What would be the national mood right now if, in the first six months of this administration . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . . we did, in fact, look back. What would it be like now if Speaker Pelosi had left some things on the table? What if AG Holder had set investigations in motion?

I don't think our economy would be any better. I don't think the course in Afraqiran would be any different. I don't think the Gulf would be any more healthy.

Surely, however, some things would be different if nightly news reports of the day's events looking into The Dick or His Pet Chimp were the usual fare. I do think teabagging would be less popular a pastime. I do think regular clips of exploding heads would be the norm.

What do you think it would be like if we had decided to look into possible criminal acts on the parts of Cheney and all the rest instead of taking things off the table and looking foward?

edit to add: the intended implication of "six months" was that the investigations would ahve started within six months of this administration taking office. Had they, I think we can all agree that all of them would still be going on.

[Romulox]

1. They can buy us off with stuff, or they can appeal to our sense of justice

But this no stuff, no justice approach will not work.

In other words, we'd all have Obama's back if we thought that the present suffering was a sort of purification ritual after which we could truly begin to heal as a nation. Instead, it's become a carpet-sweeping, let-them-eat-cake affair--the worst of both worlds, in other words.

[Richardo]

2. The right would be saying that things are fucked up because Obama was so focused on retribution

The left would be complaining about the same things they are today - no change there. There would just be one LESS thing to complain about.

On edit: Correction: SOME on the left would be complaining about the scope and speed of the investigations, and the fact that any of the accused were afforded due process and other constitutional rights.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. The OP was intened to imply the investigations would have started in the first six months. Not ended

I reread my OP and that was not clear.

[Richardo]

7. OK, but my assessment still stands.

:thumbsup:

[Lost4words]

9. not too much complaining during Watergate!?

I think your assumptions are incorrect!

[Richardo]

16. If Fox had been around in 1972-74 you BET there would have been complaining.

It was a different country then. The House voted 410-4 to open impeachment hearings, and the Articles of Impeachment had what today would be called significant bi-partisan support.

http://www.watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles-analysis.shtml

[Lost4words]

25. Ricky, I was there as an adult, yes FOX didnt exist.

and Ricky it is a different country now, thanks for telling me what I already know. Our Federal govt hadn't devolved as much as it has today.

[Richardo]

31. So you agree!

The lack of 'complaining' during Watergate nearly 40 years ago is in no way comparable to what would have occurred with today's histrionic, hyperpartisan, zero-sum punditry.


And the tone of your response illustrates that perfectly. :thumbsup:

[Lost4words]

34. In a true country of laws, violations do not go un-investigated due to popular attitudes!

We are NOT Currently a country of LAWS and I do not agree that we should overlook the misdeeds of any elected or appointed officials.

The decision not to pursue Bush will cost the country in the short AND long run.

I DO agree things are different now but I still think the decision not to pursue justice, was the wrong decision!

Do the crime do the time, except for the wealthy and powerful.

[indepat]

49. Back then some Republicans put the good of our country, this Republic, its Constitution, and

its institutions above party: I challenge any one to come up with the name even one Republican who puts the good of the country ahead of partisan interest and gain. :P

[kdmorris]

13. Why do you say that the left

"would be complaining about...the fact that any of the accused were afforded due process and other constitutional rights"

Isn't that a bit of a broad brush, insulting statement? I consider myself a Liberal ("the left") and I would have NO respect for any investigation that did not afford the accused "due process and other constitutional rights". Do you think that "the left" would just love to see all those things thrown out the window strictly because it's Bush et all being prosecuted?

Unfortunately, that decision was made for me. There will be no due process or other constitutional rights because there will be no investigations. They will be allowed to get away with any and all criminal misconduct because we are never going to look into it to see if there WAS criminal misconduct.

Great opinion you have of "the left" there. Completely untrue, but hey, you're allowed to think (and say) anything you want.

[Richardo]

17. Of course it's a generalization - and maybe unfair. But I've been reading DU for 8 years...

...and I can guarantee you that there would be MANY who took that position. Threads with hundreds of recs.

And not just on DU, but throughout the blogosphere. Many passionate but ill-informed people out there, on both sides.

[Richardo]

19. But, I did rephrase my assertion to only include 'some' of the left.

:patriot:

[sabrina 1]

21. No, people of conscience, left or right, would be watching

with interest as investigations uncovered just how criminal the last administration was. Dick Cheney and his daughter would not be running around slamming this administration about 'terror' and boasting about torture as a great tool in that phony war, because their lawyers would have advised them to be carefull not to comfirm their culpability.

Instead torture has been given a stamp of approval and the torturers are free to teach in our colleges and go on television where they are treated like experts on 'national security' and continue to profit from their crimes.

We have a system of justice for a reason. It isn't just for the poor and minorities, although I can understand your assuming that we cannot prosecute the rich and powerful since we don't.

Hopefully other nations who have the jurisdiction to do so, will do the job this country refuses to do and gets support for not doing from its own citizens.

Spain is going ahead thankfully with its prosecution of six of our war criminals, and other countries are issuing subpoenas for torturers. There may be some justice for the victims, even if not from this country.

You're right about one thing, the right would be complaining. But not decent Republicans and Conservatives. They do exist, I know some and I know they are horrified at the thought that this country would violate International law and our Constitution. Being online narrows people's views as to who is a Conservative and who is not. They are not all freepers and tea-baggers which is a phony movement anyhow.

No, it wouldn't solve all of our problems, but it would ensure that we are still a country of laws where everyone is treated equally under the law. And it would provide some justice for the victims. And that is NOT a small matter, imho. In fact it is a very big thing unless we want to concede that major crimes by those in elected will never be prosecuted, and then accept the consequences of that acceptance.

[Robb]

3. It would wholly focus the news media on a single topic.

That much is certain.

I'm curious about your use of "Afraqiran." Don't you think people conflating two countries got us in enough trouble in 2001? Why a third?

[Stinky The Clown]

8. We are in two of thsoe countries and sabre rattling at the third

The sabre rattling is frighteningly backed up by influential people wanting us to invade - or have a surrogate country invade.

[Robb]

10. We have been rattling at Iran for 20 years.

...Do you truly believe the level is any higher now? I do not.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. I made no statement as to volume or intensity, only to existence.

Even if 20 years, does that make it right? Excusable?

[Robb]

23. So the last part of "Afraqiran"

...is the least important?

Doing the same thing for a generation does not make something right, or excusable, only less noteworthy. To elevate diplomatic haranguing that has been going on longer ten years longer than I had a streetlight on my corner does little to counteract the "sabre rattling" you're talking about.

Which makes me ask: to what rhetorical end does elevating the relative importance of US-Iran's ongoing war of words serve for you? I know what purpose it serves for war-mongers, but I'm curious why you feel it's important to call attention to, especially as compared to the seriousness of actual troops in harm's way.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Robb, if you wish to explore this further, start a thread on it

I'm done engaging. This is off topic and tangential to the point of my OP.

Have a really swell day, though! :hi:

[Robb]

27. "I'm done engaging??"

You posted it in your OP.

If it's too much to ask you explain what seems to be an attempt at jingoism -- specifically, as I see it, either denigrating the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or elevating the state of affairs vis-a-vis Iran -- perhaps you should engage in less of it.

If you want to explain yourself, believe me, you have my full attention.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Since you're not getting it, I will make one more reply to you and then, yes, I am done engaging you

I said what I said, and explained it. In fact, I explained two things to you, neither of which went to the central point of my thread. What you're doing is parsing and obfuscating. If you wish to discuss the central point - where we would be now if we had investigated the Cheney administration - then I am happy to continue. If you wish to discuss parsed words that are partially hyperbole and clearly apart from the central theme, you have enough posts on DU to be able to start your own thread. Perhaps you can engage people there.

Again, I sincerely hope you have a swell day, my friend. :hi:

[Robb]

44. Hardly. You are dodging a critically important question.

And I apologize if this is not how you expected the thread to go, but life is full of surprises.

You have apparently coined "Afraqiran," and refuse to answer how you believe it assists your argument to conflate countries where US policy is as different as night and day.

And while admitting its use was "partially hyperbole," meant deliberately to exaggerate to manipulate peoples' feelings on the matter, is half an answer, it is not a full one -- and disturbingly reminiscent, as I said, of the previous administration's inability to keep Afghanistan and Iraq discrete. As is the attempt to claim any request you back up your remarks as "parsing."

You seem to want to answer every question except the one I asked. :shrug: Perhaps if I ask it again: to what rhetorical end does elevating the relative importance of US-Iran's ongoing war of words serve for you?

[Sebastian Doyle]

33. Well, when the President calls Benny NuttyYahoo "a man of peace"

I find that very troubling. NuttyYahoo's primary reason for being PM of Israel again was his paranoid obsession with Iran's non-existent nuclear program.

Which even Chimp and Cheney admitted was non existent in 2007, yet seemed to be accepted as "reality" again almost immediately after NuttyYahoo took office.

[geek tragedy]

4. Media would blare "Obama more interested in revenge than in helping

America" etc etc etc.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. And the current blaring is better than that in what way?

Does the media blaring become glowing from the lack of justice, or is it a long string of 'socialist, not patriotic like us' and so forth?
This argument only works if there is a better response to no justice than to justice. This is not the case.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. So for that inconvenience, we should let crimes in high places go unpunished?

Nixon was pardoned. That didn't help. Reagan was allowed to slide. That didn't help. Allowing Monkey Boy to slide ices it.

America is a nation that harshly punishes its least and protects and coddles criminals at the highest level? Is that a rep we want or need?

[Tesha]

6. Properly managed, Americans would at least start to understand which party...

...was actually taking them for a ride and was
responsible for most of the trouble.

It would have been far better to have taken that
course than to have done so much nothing. (Cue
the folks who'll doubtless remind us of all of Obama's
vast "accomplishments".)

Tesha

[Lost4words]

11. + 1000

[howaboutme]

18. Why was impeachment taken off the table?

Most Americans believed that there were very serious problems with the Bush Presidency and many unanswered questions and cover-ups regarding 9-11, the Iraq invasion, the firing of US Attorneys, the Enron affair and their rape of California gas rate payers, wire tapping, etc.

To me the most important question has to do with why impeachment was taken off the table. Transparency is at the core of a democratic government. Cover-up is the antithesis. Who (in or out of government) had the power and was concerned about where a multi-pronged and an aggressive investigation might lead.

By not exposing the wrongs they are left to fester, and the abuses will surface again against Americans.

http://www.democrats.com/node/21953?ad=l1

[Stinky The Clown]

22. That question is best posed to the Democratic leadership.

The front (wo)man was Speaker Pelosi, but I suspect she was acting under orders.

[howaboutme]

35. I concur 100%

and I also believe she was acting either in concert with others, or under orders from a power beyond her pay-grade and the Democratic Party.

Someone or some interest wanted all (or some)of the events that occurred under Bush-Cheney leadership, and the actions and connections of the neocons covered up, and they may have more power than the Democratic Party. These are the people we need to be concerned about because they would sacrifice our nation and Constitutional rights in order to protect themselves and their interests from embarrassment or prosecution.

It made no political sense whatsoever to roll over, as the last Democratic President (Clinton) was impeached and investigated not because of high crimes but because of lying about a BJ. I can't fathom why the Democrats would not have gone after Bush and Cheney to make amends not for retribution but to demonstrate that the Democrats have values, integrity and wish make sure this never happens again.

[Radical Activist]

20. Congress had the power to investigate before Bush left office.

That's when it should have started. It's their responsibility and their failure to act. It should still happen.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. I recall clearly my dashed hopes for Conyers and Waxman, and, yes, for Pelosi.

[howaboutme]

50. ABSOLUTELY - politicians may not be born corrupt but

It won't happen because seeking truth and justice is not high on the priority list of politicians, in fact it may not be anywhere to be found on the pecking order of many - both sides.

The first order of their business is always getting reelected. Next .... keeping the moneyed elite happy. Third keeping their political cronies flush.

That they will spend many millions for a job that legally just pays $200K+ should tell all of us something.

We hear about corruption in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and China. Our corruption is there too but at a higher and more sophisticated plane. The dollars involved in the third world country corruption are peanuts compared to what is robbed from society in the USA. They do it in $6000 Brioni suits and they think that makes it acceptable.

Until all Americans, regardless of political views, demand integrity and honesty in place of politics, and demand those who abuse it face incarceration for life, nothing will happen.

[Angry Dragon]

26. Perhaps we would have had answers

When you have rules and laws for most and not the few, it provides for a disconnect for most people from their government.
It would have shown the country and world that we are a nation of laws and justice, and that no one in this country is above the law.
We might have learned that the wars were a lie and we could then withdraw.
We might have learned of the facts in the secret energy deals by cheney and started to correct them.
By learning what the secret deals were, the bp gusher might have been avoided or mitigated.
The republicans would not have been able to get upon their high horse and tell everyone how great they were.
Wall street and banks would have been more exposed, deregulation would have been laid bare more.
We would still have the public education mess.
There might have been more money for job creation.
Who knows how much it would have helped this country?? We will never know because it seems we are a nation that has two sets of laws.

[howaboutme]

36. Are you pissed at politicians who always look forward?

Are you as fed-up as I am with politicians telling us we need to look forward and forget investigating and holding their peers and the elites accountable? What we need is retribution to make sure it doesn't ever happen again.

We need to look backward, and investigate aggressively using input from bloggers and have every issue and discussion point put on the table and in the open such as a web site. Questions need posed by zealous and knowledgeable members of the public and the resolution of the questions publicly documented. No more total control by the politically connected "Commission Chairmen" such as the 9-11 investigation who refused to address or cover some items. It should be run by citizens who are not tainted by vested interests.

When all is said and done there needs to be a trial and if individuals are found guilty of major high crimes they need to be incarcerated for life or longer. As long as the perpetrators believe they are immune from accountability, criticism and punishment, our nation will be held hostage.

[mike_c]

28. there is a tremendous sense of malaise in the U.S. now...

...and it's getting worse. The reasons for it are myriad, but most boil down to a general sense that we've jumped the track and broad disagreement about how to get back on it, or even which track to take.

I think war crimes and other prosecutions would have been a first step toward having a united, bipartisan conversation about where we were heading and where we want to go in the future. It would have caused us to dust off some supposed American values and think about them, and what they mean. It would have provided us with somewhere to make a fresh start in a better direction.

Instead, we're just blundering through a slow train wreck, more off the track than on it now.

[Lost4words]

30. +1

[Lost4words]

29. in 1776 there were 2.2 million europeans in the colonies

Most states have more peeps than the early US, its becoming clearer by the day the federal government as it stands offers little or no representation to any one but the most wealthy and powerful. So its kaput, broken. Its no longer a dem or puke issue, its the power elite against the working class and we have no representation.

So its endless wars for endless profit. When profit becomes GOD, the profiteers become GODLESS! and there we are.

[howaboutme]

45. Bingo!

It isn't about left or right, or dem or puke.

The Tea Party is upset about government. Others are upset about other things. We need to understand that it isn't because of government per se. It is because government is compromised, corrupted, and broken because of the corrupting influence of international corporate, bankers, wealth and special interest power. They are running Congress and the Presidency for the members of their own club and for their own interests. It's a club and average Americans are not members. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

[tridim]

32. I think Obama knew he would have been assasinated.

And a dead Obama would be extremely bad for our country right now.

[Drops_not_Dope]

39. This comment really bothers me

and not because you misspelled assassinated.

Obama knew because the Secret Service would place him in that position? Obama knew because performing the duties of his Oath;

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

would be unusual and not what is expected of him?

Obama knew because he believes in :tinfoilhat: theories?

This is what I believe. I believe the Oath and the Constitution mean something. I believe Obama knew what the risks were when he took that Oath and accepted the office of presidency. I believe in The Rule of Law and I believe in Justice for All.

Obama called his Oath to the Constitution Sacred.
Bush called the Constitution a Goddamned piece of paper.

So tridim, which is it?

[tridim]

48. You don't know the BFEE very well. nt

[Drops_not_Dope]

51. wanna bet?

[blm]

37. That's exactly why the country's been so focked since BCCI coverup when BushInc was on the ropes

in 1993, and at their most vulnerable to further exposure.

Instead of our right to open government we ended up getting........Bush2.....9/11......Iraq War....Fascist Courts.

[Tailormyst]

38. Sometimes things should be done simply because they are the right thing to do

When did so many people lose sight of that?

[howaboutme]

43. A lot of it has to do with

political interests and the tendency of elected officials to bend their version of right or wrong to fit their own vested big picture.

Most of us average people clearly understand the need for right and wrong. Politicians lose sight of that because they factor in their campaign donor interests, other special connected interests, their cronies, and of course their own reelection and for them a cover-up often works better than the truth.

Our politicians and the elite do wrong (as in corruption and malfeasance) all the time but they rarely ever pay a price, such as an average citizen who does wrong.

In reality our society would be best served if the elite.....politicians, law enforcement, judges, DAs, CEOS, etc and all of those involved in institutional leadership and law enforcement should be held to a much higher standard of behavior. They should serve much longer sentences and not be given second or third chances as their corruption or illegal actions are highly detrimental to society.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Your final paragraph has an interesting concept in it

That's worth its own thread!

[EFerrari]

42. This was the job of Congress, imo. But Pelosi has zero interest

in that part of her job.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. Yes it was. Yes she does.

:thumbsup:

[Hydra]

52. I think a lot may have changed had the investigations and impeachment not been stonewalled

And the fact that it was suggests that the people in power couldn't get there without the help of the people who were guilty.

Scary thought, isn't it?