56. Whatever. Bush/Cheney are role models for our kids that......

....crime does pay. And Obama is making that proof positive that crime does indeed pay. Obama should also be investigated for not allowing the prosecution of these M/F bastards.

[BeFree]

5. That makes perfect sense

It would totally revamp politics. The republicans would be so ashamed that they wouldn't dare open their mouths and we liberals, leftists, greens, and tree-huggers would take over and run the US.!!!

So why doesn't he do it?

[Fumesucker]

8. Because liberals, leftists, greens, and tree-huggers would take over and run the US

Obama is none of those things, why would he want them to take over?

[BeFree]

12. Why? Why would Obama want the best to happen?

Maybe because he has kids? Kids who will grow up and inherit the earth. And he wants his kids to be able to experience the earth and all it's bounties without excess pollution in the air and water? That he knows the way this country is being run by the corporations for profit, is NOT sustainable?

It makes perfect sense, so why doesn't he get on with it?

[obxhead]

13. Because Obama also knows that by working for the corporations

himself he makes his life and the lives of his family quite sustainable for themselves. Obama refuses to look back partly because he is maintaining the status quo on many serious issues, walking the corporate line on them.

Some do not see that, will likely even flame this post for my saying so, but they are simply not paying attention to the critical issues.

[BeFree]

14. OK

Obama has an agenda that does not include the small people's basic life conditions being conserved and preserved?

[Fumesucker]

15. He and his family will never be the "small people"..

So why should he care?

[BeFree]

18. He might think that

There are only a few big people, the rest of humanity is small people.

Obama was allowed to take the presidency because he seemed like the best candidate to put a damper on the aspirations of the people. Aspirations of the people translates into lost profits for the corporations.

IOW, what the small people need to live costs the big people money. Thank Gawd the big people care about the small people, eh?

Obama cares about the small people, so he says, so why doesn't he kick some ass of the criminals hiding in the secrets of the last administration?

[Fumesucker]

34. Jenna Bush has a gig on Good Morning America (I think it is)..

There is not the slightest chance she would be on TV in that capacity without the fact her father was POTUS..

Malia and Sasha Obama will never be lacking for opportunity..

[amandabeech]

60. Malia and Sasha will never have to go to a school run by Arne Duncan, either.

It is wonderful to have a Dad that everyone knows is cool!

[pokercat999]

87. No, No that's OK.........as long as it doesn't interfere with the

BIG PEOPLE!

[tango-tee]

81. No flames from me, because you speak the truth, obxhead!

Good post, thank you.

[olegramps]

100. Obama's kids don't have to worry about their future. They are part of the privileged class.

When he comes out of office, regardless if it is even in 2012, he will add to his personal fortune making "pretty speeches." However, I wouldn't look for him to be addressing many Labor Unions. After his stabbing the f the Teachers' Unions in the back, he will as welcome as the town whore in church. The way it is going most likely he will be addressing the Chamber of Commerce types. You know those Republicans thingies.

[cali]

86. lol. total nonsense.

dream on.

[johnnyplankton]

91. It might make a little more sense...

if it were done after the mid-terms. Can you imagine how much money the corporations would pour into the elections if he announced investigations today? I must admit that I'm not all that crazy about the DOJ's record in the first 18 months, though.

[Kingofalldems]

6. K and R for the teabaggers and freepers

[G_j]

7. Don't hold your breath

sorry, but I think they've made some sort of agreement.
just my own opinion, of course..

[msongs]

9. investigating bush means it's ok to investigate obama - so will never happen nt

[Sub Atomic]

11. Do you actually think that if the Rs gain control of Congress that they won't start some bullshit

investigations into the Obama Administration?

It's coming. It's what they do. It doesn't matter how far-reaching or absurd, they will do whatever they can to hamstring the rest of his Presidency.

He's allowing the Repubs to frame it now. Bookmark this thread.

[AndyA]

20. Even now, some Republicans are talking impeachment.

Obama needs to figure it out. Quickly.

[Sub Atomic]

22. I know. It's disgusting.

They're using the impeachment process as a political weapon as opposed to the tool it was meant to be.

And we get stuck with Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.

[awoke_in_2003]

75. when one party...

control the House, Senate, and white house historically the opposition party regains power in at least one house of congress. Let them have the Senate (impeachment begins in the House)

[Dr.Phool]

80. Asshole Issa has already promised it.

Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

Had they fully investigated Iran-Contra, BCCI, etc, these fascists would be in prison.

[Greyhound]

31. Do you thing that they are so deluded that they really believe he won't be "investigated" should

Congress fall into Republik hands? I don't think (yet) that the Republiks will take either House this fall, but if they do Obama and everyone that's ever been in the same room with him, will spend the next 2 - 6 years paying Lawyers.

Just another false hope/fantasy he and his faction cling to.

[HughMoran]

10. Now is the time?

Right before an election?

I think that would motivate the Republicans a lot more than they are now.

[AndyA]

21. When is it a good time?

January 2009 sounded good to me.

There's always a reason why something shouldn't be done. The bottom line is, Obama has an OBLIGATION to investigate, especially given the mess Bushco created. It is not a choice, Obama took an oath.

[William Z. Foster]

36. motivate Republicans?

So we can't take left wing or strong positions on anything because that might motivate Republicans? That makes no sense. If by "Republicans" you mean the party and the think tanks and right wing media, there is no connection between their level of motivation and anything the Democrats do. The Democrats could do nothing and they would make shit up and be just as motivated as ever. If by "Republicans" you mean people from the general public who tend to vote Republican, I think that the election of Obama proved that it is the promise of left wing programs that gets the general public motivated, and motivated to vote Democratic.

The right wing propagandists do more damage by scaring Democrats into taking tepid and moderate stances than they do by motivating or rallying any so-called right base. There is no right wing base, since the right wing represents the wealthiest 1% of the population. The degree to which Democrats are "practical" and "pragmatic" - running to the right - is the degree to which the Republicans can make inroads and capture the voters.

The right wing propagandists say that the public is afraid of the left, but that is a lie and it is one that we can and should reject. Among Democrats it becomes self-fulfilling prophesy, as many Democrats have bought the right wing lie about this and so think that we need to compromise, moderate and temper our pitch, all of which just appears weak and vacillating to the voting public.

Since this is all about to be validated by events in such a way that it will undeniable to all sober minded observers, this may be an argument that is not worth investing much time or energy into any longer. Just wait a few months and reality will be delivering the message I am expressing here. The Democrats will either move to the left and salvage and restore their now crumbling and tattered public mandate, or they will continue to move to the right and soon be out of power.

[HughMoran]

40. That's a complete pile of rubbish

I was talking specifically about a side show prosecution of Bush & Cheney that would suck all the air out of the room, and you know it. Your bigger point is noted and discarded as being unrelated to what I was suggesting.

[William Z. Foster]

43. that's it?

Thanks. I felt good about that post.

I understand that you are resistant to placing these issues into a larger context, and prefer that we discuss each issue in isolation and strictly in a short-term and partisan manner. You will therefore always object to any attempt at looking at the bigger picture. The more you object, the more successful I will assume I have been at painting a bigger picture.

Practically every left wing proposal has been characterized as potentially "sucking all the air out of the room" - as a distraction, as bad timing, as impractical and as not pragmatic. Those ideas are merely asserted and rarely supported or defended. I am suggesting that the opposite may in fact be the case, and I can make a pretty good case for that I think.

[HughMoran]

45. I understand your desire to drag every conversation under your personal umbrella

Just because I might agree with you on the bigger picture does NOT mean that I concede the point about Bush/Cheney prosecution. You simply cannot lump every piece of legislation, Presidential action, Presidential inaction etc. into one lump - it just clouds the topic we were discussing here. I understand the point you were trying to make - it's the same theme you're usually promoting, that's your thing, not mine.

[William Z. Foster]

48. sure

That is fine. Who cares whether or not we agree? why not have some serious debates rather than tossing one liners back and fort? I don't care who "wins," and don't care whether or not you agree with me. We owe it to ourselves, to each other and to the community to upgrade the level of the quality of the discussion.

I am not lumping anything, I am observing that they are interconnected - clearly favors given to the oil industry are connected to the catastrophe in the Gulf, and clearly the Bush administration used executive powers to protect and advance the interest of the corporations. It is also clear that those arguing against prosecutions of the people from the former administration are also arguing against any and all left wing policy suggestions and any and all criticisms of the drift to the right by the Democratic party. To pretend those are not interconnected would require us to seriously constrict our view of objective reality.

I am not sure whether or not prosecution of Bush officials is the best idea, but so what? None of us have the power to make that happen. However, I do think that advocating that this be done - which we can do - is a positive thing and sweeping it under the rug is not.

Our only power is in advocacy. It is not as though we are princes in power, debating hat we will actually put into effect with a wave of our hand. Those arguing that we should be "practical" and "pragmatic" are speaking as though they were princes ruling the land., and I think this betrays a deep identification with those in power and contempt for the rest of us. Only those identifying with those in power would debate what "we" should do, as though we were on the rulers side. What "we" - working class people - should be doing is agitating, criticizing those in power relentlessly, as though the burden of proof were on those in power rather than the every day people. many here hold their fellow working class brothers and sisters here to a vastly higher standard then they do those in power. That is the problem, that is what we are up against, that is the cause of all of the social and political problems.

So what if someone here has an idea that you think is stupid? What, those in power never have any stupid ideas?

Yes, I am always promoting a left wing theme - I hope I am, I m trying to. Guilty as charged.

[HughMoran]

64. OK

I don't expect agreement, just 1) stay on topic 2) use cogent arguments that are based on verifiable or inherently believable information/assumptions.

I am disagreeing with you that lumping the prosecution of Bushco is on par with passing climate legislation which was also considered to be a '3rd rail' politically this year. Every issue has a time and place where it can be worked on. We can't do 'everything at once' - it's neither practical, possible politically (i.e. Congress) & pragmatic politically (yes, getting elected is an important consideration.) If you can't separate issues and argue each on it's merits, then that may be a issue for me.

I have advocated for the prosecution of Bushco long before you came on the scene here. Over and over and over again I called for the prosecution and execution of Dick Cheney for war crimes. I've advocated 'till I was blue in the face. Excuse me if it's now not a priority since 1) it's not a priority with Obama or the Democratic Congress and 2) there really are bigger fish to fry IMO. I don't believe that prosecuting them will provide anything more than a temporary sense of satisfaction before reality sets back in. Should Obama have ignored the Economic meltdown in order to prosecute these war criminals? Health care? Climate? The stupid wars he was straddled with? Gitmo? You can't tell me with a straight face that ANYTHING would get done for the people while the trials were going on. I'm just not going to buy that argument, don't even go there as you'll be wasting your breath. So advocate until you're blue in the face, just don't expect everybody to agree with your priorities at any given time. Oh, and I love stupid ideas, the dumber the better, so long as the poster is intellectually honest in their arguments.

I don't care if you're left wing or a chicken wing, I'll judge you by your arguments. This whole attachment to an ideological 'tag' serves no purpose other than to divide us and create 'us' versus 'them' cliques. Argue on the merits, don't play 'team' ball and we'll have many interesting discussions. Insult me or try to pigeon hole me based on your definition of what a good 'liberal/progressive/Democrat' is, and I'm obviously going to respond in kind. I'm all ears.

[muffin1]

93. No...they should have gotten on it immediately.

It's really never a good time, is it? There's always an election around the corner. I am sick and tired of politicians constantly worrying about re-election. If they actually did what they were elected to do in the first place, then re-election would be a shoo-in.

[Chisox08]

112. Motivate the Republicans?

I guess nothing can be done that will upset the Republicans. No wonder the Health Insurance Bill is crap, we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo is still open, Unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed is expiring and little to no hope for a jobs program similar to the New Deal programs of FDR. So lets not motivate the Republicans at the same time not motivate people who vote for Democrats.

[JDPriestly]

16. This is very, very important.

If Obama does not take your advice, Democrats and any hope of a healthy society for our grandchildren will be lost.

[Bitwit1234]

17. A couple of weeks ago I got an email from Senator Leahy

who wants to do just that. He wants people to sign his petition so he can get congress to open an investigation into the crimes of the Bush Administration. I got an email back thanking me but nothing else, did anyone get a further report or an email.

[AndyA]

19. It's not a matter of personal beliefs.

It's a matter of doing his job, which includes upholding and protecting the Constitution. Knowing that crimes against the people possibly took place demands an investigation, and if evidence of crimes is detected, a full investigation and prosecution is required.

Anything less makes Obama just as guilty as Bush and Cheney, because he's covering up their crimes. And that's why a lot of people here at DU don't admire him the way others do. We recognize the fact that looking forward and ignoring the past is not acceptable. No one is above the law in this country, and that includes the President.

You can be certain of one thing: the next Republican President would prosecute Obama for anything they could find, including covering up crimes, if they could do it without harming a Republican President.

Obama is abusing the authority of his position by deciding to not investigate.

[dgibby]

96. Gerald Ford chose to look forward.

Look what that got us. Had he not pardoned Nixon, Cheney and Rumsfield would probably still be doing time. They certainly wouldn't have risen to the level of power they enjoyed in the last administration.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately when the person doing the ignoring is the POTUS, the rest of us are forced to suffer for his egress error.

[WinkyDink]

103. Ford also visited Jack Ruby in prison. Ford did what he was told to do, re: Nixon.

[Sebastian Doyle]

119. Ford was one of the lead stooges of the Warren Commission whitewash.

He was carrying water for the Bush Crime Family long before he became their first unelected pResident.

[Honeycombe8]

23. Waste of time and money. Move on.

It's practically IMPOSSIBLE to prove wrongdoing by a President. Most of the so-called evidence, if captured at all, is protected by executive privilege.

Even without the privilege, it's hard to convict someone of a white collar crime, unless you have a smoking gun.

And while our government is spending tens of millions of dollars trying to do that, and dedicating hundreds of government employees to the task, instead of other high-priority tasks (like the Gulf Oil Spill, the near-recession economy, jobs, alternative energy, environmental wrongdoings by companies, immigration, health care concerns)....the rest of many issues that directly affect our lives and our country will go by the wayside.

I vote for keeping our eye on the ball, trying to undo what was done, and moving forward on key issues that will help make people's lives better now and in the future.

[BeFree]

28. Undo what was done

If you really believed that, you wouldn't be asking us to forgive and forget.

The way we undo what was done is to smash the republicans by putting the leaders in jail.

[TheKentuckian]

29. Impossible my ass, they admit their crimes and beat their chests in pride

and if allowed to get away with their crimes then others will be along shortly and commit worse atrocities which in turn certain folks will say we should move along from.

The logical fruit of your view here is anarchy or a jackbooted police state to prevent anarchy. What merit does a system of law that excludes accountability for the rich and the powerful?

If there is responsibility and respect for the rule of law from the powerful then it becomes nothing but a whip across the backs of "the small people".

What you are calling for is systemic entropy and carte blanc permission for "rulers" to misuse the populace for whatever ends they please without even the thought of repercussions.

You are saying the people have no rights because there are never to be ramifications for violating them.

What the hell kind of country can we be when citizens accept such crimes? How long before the vote is suspended and even the veneer of democracy, self determination, and rule of law is gone forever.

This is an utterly irresponsible and myopic/hand to mouth position.

[depakid]

32. +1

I would also add that the catastrophe in the Gulf- and the economic meltdown resulted from of the same failure to hold individuals, corporate entities and government officials accountable for violations of their duties pursuant to the law and to the ethical responsibilities of their professions.

[amandabeech]

61. You're right. More disasters will result if people who screw are not held accountable.

Obama seems to be incapable of holding anyone accountable, including himself.

He is doing the country a great disservice by never, ever examining the past.

Maybe that has worked for him personally, but it does not work for a country.

It's like post-Nazi Germany refusing to examine its past.

Or, perhaps putting it in a way that at least Mrs. Obama may be able to grasp, it's like the post-slavery U.S. not examining that part of its past.

[William Z. Foster]

38. if this were only true

If only the mistakes made by the 90% of the people, the working class people, could now be forgiven and we could move on from that and stop punishing and blaming people and making them suffer, this would be a doctrine I could support. But no expense of time or money is to be spared when it comes to hunting down and persecuting the working class people. But since this "get out of jail free card" is only to be given to the most wealthy and powerful, I have to oppose it.

The idea that we cannot move on bringing perpetrators from the past to justice because we have to focus on current priorities would perhaps be justifiable if we were in fact moving on these current priorities. But these various priorities, whether from the past or currently happening share something in common - in each case Democrats are showing a disturbing reluctance to protect the working class people, and a willingness to hep and excuse the wealthiest and mots powerful. We have seen the "we don't have time and money to be wasted on that right now!" argument used as an excuse to surrender and compromise on everything past, present and future.

"Near recession economy?" I want to move to your neighborhood.

[kenny blankenship]

46. Waste of time and money petitioning Obama to do his job and uphold the Constitution?

Probably.

[William Z. Foster]

49. you move on

You can move on, and those in power can move on.

Why do you care whether or not anyone else moves on? Who would be harmed if people did not move on? Those in power, that is who.

So you and those in power go right ahead and move on.

Why are we continually being extorted?

If we harm BP, a lot of poor pensioners will be hurt.

If we don't bail out the banks, a lot of every day people will be hurt.

If we don't give the oil industry what they want, millions will starve.

If we don't give the insurance industry what they want, no one will have health care.

We keep being told that things will be a lot worse for all of us should we dare to confront and fight back against our tormentors. That is a threat. That is extortion.

[tomp]

66. bush openly admitted illegal wiretapping in a televised address.

it is a slam dunk, without question.

people who vote to move on are part of the problem. presidents, dem or repub,, will never stop their illegal behavior if everyone moves on.

[WinkyDink]

98. He recently admitted to torture, as well.

[tomp]

117. that's correct, and he is making no bones about it in either case.

slam dunks not taken by obama.

[WinkyDink]

95. That's what Republicans wanted us to believe in 1973, too.

[dgibby]

99. Dubya admitted to waterboarding, bragged about it actually,

said he'd do it again. Send him and that video to the Hague. Simple really.

[Overseas]

24. I wanted a time out on Modern Republican Corruption right at the beginning.

The Bush Gang sought to prove that government was bad. Deregulating. Privatizing corruption. Making quarterly profits for private corporations the driving force.

Wanted Democrats to begin with a very strong people's bailout-- Medicare for All and if necessary, the minimum compromise of the public option.

And if the bipartisan thing was so important-- our president could have talked about how he would like very much to be bipartisan, but Modern Republicans had strayed so far from their core values-- fiscal restraint (Bush ran up trillions in deficit spending) and strong national security (Bush led us into a war of choice on false pretenses)-- that we could only really be bipartisan with the old fashioned Republican values. And that would require a swift withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. And an undoing of the sweetheart deregulation Republicans had given to Big Oil, and a moving of their subsidies and tax break funding over to sustainable, renewable energy. Renewable energy would be part of a smarter, more long-term national security plan.

And Republicans used to object to invasions of liberty-- so the restoration of habeas corpus, the closing of Guantanamo, ending extraordinary rendition. Those would have been done at the outset. Not talked about and dropped, but done. They were part of the Republicans Off The Rails administration.

[branders seine]

25. but, but, but, but...

that would be loking backwards off the table that you wouldn't even be on, plus they wouldn't have the necessary 100 votes in the Senate, and Obama never promised justice if you parse his campaign speeches properly.

You should be tombstoned for suggesting such a thing and we all know what you really are blah blah blah...


(Thought I'd save the DLC bots the trouble of replying...)

[Sub Atomic]

26. "looking backwards off the table that you wouldn't even be on"

[branders seine]

30. LOL

[Individualist]

27. This DLC administration will never allow that.

[Initech]

33. There is no liberal media. Otherwise this wouldve already happened.

[nichomachus]

35. Please -- they all play for the same team

All of US politics is theater. It's like professional wrestling. They all have different colored outfits. They trash talk each other. They slam each other to the ground. They hit each other with chairs. And then, they all go out to dinner together in the same cab. And they work for the same promoter.

[kenny blankenship]

37. The time for that was the first 6 months of Obama's term

Then it would have been essential to putting the Pukes on defense and keeping them there, while he advanced a real Democratic agenda. But upholding law is not his thing, you know, law professor that he is. Neither is advancing a Democratic agenda...

[BelgianMadCow]

39. Cheney's Secret Energy Meetings

a great starting point I think.

And I concure wholeheartedly with the OP.

[Sebastian Doyle]

42. The Bush Crime Family has been committing crimes and treason against this nation for generations

It's not just Chimpy & Cheney. It's Poppy's career with the CIA, and all the drugs, terrorism, and murder associated with that, including some assassinations right here on our own shores.

It's Prescott Jr selling us out to the Chinese, and Poppy's other brother Jonathan running Riggs bank and BCCI.

It's Neil ripping off the Savings & Loans and then taking the money to fuck child prostitutes in Thailand.

It's Marvin running the "security company" that had the contract for the World Trade Center. A contract which expired, "coincidentally" on a certain Tuesday in September 2001.

It's Jeb signing an emergency order to allow deployment of the Florida National Guard 4 days before then, and telling his Chimp brother not to stay in the Governor's mansion the night before.

It's Prescott Sr. funding the rise of the Nazi third reich, and continuing to profit from Naziism, even from concentration camp labor, long after the US had entered World War II.

It's about his daddy Samuel Bush fleecing the railroads, and using that money to supply Remington rifles to both sides of World War I, including a lot of them which ended up in the hands of the Russian Bolsheviks, leading to the USSR.

Yeah you read this right. EVERY enemy (with the possible exception of Japan)the United States had within the last century was created directly or indirectly by the Bush Crime Family.

And still nothing is done to these treasonous fucking subhuman scum? :grr:

[WinkyDink]

101. Thank you! More: Poppy & the Bin Ladens = Carlyle Group. The Hinkley Family ties. The WH Pedophile

Tour under GHWB.
"Jeff Gannon."
CLB and Neil's "IGNITE!".
Jeb and the Florida air-training of Mohammed Atta et al.

I'd like to see the background of Barbara Pierce Bush, as well.

[Ardent15]

110. Don't forget William HT "Bucky"

Poppy's younger brother, who is a fucking war profiteer and a health insurance profiteer.

[Richard Steele]

44. K&R

[bigwillq]

47. K and R (nt)

[flvegan]

50. Hilarious.

No, not the idea/suggestion. I agree completely. Hilarious to think that Obama would ever ever ever investigate the prior admin. Upholding the Constitution isn't on his list of duties I don't think, at least not in every possible way.

[ProgressIn2008]

52. What on earth would make you believe he wants to do that? nt

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberaltrucker]

54. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Unfortunately.

:banghead:

[slipslidingaway]

55. knr nt

[RedCloud]

57. He's a centrist and doesn't give a flying f. He just wanted your vote.

[Canuckistanian]

58. A politician "setting aside personal beliefs and doing the right thing". Hmmm.

Nope. I don't believe I've ever heard of that concept.

[WileEcoyote]

59. If the Justice Dept could look into the Bush/Cheney crimes

they'd soon tear off the cover of the 9/11 bullshit "official story".

Then CIA would kill Obama dead within a few weeks.

Some kind of drone would whack the Prez and they'd blame it on a missile attack by Bin Laden or the Taliban or God knows who else. The lapdog press would echo the lies endlessly and that would be that. Just like in 9/11. Or Dallas, '63, and RFK's murder too.

They own this country and don't forget it. Obama can do some things to nudge the system in a better direction but this takes time.

[Nostradammit]

84. I think Bill Hicks summed it up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MRykTpw1RQ

[Moochy]

114. Any questions Mr President? (after watching a short film)

What's my Agenda?

[Dinger]

62. What Sub Atomic Said . . .

K & R by the way.

[demi moore]

63. forget the past

I promise, you wont be doomed to repeat it.

[gateley]

65. I don't think it's his personal beliefs that are at play, I think it's all political. nt

[Moochy]

116. His personal beliefs are firewalled from his political

that makes it ok still like him when he bombs innocents in Afghanistan!

[Mojeoux]

67. This is right. They had their chance.

They are lying liars and it's time to clean house!!

[newtothegame]

68. Disagree. 2001-2008 on DU was dedicated to tying Bush to 9/11.

He either knew or should have known after almost 8 months. So what's that's say about President Obama and oil rig regulations? 16 months. He either knew or should have known. Hold EVERYONE accountable.

[pundaint]

69. The problem is, the current president is repeating some of the crimes

of the previous administration. It will never be investigated, by "our" government.

[Stardust]

71. So true. So fucking true. Crimes are Crimes No Matter Who Does Them...

Crimes Are Crimes - No Matter Who Does Them

In the past few weeks, it has become common knowledge that Barack Obama has openly ordered the assassination of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, because he is suspected of participating in plots by Al Qaeda. Al-Awlaki denies these charges. No matter. Without trial or other judicial proceeding, the administration has simply put him on the to-be-killed list.

During this same period, a video leaked by whistleblowers in the military showing U.S. troops firing on an unarmed party of Iraqis in 2007, including two journalists, and then firing on those who attempted to rescue them – including two children – became public. As ugly as this video of the killing of 12 Iraqis was, the chatter recorded from the helicopter cockpit was even more chilling and monstrous. Yet the Pentagon said that there would be no charges against these soldiers; and the media focused on absolving them of blame – “they were under stress,” the story went, “and after all our brave men and women must be supported.” Meanwhile, those who leaked and publicized the video came under government surveillance and are targeted as “national security” threats.

Also during this period, the Pentagon acknowledged, after denials, a massacre near the city of Gardez, Afghanistan, on February 12, 2010, in which 5 people were killed, including two pregnant women, leaving 16 children motherless. The U.S. military first said the two men killed were insurgents, and the women, victims of a family “honor killing.” The Afghan government has accepted the eyewitness reports that U.S. Special Forces killed the men, (a police officer and lawyer) and the women, and then dug their own bullets out of the women’s bodies to destroy evidence. Top U.S. military officials have now admitted that U.S. soldiers killed the family in their house.

Just weeks earlier, a story broken in Harper’s by Scott Horton carried news that three supposed suicides of detainees in Guantánamo in 2006 were not actual suicides, but homicides carried out by American personnel. This passed almost without comment.

In some respects, this is worse than Bush. First, because Obama has claimed the right to assassinate American citizens whom he suspects of “terrorism,” merely on the grounds of his own suspicion or that of the CIA, something Bush never claimed publicly. Second, Obama says that the government can detain you indefinitely, even if you have been exonerated in a trial, and he has publicly floated the idea of “preventive detention." Third, the Obama administration, in expanding the use of unmanned drone attacks, argues that the U.S. has the authority under international law to use such lethal force and extrajudicial killing in sovereign countries with which it is not at war.

Such measures by Bush were widely considered by liberals and progressives to be outrages and were roundly, and correctly, protested. But those acts which may have been construed (wishfully or not) as anomalies under the Bush regime, have now been consecrated into “standard operating procedure” by Obama, who claims, as did Bush, executive privilege and state secrecy in defending the crime of aggressive war.

Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration has refused to prosecute any members of the Bush regime who are responsible for war crimes, including some who admitted to waterboarding and other forms of torture, thereby making their actions acceptable for him or any future president, Democrat or Republican.

We must end the complicity of silence and say loud and clear:

The things that were crimes under Bush are crimes under Obama.
Outrages under Bush are outrages under Obama.
All this MUST STOP.
And all this MUST BE RESISTED by anyone who claims a shred of conscience or integrity.

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/features-mainmenu-220/the-war-of-terror/6280-crimes-are-crimes-no-matter-who-does-them

[r_todd_a]

76. right. let's close Guantanamo, kill patriot act, stop signing statements > >

...please end torture, kill orders, unlawful detentions and increasing the reach of the Executive Branch.

and for the love of God, get an energy policy.

and for the love of mother nature, create a sound environmental strategy that clearly shows we are of the earth and not separate.

[Moochy]

115. Would that be...

The signing statement to end all signing statements? :+

"Hey Rahm, you are right, this Imperial Presidency thing looks pretty good on me!"

[go west young man]

72. It'll never happen. The U.S. government is too weak minded to pursue that truth.

The rest of the world knows the war was based on lies. They know Obama won't pursue the truth. They know the U.S. will still do as it pleases. But there is another side. Now the emperor has no clothes countries can act accordingly. South America has gone more left and has indigenous leaders.
Russia, China, Brazil, Iran, Venezuela and many other former Soviet states are aligned against U.S. policy. And they have the oil. England and Israel the 52nd and 53rd states are considered the bad guys these days along with the U.S. We are overstretched militarily and our industrial base is weak. We are in decline. Our poor are growing poorer. Our middle class are moving down the ladder. Our population is overly religious and highly uneducated. Our richest people are growing richer and paying less tax. We are at this point a failed experiment. We are proof that unregulated capitalism doesn't work. We are corrupt on all levels. No one believes what's written on the Statue of Liberty or The Declaration of Independence. These are myths that rednecks perpetuate. Obama doesn't have the backbone to pursue the truth.

[Mosaic]

73. This is the ultimate issue for President Obama

He can be remembered as the president that dismantled US Empire and worldwide aggression, the Absolute Greatest. Or just another stooge for a dying empire. He needs courage, courage can work wonders.

[mix]

74. The failure to do so has only emboldened the Republicans. nt

[hulka38]

77. How he doesn't investigate those obvious high crimes is

yet another thing I can't reconcile.

[Divine Discontent]

79. and you know he knows they committed major crimes. it's sad really...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

78. IThe lack of just such an investigation --

will be an ugly stain on his Presidency. He will not be rememberd kindly for letting self-admnitted war criminals off scott free.

He should be ashamed of himself.

[democrank]

82. Cheney and Junior don`t have a single thing to worry about

because President Obama isn`t going to investigate anything they did. Why? Because President Obama is willing to continue many of their policies and because many members of Congress helped enable Cheney and Junior through secret deals or total oversight failure.

All you have to do is watch what they do in Washington, not what they say. Over and over again, there is plenty of fake outrage to go around, but when it comes right down to a necessary correction, there are always loopholes. These politicians aren`t fools. They know what they have to do to get re-elected and they`re more than happy to do it.

[Loudmxr]

83. It will take another Democratic President to do it.

I really think this. Clinton could have done it but he didn't. I think Al Gore would have but he gave up the Presidency. (He quit before going to the Congress like the Constitution says.)

Obama is not going to do it now. Maybe not in the second half. More likely in term two. However that is by my own definition as "more likely than a maybe not".

Term #1 of the new Democratic President will see an investigation after most of the statutes of limitation have expired.

That is my story. I am stickin' to it.

For right now.

[Hubert Flottz]

85. President Bipartisanshit sees nothing wrong with war crimes and

thievery.

[WCGreen]

88. I believe not holding the worst administration in american history

is the gravest mistake made the Obama Administration has made to this point...

[BlueJac]

89. Obama will not do that....

he might look like a leader instead of the follower he is!

[lib2DaBone]

90. He has other priorities... gut Social Scurity and impose a National Sales Tax.

[WinkyDink]

104. And THIS is why a Democrat was allowed to win this time (See: Coups d'etat, 2000, 2004).

Too much opposition for the Republicans to get away with their plan to loot the Middle Class.

[90-percent]

92. The future

Obama's deliberate act of not looking back at the treasons of Bush-Cheney will fuck up the futures of the young and unborn to such a magnitude it will make global climate change look like a refreshing summer breeze.

This legacy he is choosing to leave is more colossal than a new great depression with 50% official unemployment. It will wreak more devastation on the world than Nazi Germany did. And it will be wrought ON HIS OWN PEOPLE.

-90% Jimmy

[WinkyDink]

94. Republicans exploit any perceived weakness. They now believe they have O's number. He ignores this

at his peril.

While scorning the radio and Congressional lies, he forgets the millions of Americans who will believe them.

[amyrose2712]

97. !

[JNelson6563]

102. A dose of reality

No President will ever do such a thing. Look at history, I mean big picture. Show me where you find Presidents, Kings, Popes, etc. doing such a thing to a predecessor. You might find it in regard to a leader whose position was usurped, more likely used to legitimize the new regime more than anything but, other that, you won't be finding any instances of this.

I marvel that there is anyone here who even harbors a sliver of hope such a thing will happen. But it is a fun and easy way to garner many recs.

Julie

[barbtries]

105. and jail the motherfuckers! nt

[humbled_opinion]

106. Ignorant... Simply Ignorant

Is Obama so ignorant that he does not understand that as soon as the repukes regain contronl of Congress in NOV they are going to investigate, investigate, investigate Obama and the Democrats and guess what IMPEACHMENT is always on the table with them...

Its the same old song and dance. Yet when their kind actually commit serious crimes against humanity they simply walk scott free no investigations no accountability.

[Mira]

107. Well argued. Except the time to do it was YESTERDAY.

:banghead:

recommended

[1776Forever]

108. Even though I have a lot of respect of Pres. Obama he is part of the club - notice the outlier:

[Chisox08]

109. They won't investigate any crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney Criminal administration

They are being bipartisan. This administration has been harder on its base than they have been on the Repukes. I'm getting sick of it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

111. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[Stephanie]

118. They could start with the 2000 Election Theft nt