Obama's AG Would 'Immediately Review' Bush Crimes »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsObama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted.
Read Full Story at philly.com »
305 Views Share Story 100 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Neophile
I'm a Propeller Scout so if you have any questions or concerns, send me a message and I'll be happy to help.
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 568 of 811 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe Obama should leave their brainchild, extraordinary rendition, on the books till the whole lot are rounded up and brought to justice.
Reason enough for me to vite for Obama. My only concern is will the DOJ have any time left to do anything else?
Reply -
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow, pandering to the lunatic fringe, I wonder what his internal polling is telling him?
Guess labeling millions of small town Americans as Gun-toting Bible thumping Racist is taking a toll.
Perhaps he's just desperate to change the subject?
Reply -
Neutral
Lincoln851 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama has to be the biggest fool ever if he thinks he will get Bush on war crimes. I am still laughing about this. He is as likely to get Bush on war crimes as we are to get his pastor on racial hate crimes! I thought he was all about "CHANGE". Does not every new administration accuse or go after the previous...and that is very presumptious thinking he will be the next president. It will probably be the wife of the former boyfriend of Monica Lewinsky. Can't wait for that trainwreck again. By the way, did we ever resolve Clinton's warcrimes in regard to bombing an Iraq aspirin factory?...I know its not fair...just using the same bogus reasoning you are.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
grungeplunge1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(((((Obama was also careful to say that he would not want such an investigation to become a witch-hunt.)))
He says to the onlooking witches and warlocks. What do you think it will turn out to be? Look at all the witch hunting that's gone on over the last two years since the Dems won the House.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
jaspersneed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, they do. This finally puts Obama clearly ahead of Clinton in my estimation. Barring a miracle where Ron Paul somehow takes the lead in the race, I'm sticking with the democrats in the Anybody-But-McCain voter movement. Obama is now it.
Reply -
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What are you talking about? All stories that are submitted spend a few minutes on the front page within a few minutes of submission. I think you saw it during that phase. Not that this won't end up on the front page, because it should.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, maybe this will put an end to the moronic misconstruing of what Senator Obama said at the fundraiser in San Francisco.
What other politician is willing to speak truth to power better than Senator Barack Obama? The only other one that comes to mind is Senator James Webb.
Reply-
Neutral
GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree but one must read carefully the words spoken. He said he would have his Ag (who will that be?) look and investigate only. Was this the usual double speak, and if the investigation found cause, would he pursue it, or turn it over to some committee that will take years to bring justice to the American people, or bury it? I guess we'll just just to see whether, or not anything gets done.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whoever becomes president should bring those in government guilty of committing crimes to the light of day and prosecute them and reenforce the ideals of our Constitution that no man or party is above our laws and all men are equal in the eyes of justice. But of course the wing nuts want a bye. If they committed crimes, it was to protect us while making a few bucks for themselves and their friends. They only politicized the judiciary so they could weed out the democrats while protecting republicans. Isn't that the wing nut way? But hey, executive privilege trumps Congress and is all powerful even if the Constitution ensures a check and balance on the three branches of government. So remember, wing nuts, the next president can also be KING if he or she isn't kept in check.
Reply-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What crimes?? I see no crimes.
Now Bill Clinton committed many crimes.
Like giving nuke info to China.
Stealing from the White House when he left office.
Lying under oath about having sex with Monica.
Rape.
How much more do you want to hear?
Typical for Dems not to look in the mirror though.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, you're not looking hard enough.
President Clinton did not "give nuke info to China" anymore than President Bush gave nuke technology to Taiwan. Someone did so under his watch, but the President didn't have anything to do with it.
The second one is a bald-faced lie and has been thoroughly debunked.
Number three he was charged, impeached and tried for. He was acquitted. Can President Bush say the same? I think not.
And I don't even know where you're getting the last one. If he could have been charged for it, he would have been. Certainly the hate was (and is, based on your comments) there to make it happen.
Reply -
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Want some cheese with that whine?
After 7 wastefull year investigating President Clinton all the Pseudo-Cons could come up with was he lied about an getting a hummer? If they had any inkling of the garbage you just spewd they would have investigated it further.
Get over it, President Clinton was a far better President than the (War Criminal) President Bush.
Reply -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What crimes?? I see no crimes.
--- VERY HARD TO SEE WITH YOUR HEAD UP YOUR ASS ----
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/...
Reply -
Neutral
hamy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really? You don't find anything wrong with the illegal activities of Bush?
In the wiretapping scandal, his own attorney told him that he was breaking the law and resigned because of it.
One lie about a sexual encounter that didn't affect his job in any tangible way versus repeated lies that caused the deaths and injuring of over 300,000 people including the reported deaths of over 4,000 American soldiers.
Which would you choose?
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you automan because you automatically get downloads from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Think for yourself.
A likely AG candidate is John Edwards. None of people you mentioned are qualified. It's a transparent attempt to divert attention from the fact that the Bush Administration should be investigated for several crimes.
Reply -
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
automan909,
I know you're trying to be facetious, but even tho none of them are qualified for the job, ANY AND ALL would be better than the Regent College Rejects Bush has saddled us with for the past 8 years.
And just because they promote policies that are advantageous to the Black community, and decry & denounce the evils that have been perpetrated on the Black community for centuries - and, contrary to the pronouncements of W & others, still persist - does not make them racist. Just like citizens promoting policies to assist the White, Latino, Asian, &/or other communities doesn't make those citizens racist.
Don't be scared. Most Blacks really couldn't care any less about doing something bad to you simply because you're White. There's no need to be scared simply because they're Black.
And, btw, Obama is half White. Which half scares you more?
Reply -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do hate that expression that democrats banter about; "The country needs to move on." That's BS. There are enough people in this country who are more than capable of recognizing the need to get on with putting our nation back in order, and at the same time understanding that letting wrong doing go unpunished will merely set the stage for future wrong doing, just as happened with those who brought forward their criminal agenda's from the Reagan/Nixon administrations.
Reply-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I do hate that expression that democrats banter about; "The country needs to move on."
--I hate it even more when the GOP uses it. How many times have we heard "now is not the time for pointing fingers...blah, blah, blah" but they don't have a problem blaming homeowners for getting sucked into the sub prime loan disaster.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SWEET
was the word that immediately jumped into my head when I read the opening sentence in my messages
TY for the brief moment of happiness Neo
---
unlike certain people who think its no longer a priority to make Bin Laden pay for what he did, in terms of justice, I think better late than never
I know the current crew are masters at covering their asses, but I have to think they must have missed a loophole or two
----
unrelated, I recently read somewhere that someone documented that members of the Bush administration stated Saddam had links, associations, dealings, ties etc, with Al Qaeda[which Bush and Cheney of course later refuted] 953 times
The issue has always been the same since I first posted on here as Amp Lee 3-4 years ago:
Either they are bold-faced liars and scoundrels or utterly incompetent fools who killed and got killed thousands upon thousands of people
name your poison
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"unrelated, I recently read somewhere that someone documented that members of the Bush administration stated Saddam had links, associations, dealings, ties etc, with Al Qaeda[which Bush and Cheney of course later refuted] 953 times "
Yes. This is a fascinating report documenting each and every lie told by BushCo in the lead up to the Iraq war. 953 seperate, known lies to justify a pre-emptive war (read invastion) of a country with no ties to 9/11 or Al-Quaeda. Disgusting at best.
Reply -
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess I should expand on the 'liars' or 'fools' thing in case anyone doesn't know what I mean
When no WMD and no AQ came out, and Bush and Cheney began admitting it, some people on here were saying, 'hey, the whole world thought he had WMD's', and 'hey, they just used the intelligence they had, not their fault they got bad intel and believed lying informants'
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I know the current crew are masters at covering their asses, but I have to think they must have missed a loophole or two"
--I think those missing White House emails are going to come back to haunt this administration (probably in the same way that Martha Stewart's amateurish attempt to re-write electronic history came back to haunt her). Even if Rove, Bush, and Cheney manage to elude computer forensics experts, somebody out there somewhere has the goods and the informations will be uncovered. It's just a matter of time.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually it should also help consolidate conservatives who believe in the principles of american democracy.
The Case to Impeach the President
.. conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who prepared articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and Nation Washington Correspondent John Nichols agreed that there is a substantial case for impeaching President Bush....
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/case_to_i...
Bush Must Go
Only Impeachment Can Stop Him
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01152007.html
Reply -
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and guess what jimd, more and more conservatives support Obama. Your tired old chants of liberal are way out of date.
March 24, 2008 Issue
The American Conservative
The conservative case for Barack Obama
Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois....
.. For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's comical about your post is the fact that wingjobs apparently haven't bothered to consider the possibility that McCain (who has at least a couple of axes to grind with Dumbo'ya), should he be elected, just might do some "reviewing" of his own.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nothing would do my soul better than seeing those who perpetrated these crimes against America and it's constitution to answer and pay for their transgressions. I agree hdethn, the people that allowed this should also stand trial, but they won't. The next President will be handed such a mess, that they will have to work 24/7 just to try to fix the economy and the Iraq situation. I think that this administration knows this. That's why they're leaving it as f'ed up as possible. The best way for criminals to elude capture and prosecution is to keep their captors busy with other crimes.
Reply -
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Come on now, since the dems won both houses they have been desperately fishing for evidence of any "crimes" to pin on the White House. So far...nothing. Alleging someone committed a crime does not make someone guilty. Much to the dismay of some on the left.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How can an investigation proceed when the WH doesn't allow sworn testimony, subpoenaed evidence, or even those subpoenaed to show up?
Keep believing that nothing's been "pinned" on the WH. By W's own admission, he was aware of, & approved, "aggressive" interrogation techniques, ie, torture.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seriously, Tony.
Do you remember how many investigations there were of Bill Clinton by the Republican-controlled Congress? How many people and documents were subpoenaed, how the investigations wound their way through a variety of different subjects before they could find ONE crime?
That crime was lying about a personal action that in no way affected the operations of the nation or the welfare of its citizens. And that crime was PRODUCED by the series of unrelated investigations--it had NOTHING to do with anything Congress might have been investigating to begin with.
THAT was a world-class fishing expedition. What Bush has avoided dealing with for all this time is answering honest questions and producing documents about activities in which the public has a real and urgent interest.
There is a difference between legitimate investigation and fishing.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
bill29361 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So essentially team Obama will waste taxpayer's money to investigate nothing, so they can have an excuse to do nothing about the economy? Sounds like the present Congress. Look at the economy today vice the economy in 12/06. Since coming to power the Democratic Congress has investigated 'Steroids in Major League Baseball' and the 'NE Patroit Videogate'. They have fiddled while Rome burns.
Reply-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, you make it sound like under Bush we had a robust economy instead we've had a phantom economy supported by as housing market that just imploded. THAT implosion was the result of the lending schemes the REPUBLICANS kept defending as the poor mans way of buying a house. When it imploded, as usual, the right wing starts pointing fingers all over to place the blame for their greed,
Reply -
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
doppich1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ken Starr and the GOP wasted $60M of taxpayer money on their "investigation" of the Clintons, so a little turnabout is OK with me. But you needn't worry. Nothing will come of this. Soon we'll hear What Obama Really Meant. Bush doesn't need to move to Paraguay yet.
Reply -
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
JGPrimeNews1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What does congress has to do with the economy? and the economy has been ******ty since Bill gave it to bush. If this your new marching order bill2936. You are the 6 or 7 GOPer today that has blamed the state of the economy on the congress. An economy doesn't go bad overnight smart guy it does so over time. Would you stop opening your mouth if you don't we wouldn't know yo are stupid!
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer26 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Obama_4_Ever1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
he can't issue BLANKET PARDONS... a what if...
it's actually BRILLIANT.. if Obama holds true.. Bush can't pardon if no charges are brought BEFORE he leaves office.. and he can't once he leaves... might just be why Pelosi took impeachment OFF THE TABLE....try them on CRIMINAL CHARGES after leaving office...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More sweet nothings whispered in the electorate's ear by the very eloquent and dashing candidate Obama. Since he's been a senator what has he done to push investigations? Nothing.
This is nothing more then a sweet carrot dangled before the donkeys.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
eloquent
hopefully not true
good to be skeptical about anything a presidential candidate says
you know what they say tho
hope springs eternal
---
wasn't that cute little spitfire Kuccinich the only guy to actively push for impeachment?
I was looking at the voting record on authorization of force
maybe besides the practical reasons for not attempting impeachment, so many of them know they are complicit
Reply
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
not for nothing, but I wish there was a 5th button on here
besides 'good' 'bad' 'block' 'report'
I'd like to see a 'neutral'
Lots of times I don't want to hit good or bad, but I'd like to let the person know I bothered to read what they wrote
Reply
More News
LA Times
A story of shock, chaos and bravery unfolds in Ft. Hood shooting
Healthcare bill clears parliamentary hurdle in House
Afghanistan government accuses foreign officials of interfering
Unemployment rate rises above 10% ; Obama signs jobless benefit extension
Jason Rodriguez : Shooting at downtown Orlando office building leaves 5 hurt, 1 dead
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.