This is what happens when impeachment is "off the table."

[Fantastic Anarchist]

Obama and the Democrats (great band name) decided to look "forward." What did the Republicans do? Gave him hell every step of the way. I'm highly critical of some of Obama's policies, but damn, I have never seen such a malicious party as the Republicans. Nancy Pelosi and Obama, for whatever reason, decided to "look forward."

What did he get for his "generosity?" Well, the Republicans are talking impeachment. They, being the reactionaries they are, are deciding to look backward. They lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want. They are never punished, and for their efforts, they may take the Senate.

This is what happens when you don't hold people accountable. Cheney, Ollie North, Krystal and gang are back, and they are not taking prisoners.

However, it's never to late to start inquiries about the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos. I doubt, however, that they will go there.

Pity.

[pscot]

1. They don't dare

The blowback would turn the House Democratic.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

2. They're talking about it which is effective enough.

[truebluegreen]

3. "Effective enough" in what way?

They sound like the loons they are. Especially when their previous hyperventilating about the poutrage du jour is pointed out.

But I do agree with you that "looking forward and not back" was naive. OTOH Pelosi taking impeachment off the table was simply sane--the Senate would not have convicted so what was the point?--although I wish she had made that point.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

36. During the midterms ...

... which the Republicans, as crazy as they are, have a good chance of capturing the Senate. Just raising a stink (because the average American is only going to know what CNN/MSNBC/FOX tells them), that this guy is a traitor and looks "Muslimy" - they're going to hold a referendum against Obama. Rightly or wrongly, the Republicans have been successful at making a scandal out of everything. People are going to think they're putting "two and two together" and start saying, "Hmmm, they're may be something to this." The down ticket Democrats are going to suffer.

This is what happens when you don't go after people who've broken the law. This is what happens when there are two sets of rules, one for the governing class (even though they quibble) and the governed class.

The Republicans felt emboldened and now they've pretty much made a shit sandwich out of everything.

As far as the Senate convicting, you don't know that for sure. Depends on what turns up during the impeachment phase. Also, I know impeachment is a political tool, but it should serve as a legal tool. Regardless if they thought they had a good chance at conviction, doesn't mean that they can't apprehend the suspects.

The Democrats are victims of their own weakness, their servility to the middle, and their tendency to plod towards the right.

In 2008, Obama had a mandate; a huge mandate. He was adored and revered. It didn't matter that the Palinites were calling him a Muslim, most of the country supported him. If he would have grown a pair, and gone after criminals, as he should have, then we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

But, we had to look forward.

[tularetom]

56. It gives me no pleasure to say this but you are correct

Why shouldn't the republicans continue to push their nutty ideas, they've been rewarded by the liberal media for doing it for the past 20 years at least. It's no wonder they feel there are no consequences to their actions. Hell, there were no consequences to Bush and Cheney for the criminal acts they perpetrated.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

57. Nope ...

and a circling the drain we go.

But the ruling class*, Republican or Democrat, don't suffer when shit goes south. The governed class does.

*I include the rich and powerful in the "ruling class."

[merrily]

60. ...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/a-technicality-wont-excuse-the-obama-administration-for-torture/284395/


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/six-reasons-the-dark-side-still-exists-under-obama/


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html


ETA http://politichicks.tv/column/nancy-pelosi-blames-cheney-cias-use-torture/

[Unknown Beatle]

70. Why go after the criminals?

They are for the big banks and so is Obama. In D.C. money trumps everything.

[heaven05]

80. great analysis, great line

"The Democrats are victims of their own weakness, their servility to the middle and tendency to plod toward the right." Sad but true

[truebluegreen]

129. All of that is true--especially about the mandate in '08,

and the President's failure to recognize it, and other realities in Washington--but the Senate requires a 2/3 vote for conviction, and even if the Senate changes hands in this election, they will be well below that.

Posturing aside, Democrats won't support impeaching this President over this, not even Dinos like DiFi.

[maddiemom]

113. I'm not so sure that the Senate at the time, and given charges that actually were serious,

might not have convicted. Make that SHOULD have convicted. It's wishful thinking that they actually would have.

[merrily]

118. You never know which way it would have cut.

Whether there was a conviction or not, the info would have been in the papers and on TV every day, and all over the internet. But, if there was no conviction, would Americans assume Bushco had been exonerated?

We see impeachment as something almost sacred, something that should almost never be done. However, a relatively recent book says that impeachment was not intended to be something we try to avoid at all costs. It was supposed to be a readily available tool for putting a President on trial.

Etiher way, making people almost immune is certainly not a way to make them responsive to the public. And, of late, we not only want our Presidents to be immune from impeachment, we even want them to be immune from criticism, even criticism on a message board. It's bizarre.

[truebluegreen]

131. The threshold is a 2/3 vote for conviction in the Senate.

That's a high bar, even for Bush in those days, and I think impossible in Obama's case, even if the Senate changes hands this year. Nixon would have cleared it, I think, but that was not this Republican Party--they went into the Watergate investigation thinking there was nothing to it, and were disabused of that notion.

[Exposethefrauds]

4. With CU and Gerrymandering and the lack of voter intelligence

Allows the GOP to pretty much do and say what they want.

Looking forward was/is a get out of jail free card

As far as I am concerned not going after criminals is just giving you blessing to them

[TheKentuckian]

8. That is what some said about shutting down the government.

They did it and continue to project to hold the House.

[pscot]

9. You have a point

[Fantastic Anarchist]

38. And they only hold one half of one branch of government (well, two with the SC) ...

... but they've behaved like they're the ruling party. Some punishment, eh? I wish I could get a deal like that when I break the law.

[totodeinhere]

14. They won't actually do it. What they will try to do is make political hay from this

affair and drag it all the way out to the November elections and beyond.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

39. Exactly, which is just as effective as if they actually impeached him.

The threat alone is enough.

[Jefferson23]

49. Yea, but the Democrats do not have to allow them the control of the message, they

need to put the GOP on defense..they can if they want to, there is more than enough
ammunition to do so.

[Jefferson23]

45. ha ha

[RobinA]

125. Impeach Away Suckers!

It didn't work the last time and it won't work this time. An even semi-competent (here's hoping) Democratic PR machine would make hay out of this.

[yuiyoshida]

5. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

AWWW...some body's Political Party NEEDS A NAP!!

[Wounded Bear]

6. Well, Ollie North went to 'jail' to be honest...

He should still be there IMH-Marine Corps vet-O. Every time I see him or hear his name, I want to .

[antiquie]

22. Please explain.

His sentence was suspended and later vacated.
(IMH-Marine Corps vet-O does not compute...)

[Wounded Bear]

25. I guess I missed that...

But of course you're right about his serving time. My bad there.

In My Humble (I'm a Marine Vet, BTW) Opinion. As such, I just want to hurl when I see/hear him talk. He's a stain on the uniform.

[antiquie]

40. I, too, want to hurl.

Thank you for your service.

[calimary]

61. We ALL Want to hurl when his hideous face disrupts our field of vision.

SHEER Ugliness inside AND out. And another sincere thank you for your service, Wounded Bear! I appreciate anybody who put themselves squarely in harm's way for others' sake, whether it's personally going to face war full-frontal or it's pulling on a half-ton of firefighting gear to run INTO the fire while the rest of us are running out away from it. You guys are the ultimate first responders, and I don't know what the rest of us would do without you! Especially considering how many chickenhawks are so loudly and raucously clucking and squawking these days.

[G_j]

7. "They are never punished"

for anything, including very serious crimes. So they will continue.

[zeemike]

10. That is what you get when you give in to bullies.

And we gave in and they increased the anti.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

42. Yup.

And we still get conservative policies. Why were the Democrats elected again?

And now I have to defend the conservative positions of the Democrats against the batshit crazy positions of the reactionary minority party who governs as if they rule all three branches of government.

What the hell is wrong with this picture?

[zeemike]

44. "And now I have to defend the conservative positions"

Triangulation works.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

48. And it sucks.

When are we going to wake up?

[merrily]

64. On the better side of culture war issues and, in general, less crazy.

Hence, the lesser of two evils.

[merrily]

11. Any attempt to impeach or punish Bushco would have caused a lot of splashback

on a lot of Democrats. It would have gotten really ugly all the way around.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

12. sadly, I absolutely agree.

Wish it could have been done, but I suspect PBO and admin. recognized the costs would outdo the returns. Pukes have too much megabillion$$$$$ and too much control over the WMB's (Weapons of Mass Brainwashing).

[merrily]

15. Thank you, Blanche.

I really did not expect anyone to agree with me on that post. I expected nothing but feces hurling.

And it may still come, so I advise you to take cover.

[maddiemom]

115. Count me with Blanche, as well.

[merrily]

116. Thank you, too.

I am pleasantly surprised. I got a lot less vitriol than I assumed I would. So far, anyway.

And the negative comments that I did get were a result of someone's mistaking my comments as intended to be excuses, but that about the opposite of my actual intent.

Live and learn!

[bvar22]

134. Yeah,,, If the Dems had gone ahead with War Crimes invstigations,

the Republicans would have done something like filibuster everything the Dems wanted,
and had their mouthpiece New Stations attack Obama at every opportunity!!!
We couldn't have THAT now could we?
.
.
.
.
Seriously, how much WORSE could it have gotten if the Democrats had claimed Rule of Law?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

135. I hope someone who understands the processes better than I do

Joins in here,...but I don't think it's as simplistic as you make it seem.

[JackRiddler]

20. "Splashback" should be the criteria for truth and justice.

Oh horrors! If there's going to be "splashback" on Democrats (on the ones who enabled the Bush agenda, for example?) then truth and justice will just have to take a back seat. We must let the war criminals get away with mass murder, also give them a few medals and let them enrich themselves further, so that they can return at a later date to commit even more ambitious and horrific crimes. Really, politically there is no choice. It's just good clean realistic politics!

[merrily]

24. They say that politics makes strange bedfellows.

911 raised that to nth power.

[JackRiddler]

27. More excuses.

The identical schtick was followed on Clinton's accession to the criminal Bush regime in 1993. No investigations, no disclosures, "time to move on," so instead of justice or at least truth about the endless crimes of the original Bush regime, you got eight years of insane rabid RW screaming about total bullshit scandals like "Whitewater" and poor Monica.

Watch, the House is exactly as crazy as back then, they might still find a way to impeach Obama on some total bullshit, and everyone will act like it's unprecedented and shocking when it will be the exact same theater play we've already seen.

[merrily]

29. It was an observation, not an excuse. If I were an excuser, I would not have posted Reply #11.

[Art_from_Ark]

76. What could Clinton have investigated?

Didn't bu$h Sr. hand out a bunch of Christmas pardons to the main players before they could have been subpoenaed/indicted?

[JackRiddler]

77. The drug dealing, for a start.

Pardons were handed out for some of the figures involved in the televised version of the Iran-Contra scandal. That left plenty of room for both exposures and prosecutions for the new administration to pursue. Criminal investigations could have been initiated into Contra drug dealing (the most explosive front) and the 1980 October Surprise deal (this was killed slowly in a Congressional cover-up-slash-investigation fronted by later 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton). On the exposure front, it could have released documentation of the martial law and military rule plannings and exercises run by North and FEMA under Giuffrida, and material on the Bush mob's relationships with Noriega and the Saddam Hussein dictatorship. (The Clinton admin ended up hosting, in the bowels of the Pentagon, neocon planning exercises in much the same key, under Cheney and Rumsfeld!) Some of this could have been done without fanfare but to great effect - let the DoJ do it, or expose shit through the NARA. Nothing of the sort ensued.

[Art_from_Ark]

79. OK, I see your point.

[JackRiddler]

83. Oh, and who knows what might have lurked...

in the financial dealings around the S&L scams, in which Neil Bush was heavily involved. Letting a prosecutor unravel this quietly might have led to the sudden loud implosion of the very corrupt family's network of dealings.

It's the right thing to do, that should be enough. And it had potential to change the power equation of politics. But it would not just have been risky for a possible popular backlash (though that's not what happened with Watergate). It would have been dangerous too - these people do play hardball, that's why they're there.

[mstinamotorcity2]

136. Would you please say it to them one more time!!

JackRiddler. I kept saying why doesn't anybody see this. These fools are killers now and always have been. Ordering our Military to do it was about nothing to them. If your heart is rooted in murder, it is nothing to send someone else's children to do it. They have seen everything from Car Accidents, Suicides, Assassinations and the infamous Plane Crashes, to get their points across. I was once told there are no such things as political coincidences. See who are the players involved and see who benefits from this action. You have your culprit. Or those that are closely tied to them. Sometimes its just a favor for a favor. They have successfully divided America into splinters and they are conquering each faction one at a time. While getting a stupid set of Political leaders to do their bidding. Yes Democrats would have been on the Hot seat too. They decided they would move forward because they didn't want to take the hit. Don't think they haven't profited from all the money that was looted from the average Americans. I felt they should have cleaned house.

[merrily]

90. ...

[Enthusiast]

103. +1 a whole fucking bunch.

[Enthusiast]

102. Schtick and theater.

[maddiemom]

114. Yep. The Democrats always fold and forgive. Meanwhile the Republicans

manufacture every inane charge they can think of to cripple or impeach the party they no longer simply consider the loyal opposition, but the bitter enemy. It was bad enough with Clinton, just imagine if he were Black! True liberals hardly consider Clinton and Obama as even leaning Liberal, let alone (gasp) Socialist.

[CrawlingChaos]

66. + infinity

[Fantastic Anarchist]

43. They got the "splashback" anyway!

That's what's so aggravating about it.

You think they let him off because he didn't impeach their criminals? What did Obama get out of this deal?

[merrily]

58. Not even close. They got D.C. kabuki politics as usual, is all.

[quakerboy]

71. You are correct

There would have been tons of shit flying every which way.

I fail to see how that is significantly different than what has actually happened, however. Would they have accused Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid of being Double socialists, rather than just calling them socialists? Would they have labeled the president as a "secret double Kenyan double Muslim"? Would they have double blocked every piece of legislation democrats have tried to pass? Double gerrymandered the states they have gathered control of?

It seems like we are in a situation where we(the left) are being told its necessary to pull our punches and avoid hurting the other side, that we need to keep it civil and polite and not piss anyone off. But our opponents are not doing so. If anything they are adding lead to their gloves and throwing handfuls of sand in our eyes, cheating at every opportunity. What are we gaining by playing nice?

[merrily]

91. " I fail to see how that is significantly different than what has actually happened,"

Then you don't grasp the extent of the issue.

What happened, and continues to happen, is politics as usual, not mutually assured destruction.

[quakerboy]

137. I disagree

You are the one who fails to grasp the extent of the issue.

When you have a party that has devoted itself wholly and completely to destroying their opponents, despite any cost to the country itself, in preference to achieving its own stated goals, that is at least half of the mutually assured destruction. The Republican goal has been to beat Obama, pure and simple, no matter the cost to this nation or the world. Their ONLY check in this process has been trying to keep enough political power to achieve their goal. They would happily literally burn the US to the ground to tarnish Obama and the Democrats, as long as they felt they would be able to control the charred ruins.

Is that business as usual? maybe. We are a fairly contentious country. But I think through much of history we have at least had principles on both sides of our conflicts. This time we are lacking those on one side, and deficient on the other.

[rpannier]

73. If I understand what you're saying correctly

Your argument is politics trumps justice.
I don't see how in any functioning society that should prevail.
My argument is, they should have presented all the evidence and let the public decide
Reagan spent 6 years blaming Carter for every problem the country had and that meme stuck in the public conscious

I disagree with you
I could make caustic statements but I won't
I'll leave it at... I disagree 100%

[merrily]

89. MY argument is that politics trumps justice? Not at all.

That was simply my statement of what I thought the reason actually was.

I was not advocating for that position. Never would.

Don't kill the messenger for reporting bad news.

[Doctor_J]

78. It got really ugly anway

and your appeasement strategy is and will continue to be a disaster

[merrily]

92. As Stewart might, say, "You seem nice." Please see replies 29, 58, 60, 89 and 91.

A declarative sentence conveying that Democrats did not charge Bushco because so doing would have resulted in damage to Democrats does not equal advocating for what Democrats did or approving of it. It's just a simple statement of what happened. If I say a hurricane hit yesterday, that does not mean I approve of hurricanes or that hurricanes are my policy.


And I could not disagree more with your assessment that what happened "anyway" is no worse than what would have happened had Democrats charged Bush with war crimes.


Pelosi cleared the table because Democrats in Congress voted for the War and knew all along what was going on, thanks to double secret reports from the White House to intel Committees. And, while that came out some at the time, charging Bush with war crimes would have resulted in mutually assured destruction because BOTH sides had the political equivalent of nuclear weapons.

And, while at least a certain part of the Republican base had cheered on Bushco, even as to war crimes, no one in 2006 could have been sure that the Democratic base would react quite as favorably. (Based on some of the disgusting rationalizations that I read on this board sometimes, maybe they didn't have to worry, but that was not so obvious in 2006, when rank and file Democrats were screaming for Bush's hide.)

And Obama cleared the table because he had no intention of ceasing the policies. Indeed, he has doubled down on several. Hence, he not only does not charge Bush, but protects him against people in other countries who suggest they may charge Bush, like a mavericky judge in Spain who had no clue that the ranks of higher ups in several countries, including his--and ours--, had already closed to protect Bush.


Please note: Nothing in the above indicates that I approve of what the Democrats did or failed to do.

[MannyGoldstein]

105. As opposed to the years of bipartisan comity we've enjoyed?

I think Republicans are basically schoolyard bullies. The best way to deal with them is to start with a 2x4 to the head, just to make sure they're listening.

Obama could have broken the dispirited Republicans at the start of his first term if he'd been tough. Instead he emboldened them by offering beer socials at the White House and giving them quick victories.

[merrily]

106. No, as opposed to mutally-assured, near total destruction. Please see Reply 92

and the replies referred to in Reply 92. Both parties had way too much on each other to get into out and out war that any attempt to hold Bushco responsible for war crimes would have begun. I am not sure why I am not managing to get that across. Mutually assured, near total destruction of country's two largest political parties, not the usual bullshit sniping.

[grahamhgreen]

120. No, they were ugly. They tortured. They lied the country into a war. Not acting is complicity.

[merrily]

124. Please see Reply 92, where I felt I had to spell out my meaning more.

And, if you have the patience, please see also the posts that I refer to in Reply 92. Thank you.

[tea and oranges]

13. If Only

a gag order had been placed upon Cheney, Cheney spawn, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.

That's what bothers me - that they're treated like elder statesmen w/ credibility when they're war criminals, war profiteers, & worse. We still have to hear their evil unconscionable rhetoric, hateful lies, & plain bs.

If only the national Dem pols didn't act like battered spouses...

[JackRiddler]

21. They are not battered spouses.

In this case, the national Democratic leadership are the assistant batterers -- they voted for the Iraq aggression and most of the rest of the Bush agenda. The "battered spouse" is the Democratic voters.

[tea and oranges]

28. Not to be disagreeable

but I think the votes you mentioned come from being bullied, battered, & afraid what people will say. The people who vote Dem are either sheepish or pissed. I'm pissed.

However, as a Seattleite I did have the opportunity to vote for a socialist for city council, Kshama Sawant. Let me tell you, the changes have been swift & amazing!

[merrily]

31. IMO, both you and Jack have a point. ButI am replying because you all

actually got a socialist elected?

That is unusual.

[JackRiddler]

32. She led an immediate successful charge for $15/hr minimum wage.

I bet at this moment she could get elected mayor!

[merrily]

34. I still can't get over that she got elected.

I know Seattle is blue, but even at that, I am in awe.

I guess I think I resist the brainwashing about how liberals can't get elected, but it seeps/sneaks in anyway.

[eridani]

81. The difference was the nature of the Socialist Alternative party

Check out the Washington forum for a lot more detail. SA is a Trotskyist party, but they are highly unusual in placing their major priority on talking to actual non-policy wonk voters rather than arguing with other Trotskyist parties about who really has the double plus good best explanation of Trotsky's thought. Sawant had 400 volunteers, an unprecedented number even for an open seat, which this wasn't.

The actual legislation was a compromise which many of her backers are less than happy with. (It has longer phase-ins than necessary, allows training wages, etc.) In fact, at a conference to mobilize national support for $15/hr, Sawant was attacked from the left for being willing to compromise at all.

The Democrats who voted for her are pleased--we wanted a Sewer Socialist, and that's what we got.

[merrily]

87. Thank you. Good info.

[Phlem]

37. She's totally awesome.

$15.00 an hour minimum. That's a huge start, let's keep that momentum going for the whole state!

[merrily]

62. It might be nice if former Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders said few words on her behalf.

[Phlem]

67. Hi merrily!

I completely agree. I'm sure their's concern in associating one's self with a socialist. Say it in America and one might get stoned to death.

I'm pretty sure Warren won't say anything either. It's OK, it's the people that matter and I'm sure Kshama Sawant know's this. That's how PBO got elected twice. People just downright desperate for change and he happened to say all the right words.

There's a reason Education is being destroyed in the US.

Hope all's well with you!

[merrily]

88. Wow. One of the friendlier posts that has been addressed to me here. Thanks.

Nice change of pace.

Yes, all is very well with me personally. I hope the same for you.

Good interview. http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2012/10/30/you-might-be-a-socialist-if-an-interview-with-kshama-sawant/7721

[Fantastic Anarchist]

46. I wish I had your opportunity to vote for a socialist.

I get conservative light and batshit crazy.

Those are my options.

[Phlem]

68. She's an anomaly, and a good one.

I wish she'd give seminars on how to be a socialist and get elected, so we can have more of this popping up in other parts of the country. We need strong defenders on our side to fight our rigged system and currently we have 1 in the D party and 1 Independent.

[JackRiddler]

84. You're not disagreeable.

You're quite okay, in my view.

And you are disagreeing only mildly.

[obxhead]

16. Their hands were forced.

You have to "look forward" when you intend to shit on the law in all of the same ways, more so in some ways.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

47. Yup. I can't disagree.

[griloco]

17. I prefer to think of them as The Regressive Party. nt

[The Wizard]

18. Because Democrats

whimper in the corner in fear of what the Republicans will say about them, the Republicans lie without compunction and have no shame. They're like Joseph McCarthy on steroids.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Okay, I'll play along ...

How would President Obama and Democrats having impeachment on the table make republicans less malicious?

But first, how do we impeach Bush/Cheney now that they are out of office?

[JackRiddler]

23. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

Last edited Fri Jun 6, 2014, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)

But thanks to the brilliant strategy of not impeaching the Bush regime criminals -- also not investigating once they were out of office, not prosecuting, keeping in office (as with Gates and Petraeus), and occasionally praising and inviting to the White House (as with Bush himself), the "out of office" part needn't be forever.

[maddiemom]

117. Thankfully more and more of the rest of the world hold Cheney/Bush more to account than

do their own countrymen. Even worse, our media still give Cheney a forum for his malicious and criminally misguided views. In a sane nation. he should be a pariah at the very least.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

50. Well, investigations could have been made.

Also, them being malicious is expected, but what did Obama get in turn?

I like to box; I don't just sit there and get punched in the face repeatedly. I hit back. And I hit back as hard as I can. Sometimes, I get decked, but you know what? It was worth it because I fought.

And ...

Sometimes, I actually win.

Obama/Pelosi and company decided they didn't want to fight. Pity.

[JackRiddler]

26. I wrote this on Jan 13, 2009:

Posted it on DU. What followed was completely predictable. Let's face it: it's a schtick that Clinton already pulled.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4822017

Obama's pragmatic choice: Prosecute the criminals or be Whitewatered!

Machiavelli says:

There are those who mistakenly believe that pragmatism means avoiding a treatment of the many crimes of state, war crimes and violations of the Constitution commited by the outgoing regime. They call themselves realists and moderates and say investigations, prosecutions or truth commissions will bog down the new administration in a focus on the past, when it's "time to move forward."

First of all, this is wrong. When justice and truth are secondary, no republic, no democracy will survive. When crime pays, criminals receive new incentive.

Second, it's unrealistic. Pragmatism should not be confused with a cowardly push to sweep it all under the rug and pretend it never happened.

Has anyone been paying attention the last 30 years? What do you think the right wing reaction will be to a "post-partisan" "moderate" "time to move on" program? Anyone remember 1993? Clinton was all about moving on, after succeeding to another famously criminal government.

What happened then provides the pattern for what will happen now:

They will dig up every minor piece of bull they can sling at members of the new administration. Sooner or later, something will stick; we live in a country where "real estate" and "financial sector" are synonyms for low-grade corruption. Or something else will catch the media's attention as a decent spectacle. And off we'll go: everything will revolve around some bullshit about someone's sexual affairs, or how they took a payoff when they were dogcatcher, or some insult.

The beast that brought you the recent disasters is still running free, people. If you want change, you need to deal with them.

The choice is not between "pragmatism" and prosecution. If the criminals are not rooted out now, they will return, and the right wing will play dirty. The choice is between prosecution and Whitewatering.

So it turned out to be "Benghazi," the "IRS," all this bullshit you've seen. Do you think the politicians don't know how this works?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

52. Well said!

That's exactly what I was trying to get across, but definitely not as well-articulated as you did.

[Bickle]

30. What inquiries?

Their crimes are public, blatant, and many of them have admitted them on live television. Arrest the. All, make sure they "resist", and give them very public trials with very public punishments.

[merrily]

93. Several posts on this thread make clear why that did not happen and will never happen.

[Bickle]

98. Cowardice

Is no excuse. Never settle

[merrily]

99. Did you read the thread? If so, who the fuck said there was an excuse?

Not I, that's for damn sure.

In addition, I disagree with you. I see a significant difference protecting your own ass and being a coward. Neither is an excuse, but selfish self interest is not identical to fear. I'm so over the meme that Democrats are scared and weak and bullied

[maddiemom]

119. There seem to be a sadly increasing amount of DUers who jump to conclusions

without really reading and absorbing the posts they reply to. After years of posting on this site, it's been only in the last month or so that I've twice had someone jump down my throat because they've misread or misinterpreted what I've posted. Pleasant attempts to correct their misimpressions have only resulted in angrier and even more misguided replies. I'm beginning to think that there is a different kind of troll lurking about.

[merrily]

132. Disagreement does seem to be the default response.

[Bickle]

130. Not a meme, a fact

Republicans just do it, regardless of how immoral, illegal, or otherwise reprehensible it is. Their know their brainwashed base wants this. democrats eat their own at the slightest deviation, and people are just concerned about status quo. It was ape loses job to impeach Bush the minute she got that gavel for his very public high crimes. Didn't so it. Again, and again , and again, Repubicans do horrible thi, and the worst that ever happens is resignation or, the worst of them all,censure! We need Alpha males in there, whatever their actual sex, who will actually chase the prey, and not keep moose out of the hands of those willing to act. What do you think Elizabeth Warren will do when she gets that gavel?

[merrily]

133. Again, have you read the thread? And, with all due respect, if you really believe it's a FACT that

Democrats are scared and bullied, then I don't think that the word "fact" actually means what you think it means.




And while discussing meanings of words, a statement can be both a meme can and a fact. However, the statement that Democrats are scared and bullied may be a meme or not, but it is not a fact.

[JDPriestly]

33. "They lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want."

Best description of Republicans that I have seen.

Except I would add: and they get by with it because they are bullies.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

53. And because, when it comes to their behavior, we really don't have an "opposition party" ...

... the Democrats were content to let them get away with it.

[Enthusiast]

104. And they effectively transformed the nation into a banana republic.

The Bush crime family has treated this nation much as they did the Central American countries under G H W Bush's influence. We have been living under an extension of Iran-Contra since.................Iran-Contra.

Ever wonder why Eisenhower went out of his way to warn the American people about the military industrial complex? Eisenhower's warning was unprecedented! He didn't do that just because.

[Autumn]

35. I'm sure Nancy will take Obamas impeachment off the table.

She has experience you see.

[merrily]

94. For that matter, so does he.

[whatchamacallit]

41. Generosity?

"Generosity" in regards to war crimes or malfeasance is a miscarriage of justice. The "looking forward" bullshit was where my enthusiasm for Obama took a dive.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

54. Me too.

My grin turned with the quickness.

[wiggs]

51. I think this is an opportunity for dems in 2014 midterms...no one

but hard core tea partiers wants to see an impeachment. dems running for office, pundtis, dem leaders, the WH should all have the cajones to state bluntly what is likely to happen: that after 2014 the House is going to impeach the president for a variety of what they perceive as offenses including: not wearing a big enough flag lapel pin, shaking the hands of middle eastern leaders, using a teleprompter, putting solar panels on the WH, and swapping POWs at the end of the longest war in US history that another president started.

No one wants to see it...so dems should start campaigning on how nuts the RW has become and talking about all the things WE KNOW will happen in 2015 if the RW has both houses of congress. They should be nothing more than honest...and openly talk of impeachment, privatization of safety net, busting of unions, more billionaire free speech, more ignoring of climate change, more restrictions on women's health care, yanking of access to health care for millions, less education, etc etc

We don't have to imagine what it could be like...plenty of examples of bad state-level policies to talk about in red states from the last 8 years and more than plenty from national campaigns and governing.

The WHOLE package of RW wish list items should be explained over and over and should be enough to scare the 98% into thinking with their brains rather than their NRA cheat sheet. THIS SHOULD BE EASY!

[lostincalifornia]

55. Let them. It will backfire in a huge way on them

[Ghost in the Machine]

59. This is one thing I've NEVER forgiven Pelosi for, and have not had much use for her since.

Even with President Obama saying we "needed to look forward and move ahead". Basically the same words that Clinton used after taking office from the Reagan/Bush Sr. era and the Iran Contra affair, and look what they did to him!

If they would have gone after Reagan and Poppy, we would have never had the little shrub to begin with.

Ghost

[Fantastic Anarchist]

63. It's the salt in the wound. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. Like having the Dead Sea poured into a gaping wound! N/T

[JackRiddler]

82. Very possible we'll be saying...

if they had gone after Bush and Cheney, we would have never had Jeb to begin with!

[Ghost in the Machine]

86. Honestly, I think they were grooming JEB long before they were the shrub, but JEB blew it in Florida

when he lost his last election. I may be wrong, but wasn't that also around the time when JEB's wife had some trouble with the law over some kind of smuggling or some kind of problem where she was detained at an airport?? Too tired and lazy to look it up right now, been a long day and I'm fixing to hit the sack....

Peace,

Ghost

[cascadiance]

127. This should make it firm that NEVER AGAIN will we "look forward" for a Republican official!

Republicans should know that this WILL be the consequences of their current actions! Perhaps we may need to make this a question we ask of newer Democratic candidates for office whether they will fall in to the "looking forward" trap to get a commit for them to stand for law and not avoiding it when it comes to holding Republicans accountable for illegal actions.

[jimlup]

65. 100% exactly

[libodem]

69. No Good Deed goes Unpunished

[merrily]

95. Good deed?

Democrats were protecting themselves.

[psiman]

72. Oliver "Convicted Felon" North as I like to call him

That smarmy look on his face makes me want to smash through the teevee screen and slap the lying tongue from his mouth.

[butterfly77]

74. K&R..

[bigwillq]

85. Yup.

K and R

[YOHABLO]

96. Well we're certainly not going to get any justice with another Clinton administration. Count on it.

[malaise]

97. How do you impeach an ex-President and his goons?

It was Congress who should have impeached them between 2006 and 2008.

[merrily]

110. I don't think the OP is suggesting attempting retroactive impeachment. As has been noted upthread,

there is no statute of limitations on war crimes. And there's no statute of limitations on public opinion, either.

I don't think that's ever going to happen, either, but I think either of those two would be a more realistic reading of why the OP wants inquiries than retroactive impeachment.

[Enthusiast]

100. Whether the President actually wanted to look forward as he did, or, alternatively,

wanted to hold Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld accountable, but found they were off limits, will never be known. I suspect.

When we examine the media discourse over the POW exchange it's an eye opener. The two standards are right there for all to see. It looks for all the world like Fox "News" drives the story and the rest just follow blindly along in their wake. Why would we see such a media—wide right wing slant?

Can we recognize how far to the right the TV media has moved over the past decade? I hope this is something we can agree on.

[ctsnowman]

101. The Republican brand could have been destroyed

instead it was given life support and is now stronger than ever.

Thanks for the post.

[JHB]

107. It's also what happens when you don't learn from history...

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

"Look forward, not back" Version 1.0 worked out so well for Bill, didn't it?

[merrily]

111. Both parties have enough on each other and Clinton and Obama each followed in the footsteps

of Presidents that preceded them. That is why both of the largest political parties bicker around margins instead of going for the jugular. Please see Reply 92.

And Democrats have the bigger problem because, until recently, their base has expected different things of them than Republicans have expected of their leaders. In 2006, a sizeable number of Republican voters cheered things like waterboarding and drone killing. Democrats condemned it--until Obama, whereupon they either ignored it or rationalized it.

This idea that all the wrong is on one side and Democratic politicians who are Rhodes scholars or UCHI law professors just stumble and bumble along, always being intimidated and/or outsmarted by the likes of Dimson just does not stand up to factual examination.

[deutsey]

108. I remember how the GOP was on the proverbial ropes

after 2008.

True to form, instead of delivering a knock-out blow, the Democrats "moved forward" and offered them the nice comfy bipartisan chair and time for them to recuperate.

The thanks they got? A bunch of Koch-funded, shrieking maniacs blathering on about socialist death panels administered by our new Muslim overlords from Kenya.

[rock]

109. I have never seen a party as much in opposition as the republicans

In fact, it is the only time that I would describe the opposing party as "enemies". Hey if "shoo" fits!

[Richardo]

112. Impeachment was off the table because it was a fool's errand ...

....that would have validated everything Bush/Cheney did; and the blowback on the Democrats would have been epic in 2008 and beyond. We'd probably be in the second term of a McCain administration about now.

Pelosi and Democratic leadership knew that there was no way in a billion years they could get 67 votes in the Senate to convict, which would have left Bush/Cheney and their disaster policies officially vindicated.

Pelosi is no fool.

[grahamhgreen]

121. Criminal prosecution for crimes such as TORTURING INNOCENT PEOPLE, would have been an easy place to

start.

But more than that, it was her duty.

[LanternWaste]

122. I really don't have any evidence pointing me to believe that these same republicans wouldn't...

I really don't have any evidence pointing me to believe that these same republicans wouldn't "lie, cheat and steal to get what they want" regardless of whether Bush or Cheney had been indicted or not.

There is however, ample evidence (and precedent) illustrating that these same politicians were doing precisely the same things and in precisely the same way even during Clinton's tenure.

[Mira]

123. how many times can I recommend this??? n/t

[bluestateguy]

126. What would have been your plan for getting the 67 votes needed to convict in the Senate?

Given the makeup of the Senate in 2007-08, which was 51-49 Democratic, and remember one of those Democrats was Joe Lieberman.

What would have been your plan for getting the (at least) 16 Republican Senators to vote to convict and remove?

[vkkv]

128. I'll never forgive Pelosi for taking "impeachemtn off the table".

Never forget!! The blunders of 911!

Oh yeah, and John Boehner was drunk when Pres. Bush drove the economy into the ditch.