Formally Investigate the Bush Administration? or Forgive and Forget? (solution, elect, problems)

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by mrbob

Now that the Bush administration is at an end, it is time for Obama and Congress to SERIOUSLY consider investigations into the potential law breaking activities that were committed during his 8 year rule.

Paul Krugman has an excellent editorial in today's NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/op...16krugman.html

It is about whether Obama upholds his pledge to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution' by investigating those from the Bush years who abused their powers in office, or just pays lip service to this pledge by letting them 'walk away'...

I for one think there should be formal investigations.. especially into whether Bush and company INTENTIONALLY misled the country and got us involved in the war in Iraq under false pretenses.. I think they did...

It should also shed light on the politicization of the Justice Department, and appointing or removing attorney's based on their loyalty to Bush and his form of 'right thinking', rather than on their ability to do the job and uphold the law. Politicizing the judicial process is one of the more serious ways that Bush brought us closer to a dictatorship than any other president - surely in my lifetime...

Krugman makes an excellent point - to allow these people to walk away scott-free will only insure that in the future some other administration will do the same thing all over again...

I think people need to be held accountable and punished for their illegal, or unconstitutional, activities over the past 8 years...

Investigate? For what? Doing what a President is supposed to do? Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States?

That is the primary purpose of a Federal Government. To protect and defend. What we have in our Federal government is massive corruption of it's purpose.

Liberty is precious. Is it wrong to use all available means to learn what our enemies are up to? Had we not had the Jamie Gorelick "wall" erected between intelligence agencies, 9-11 just might have been prevented.

I think what needs to be investigated is not the Bush administration; but, our Federal government and every agency, Congressman and Senator within it that is working against us. That means, no "fairness doctrine", no Kyoto treaty, no "Cap and Trade" B.S., no CAFE forcing prices up on our automobiles. Get the government the Hell out of our affairs! That isn't what we have a Federal government for!

The concept of "limited government" that our founders held was because they feared exactly what our government has become. It's time to investigate and eliminate.

Give us our Freedom back, and our Capitalist system which has made us the richest nation in the world with the highest standard of living.

And that's why everyone wants to come here, even if it's illegally.

[Swampmonster]

Originally Posted by mrbob

Now that the Bush administration is at an end, it is time for Obama and Congress to SERIOUSLY consider investigations into the potential law breaking activities that were committed during his 8 year rule.

Paul Krugman has an excellent editorial in today's NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/op...16krugman.html

It is about whether Obama upholds his pledge to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution' by investigating those from the Bush years who abused their powers in office, or just pays lip service to this pledge by letting them 'walk away'...

I for one think there should be formal investigations.. especially into whether Bush and company INTENTIONALLY misled the country and got us involved in the war in Iraq under false pretenses.. I think they did...

It should also shed light on the politicization of the Justice Department, and appointing or removing attorney's based on their loyalty to Bush and his form of 'right thinking', rather than on their ability to do the job and uphold the law. Politicizing the judicial process is one of the more serious ways that Bush brought us closer to a dictatorship than any other president - surely in my lifetime...

Krugman makes an excellent point - to allow these people to walk away scott-free will only insure that in the future some other administration will do the same thing all over again...

I think people need to be held accountable and punished for their illegal, or unconstitutional, activities over the past 8 years...

I have said all along that if the dems took control we would see some real lynching parties in D.C. over Bushka's mess....I say "Let the games begin"...I'll make the popcorn....A lot of neoCON crybabies on here are whining about it tho'....maybe one has to wonder if they are really patriotic true Americans or if they support the domestic "terrists" in the Bush regime.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by mrbob

'Giving it a rest' is absolutely the LAST thing that Congress should do.

They should vigorously investigate for any violations of the Constitution or law breaking...

What's the problem? Isn't this what the Republicans did to Clinton during almost his entire term? First - White Water Gate - which lasted years and ended in NO CONVICTIONS... Second - was his impeachment due to him getting a blow-job!!!

Give it a rest - not on your life!!!

Clinton wasn't convicted because the Democrats in Congress put their own party of the laws of the land.
His impeachment was due to his lying under oath (perjury), witness tampering and obstruction of justice. You may think it's okay for a president (the #1 lawmaker) to break laws, but I don't. I think U.S. presidents should not go around breaking laws!

Clinton was not convicted of a crime in conjunction wtih Whitewater, but Ken Starr did get convictions against 14 of their business associates (not bad for a guy who "came up empty" in the Whitewater investigation!). Among those convicted were former Associate Attorney General of the United States Webster Hubble, the Governor of Arkansas Jim Guy Tucker, and Clinton's close personel friends Jim and Susan McDougal.

Either the Clintons were very slick- because everyone else around them got nailed while they wiggled free, or they were very dumb- because everyone around them was up to their ears in shady deals, and the Clintons were completely clueless about all of this. I think the first scenario is more likely.

Bill Clinton, however, did not get away completely:
He became only the second president in history to be impeached- that doesn't happen for "personal behavior."

He became the first president in history to be found in contempt of court, and fined, by a Federal Judge (the judge, incidentally, was a Democrat). That also does not happen for "personal behavior."

Clinton was forced to surrender his law license to the State of Arkansas as a result of his wrong doing. Once again, that doesn't happen for "personal behavior."

[cuebald]

Originally Posted by zman0

Maybe instead of seeing the President put on trial, you should reread the Constitution. The remedy for an elected official who has committed a crime is impeachment by the House followed by a trial in the Senate. You may have noticed that neither of these things happened in the last 8 years.

An ex-president does not have to be impeached, nor can he hide behind "executive privilege". Next week Bush will no longer have a hole to hide in, unless, of course, he runs to Paraguay.

Originally Posted by zman0

The Democratically controlled House has been unwilling to introduce articles of impeachment against the President, the same as an indictment, therefore they do not believe they have enough evidence to even warrant a trial.

Pelosi said in 2007 that the Democrats wouold not seek impeachment, not due to the lack of evidence, but due to the lack of support for impeachment by the Bush rumpsmoochers in Congress. She kept her word.

Originally Posted by zman0

Whether you support the death penalty or not, advocating the conviction of a President for a crime where the penalty is death is no small thing.

I am well aware of that. It doesn't change my belief that he is guilty in the least.

Originally Posted by zman0

By the way, acquittal does not mean found innocent, it means the jury had insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. Considering the fact that you lack even this basic knowledge of legal procedure, I don't really see the point in continuing a discussion.

"Innocent", "Not Guilty", "Free To Go", whatever you choose to all it. The results are the same.

Originally Posted by zman0

Where you got that idea, I have no clue. As has already been linked, the Senate found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President or any members of his administration. The most the Democrats were able to get in 8 years of relentless digging was a perjury conviction, which is pretty flimsy.

If you read the link I provided earlier in this thread, you noticed that the SASC has provided a good starting point. There are also a couple of excellent books in print on the subject of Bush's War Crimes, one suggesting that as many as 269 different situations might qualify him for trial. Check it out at your local library.

Here is the link again, in case you missed it: ]http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf

[mrbob]

I hope Congressman John Dingle sticks to his guns and calls for hearings...

Someone has to do something to prevent another Bush-type-Presidency ever again....

[teatime]

Originally Posted by mrbob

I hope Congressman John Dingle sticks to his guns and calls for hearings...

Someone has to do something to prevent another Bush-type-Presidency ever again....

Indeed. Well, let's see -- an honest and unbiased media that actually probes the candidates' records would help. An end to the celebrity and "cult of personality" would help, too. If the media and the American people could have taken themselves beyond Bush's "nice smile, friendly and folksy demeanor, and family values," then they might have noticed that he did no favors to the Texas economy. In fact, he left quite the mess for his successor, Rick Perry.

But no one wanted to see that, did they? Nope. The 2000 election was all about "OH NO! Clinton was a sleaze and we need GOOD VALUES back in the White House!" Remember? I didn't fall for it -- hell's bells, I couldn't care less who the president is or isn't sleeping with -- and I knew Bush wasn't equipped for the presidency so I didn't vote for him. I wonder how many of you who are screeching the loudest DID?! And then, OOOPS, you DID IT AGAIN!!!!

SO, we need lawsuits and prosecutions because the media and American people can be stupidly manipulated into a trance-like group think? Take some responsibility, people, and DEMAND responsibility in the election process. Why blame Bush -- the majority elected and RE-ELECTED him! Any natural born citizen over 35 can run for the presidency but it doesn't mean that people have to vote for him/her!

[evilnewbie]

Bush should be investigated... I hate corruption and I don't care what party they are affiliated to... not only should Bush be investigated but other members of Congress should be as well.. Rangel is someone that definitely should of been tossed... among others... but you won't hear liberals say that...

[HubbleRules]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Bush should be investigated... I hate corruption and I don't care what party they are affiliated to... not only should Bush be investigated but other members of Congress should be as well.. Rangel is someone that definitely should of been tossed... among others... but you won't hear liberals say that...

I'm a liberal, and I think that Rangel should at least loose his committee chairmanship...

And Bush AND HIS ADMINISTRATION staff/cabinet should definitely be investigated... At the very least the intelligence information available to the President that he claims justified going to war with Iraq should be thoroughly investigated...

After that, wireless wiretaps and their abuses, the way no-bid contracts were awarded, and the near total lack of regulation of the financial sector should also have Congressional hearings.

[JamesAbilene]

Originally Posted by teatime

Indeed. Well, let's see -- an honest and unbiased media that actually probes the candidates' records would help. An end to the celebrity and "cult of personality" would help, too. If the media and the American people could have taken themselves beyond Bush's "nice smile, friendly and folksy demeanor, and family values," then they might have noticed that he did no favors to the Texas economy. In fact, he left quite the mess for his successor, Rick Perry.

But no one wanted to see that, did they? Nope. The 2000 election was all about "OH NO! Clinton was a sleaze and we need GOOD VALUES back in the White House!" Remember? I didn't fall for it -- hell's bells, I couldn't care less who the president is or isn't sleeping with -- and I knew Bush wasn't equipped for the presidency so I didn't vote for him. I wonder how many of you who are screeching the loudest DID?! And then, OOOPS, you DID IT AGAIN!!!!

SO, we need lawsuits and prosecutions because the media and American people can be stupidly manipulated into a trance-like group think? Take some responsibility, people, and DEMAND responsibility in the election process. Why blame Bush -- the majority elected and RE-ELECTED him! Any natural born citizen over 35 can run for the presidency but it doesn't mean that people have to vote for him/her!

Reps to you Teatime. Every now and then, we agree 100%. I didn't vote for Bush either because I knew of his record in Texas and of his failed business endeavors in Texas and Colorado that sometimes required federal bailouts (Silverado anyone?). I liked Clinton and could care less about Monica. That was between Bill, Hillary, and Monica. Often the electorate doesn't look at the right issues when voting. (Example: He is the kind of guy I would like to have beer with; She is a good looking folksy woman; He is black (or white); etc.) We need to be more aware of the issues and less aware of personalities. Having said that, I voted for Obama because of what I perceived to be his stand on the issues of importance. We will see how it plays out.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by mrbob

Now that the Bush administration is at an end, it is time for Obama and Congress to SERIOUSLY consider investigations into the potential law breaking activities that were committed during his 8 year rule.

Paul Krugman has an excellent editorial in today's NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/op...16krugman.html

It is about whether Obama upholds his pledge to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution' by investigating those from the Bush years who abused their powers in office, or just pays lip service to this pledge by letting them 'walk away'...

I for one think there should be formal investigations.. especially into whether Bush and company INTENTIONALLY misled the country and got us involved in the war in Iraq under false pretenses.. I think they did...

It should also shed light on the politicization of the Justice Department, and appointing or removing attorney's based on their loyalty to Bush and his form of 'right thinking', rather than on their ability to do the job and uphold the law. Politicizing the judicial process is one of the more serious ways that Bush brought us closer to a dictatorship than any other president - surely in my lifetime...

Krugman makes an excellent point - to allow these people to walk away scott-free will only insure that in the future some other administration will do the same thing all over again...

I think people need to be held accountable and punished for their illegal, or unconstitutional, activities over the past 8 years...

Here is what I think- ALL the criminals in that administration need to be fully invetigated and prosecuted for their crimes. But the Congress should not waste time on that right now. We have more important matters to take care of. What should be done is to appoint a Special Prosecutor to conduct investigations and hearings and he should bring criminal charges where it is clear that crimes were committed. The Congress needs to work on the nation's agenda and does not have time for this.