Here's what should be done. Give the Republiscams 3 or 4 months. If they filibuster everything in sight, then we can forget post-partisanship. Investigate 'em all, blacken their names and get a filibuster-proof Senate in 2010.

The super duper 2010 mega majority! When a majority in 06 and a super majority in 08 just isn't enough majority!

If they cooperate instead of obstruct, then that will be worth the price of letting their crimes go unpunished.

So what you're basically saying is that it is ok for politicians to literally get away with murder while they are control as long as they vote correctly when they aren't?

Their "crimes" involve the displacement, torture, and death of millions of people. Millions of ruined lives are "worth the price" a few "correct" votes in the Congress? Correct as you perceive them, anyway.

Say Bush decided to attack another country before leaving office and killed a few thousand more people. Would their deaths also be "worth the price" of a few votes in the congress? What if those deaths included your friends and family?

If BushCo tortured your friends and bombed your family, say at a wedding party, would it be worth it to you as long as enough Republicans vote correctly on issues you perceive as important?

It's impolite to whisper in public Mr. Litt. (*i might get the funny idea you're whispering about me!)

At least Glenn's got good manners. ...keep me posted.

***

As for the state of the re-union: I sure hope Sen. Lieberman is not in charge of security during the festivities.

oink,

bah.

wrote:Punishment seems to have really turned around the drug problem in this country hasn't it?

No, but that has nothing to do with what would deter the folks in power from torture and murder. The reasons for this are complicated, no doubt. But you might start with the relative probability of getting caught using drugs on the one hand with that of someone noticing that you started just one illegal war of choice by lying to those who elected you on the other hand. Oh, and by the way, made torture a policy and thrashed other legal "details" along the way.

But it was a nice attempt at distraction from the issue. Not sure it qualifies you for nomination for any award, though.

Disagree with the ego argument.

Had things gone the way Bush wanted them to, the torture and surveillance stories would have never seen the light of day,...no ego gratification.

The egotist wants to stand in front of everyone and receive their praise. The stuff we're talking about was to occur in the dark.

The ability to listen to pretty much any phone call you want to? That's not power in your mind? The ability to invade and occupy a country just because you wanna? That's not power? The ability to make or ignore laws at will? The ability to inflict unimaginable pain on any person you want to designate as an "enemy combatant?"

If these things are not the exercise of raw power in your thinking... good Christ, man, what is?

hatchshin posted this (p. 15):

"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.

hatchsin raises points I have considered and make some sense to me. But I'm no expert. I'm asking if such presidential pardons (should they come to pass--and I, too, expect they will) essentially render moot the viability or even the possibility of "investigating crimes committed by Bush officials."

See...I'm the landscaper in this issue. Oops my bad...all fixed now though.

Ondelette - I love the exburys. I've a got a yellow, an orange and a corally-salmony-pinkish one. They make a nicer focal plant once they lose their leaves. I was thinking of putting in a camperdown elm, too for the winter interest, but then I got to reading how messy they are and decided I'm too lazy for it.

I know you didn't address this to me (rather, Kitt), but:

3) Does it make him more powerful? ...How?

Think of the nature of the office (and Bush has been there for eight years)--the ego that underpins the very idea of "power" is, as Kissinger once said, a veritable aphrodisiac. Then think of what comes after one leaves office--speaking engagements, memoirs, etc. Let me stress--the ego.

There is nothing to stop the rise of 3rd or even multiple parties if the american people come to realize we are living under a duopoly of 2 parties that both have the same vested interests.

I think the question of "why did Bush do what he did?" is a good one. What's his motive?

For the sake of argument lets take it as a given that Bush was involved in "torture" and "illegal surveillance".

Why? How does it benefit him? Explain the Risk-Reward to me.

Possible Motives?

1) Personal favors from admirers? Listening in on telephone calls does that for him? Chicks think he's hot?

2) Does it make him rich? ...How?

3) Does it make him more powerful? ...How?

People are motivated by lust, greed, power, . . . can anyone demonstrate how those motivated Bush? Waterboarding got him women? Surveillance got him money? Either increased his favorability in the polls? (I'm setting you guys up big time).

I don't see that any of those motives apply to torture or surveillance. I haven't seen any evidence to that affect.

At the same time, I have read interviews with all sorts of government officials who at one time or another have expressed true fear over what we are facing. They are worried....like the MN congressman (dem) who said that there was no way he was going to be in DC during the '04 inaguration,...too dangerous. Others were in law enforcement, CIA, FBI.

What frightens these people? I'd like to know, ...sure don't expect to.

That's why I believe Bush was acting to protect us. Did he over-reach? maybe....Before you call me naive, think about the people who said that Bush-Cheney will never give up power, that come January marshal law will be in place....that ain't happening, that ain't what's behind this.