Obama would not persecute Bush for his wrong doings.....just a vote getting scheme

Americans are receiving a new and unfamiliar lesson in constitutional government today. All those of us who were amazed by how the German government during World War II could have tortured and killed so many political undesirables without the German public rising up to stop it are starting to see more clearly now. And it is still inexcusable.

The Bush administration has clearly tortured detainees in its custody. First, its spokespersons pretended shock to hear such accusations, after all this is the U.S. Next, they tried a combination of denial and redefinition. President Bush said boldly, "The U.S. does not torture," and his cohorts at the Justice and Defense Departments set about parsing war crimes statutes and the Geneva Conventions. It did not seem to occur to them that the very fact of having to do so meant that a grim line had already been crossed. As is so often the case with crimes, once the act is commenced it snowballs ever larger with the attempts to conceal and justify it, producing more and more crimes in the process. So, we now have a president and an administration caught literally red-handed.

As if that were not bad enough, we are now beginning to hear that no one really has the stomach to prosecute these crimes. Sen. Obama says he would not want his first term of office clouded by what could easily be considered by Republicans an act of revenge. They, after all, were going to bring decency back to the White House in 2000. Who could blame them for bringing torture instead. 9/11 changed everything, right?

Whatever happened to our constitutional checks and balances? It used to be that if the Democrats messed up, the Republicans would run on a reform ticket and reverse the damage, and vice versa. What have we now? Sure there was torture and sure it was illegal, but we dare not do anything about it for fear of losing the swing vote? Is it possible that acts of torture will simply be ignored because they were done in the name of protecting us from terror. Torture in the name of preventing terror? Truly Orwellian.

Were the Republicans treating the country to the spectacle of impeaching a president for lying about sexual misbehavior to immunize themselves from prosecution for torture and war crimes? We may have been puzzled about whether lying about sex amounted to a "high crime and misdemeanor," but no one can have any doubt about torture and war crimes.

We seem to be waiting for President Bush to issue expected presidential pardons to all who could be accused of these crimes. It will probably happen in the last few days before the new president takes office. No doubt there is the hope that the excitement of a new administration might cause the public to overlook the pardons. But there do seem to be at least two remaining difficulties. First, to accept a pardon is to admit guilt. While the pardon recipient would automatically be protected from domestic prosecution, he or she would still be vulnerable in other jurisdictions, such as the World Court of Justice or even the courts of nations where the crimes occurred. Second, President Bush cannot pardon himself. Perhaps he could resign just a day before the end of his term so the new President-for-a-day Cheney could pardon him!

Sure, prosecute the Bushies for(possibly) "torturing" enemy combatants who were trying to kill our troops and/or plotting another 9/11!

After all, didn't we prosecute the FDR administration for neglect of duty in allowing 12/7/1941?

Didn't we prosecute Truman for dropping THE BOMB and thereby winning WWII?

Didn't we prosecute Eisenhower for allowing Fidel to seize Cuba?

Didn't we prosecute JFK for bumbling the Bay of Pigs?

Didn't we prosecute LBJ for My Lie?

Didn't we prosecute Nixon for Cambodia incursions?

Didn't we prosecute Ford for beaning a guy on a golf course?

Didn't we prosecute Carter for permitting the seizure of Americans in Tehran?

Didn't we prosecute Reagan for trading arms for hostages?

Didn't we prosecute Bush I for lying about not raising taxes?

Didn't we prosecute Clinton for allowing bin Laden to escape, for bombing an aspirin factory, for desecrating the Oral Orifice, for lying under oath?

Will we prosecute Obama when he loses the Iraq War, for hiding his Islamic ties, for exacting reparations from White Americans for slavery, for having buddies such as Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, and Rev. Wright, for causing the price of gas to soar to $10 a gallon, for losing WWIII to Islam, etc. etc.?

The foundation of our American political ethic will be further eroded, if the criminals currently holding high office return to private life without being held to account for their actions. The Constitution provides for impeachment, and this Congress has ignored this responsibility. Imagine the reaction of John Adams if he could have seen into the future to this total disgrace of the Republic. This Augean stable must be cleansed by a healing river of truth.

Shouldn't the guy actually be elected before anyone is talking about his second term? And then, if elected, shouldn't we wait and see if he even gets a second term?

Not one person in American has actually cast a vote for the November election and Obama and his arrogant team of flakes have already started "high and mighty" talk.

How can we just sweep the crimes of the Bush administration under the rug, if we claim to be a civilized nation ruled by laws, and not a banana republic dictatorship?

It would require immense leadership to accomplish this--plus some Republicans on board to avoid the charges of partisanship. It must be fair and transparent. Plenty of Democrats will be shamed as well, for their complicity. And yes, Obama would have to establish his authority and make good his promises to be a "uniter."

But it would be so wrong to just let this drop. And it seems presumptuous to assume Obama will get a second term.

So, maybe not in the first year. But whoever gets elected needs to pursue this if our government is to have any credibility at all.