Sadly, that force died during the Error of Emperor Bush.

---Jim White

The Bush Error

What did you expect? You wanted the Democrats after all. They are establishment, Obama included. Embracing Joe Lieberman, letting BushCo skate, etc. Aren't the establishment and their courtiers are doing exactly what one would expect of them?

You wanted them. You and LWM, Timberman, the Kos Kids, etc. etc. said we had to have them. Well, now we do. Now we will all receive what you and yours asked for.

The worst outcome would be to end up with an authoritarian consensus among both major parties under a Democratic president. We can't allow that to happen. We would then live in a country in which liberty will be treated as a quaint sort of concern on the margins, and the protection of fundamental rights will be given about as much passing consideration as, say, the issue of labeling requirements for genetically modified foods.

---------------

Those who argue that we should support the Democratic candidate for president remind me, sadly, of precisely those Democratic politicians who say that they are against telecom immunity but at the same time steadfastly refuse to take the action that would be necessary to stop it. The politicians, as some people on this blog, just end up being enablers. Probably passage of this bill is all but certain at this point, so we'll have to focus our efforts on defeating Democrats in November. I of course agree that it would be disastrous to have McCain for president. But -- and most people are too caught up in wishful thinking to see this right now -- it would be even more disastrous to have Obama for president after Democrats have passed this bill. Obama would, as a Democrat who will never put up more than mild resistance against his own party at best, come to stand through his association with this corrupt party for authoritarianism just as McCain would. But if McCain were president, we would still have a realistic chance of keeping the issue of the rule of law and liberty alive as an issue within the Democratic opposition. If Obama becomes president after Democrats pass this bill, the issue will be dead for as far as I can see into the future of this country. -- notverythappy -- Friday, June 20, 2008

I just read your post at your blog (it was succinct, and--let me be redundant--to the point). I hope you don't mind my posting the idiocy from Friedman once again:

The Arab world "needed to see American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, 'Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?' You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This."

It bears repeating: this guy's a walking asshole (and in my darker moments ... maotsetung, where are you?).

I expect that Bush will issue a blanket pardon before noon on January 20, 2009, so it will not matter what Obama wants to do. All members of the executive branch will be insulated from criminal responsibility for what they did. Bush probably cannot legally pardon himself, but he would be the only target left for criminal prosecution, and I suspect that Obama would not want the DOJ to go after him alone. Congress could have hearings, but because they could not lead to prosecutions, they would look to the public as purely political and would likely be politically counterproductive. For better or worse, our Constitution gives the President the power to pardon and, thus, there is a built in mechanism that allows rampant lawbreaking to go unpunished so long as it is approved by the President before he leaves office. Of course, if Bush does not issue a pardon all bets are off, but I cannot imagine why he would not do it.

I can't speak to the charge that Cocktailhag has repeatedly misrepresented your posts, but Why haven't the democrats brought impeachment proceedings against the gross, rampant. lawlessness of the Bush administration?

You know why. What do you think is being discussed here (and not just today)?

does obama (et al) hope that by giving the past administration a pass, his administration will get one from the republicans, in terms of the way they treated the clinton administration? conversely, does he fear that if he starts legal proceedings, that his administration will then be on the receiving end of such proceedings?

is it possible that there is an explicit or implicit deal in place?

what will happen should obama et al not pursue this avenue, but the republicans launch another version of whitewater? will it be too late to start an investigation without it looking retaliatory?

what are the chances the republicans will hold off from trying to hamstring obama's administration with legal crapola, no matter what the verdict is on prosecutions of the bush administration?

I basically agree with your observations, but I still don't see how you reach your conclusion.

The democrats inaction is motivated by self-preservation. While else would they NOT impeach Bush? . . . incompetence?

First, I guess you meant the Democrats are spineless when it comes to principle, not regarding self-preservation. That takes care of the evident contradiction I pointed out.

But, having said that, why do you think the Democrats will conclude that show trials will best "preserve" them? Do you mean that they will somehow manage to convict administration figures without exposing their own complicity?

I ask because that seems very risky for them. Far better to hold an investigation and whitewash the matter entirely, 9/11 Commission style, with no or severely limited criminal charges. That's the Democratic Party _I_ know (in this post-Church era).

NOB.... If exposure of the Bush Administrations crimes through impeachment would have been "stupid," but immensely satisfying to you because it would have destroyed the Democrats, why did the Bush administration spend its dwindling political capital defying subpoenas and stonewalling Congress? Do you think that Karl Rove, he of the Permanent Republican Majority, is pleased with the current outcome? Impeachment proceedings would have been demanded by the public had he or anyone else testified under oath, but they refused, missing their best chance to destroy the Democrats. Why?

Either the Democrats are wilier than we all think, or Rove was a double agent for them.