Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House. Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."
Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."
Like Atrios, I doubt it'd ever happen, but it's nice to know it's at least kind of on the table for now. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I'll be beyond impressed if Obama wins the nod and then follows up on this promise. But I suppose pardons will be handed out before Bush leaves, so it's an academic question - Obama can appear to make a stand without having to follow through.
Probably the best we can expect is some jail time for flunkies and minor players, an admission that 'mistakes were made' and extra money on the lecture circuit for the perps.
Jailing a former president would be historic, and I don't think Obama has the cojones for it.
I don't think he has cojones -- was it cojones or cajones? -- either, and, even if he did, the evidence would undoubtedly be destroyed anyway. They're very good at rallying around to protect Junior, as we discovered during the Plame case. I'd still like to see it talked about more. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Destruction of evidence is unlikely to be foolproof. There's so much material on the record that in a sane world there would be no question of getting a conviction.
But endless appeals would go up to the supreme court, which is packed with toadies, so making a prosecution stick would be very tough.
I still think we'll see a wave of pardons, which will make prosecution impossible.
I don't think it's cajones, unless he has some unusually impressive wooden furniture.
Well, you know how those elitist Negroes on the South Side of Chicago are with their fancy IKEA furniture. Once Michelle refused the lawn chairs in the dining room, it was all downhill....
SCOTUS is a good point. I doubt we could get a conviction to stick with that crowd. They'd find a technicality to throw it out on, although to their credit -- and I think John Roberts was the surprise on it -- they did, despite the toadies, rule that the Geneva Conventions applied to Gitmo, so maybe not.
Pardons would be tough, because they'd need to be charged and convicted in these things in order to receive them. And Bush can't pardon himself, since he'd have to be impeached (or out of office) in order to be charged with a criminal offense, and so on.
It could be done. The bigger obstacle, I think, would be a lack of spine on the Democrats' part, assisted by a press that would happily portray it as some kind of replay of the Great Purge.
One way or another, the law was clearly broken, and that needs to be hammered into the minds of voters. And it needs to be tied in with future threats to our soldiers ("Quite literally hurting the troops!"). Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
All we need is a foreign government thats willing to step up to bat for freedom, say one that sufficiently pissed at being used for the transport of people on rendition flights through their territory. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
It would really have to be Yurp, but between Burlesqueoni, Sarkozy, and GodKing Blair, I can't see it happening.
Also, it would have to be done in the US to restore whatever credibility it has left. So again - not happening. Much easier to accept the pardons and let the SCOTUS simper obsequiously.
In the end it's about president-as-totem. If you attack that, you're attacking the natural order - the one where the biggest thug takes everything, and has no responsibility to anyone unless they feel like being generous.
For all the nonsense about freedom and opportunity and hope, that's America's true red beating heart, and it's going to take more than someone like Obama to change that narrative.
And I definitely agree that it would really have to be done in the states to restore any moral credibility to the US government Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
something of the sort: Obama promises this but he knows he will never have to carry through on this promise, so he's making empty promises, or lying if you prefer. Whereas if HRC did it, it will only be taken to be spite so she loses either way.
Besides, I had made the point, agreeing with TBG, that Obama probably didn't have the cojones to do it. So I don't really follow the point you're making. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
And with HRC it gets so bad that I haven't visited some sites in many months and probably won't ever again.
what does that stuff about Huckabee mean?
If she were a man, people wouln't be speaking fo the situation in the same way I am convinced.
It's mathematics, not sexism. I know many are convinced that we mean ol' "boys" are just beating up on the poor little woman, but that's nothing but ignorance and chutzpah. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
And to dare challenge the leader even though she is only 100 marks off the mark doesn't make her someone with chutzpah, nor her supporters, but the people who can't accept that she is in to win are misogynists.
But that's the kind of argument people make at the Clinton-leaning blogs. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Whoever wins however, on the night of the last primary, the person who is behind has to come out and using every ounce of political skill and sincerity that they posses declare the other to be the winner. Say that some people on both sides have gone too far during the primary process, and have been dealt with by their respective campaigns. The primary process is now over and that he/she will be happy to do everything in their power to make sure the next president is democratic.
The important thing is to declare the others victory rather than have it declared for you, if you want to have a position going forwards that gives a chance of the ultimate job in the future. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
sorry, but she is part of the last group of people who got the vote in the USA and that seems to be an issue with many people.
Check out Joan Walsh's column last week on misogyny and HRC at www.salon.com
As for the "this group got the vote last so they deserve a representative as president" argument how do you balance lack of the vote against slavery? I'm not saying one or the other is particularly worse. but if that appraoch is brought up, then how would you deal with the obvious counterclaim? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
I agree with you that there would be pressure on a male candidate to pull out, though I can also guarantee you that if the situation were reversed Obama supporters would be talking about that being racist.
But your comment here is a perfect example of the sort of oblivious sexism that Clinton supporters talk about. First of all, the only way in which 'misandry' is playing a role in this race is that women are somewhat more likely to vote for Clinton than men - but that of course cuts both ways. Secondly, if you're really going to make that argument you're also going to have to suggest that racism against whites is playing a huge role.
But that's really not the case. It is perfectly normal for a historically oppressed group to vote for one of their own and to be enthusiastic about the idea of achieving this sort of milestone in a still sexist and racist society (albeit far less than it once was). On the other hand for men to vote for someone because they're a man, or whites for the white candidate on racial grounds is something quite different. One is an expression of hope for a symbol of equality after all this time, the other of attempting to preserve inequality.
/ugh "If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
You can see the proper spelling in my latest diary :-)
Cajones are these: When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
