Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
the democrats should kick out Joe - impeach Bush and throw Cheney in the slammer for war crimes and turn America into the country where the epic battle between the so called left and the so called right is finally decided -
Oh - wait a minute it already has been decided and the left always has sided with the right?!
So - is it even possible to have more bipartisanship that we have now?
Absolutely! For 'change' we now could ask the so called right always to vote with the so called left - and wouldn/t that be cool if they would against Torture too and to close Gitmo and to end the war and to vote for a Health care program...
I would be such a HUGE CHANGE! (not as HUGE as having a so called 'black' white and
black man' in the White House)
But the right will never vote for the left because they are partisan idiots?!
Who cares - we have won and I think I might have to change my mind now - I think we should make Joe always vote for us and have Bush and Cheney applaud Obama.
(I know - we never will hear from Cheney) - but in such a wonderful bipartisanship country
as ours does that really matter or could we tolerate it in the name of Glenn and Harmony?
The AP has a good lol Obama story.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNJh9ZFMqkoehf9byAYKGnm-EKYQD94H27D80
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama's incoming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists during the George W. Bush presidency. Obama, who has criticized the use of torture, is being urged by some constitutional scholars and human rights groups to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush administration.Two Obama advisers said there's little — if any — chance that the incoming president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.
Anonymous advisers, of course. And here it is, the coming whitewash of the whole sordid affair:
Obama has committed to reviewing interrogations on al-Qaida and other terror suspects. After he takes office in January, Obama is expected to create a panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission to study interrogations, including those using waterboarding and other tactics that critics call torture. The panel's findings would be used to ensure that future interrogations are undisputedly legal.
Might as well start pretending it didn't happen. It never happened. Nothing ever happens.
Here is a knee slapper:
"I know of no one who acted in reckless disregard of U.S. law or international law," said Culvahouse, who served under President Ronald Reagan. "It's just not good for the intelligence community and the defense community to have people in the field, under exigent circumstances, being told these are the rules, to be exposed months and years after the fact to criminal prosecution."
It's just not good *finger wag*.
There is one line of apparent dissent:
"The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it," Ratner said. "I don't see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable."
But just in case it isn't clear:
Barack Obama's incoming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists during the George W. Bush presidency.
...
Two Obama advisers said there's little — if any — chance that the incoming president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.
...
Additionally, the question of whether to prosecute may never become an issue if Bush issues pre-emptive pardons to protect those involved.
...
The panel's findings would be used to ensure that future interrogations are undisputedly legal.
...
Obama's most ardent supporters are split on whether he should prosecute Bush officials.[lol?]
...
"These things are not going to happen," said Leahy, D-Vt.
...
Robert Litt, a former top Clinton administration Justice Department prosecutor, said Obama should focus on moving forward with anti-torture policy instead of looking back.
...
Bush could take the issue of criminal charges off the table with one stroke of his pardons pen.
...
Under the Constitution, the president's power to issue pardons is absolute and cannot be overruled.
...
Pre-emptive pardons would be highly controversial, but former White House counsel Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. said it would protect those who were following orders or otherwise trying to protect the nation.
...
"I know of no one who acted in reckless disregard of U.S. law or international law," said Culvahouse, who served under President Ronald Reagan.
Andrew Sullivan says maybe we can have a Truth and Reconciliation Committee instead of appointing a special prosecutor:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/a-question-of-w.html
But it might also be feasible for Obama to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that, in return for legal immunity in the US, could at least unearth and publicize the full evidence and records of the past eight years. We would at least know more about who authorized what and when. And in a democracy, we need to know, when such immesne power is being exercised on our behalf.
So, we can "expose" the criminals with a whitewash in exchange for immunity in the US. That way they can live in their fortress mansions, eat steak dinners every night, and parade around the US giving quarter of a million dollar speeches. What will probably happen is that they will live in their fortress mansions, eat steak dinners every night, parade around the country giving quarter of a million dollar speeches, jet set to Dubai, and say fuck all to anyone that gets in their way.
Actually, the reason why people fight is because they have radically and irreconcilably different views over issues that are important to them.
Would that it were so. Like I've said repeatedly, political partisanship in the U.S. is an industry and the two-major parties are the dominant market players. I assume you disagree.
Some people want to invade Iraq and some don't. Some want to outlaw abortion and others want it to be legal. Some want to bomb Iran and others don't. Some want universal health insurance and others don't. Some want to prosecute Bush officials and others don't.
Absolutely right. There certainly are things worth fighting over. But there are many things that aren't. Wisdom is knowing the difference. Ans then there is the manner in which the "fight" is conducted . . .
The clash of different ideas is actually what "democracy" is all about.
Yup. But with people working together even though they disagree. That is civilization.
As unpleasant as you might find it, nobody -- not even Barack Obama -- will be able to wave a magic wand and make it all pleasantly fade away.
Obama is not partisan enough for you. Got it. Me? I'll give the guy a chance.
The problem is that we've had far too little clashing of ideas and far too much consensus.
Well, I agree and I disagree. Yes, there has been too much uniformity in our political decisionmaking. That -- coupled wit the Bush Adminstration's catastrophically wrongheaded and utter incompetency -- has brought us closer to ruin than we have ever been in our postbellum history. On the other hand -- and maybe this is semantics to some extent -- it is not "consensus" when one of the two players tactically decides not to contest the other player's moves b/c the passive player sees its competitor self-destructing and takes all pains to avoid being blamed for the disasters. It is hardly a model of poltical courage, but "bi-partisanship"? I don't think so.
I can't fathom anyone thinking we actually need more consensus in our political class, but there are -- obviously -- plenty of people who crave that.
What people crave is civil discourse that presents the "clash of ideas" in an informative, reasoned, and civil manner, rather than by demonizing those on the other side. Many Americans think -- and I am one of the them -- that however great our challenges are, and however much we may disagree as to both the nature of the problem and the solutions, there is often common ground to be found and that common ground should be occupied and extended whenever possible.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
