Comments for Obama's AG Would 'Immediately Review' Bush Crimes »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 7 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 »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 810 of 811 Comments
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 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-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive153 Replies
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 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
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Only a fool believes this.
And, in case you haven't noticed, the worse things get, the more people DO want and obtain guns, and turn to religion. The old adage, "there are no atheists in a foxhole" seems to apply.
And calling him a racist is pure prevarication. Pointing out that many people - OF ALL RACES - tend to have apprehension of those different from themselves is not racist; it's the truth. Just because he's 1/2 black & his grandmother's white doesn't make his comments any more racist.
And judging from many of the posts on here from the likes of aniokly, with "We have been trying to civilize certain segments of society for 50 years" comment in FL Gun Bill, & saintettiene talking about getting illegal aliens to carry equipment, we all know how prevalent racism is on these boards, and it's a very real problem in this country.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PapaWolf
"And calling him a racist is pure prevarication. Pointing out that many people - OF ALL RACES - tend to have apprehension of those different from themselves is not racist; it's the truth."
"OF ALL RACES - tend to have apprehension of those different from themselves is not racist;"
And if he had said that he might have had some wiggle room. But that's not what he said, is it.
"OF ALL RACES" Sorry he said SMALL Towns with no mention of race.
"tend to have" sorry he said ARE.
Now do you believe you can psychoanalyze millions of people you have never met and come to an all inclusive gun-toting bible thumping racist?
Do you believe Obama could do this?
Apparently Obama thinks he can, that is both arrogant and stupid.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Truth is he, Obama, was only talking about Democrats that live in small towns, remember its still the primaries not the general election.
He thinks you democrats are gun-toting bible thumping racist.
Bet ya didn't even realize that did ya?
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to respectfully disagree w/a few of your points:
>>"OF ALL RACES - tend to have apprehension of those different from themselves is not racist;"
>>And if he had said that he might have had some wiggle room. But that's not what he said, is it.
He was using his white grandmother as an example of peoples' apprehension. To limit his comments to ONLY whites seems to be a bit narrow minded, especially when applied to someone who speaks to the ills of racism as a whole.
And to believe that he's only talking to Democrats is a bit ludicrous. Even tho this is still primary season, this is a national campaign, even international judging from Clinton's & McCain's campaigning in Canada & Israel.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He was using his white grandmother as an example of peoples' apprehension. To limit his comments to ONLY whites seems to be a bit narrow minded, especially when applied to someone who speaks to the ills of racism as a whole."
Uhm, where in the audio only tape of his San Francisco poll worker training session did he cite his grandmother?
The San Francisco audio tape was a "fly on the wall" of what is said and how it's said when the cameras are off. Have you actually listened to it? My guess is you haven't.
The charge of racism was his ABOUT the small town Dems in PA.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they
cling to guns (Gun-toting)
or religion (Bible thumping)
or antipathy toward people who aren't like them (does he mean not white? Claeify)
or anti-immigrant sentiment (sure sounds like he's calling them racist)
What do Dems in large towns or cities "cling" to when their bitter?
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Only small town as compared to the rest of the USA is valid. Obama was talking about small town people in PA
What all this sounds like is rationalization to support un-supported assumptions.
Are you aware that religion and Guns are numbers 1 and 2 of the "Bill of Rights"
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
- continued
>>Now do you believe you can psychoanalyze millions of people you have never met
No, but we can see trends. And in difficult times, people tend to turn to religion, and in dangerous times (as implied by all the terrorist threats & increased violence) people tend to arm themselves. What, exactly, is wrong with someone pointing this out?
>>He thinks you democrats are gun-toting bible thumping racist.
This is just a ridiculous comment. But, then again, I've noticed that you like to twist things around to make ludicrous comments like this.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"No, but we can see trends. And in difficult times, people tend to turn to religion, and in dangerous times (as implied by all the terrorist threats & increased violence) people tend to arm themselves. What, exactly, is wrong with someone pointing this out?"
Uhm what trend? Please cite the basis for this "trend"
How many of the millions of small town people (expanding it) have you talked to that have actually said they were bitter?
My guess is not many. Are you ASSUMING all these folks are bitter?
Have more churches/place of worship popped up in these small towns?
More than could be normal bases on population growth over the last 25 years?
"And in difficult times, people tend to turn to religion"
How bout gun sales?
Has there been an exceptional growth in gun sales in these small towns that is out of sink with America as a whole? Statistics please.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is what Barry said on this subject in 2004. It puts his 2008 statement in a different light.
http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/barack-...
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>This is what Barry said on this subject in 2004. It puts his 2008 statement in a different light.
See. That's only logical. We've known for years that the recent Republicans had to run on God, Guns & Gays to win - and everyone knows it, too. When Obama points it out, he's now labeled an elitist.
What complete & total BS. He's as much of an elitist as George W Bush is a competent, hard-working, blue-collar average citizen from a poor to moderate income family.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Lincoln851 year, 7 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
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"By the way, did we ever resolve Clinton's warcrimes in regard to bombing an Iraq aspirin factory?"
Of the many missiles Clinton sent into Iraq none were targeting an aspirin factory. That was in the Sudan. Why are you so quick to belive the enemies of the United States when they tell you it was just an aspirin factory.
And the answer is--- the situation was resolve and Clinton was not charged with a war crime.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Origin1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah the invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist bin Laden. Well, other than the President and Co. used his name in conjunction with Saddam Hussein to scare the bejesus out of the Ameri-coned coinsumers....
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"bin Laden. Well, other than the President and Co. used his name in conjunction with Saddam Hussein"
For those of us that understand the world is not re-created every 4 years on Jan 21, know Bin Laden had been linked (by our government, top down) to Saddam, long before Bush ever took office.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What do you mean by linked? If you mean that Saddam told bin Ladin point blank that he didn't want him in his country, then yes, I suppose they had been linked. If you mean that Saddam gave comfort and aid to bin Ladin, that is incorrect.
Reply-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user22 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Come on. We ALL know the 2 were linked.
First, they had all those assassins they sent to kill each other.
Second, they both had ties to the Bush family. Saddam got weapons from Daddy Bush & Osama also got weapons from daddy, along with close family ties.
So, injest is correct. There WERE ties between the 2. Not just the ones he's trying to insinuate.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See that's where liberals like you fall down. You don't realize that if it comes to moral issues like lying about getting a hummer in the White House it is an impeachable offense. Lying about WMD's to force a war to get free bennies for your buddies in the oil industry is alllll gooood.
I don't know if President Bush lied about WMD's or if he just didn't know, but either way it's dicey, but that's not even what they should get the criminals for. The criminality is for their extraordinary blindness when it comes to the Constitution and enforcing the law of the land.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bkumm
"Lying about WMD's to force a war to get free bennies for your buddies in the oil industry is alllll gooood."
For those of us that understand the world is not re-created every 4 years on Jan 21, know Saddam had been linked (by our government, top down) to WMDs, long before Bush ever took office.
Fact is we now know there were no WMDs after 1994. The question now is why didn't we know from 1994 to 2003 that Saddam had no WMD's.
I would welcome an investigation into that. Since it would cover just about every combination of Dem/Repub government it would not be seen as a witch hunt.
That would require EVERY senator in office 1998 to account for their claim that Saddam HAD WMDs then (there were more repubs than dems in 1998).
It would require EVERY member of the Clinton admin to account for their claim that Saddam HAD WMDs
Now if you think this will ever happen you vary naïve.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If we were talking about when we attacked Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1999 with cruise missiles you would be correct. Since we're actually discussing events that took place nearly three years LATER, that isn't relevant.
I'd welcome an inquiry into the whole thing, top to bottom. But, if we're going to do it, it should be done by the Swiss or the Norwegians or somebody else that isn't beholden to the US for anything. And there would have to be complete transparency by five Administrations which ain't gonna happen.
And Saddam and bin Ladin had no prior connections except for their mutual dislike and distrust. The claim that they did have ties is simply not true.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Candida1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't want to defend Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq but, if I remember correctly, the weapons inspectors weren't allowed to look for the WMD in the 1990s, but they were allowed in 2002 and 2003. Three weeks before the invasion, they reported that Iraq had no nuclear program, but that didn't stop the image of a mushroom cloud being evoked at every opportunity.
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"if I remember correctly, the weapons inspectors weren't allowed to look for the WMD in the 1990s,"
Actually they were and by 1995 had seen to the distruction of most of what Saddam had. By 1996 Saddam claimed that the US was inflitrating the inspction team with spies and identified several teams that he would not allow access to certain areas. Other teams that he did not supcect as having spies were still allowed unfettered access to all sites in Iraq. This situation eventually lead to the UN pulling out the inspection teams in anticipation of Clintons cruise missile attaks in 1998.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It isn't relevant because we're talking about two different things. Whether or not the Nixon administration said that there were WMD's in Iraq is not relevant. You are responsible for what happens on your watch. That means that if your Intel guys screw the pooch you take the blame. Good and bad.
It's like saying that President Clinton isn't responsible for what happened at Waco because the investigation of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians started under the Bush I Administration.
Reply -
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton (nor any of his officals) never stated that he knew where they were. He(they) was using such statements to defend the continuation of the sanctions being imposed on Iraq. He never used them to lauch an invasion and never suggested that an invasion or occupation would be necesary.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Saddam had been linked ... to WMDs, long before Bush ever took office.
Imagine that. We knew Saddam had WMD's that WE gave to him. Wow.
>>why didn't we know from 1994 to 2003 that Saddam had no WMD's.
That's why the inspectors were there - to see what he had & to destroy them.
>>It would require EVERY member of the Clinton admin to account for their claim that Saddam HAD WMDs
And Clinton was pushing for the inspectors to make sure Saddam got rid of whatever WMD's he had left.
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually we knew up until the inspectors left in 1998 that Saddam had no WMD producing or storage facilities and since then the UN and all countries have been working incredibly hard to ensure no dual-use equipment was provided to Iraq. Ask any WMD expert. Without the proper equipment to weaponize the WMD, its more dangerous to the people storing or handling it than to any target.
Cattle are killed every year by Anthrax. It grows naturally. But to use it as a weapon, takes incredibly advanced and expensive equipment as well as highly-trained experts. Neither of which Iraq had.
Reply-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Umm, about anthrax.....
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/01/29/h...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> I don't know if President Bush lied about WMD's or if he just didn't know
935 proven, known lies later...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
>The criminality is for their extraordinary blindness when it comes to the Constitution and enforcing the law of the land.
Only an America-hater would want to prevent or divert an investigation into the Bush administration. Speaking of which, what kind of investigation does McCain intend to do of the Bush admin?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
grungeplunge1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh please.
Comparing an investigation of whether or not BushCo broke the laws of our nation in their pursuit of stuffing money into their friends pocket is hardly comparable to any of the Inquisitions.
Why are Cons always so afraid of investigations of their own, but so loud about investigating the 'other.'
Should I quote the usual Con line that always goes with the violation of law regarding domestic wiretapping? "If you've got nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" Personally I'm afraid of a unitary executive that violates the constitution and our nation's laws left and right without consequence.
Reply -
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/memotext.pdf
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
"Hangins too good for him. Burnins too good for him. He should be torn into little bits and buried alive!"
-Hanover Fist, (Trial of Captain Stern.)
Heavy Metal
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why the negs, mcarpentry & Wolfie2007? Do you LIKE torture? Do you like it that we are now engaging in the same acts as some of the worst despots in history?
And now I'm hearing a report that we are one of the top executioner states, right up there with China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, & Iran.
Do you enjoy keeping company w/countries we condemn for their human rights violations?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh Jovi calm down. I did not scream bloody murder. What I did do was point out the fact that you said that, (and props for finnaly admitting it, in the past you said "How do you know I was not talking about one opf your siblings?") the same day that you were talking about how someone else insulted you. I used your words to prove your hypocrisy.
And for the record, I did not insult BAR. I asked him what kind of stupid he was. There is a difference.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would like to submit these two links as exhibit A.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/04/13/...
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/04/13/...
They show how incorrect you are.
Reply -
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I liked the love note you sent me today Tessy. It made me feel all warm and funny inside knowing that someone like you feels so strongly about me. Unfortunately I am taken. Sorry. :( However, the next time I am in the market for some thing like you I will let you know.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 7 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
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Look at all the witch hunting that's gone on over the last two years since the Dems won the House.
2 years? Since when is 15 months 2 years?
And don't you think that Congress should exercise its constitutional authority over oversight of the executive branch? What other constitutional rights do you think should be stripped? Illegal wire taps, illegal search & seizure, illegal spying on US citizens, indefinite detention? What rights are you willing to give up for the sake of your Republican party?
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jaspersneed1 year, 7 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 -
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 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
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"TonyByron
9 votes gets a story on the headline page?
Bkumm
"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."
Bkumm
Could you define "a few minutes"
Is 180 minutes "a few minutes"?
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, but now it doesn't have nine votes, does it? I don't know how many it is exactly. I've seen a new submission there for one or two cycles of the page (approx 10 minutes) and I've seen them there for a much shorter time. Rarely more than five minutes.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Well Meso since you call me a wingjob and I trash Bush all the time I guess you are wrong. Yet again!"
--Yes, Tangy and I'm sure if I sat down one day and painstakingly sifted through all of your anti-Clinton, poor-people-suck, and "my life would be perfect but for illegal immigration" posts, I'd find all both times. ;-P
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The reason I say that being that Saddam was executed for killing 300,000,000 Iraqis.
So, America's "intervention" has been responsible for 1,000,000,000 Iraqi deaths. If HALF of them are evil insurgents (unlikely) then Bush is still in part resposible for 500,000,000 innocent Iraqi dead.
Not a pretty picture...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Lot's of innocent people in the past have ended up on the wrong end of a rope because people believed they were dealing out justice."
--All the more reason you shouldn't have backed Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr wasting our country's time and resources stalking and persecuting Bill Clinton.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 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, 7 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
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, as we've seen Senator Obama has to be very, very careful what he says or the Clinton/Republican spin/willful ignorance machine will kick into high gear.
You see, every time he speaks truth to power, the power pushes back and I think it's making him gun-shy (no pun intended).
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is zero chance of that happening. Here is a link to 935 false statements made by your heroes.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
Have you ever read the 2003 State of the Union Address? There are some whoppers there too.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is who will be his AG? as for that matter who be his anything. The presidency is the "whole package" ,as well proven by Bush. Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, the whole cabal have lead us down this road -- who is going to lead us down Obamas' yellow brick road? the tinman,scarecrow & cowardly lion? I want to know & so far not a hint.
Reply-
-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ok - you are right Beau - the candidate must run on his own. so it is not a good idea to bring others into what is the candidates race, however does anyone out there have the slightest idea of whom he will be surrounding himself with?
Reply-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know who he'll choose, ace. But I'd be willing to bet, based on his integrity (really--you'll just have to trust me on this one if you haven't watched him in government for the past decade or so), the fact that the Democratic Party really will want him to succeed if he's the next president, and who his nationally known allies are, that he WON'T surround himself with cronies more interested in protecting him than in doing their jobs. At the very least, he has that in his favor.
I would guess Bill Richardson might make a great Secretary of State (I know his name's been bandied about as a VP choice), and as someone else out here said, Edwards is a possibility too.
I read something about Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas, being considered as a VP choice. I don't know much about her--I'll have to read up.
For the most part, regardless of the current infighting among Democrats, he'll have his choice. Who wouldn't want to serve in the first black president's administration?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
don't believe many candidates talk about their Cabinet choices before being elected. But we'll know his (or Hillary Clinton's) choice for VP soon enough.
Heck from what I see.. he still is in the process to see if he's going to get the nod, yet everyone talks like he's president already,,, maybe he'll put the honerable J. Wright in the AG position..... he could start with Bush and go from there,,, ot's of injistice over the last 200 years that need to be ADDRESSED.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>maybe he'll put the honerable J. Wright in the AG position
Exactly how much worse could Wright be than John Ashcroft, who not only lost an election to a dead man, but was also prominent in discussions on approval of torture? Or Alberto Gonzales, who was so incompetent that he didn't even know who was hiring & firing his staff, or who in his staff was being hired & fired, and who also wrote legal opinions approving torture? Or any of the multitude of graduates from Regents Community College Law School & Nail Parlor that W chose to surround himself with?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And just like any prior first term president you will not know until the final decisions are made and the names submitted to congress for confirmation.
No administration has ever indicated their choices before election let alone before gaining the nomination.
Reply-
Neutral
aceofspades11 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No administration has ever indicated their choices before election let alone before gaining the nomination.
Ian - I know that as I stated before the candidate runs on his/her own -- but who are his advisors now? who is his inner circle? some of the cabinet will come from those groups.
Seems as if the Rev. Wright is the only one getting any press.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"what are you like 16?"
--Eeeewwwwww! Oh, no you did'nt! Yo, slate...man, u are seriously gettin' on my last nerve, homey. Why r u straight up trippin' boo? I mean WHY are u all up in my grizzle, dude? Are u Hu-ssein' I'm immature again? 'Cuz, I'm like WAY older than 16. But I feel u dude. Hit me back when u r ready to school me on the race thang again. Ur my role model and whatnot. Smell ya later! ;-P
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 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
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's right, geez, how could I miss that? Incompetent boobery is the Republican/Conservative mantra of the day. How else can the corporate interests take down all the wealth of two countries and suck it out of the pockets of the People.
What was I thinking?
Reply
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive8 Replies
-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
John Edwards the trial lawyer? The off-shore hedge fund trader? The man who charges $55,000 to talk about poverty?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/deta...
Shirley you jest.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is it that Conservatives/Republicans only bring up the wealth of an individual when they are trying to smear a Liberal? I thought you guys were the Party of free trade and any person can make it without help from the government if they'll work hard enough?
John Edwards came from NOTHING. You guys should be holding him up as an example of what can happen if you follow the Conservative/Republican plan. Of course you can't do that because he made his money putting the smack down on the corporate interests that own the Conservative/Republican "movement".
Just think about it. It's really hypocritical.
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
right.
cons talk about Edwards and money as if they've done something about poverty.
well, in fact, they have done something about poverty. they've made poverty even more widespread in this country.
the gap between rich and poor is the widest its been since the depression and there are millions more people living below the poverty line in america than there were during clinton.
just between 2003-2004, more than 1.3 million americans fell below the poverty line.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not even talking about that, but that's a valid point. Look, the Conservative spin-O-rama goes absolutely batsh!t when George Soros spends his money trying to get candidates he likes elected. They hammer away at Al Gore for making money on the carbon credit market (millions) all the while bleating like goats about how the Green economy is going to ruin the country. Then Edwards gets beat up because he made all of his money by being a (WOW) lawyer.
I just don't get it. Exxon-Mobil can spend million's "debunking" global warming and they're okay. Richard Scaife spends his money trying to get his candidates elected and he's a hero. Scaife supports the Heritage Foundation which has as one of it's founding principles "free enterprise" and "individual freedom" yet Edwards is one of the "bad guys"? I don't get it.
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NO!!! I'm way past DONE "getting used to it". I'm friggin' sick of it. The media (both mainstream and other) is completely off it's rocker, there are people out there purposefully taking advantage of the innocence of others to make a buck, the government doesn't represent the People and most of the people don't care until the roof caves in over their head and then they want the government to come bail them out. Well, guess what, I'm sick of it. No more. This ends here.
Reply-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
right. I shoulda phrased that better. not "get used to it," but "find a way to effectively deal with it" since the double standard, authoritarian conservative mindset isn't going to disappear. but I share your attitude 100%. this needs to end here.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See, that's the problem. It's all related. You can't dog out Edwards for making money and then say that you are for free enterprise. It's hypocritical.
John Edwards went after big corporate entities. So, if you can show somehow that what I'm saying is inconsistent, I'll be happy to listen, but I don't think you can.
Spitzer got busted for being involved in a prostitution ring. True, he indicted people for the same crime while AG of New York, but I don't see how that's relevant. Do you have some information that would lead you to believe that Senator Edwards is involved in illegal activity? If so, please bring it forward.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>John Edwards went after big corporate entities.
There's only 1 problem w/this statement.
Yes, he did go after big corporate entities, but that statement sounds like he just went after them BECAUSE the were BCE's.
When in reality he went after them because of the damages they caused to people, property & the environment. He went after BCE's to make them pay for the wrongs they did and to get people compensated for the wrongs done to them by the BCE's.
THAT is the kind of integrity we need.
And anyone complaining because he gets $50k for speaking, whether it's on poverty or another subject, is highly hypocritical. Just look at the amounts many others get for the same types of speeches. And when you take into account airfare, lodging, meals & other expenses, that's really not the expensive for a speech.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you know what really gets me.. is when people get their advice on TAXES as in oh the dems only want to tax the rich....
from a guy like Rush who makes 10MILLION or so a year... HELL NO HE DOESN'T WANT THEM TO TAX THE RICH..and really just HOW MANY JOBS (little boy domininican hookers and oxy contin drug dealers don't count) does RUSH provide...
I ONLY CAR ABOUT HOW MUCH TAXES I PAY.. JUST WROTE A 20k CHECK TODAY..
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i never said i did... i just don't see anymore.. the difference in any of the candidates....
and perhaps i have a RIGHT to any postition I CHOOSE...
if what was in power until 2006... was a fiscally responsible party.. i'd have to say i can't stand much more of that...
i'm a ron paul guy foriegn policy guy .. and a huckabee tax guy
Reply -
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Will, You pay 20K Quarterly and still support the resdistribution of wealth democrats like clinton and B.O.? Perhaps you should rethink your position."
-- Here we go again...When are you gonna explain why you're only troubled by the redistribution of wealth when it's being redistributed to poor people, tangy? Why have you refused to answer this question? I'll keep asking until I get an answer which makes sense or until you stop wailing about how the poor are sucking all the money out of your wallet (while looking the other way when Exxon-Mobil does it). I'm waiting... If you can't defend your position, it's okay to say so. Who knows, maybe if you just admit your double standard (rather than continue to pretend it's normal to bitch about poor people taking your tax dollars but not when rich people do) you'll feel better about yourself and people will respect you more. Maybe *you* should rethink *your* position.. ;-)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is it that Conservatives/Republicans only bring up the wealth of an individual when they are trying to smear a Liberal? I thought you guys were the Party of free trade and any person can make it without help from the government if they'll work hard enough?
It's just the reverse 'hypocrite' card like the Dems use when Republicans talk about family values while wide stancing ion public restrooms..... Dems talk about the evils of being wealthy while raking in the cash as trial lawyers,, pretty hypocritical
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Democrats (in general) support homosexual rights, Republicans (in general) do not. Also, Democrats tend to trend more liberal on social issues, otherwise the whole gay marriage thing would have been settled long ago. Republicans tend to trend more conservative on social issues. So, when a Republican Congressman who is a champion for the family values crowd gets busted smoking crack while reading, "The Origin of Species" and getting a hummer from a gay prostitute, yeah, that's pretty hypocritical.
When a man like John Edwards who came from squat to get wealthy talks about the fading opportunities in the America that he sees, it isn't hypocritical at all. And liberals, despite what you've heard, don't dislike wealth. Some of the wealthiest people on Earth are liberal Democrats. And we don't dislike the wealthy. We HATE inequality of opportunity and that's the problem.
Reply -
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Dems talk about the evils of being wealthy
You're wrong. We talk about the evils OF THE wealthy, not the evils of wealth. There are wealthy people out there who do good things with their money, then there are wealthy out there who will kill you for a nickel.
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" I thought you guys were the Party of free trade and any person can make it without help from the government if they'll work hard enough?"
--Slater, please remind us all how Bear Stearns is making it "without help from the government." Do share...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why is it that Conservatives/Republicans only bring up the wealth of an individual when they are trying to smear a Liberal?"
-- Why do they slam wealthy liberals? Because it's an easy way for wingers to avoid explaining why it's acceptable to bail out Bear Stearns (but not homeowners), give New Orleans and Iraq reconstruction jobs to their friends (as opposed to citizens of New Orleans and Iraq) and award subsidies to Big Oil (while scrimping on military vet care). It's classic conjob sleaze tactics. Distract, deflect, and deny.
If they talk about rich "liberal trial lawyers" (as if there aren't rich CONSERVATIVE trial lawyers as well) and rich "Hollyweird" liberals, they won't be forced to defend evangelical megachurches funding the Lear jet and Bentley purchases for their "clergy" members, right?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now, put aside for a second the Downing Street memo that states that intelligence was being fitted to match policy[in case thats too tricky for my intended audience of 'true believers', its like hearing a girl you want is a crazy ho and you shouldn't mess with her from 5 of your buddies, and having 1 say 'nah man she's cool' and ignoring the 5 in favor of the 1 cause you want to bang her]
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what's that leave?
They either are complete idiots for believing people who told them Saddam had a chemical weapons factory under his palace, which makes them fools, or they knew there was no factory, no WMD, no AQ ties, and just knowingly repeated their lies, which of course makes them liars.
evil liars or incompetent fools
I guess they could be both, but I think they know what they did
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hear it is now, but in Jesus's day it was a garbage dump. Bodies of criminals and those that couldn't afford tombs and burials were burned up there. It is said that the fires of the garbage dump Gehenna [the valley of ben Hinnom] burned nearly continually.
'where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched'
Mark 9
on the trash heap of history, so may they lie
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A few links so people know what you're talking about.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/...
http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 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
hdthehn1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tanglang-
Great way to avoid responsibility for putting Bush in the Whitehouse. Typical denial and deflection that the GOP has taught you so well.
Try responding to this: http://money.propeller.com/story/2008/04/17/oil...
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 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, 7 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
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
... Social conservatives counting on McCain to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves...
... Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting themselves up for disappointment. On this score, we should take the senator at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush's misadventures is irrevocable....
.. The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending Election Day at home. The Republican Party of Bush, Cheney, and McCain no longer accommodates such a candidate...
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But this much we can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war. The nation's heedless march toward empire will continue. So, too, inevitably, will its embrace of Leviathan. Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate that awaits them.
For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article...
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
lum-chate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is the biggest joke of all time! Conservatives supporting someone like Obama whose platform if inacted would make Eugene Debs & Norman Thomas proud. This candidate makes McGovern & Mondale seem reasonable. Not even Democrat centrist's could support Obama let alone conservatives. Get real!
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Yep, the democrats bought it hook, line and sinker:
"I did not have SEX with that woman."
--And yet, you hypocrite conjobs don't seem to have any qualms about deifying fellow hypocrite pig Newt Gingrich (who sleazed around on his *own* wife while putting the screws to Clinton). "Family values" conjobs are deceitful and breathtakingly hypocritical. I really wouldn't count on McCain getting into the White House, if I were you. In fact, you cons willl be lucky if even your kids are allowed on the White House grounds for the Easter egg hunt. ;-P
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 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
TonyByron1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There have been tons of documents, hundreds of hours of sworn and unsworn testimony and informal discussions. The result? No evidence of crime. This has inspired wider and deeper fishing attempts that has lead finally to the WH saying that there are limits that are built in to the constitution that prevents rabid zealots in congress from unduly intruding into the executive branch. The dems knew they would hit those limits and when they did they screamed "no fair".
Their screaming has lessened to loud sobbing for now.
Reply-
-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No investigations have been blocked by the lack of dems to have a super majority. Constitutional law has been invoked and congress doesn't decide that. You might convict them in your own mind but that's not the way it works in America.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>You might convict them in your own mind but that's not the way it works in America.
Tell Bush that. He's already convicted hundreds as "POSSIBLE" terrorists just by labeling them "Enemy Combatants" - INCLUDING at least 1 US citizen. By that simple title & the patriot act, he's thrown out habeus coprus, right to a trial, safeguards from indefinite detention, illegal search & seizure, illegal wire taps, illegal spying on US citizens, and the list goes on.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
doppich1 year, 7 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, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
bill29361 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The burning of the economy was back 6-8 years ago when GWB pulled back on regulation of the financial industry. The only reason it took till now to see the impact was those sub prime loans didn't hit the big rate/payment increase until 5 years into the term.
The entire problem with all areas of our economy today results from the back off from appropriate regulation followed by every republican administration since Reagan. Those regulations and rules were put in place in the 1930's to avoid another depression and they did until the wonderful free economy republicans started to pull back on enforcement when they could not reverse the regulations themself.
This whole economic mess is right at the feet of GWB. He was wrong in hoping it would not hit till the next administration so he can have the blame for what he actually did.
Reply-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wrong IF, Clinton's recession and 9/11 gave the economy a big double whammy and Bush's policies pulled us out.
Go here: http://www.djindexes.com/ and scroll down a bit and click on the 5 and 10 year graph for the DJ average.
There was "exuberance" in the housing market and we are seeing a correction in that market. Just like the "dotcom" bubble.
We'll get over it.
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Which one actually went after the b stards that attacked us? Bush.
Which one actually CAUGHT, PROSECUTED & IMPRISONED the culprits? CLINTON.
Where, exactly, is Osama bin Laden?
Bush may have gone after him, temporarily, but he missed. And he's been missing for over 5 years now.
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BS! If Clinton caught the culprits they would not have been able to bomb us throughout the 90's and 9/11 would not have happened either. The blind sheik was a tool of aq. Just like the KLA.
We are still in afghanistan hunting for that pos. If he is not dead already, he will be soon.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
