http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240

Bush is asserting that executive privilege for his staff members to not testify before congress carries over to now and forever. Seem a little odd.

1/29/2009 9:20:02 PM

I'd do the same damn thing.

1/29/2009 9:45:11 PM

He's probably doing it because a shit ton of people want to cut his throat and sue the fuck out of him.

1/29/2009 9:45:43 PM

^^ because you're unethical and think you're above the law too?

1/29/2009 9:50:21 PM

yes precisely. how much you wanna bet he never gets charged with anything, and not b/c he's the prez. more like b/c he didn't do anything wrong. take off your seething with 8 years of pent up frustration liberal glasses.

1/29/2009 9:52:39 PM

depending on his involvement with the torture stuff, he might have done something wrong

1/29/2009 9:59:04 PM

^^ if he/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/etc are fully investigated and nothing is found to be wrong, that's fine.
But they have for 5+ years and still are purposefully obstructing justice by simply ignoring legally binding Congressional subpoenas and trashing any Freedom of Information requests they get.

If they have nothing to hide? Fine. Surely one of them can take a few hours and go talk to Congress about it. If nothing is found, then they're off the hook.


btw, I assume you are intentionally ignoring the admissions that Cheney made a couple weeks ago that he personally authorized water-boarding, right? And the investigations that already found that Cheney and Rumsfeld were both in meetings where torture techniques were discussed and approved. yes?

[Edited on January 29, 2009 at 10:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2009 10:08:27 PM

It's weird the same bunch of people who question the validity of Obama's birth certificate and lack of college records defends a very controversial president who presided over very sketchy things. It's like there is some sort of dissonance in their cognitive processes.

1/29/2009 10:25:43 PM

Quote :

"If they have nothing to hide? Fine. Surely one of them can take a few hours and go talk to Congress about it. If nothing is found, then they're off the hook."

i'm not gonna push the issue

but you basically just presented the neo-con's defense of the patriot act

"if you don't have anything to hide, why do you mind warrantless wire taps?"

again, i'm not going to push this because its really not the same thing at all

but i want to get it out of the way before some mouthbreathing republican makes the argument

1/29/2009 10:30:22 PM

Quote :

"more like b/c he didn't do anything wrong. take off your seething with 8 years of pent up frustration liberal glasses."

Surely since he's a republican he would never break the law! Our republican leaders are all honorable patriotic superheroes fighting for america against the evil lying corrupt liberals

1/29/2009 10:42:34 PM

Why is it a good thing for things our leaders have screwed up on to remain behind close doors?

Isn't transparency and accountability good things?

Do conservatives no longer believe in personal responsibility and owning up for your mistakes?

1/29/2009 10:45:34 PM

^^^ I see your point, but it's not exactly the same thing.
It's one thing to be wiretapped or listened to without your knowledge, even if you don't have anything to hide.

But everyone left of TKE-Teg, which is apparently 99.9% of the country, would admit that being served a Congressional subpoena or 5 during an active investigation into highly illegal activities should at least be taken seriously. It's not like they're pulling people off the street to come in and talk to them - they're asking Bush's right-hand man to come talk to them about activities that he would be intimately familiar with.

[Edited on January 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2009 10:50:10 PM

Quote :

"Do conservatives no longer believe in personal responsibility and owning up for your mistakes?"

But conservatives NEVER make mistakes duh!

Sarah Palin learned from the best and try ignoring her subpoena into her troopergate scandal

1/29/2009 10:59:57 PM

Quote :

"I'd do the same damn thing."

if i had fucked up as much as bush had, and done so many things of questionable legality...


HELL YEAH, i'd stonewall some liberal pantywaist faggots.

stonewall 'em til the goddamned cows come home.

I mean .... look at them! they're DEMOCRATS for chrissakes. It's not like they're actually going to all of a sudden grow a set of balls and DO something.

1/29/2009 11:25:36 PM

^ /thread

1/29/2009 11:26:13 PM

Well, they are contemplating buying dairy cows off the market, killing them, and burying them in a giant ditch in order to drive back up the price of milk. But I doubt that is what you meant.

1/29/2009 11:29:44 PM

^ eh?

wrong thread?

1/29/2009 11:30:30 PM

Quote :

"more like b/c he didn't do anything wrong."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

1/30/2009 12:28:55 AM

Quote :

"yes precisely. how much you wanna bet he never gets charged with anything, and not b/c he's the prez. more like b/c he didn't do anything wrong. take off your seething with 8 years of pent up frustration liberal glasses."

Dude, fess up. If Clinton had pulled this bullshit, you'd be hounding for his head on a pike right now.

And I say this as someone who does believe Clinton deserved to be impeached for perjury - regardless of whether he was perjuring himself under a witch hunt or not. Perjury's a felony no matter how you slice it.

And I'm pretty goddamned sure anyone who actually put some effort into it could find some fairly shady dealings going on under the last 8 years of Bush. Unless you're bound and determined to believe it's a... vast left-wing conspiracy!

1/30/2009 2:12:44 AM

the question is more like "will Obama pursue an investigation against Bush." Obama likely will not because he knows the day he leaves office the partisans will be after him investigating every minute thing he does.

I believe if Bush has done something illegal, like Clinton, it should be brought to light. at the same time, I dont believe in rooting around the President papers for years, prolonging this morbid fascination with Bush, for the sole purpose of trying to dig something up because Jon Stewart tells you not to like him.

the reality is you could probably find something on every single sitting President if you really wanted to, but they have to be able to make tough decisions on things that are in the 'gray' without worrying about being prosecuted when the next party comes into power.

1/30/2009 8:22:54 AM

Quote :

"i'm not gonna push the issue but you basically just presented the neo-con's defense of the patriot act"

I can't agree with this at all actually. It is one thing to use warrantless wire taps on private citizens but completely another to seek transparency from our government, especially the leaders of the executive branch.

1/30/2009 9:36:29 AM

Bush should be prosecuted.

Unfortunately, he fucked up so royally that we have to spend energy cleaning up his bullshit first.

1/30/2009 10:02:02 AM

Quote :

"Bush should be prosecuted."

For? Shouldn't you be seeking an investigation first?

1/30/2009 10:17:34 AM

Quote :

"I dont believe in rooting around the President papers for years, prolonging this morbid fascination with Bush, for the sole purpose of trying to dig something up because Jon Stewart tells you not to like him."

that's such bullshit and you know it. many fair and serious people have legitimate concerns about the legality (and morality) of many of the things that bush has done.

there are of course two perspectives:
1) investigate fully and prosecute where applicable so that future presidents have a motivation to preside in a morally unambiguous way
2) lay off more or less on prosecuting high-level executive officials so that obama's presidency doesn't become (even more of) a partisan affair right out of the gate.

i can see arguments for both courses of action.

but i think either way there should be investigations. maybe not prosecutions or investigations into individuals specifically. but all the shady shit that went on should be out in the open (in as much as it can be for national security concerns and whatnot)

[Edited on January 30, 2009 at 11:26 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2009 11:26:10 AM

Quote :

"For? Shouldn't you be seeking an investigation first?"

http://www.netrootsmass.net/hughs-bush-scandals-list/

Pick one.

1/30/2009 11:37:19 AM

lol nice

you've convinced me, let's lock him up for "saber-rattling," "denial of global warming," "stealing the 2000 election," "rigging the 2004 election," a "lack of spending on basic research," and "blatant cronyism."

fucking unbelievable

[Edited on January 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2009 11:41:42 AM

i think leading us into war under false pretenses, war profiteering, torturing prisoners, and outing an undercover CIA spy ought to be enough for one investigation.

but it ain't gonna happen, so who gives a fuck

1/30/2009 11:58:40 AM

I don't think a former president, sadly, not even Bush, would be prosecuted but it would be nice to have these questions answered without his stonewalling under the guise of "executive privilege" and then giving the American public the middle finger for attempting to hold his regime accountable for their actions.

1/30/2009 12:07:38 PM

^ i don't really care about prosecutions personally, I do think it's somewhat of a bad precedent to jail presidents just after they leave.

But Bush Co. did all they could to squash any oversight of their actions, to an unprecedented level, that i'm afraid the scale of their incompetence or corruption will get lost and we won't be able to learn any lessons. Transparency more often than not is a good thing, I can't see why people are decrying it.

1/30/2009 1:04:58 PM

well I think it's because it would turn into a witchhunt and anybody that was ever friends with Bush would be railroaded

everybody's acting like Bush was the US Hitler but there's just no way you can blame him for all the shit he gets blamed for

1/30/2009 1:08:44 PM

^ I don't think anyone's looking at him like Hitler.

But I don't see how you don't feel offended that he ordered his staff to spit in Congress's face, YOUR representation, when they were just trying to see what's what. Our government, as you know, has 3 branches that are suppose to check and balance each other. Ignoring congressional inquiries is a slap in the face to the people and to our government.

1/30/2009 1:39:14 PM

Look, nobody's saying he's 100% innocent. I just think there's no way he would get a fair deal on anything because he's already been determined guilty of everything short of genocide. The people who act like he's the first and only president to do some of things people are claiming are either nieve or hacks.

As for slapping the American people in the face, our government's been doing it as a whole for quite a while.

1/30/2009 1:50:09 PM

so just keep with the status quo i guess?

1/30/2009 2:08:41 PM

Why does he have be the scapegoat for the entire government? If you want to put our leaders on trial, fine... but do it to every fucking one of them.

1/30/2009 2:09:46 PM

someone once said "the buck stops here"......
who was that again?

1/30/2009 2:11:57 PM

Quote :

"many fair and serious people have legitimate concerns about the legality (and morality) of many of the things that bush has done."

what President cant you say that about? thats my point. most Presidents operate new policy in gray areas at some point during their time in office.

1/30/2009 2:40:40 PM

i personally feel that there's probably some actions that are not really gray area to most people. that is why they refused to honor subpoenas, etc. of course it's hard to know if it's in the gray area or not without some sort of investigation.

1/30/2009 2:42:44 PM

fair, but just taking some of the things listed by joe_schmoe, which are likely representative of most of the items that people would think need to be looked into;

1. war under false pretenses - most of Congress saw the same intel and agreed with the assessment...their votes are proof of that. how do you single W out as a criminal in those actions?

2. war profiteering - are we talking about Cheney or Bush? I think we all know what these investigations would turn up...not fucking much. there are obvious connections and probably some obvious back room deals....that happen ALL THE TIME in washington. lobbies make their living on stuff like that. you would have to convict a lot more people than just W.

3. torturing prisoners - def. a gray area for many reasons. correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt water-boarding just recently clearly defined as torture? is sleep deprivation torture? does the President have exact knowledge of the means and methods?

4. outing an undercover spy - I think this is probably the most legitimate of the arguments to warrant an investigation, however I really dont the specifics. I suspect if they coulda, they woulda by now.

1/30/2009 2:58:32 PM

the whole point is that it's not exactly clear what the role of various members of the executive branch were in these alleged actions. thus the need for an investigation.

and yes, water-boarding has been considered torture in this country for generations.

[Edited on January 30, 2009 at 3:19 PM. Reason : but i do think there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation]

1/30/2009 3:12:27 PM

Quote :

"and yes, water-boarding has been considered torture in this country for generations."

really? I thought it was a relatively new technique

1/30/2009 3:23:42 PM

according to wiki, it was first used (or a similar form) in the spanish inquisition. it was used against americans in ww2 by the japanese (and iirc we put some japanese to death for war crimes for this very method).

reading more: american soldiers were court-martialed and discharged from the army for using this technique in vietnam

[Edited on January 30, 2009 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2009 3:45:58 PM

Quote :

"really? I thought it was a relatively new technique"

are you serious? or kidding?

as ^ noted, the US procecuted and put to death Japanese soilders who used waterboarding on American POWs

1/30/2009 3:51:28 PM

I must have been thinking of something else. Thats why I asked. I couldve sworn I saw/read something that distinguished the waterboarding we did to the three al queda guys and the WWII style.

[Edited on January 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ,,]

1/30/2009 4:32:10 PM

well, they called it the "water cure", and there may have been technique differences, but the idea was the same

1/30/2009 4:44:40 PM

Quote :

"according to wiki, it was first used (or a similar form) in the spanish inquisition. it was used against americans in ww2 by the japanese (and iirc we put some japanese to death for war crimes for this very method). "

water boarding is an Enhanced Interrogation Techniquie not torture duh!

much like the internal strife in Iraq was not part of an ongoing revolt, guerilla rebel movement, or civil war. In actuallity it was Sectarian Violance.

finally when our bombers (oops) droppes some bombs on an orphange or iraqi hospital. This was not Friendly fire it was Collateral Damage

1/30/2009 4:52:11 PM

now you are just being silly

1/30/2009 4:57:03 PM

Quote :

"someone once said "the buck stops here"...... who was that again?"

i think that was teddy roosevelt. are you suggesting we try him?

1/30/2009 6:50:30 PM

well, no - it was Truman. And I'm suggesting that as the Cheif Executive of the United States, the President has ultimate responsibility of what happens in his administration.

That's not to say the President has to be investigated or go to trial for everything anyone in his office says for 8 years, but for big decisions like.... should the US ignore the Geneva Conventions or are his underlings suppressing or modifying intelligence, then yes - he is ultimately reponsible.

1/30/2009 8:04:45 PM

What this thread has revealed to me - Liberal way of thinking:


Minority criminals are innocent until proven guilty
- but -
Republicans are guilty until proven innocent






[Edited on January 30, 2009 at 8:32 PM. Reason : /]

1/30/2009 8:32:18 PM

you understand what investigations and subpoenas are for, right?
People are still considered innocent when they are under investigation. It doesn't help their cause, though, when they continuously rebuff requests to ask them questions.

btw, what does "minority criminals" have to do with anything....

1/30/2009 8:38:12 PM