Obama might pursue criminal charges against Bush

[Gunny]

Isn't it time to look ahead instead of this continuing obsession with President Bush?

Joe Biden says Barack Obama might pursue criminal charges against Bush administration if elected | World news | guardian.co.uk

He has to win the election first. Kinda putting the cart before the horse, don't you think?

 

[T-Bor]

I hope the Democrats do try and bring charges against Bush or Cheney, I hope they are stupid enough to arrest them. Can you say open rebellion? Civil War?

Hope you dumb shit Liberals all have weapons and ammo, food stock and protection plans.

LOL...that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. Your such a tart.

 

[Jeepers]

They didn't and the american people KNOW it. Neither Bush or Cheney committed any crimes and the tired old crap people like you and the other liberal crybabies have been claiming since day one are ignorant as hell. Go ahead escalate your boo hooing cause Clinton got impeached and you want to get even into a civil war. I do not mind.

We'll let waxman make that judgement...

 

[Larkinn]

He has to win the election first. Kinda putting the cart before the horse, don't you think?

Oh, it is SO putting the cart before the horse to say what one might do IF elected.

Rather all politicians should refrain from saying what they will do IF elected. Then they could avoid your pithy comments.

 

[Navy1960]

I cannot say I disagree with the fact that Don Rumsfeld is a complete and total failure as a SecDef. His complete lack of management at the DoD always caused me concern, I personally never understood the base closing agenda, and the elimination of whole types of military hardware and sell offs to Pakistan (see Spruance Class destroyers) So am not big fan of him and to see him sanctioned would be I think a good thing. However, if you democrats think for a moment a sitting president will for any reason, bring a former president or vice president up on war crimes or allow them to be tried for it, then you are living in that fantasy land called the Daily Kos nirvana. Never happen!! So don't keep yourselves awake protesting over that one!

 

[mightypeon]

In general, heads of state who started an agressive war are only tried for it if they loose really badly, this means that the situation approaches unconditional surrender.
Cant see this happening for Bush.

I also believe that it would render the US more instable in the short (gun lovers on a rampage) and in the long (future presidents will cling to power even more) term.

 

[Gunny]

Oh, it is SO putting the cart before the horse to say what one might do IF elected.

Rather all politicians should refrain from saying what they will do IF elected. Then they could avoid your pithy comments.

My comment was directed toward the poster, not a politician. That's why the little box says "Quote" in it, duh.

As usual, you come in guns blazing, and can't hit shit.

 

[Toro]

It didn't take Biden long to stick his foot in his mouth again, did it?

 

[Gunny]

In general, heads of state who started an agressive war are only tried for it if they loose really badly, this means that the situation approaches unconditional surrender.
Cant see this happening for Bush.

I also believe that it would render the US more instable in the short (gun lovers on a rampage) and in the long (future presidents will cling to power even more) term.

What it does is up the ante. If a sitting President goes after a former President, then where does it stop? Is there a statute of limitations for incompetence as CinC? If not, we can still go after Carter.

Democracies are never destroyed from without. It's always from within.

 

[editec]

What it does is up the ante. If a sitting President goes after a former President, then where does it stop? Is there a statute of limitations for incompetence as CinC? If not, we can still go after Carter.

Exactly. Bush isn't going to have to worry, I think.

Democracies are never destroyed from without. It's always from within.

Spot on.

Either the masses find the means to vote their nation into bankruptsy giving them social services, or, as is happening now, the monied classes gain enough control to vote themselves rich(er) by government fiat, which ends up bankrupting the government, too.

Either way, there's two of the possible pitfalls a democratic republic has to guard against.

Obviously, given the deficit and national debt, we're not doing such a good job now guarding against this problem.

 

[Larkinn]

My comment was directed toward the poster, not a politician. That's why the little box says "Quote" in it, duh.

As usual, you come in guns blazing, and can't hit shit.

Oh, so when you said "he has to win the election first" you weren't talking about a politician?

Yeah, thought so. I hit you dead on, moron.

What it does is up the ante. If a sitting President goes after a former President, then where does it stop? Is there a statute of limitations for incompetence as CinC? If not, we can still go after Carter

Incompetence isn't a crime. Thats not what Biden was referring too.

 

[editec]

Don't some of us think it odd that we hold burger flippers at McDonalds to higher degree of reponsibility for doing their jobs well, than we hold our Presidents, Doctors or lawyers?

I know I do.

 

[CSM]

Don't some of us think it odd that we hold burger flippers at McDonalds to higher degree of reponsibility for doing their jobs well, than we hold our Presidents, Doctors or lawyers?

I know I do.

Yep. You get a bad burger and you KNOW it right away. You get bad legislation, diagnosis, ar advice and it takes a while to feel the effects.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, so when you said "he has to win the election first" you weren't talking about a politician?

Yeah, thought so. I hit you dead on, moron.



Incompetence isn't a crime. Thats not what Biden was referring too.

And yet Bush has committed no crimes. Go figure. Like I said go ahead, ARREST them, see what happens. You retards want a civil war, go for it.

 

[Chris]

Rove is the one who will be arrested.

If Bush were arrested he will just move to the place he bought in Paraguay.

 

[Gunny]

Oh, so when you said "he has to win the election first" you weren't talking about a politician?

Yeah, thought so. I hit you dead on, moron.



Incompetence isn't a crime. Thats not what Biden was referring too.

No stupid, you missed. As I pointed out. Yes "he" has to win the election first obviously refers to a politician.

Just as obviously as "Kinda putting the car before the horse, don't YOU think?" is a question directed to the poster, not the politician since the politician is not, and was not, ever here that I know of to answer. Duh.

Too-*******-easy, you are.

 

[jillian]

Or not. Could backfire.

I'm not sure the Democrats want to set this precedent. It was bound to come though. Each change in administration has brought upping the ante just a bit further. Nobody on either side seems to have any foresight on the matter.

Nothing good for this Nation would come of it, that's for sure. And piss on the Kool-Aid drinkers who think otherwise.

Obama's not going to impeach Bush..... it would be silly. He'd lose the support of about half the country; about 1/4 to 1/3 would be indifferent; and the balance would be thrilled, but they're going to vote for Obama anyway since they have no one else to go to.

 

[Gunny]

Exactly. Bush isn't going to have to worry, I think.

Point is, unlike a few narrow, pea-sized minds think (not directed at you), it isn't about Bush. It's about the President of the United States.

Impeaching Clinton was a phenominal waste of time and money.

Trying to impeach Bush would be the same. Bringing criminal charges against Bush would be the same. Getting a conviction would be next to impossible.

But Democrats need to use a little foresight and some G-2. File charges against Bush and not only does it set a precedent of doing such, you paste a target squarely on the next Democratic President whether it be Obama now or someone else later. That's walking on some dangerous ground, IMO.

This infantile pissing contest needs to stop somewhere.

Spot on.

Either the masses find the means to vote their nation into bankruptsy giving them social services, or, as is happening now, the monied classes gain enough control to vote themselves rich(er) by government fiat, which ends up bankrupting the government, too.

Either way, there's two of the possible pitfalls a democratic republic has to guard against.

Obviously, given the deficit and national debt, we're not doing such a good job now guarding against this problem.

IMO, in this instance, political divisiveness without rhyme nor reason and/or flawed reasoning and/or blind political partisanship is doing the job. One side is against whatever the other is for and vice-versa, regardless the issue. It's stupid to the point that each side has gone 180 degrees on several issues I can think of since the 60s.

But as long as those career bureaucrats can sit in Washington and get fat on what we work for and keep our attention on squabbling over petty bullshit instead of what they are doing, they will, and nothing is going to change.

I personally think we're too far down the shitter and it's just a matter of time at this point.

 

[Gunny]

Obama's not going to impeach Bush..... it would be silly. He'd lose the support of about half the country; about 1/4 to 1/3 would be indifferent; and the balance would be thrilled, but they're going to vote for Obama anyway since they have no one else to go to.

The article is not about impeaching Bush. It's about Biden saying Obama could pursue criminal charges against Bush if he wins in November.

For some reason, President's don't seem aware of, or they don't care about, the precedents they set. Clinton and the line-item veto. Bush and his consolidation of power within the Executive Branch. Now Biden mouthing off about trying to criminally charge a former President.

What happens when the next guy gets hold of that power? I consider it proof they don't care beyond what's in it for them at the moment and they don't care about the possible backlash down the line.

In this case, let's assume Obama is elected. He can't predict what's going to happen during his tenure. If he sets the precedent of pursuing criminal charges against a former President, he also opens the door for the same to be done to him.

 

[frazzledgear]

Isn't it time to look ahead instead of this continuing obsession with President Bush?

Joe Biden says Barack Obama might pursue criminal charges against Bush administration if elected | World news | guardian.co.uk

What a joke. Maybe Obama should review the conclusions of 2 independent (3 if you count the UK's) investigations as well as the unanimous conclusions in the investigation carried out by the Senate Select Intelligence committee -every Democrat on that committee signed it. (Among their conclusions is the fact that it was Joe Wilson who repeatedly lied to the public big time -not Bush.)

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached their conclusions with something a do-nothing freshman Senator would never have -FULL access to all the intelligence that was produced by all of our intelligence agencies. And found absolutely NOTHING that Bush could even be criticized for acting on in light of that intelligence -but plenty of criticism to lay elsewhere. Most of it on the CIA (interestingly the Senate was dead silent about its role in that since they are the body that gutted the CIA in the first place.) So what specific "crimes" does Obama thinks he can find that no other bipartisan committee has EVER found -yet they not only had every intention of finding and exposing any Presidential wrongdoing, they all had far greater access to the full facts than a freshman Senator would ever be allowed to see?

Or maybe Obama wants to see if he first stacks a panel full of liberal extremists suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome he might actually get them to "conclude" with the same frothing-at-the-mouth rabid, ignorant, partisan garbage bs they have been putting out there all along instead? Showing their lack of critical thinking skills, the rabid BDS suffering whackos insist that the non-existent intelligence regarding 9/11 was more than enough for Bush to have prevented that attack -in spite of the fact no intelligence agency had ever detected any part of the plot. And thanks to the worst GA in modern times, Janet Reno did all she could to make sure no information inadvertently picked up by any policing agency could ever share it with an intelligence agency that might make sense of it anyway.

Yet these are the identical people who insist the far more specific and explicit intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein should have led Bush to conclude he could safely just ignore it and was actually "inaccurate". Oh sure. If we had suffered another attack sponsored by Iraq, they would have rightfully been demanding Bush's head on a platter for ignoring that very specific intelligence. But nice to be able to damn the guy no matter what he did, right?

The CIA had already concluded while Clinton was President that Iraq very likely sponsored the first WTC attack and was suspected of partially or fully funding at least two other attacks on US interests elsewhere in the world. I could write about why even though there is no courtroom proof that Saddam sponsored 9/11, there is quite a bit of incriminating evidence he was involved at some level. That information was drib-drabbed out over time as unrelated bits of info -but put together, its pretty damning for Saddam. Since there was no courtroom proof of his involvement, Bush correctly said so. But a President is not required to have courtroom proof in order to protect the US against an enemy just because he is able to hide absolute proof of involvement -even while unable to hide every bit of incriminating evidence he was. Only the left wants to reward the most crafty of enemies -so they can keep on doing it I guess. They insist we just can't give a murdering thug of a dictator too many free passes for sponsoring attacks on allies or on US interests or even an assassination attempt now and then.

Guess Obama's notion of "change" is to waste a few million more dollars of taxpayer money for one more useless piece of crap investigation that one more time comes up with the identical conclusions all the others already did. In a clearly partisan and biased attack on a former President -only proving that he too suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome and would rather spend his time wallowing in it even after the guy is out of office rather than do the work of a real President. If he does it, it will bring nothing but embarassment -both for himself and the country. It would go down in history as a clearly partisan act by someone unfit to be President in the first place.

Then he can spend the next four years trying to explain why he thought the nation would benefit from his partisan witch hunt on a former President in spite of the fact that the conclusions of all those previous investigations that were actually populated with bipartisan members quite intent on seeking out and exposing any Presidential wrongdoing -and just didn't find any.

Leads me to believe that Obama is likely to be a very ineffective President who is incapable of providing for national security at all.