Given: GG and most of the salonistas view Bush as a criminal, whose crimes are without question.

Given the President himself admitted to ordering illegal activities? Calling him a "criminal" is actually rather generous.

Given: During Bush's presidency, the democrats chose "inaction" in response to Bush's "crimes".

Question: Were the democrats acting on principle when they chose NOT to discipline Bush, or were they acting on politics?

Answer: Politics, obviously.

Logical, if a tad blinkered.

Why:

1) At least some democrats are complicit.

2) They don't want the public to hear Bush's justification.

#1 is obvious, #2 is frankly ridiculous.

A lot of people, were they to hear all of the details re; what was done, why it was done, and what we learned from it, will be less sympathetic to the left-wing mantras. Most of those details are secret. We don't know them, but I suspect that once someone's "backs are up against the wall", they will come out. . . legally or not.

As you clearly know so much, pray enlighten us.

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

You mean 'why else would they NOT', right? And why they don't has already been discussed, ad nauseum.

democrats as jellyfish? . . . Not sure about this, before I decide, can you tell me what jellyfish excrete? . . . that may be more apt.

Keep in mind jellyfish are also among the most deadly denizens of the water. You really don't want to go in that direction.

You've gone beyond the point of comedy and satire and sanity, NOB. Time to give it up.

But here, are you sure? Are you sure Barack could weather the blowback from a move like this?

Easy, just use their own tactics. Open the investigation. If asked about prosecutions say, "We are not taking anything off the table." If blowback happens and asked about the investigation say, "It is the policy of this administration not to comment on an ongoing investigation. The President would like nothing more than to speak out on this topic, but we need to let the process work." If asked whether there might be any plea bargaining or grants of immunity, say, "The President does not believe that this type of negotiations are a useful exercise." If asked whether this is what the American people want, say, "The people validated our policies in 2008. Elections have consequences." If asked if the President is spending too much political capital, say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

I'm kidding of course, but the press speaks thrall to power. If 71 percent of the country could believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11, why not Bush did torture?

umbrage, in re your earlier remark about the ICC, I wrote to President Elect Obama and Vice-President Elect Biden on their change.gov site Friday after the election, asking that they consider announcing their intention to sign and get ratified the Rome Statute, and get ratified the 1977 Additional Protocols on December 10th in honor of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would send a very positive message to the world.

Actually Afghanistan has acceded to the Rome Statute, so if they wanted to, they could precipitate arrest warrants and charges in the ICC against U.S. officials for the tortures at Bagram and elsewhere. Moreno-Ocampo has no problem with unpopular prosecutions or powerful defendants. He cut his teeth on the Argentine generals.

Easy, just use their own tactics.

See, that's where we differ. Easy...for you. Easy...for the newly-minted, first, black president of the U.S.?

Actually, what am I saying....'black'? It would have been the same political reality for Hillary Clinton if she had won.

If you think the spectacle of this admin's DOJ prosecuting Bush admin officials for war crimes wouldn't obliterate absolutely everything this admin is trying to accomplish, I really think you're living in a dream world.

Sorry for the irritation but even though I pretty much totally agree with you, your constant aggressive whininess almost makes me want to join the Democratic Party.-- Paul Daniel Ash

What? Party? So join. Who gives a shit what, if any, party you belong to? I certainly don't care. Who did you vote for anyway? Because if it was for Obama then you don't agree with me and what's the damn difference whether you join or not?

Oh, and as for "whining," the only whiner I see here is you. You say you agree with pretty much everything I have said but have a problem with how I say it. Really? We are back there again? Mother hen comment monitors? Civility in discourse? GMAFB. I get irritated and sometimes I express that irritation - there is no whining. You can whine and cry about me becoming irritated and telling it like it is all you like. I really couldn't care less. I am pretty sure Mao is a bit less of a pearl clutcher and thus took my "sorry for the irritation" as sincere (which it was).

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=20265

Proclamation 6518 - Grant of Executive Clemency
December 24, 1992

By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

[...] The prosecutions of the individuals I am pardoning represent what I believe is a profoundly troubling development in the political and legal climate of our country: the criminalization of policy differences.

[...] NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger [...]

* * * * *

NYTimes, February 9, 1993:

By DAVID JOHNSTON

[...] a previously undisclosed memorandum, found in White House records, written on Dec. 18, 1992, by Henry E. Catto, a former spokesman for Mr. Weinberger who was director of the United States Information Service. The document, [...] advised Mr. Bush that [...] Mr. Weinberger's lawyers had "tested the waters as to how the Democrats and the press would view a pardon and had concluded that the reaction would be mild." [...]

- - NYTimes, February 9, 1993