Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Might Pursue Criminal Charges Against Bush Administration
Biden says criminal violations will be pursued
Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden said yesterday that he and running mate Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November.
![[US Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) is introduced at a rally by his running mate Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) in Dublin, Ohio, August 30, 2008. Biden said yesterday that he and Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November.(REUTERS/Matt Sullivan)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/obamabiden.jpg "obamabiden.jpg")
Biden's
comments, first reported by ABC news, attracted little notice on a day
dominated by the drama surrounding his Republican counterpart, Alaska
governor Sarah Palin.
But his statements represent the Democrats' strongest vow so far this year to investigate alleged misdeeds committed during the Bush years.
"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden said during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, according to ABC.
"[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution," he added, "out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."
Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".
"[I]f crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News. "You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
Congressional Democrats have issued a flurry of subpoenas this year to senior Bush administration aides as part of a broad inquiry into the authorisation of torturous interrogation tactics used at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
Three veterans of the Bush White House have been held in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to subpoenas: former counsel Harriet Miers, former political adviser Karl Rove, and current chief of staff Josh Bolten. The contempt battle is currently before a federal court.
202 Comments so far
Show AllWTF? Why wait till November? Losers!
The fact that Biden is talking about or even suggesting prosecutions of the Bush team is taking a big risk and throwing a gauntlet down. He is raising the stakes for the Republicans and increasing the pressure on them to win and hold office by any means, fair or foul! Only a great groundswell of support for Obama can stop them. The consequences of a McCain win would be frightful and will do nothing to make it easier next time. A Palin Presidency would really be opening Pandora's box!
Anyone who can see and understand this, which really *ought* to be most of CD's readers, has a moral duty to cut the b*s* and start working to help defeat McCain/Palin. If you don't have the stomach for working for Obama, join with those who are going after McCain on the issues. Or do fair election work to register new voters, stop the voter suppression and voter list purging, and challenge the many forms of fraud that can be expected. Or work to put more progressives in the House and Senate, which will help produce turnout for Obama!
Or else go on sniping and bellyaching and justifying doing nothing, but at least have the honesty to admit to yourself then that you are helping the Republicans, and getting a charge out of being right about things going to H***! I can understand this. I have made some dire public predictions. When they come to pass I get to be right, and when they don't I am exposed as being wrong. But that's where the moral duty comes in.
Eor example, having predicted that Bush will attack Iran before November, I then have a moral duty to speak out, write, demonstrate, call congresspeople and try to stop it. Which I've done and continue to do. If it happens anyway, I not only get to be right but I will know that I did what I could to stop it. If I doesn't happen, I'll never know if I had something to do with that, but I'll claim it anyway and I still get to be right!
So get up out of your computer chair and act!
Chris Horton
It's already debunked, as Cindy Sheehan has pointed out. Biden immediately backed away from any wild-eyed notions of actually prosecuting these criminals, because to him and Obama they've committed no crimes. They've been every bit as complicit in the war crimes of Iraq and all the rest of their scofflaw behavior, here and elsewhere, so they have no more interest in prosecuting them than they've had in impeaching. It would only expose them ALL for their enjoined corruption and imperialistic illegality, and they can't have that. Massage the delusions--that's all they intend to do.
If Obama and Democrat Party puts Bush and neocons in jail, Democrats can rule for ever !!
Most americans (not all) but most american people want justice, justice for 9-11, for the criminal genocidal war on Iraq, and for all the shit done to USA and the world by the Republican Party Brown shirts. American people hate Republican Party. The Republican has always been in power thru vote fraud, thru the barrell of the gun, and thru all the minute-men type of ultra-right wing satanic groups in this country. But sane moralist americans hate the Republican Party. American citizens have no problem seeing Bush and neocons in a highly security prison where they belong for crimes and mass murder.
.
The only way for justice to happen is to reinstate the special prosecutor law and separate the investigation/prosecutions from the political process entirely.
As this will impact both Democrats and Republicans it is doubtful that this will ever occur but unless it does our government will never recover the loss of respect and diminished credibility it has suffered since the cover-up of the Iran-Contra affair under Reagan.
It ain't gonna happen. Biden won't support it, the "democrats" who've been complicit with this criminality for years won't support it. If we want justice, we'll have to build our own new political leadership.
Justice is a moral issue, dependent on the will and integrity of the whole of society. It is not a political issue, which is about the control of the power that corrupts 'justice', the historical record and economic pursuits for self-interest. It is well-understood how politics in this country is bought and paid for. New political leadership is an impossibility until the influence of money and the military are separated out from the politics, and principle becomes more important than expediency, integrity more important than wealth, and leadership more important than power.
What do you mean 'might'??? Go after those bastards. They have inflicted enough pain to Americans and the rest of the world. Don't close Guantanamo...send them there for life.
If pigs had wings, they might fly!
I am very interested to see how one of the chief democratic warmongers (Biden) is going to prosecute the group of people that he voted with and verbally supported vis a vis the iraq war, banging the war drum every step of the way.
Biden would have to put his own voting record and support for the war under the microscope as well, which isn't likely.
A well-meaning but errant decision is not the same thing as an intentional misdeed.
According to Kucinich's list, there's plenty of illegal items to go on. "well meaning" and "errant" vs "intentional misdeed" is gobbledygook and irrelevant.
Are we talking about Biden or Bush? I wasn't aware that Kucinich's charges included Biden.
I am certainly not excusing Bush as being well-meaning but inept. Bush, and the whole family are as insidiously malevolent as they come. If more folks had any real passion to know who the hell they were voting for neither Bush would ever have become president.
But anyone that doesn't think there is a difference between 'well meaning' and 'errant' versus committing intentional wrongs better step through life very very carefully.
I'm sure you meant to make a more valid point, but describing 'well meaning' and 'errant' with 'gobbledygook' and 'irrelevant'? No wonder so many discussions on this forum tend to be so ineffective and irrelevant, and so easy to misdirect.
From a legal perspective, 'well meaning' but 'errant' is exactly the argument that will be applied. As Obama himself has questioned, was it just really bad policy, or true criminal intent? That's not 'gobbledygook' and 'irrelevant', that is the very question that needs to be asked and answered. Intent is a cornerstone of legal principle. If folks want to convict Bush (and I would truly enjoy seeing that happen) then we must think more critically and pursue a more objective analysis than to simply dismiss the question as 'gobbledygook' and 'irrelevant'. It is THE question that needs to be lawfully pursued and answered in a court of law, all personal opinions aside.
"Three veterans of the Bush White House have been held in criminal contempt of Congress..." If only. But I'm sure 'held', here, doesn't mean locked behind bars. Boy would that slow the corporatocracy down! If only we could start applying law and order to the politicians who like to dish it out to us, while they give more and more freedom - liberalization - to their partners in the private sector.
I don't know about Obama being zealous for law and order among politicians. This is a guy, recall, who chose to chastise Venezuela when Colombian forces entered Ecuador to assassinate a Farc leader. Maybe the American political class has been so disdainful of international law for so long, they forget it completely.
But if the Republicrats are hungry and need to eat each other, Hey, I'm all for it!
Why do the comments constantly collapse? Is that necessary? Come on CD! It was never necessary to collapse them in the first place. All you folks had to do was point out to the complainers that no one was forcing them to read comments following articles. But okay, You tweaked the forum and the default is with comments collapsed. That's fine. But as a participant in the discussion, I don't enjoy having the comments constantly collapsing. Sheesh!
I agree, Arby.
It would be nice if the software permitted a "pushpin" feature to keep the comments thread displayed after editing/posting.
Still, I gotta give a thumbs up for the existing improvements-- especially (if my guess is correct) the feature that prevents the frame from breaking and expanding whenever someone posts an extra-long alphanumeric string without breaks.
I used to get seasick scrolling from side to side.
Bob Pom...:
accountability? I feel America has lost that in 2000. With over 700 US military bases around the world , involved militarly in over 200 areas in some way around the world and not a word about it in the media. Not even a question of why or costs there is no accountability since no one knows about it. Even if America is wrong there is no one who has to answer for it. Iraq, Afghanistan are just two examples. Now if the GOV had come to Americans and said we need to put a pipeline through Afghanistan or we need to control the oil in Iraq so you can keep your SUV filled up. What would Americans have said about that? I say they would have backed the plan 100%
I always have one question, since more Iraqi people have died by Americans than Saddam. What or who was stopping the USA from cutting an oil deal with Saddam? I am sure Saddam would have greeted them with flowers. Then maybe quietly removing him from power at a later date? America has had no problem in the passed cutting deals with former employees of the CIA.
Democrats are 99,99% of the time just full of empty talk.
Watch what Democrats do, not what they say.
"Watch what Democrats do, not what they say."
What irony. Nowhere is that more relevant than with Republicans, who often exceed empty talk in favor of being downright misleading and malicious.
But that is an innate characteristic of politics and politicians in general - the nature of the beast - and why it so amusing (yet sad) that so many folks buy into the farce and take some of these things so seriously.
The difference between statesmen and politicians was once upon a time a clear distinction, easily perceived and understood. Nowadays it is rarely if ever a part of the discussion and thought process.
These discussions miss what I think is really going on.
What we are seeing is the transition from nation states, roughly something geographic with populations, to economic states, entities without geography or populations as we presently think of them. The economic states will have 'blackwater' armies. This is being accomplished by the 'largest transfer of wealth' in history, using oil, energy, by the vehicle of US armed forces. This system is beyond the rule of law as we understand it, and not subject to accountability. What we are deciding is whether or not we will allow ourselves to be used for this purpose. I mean the Halliburton complex is relocating to Qattr, which bills itself as the new owrld center for commerce. So let's stop thinking of this as liberal vs conservative, but rather as whether we shall retain our ebbing powers of accountability.
In that vein, we might note the appearance of our Meditierranean flagship in Poti, Georgia, north of the Russian fleet, at the end of the oil pipeline, ostensibly on a humanitarian mission. Thus Cheney's energy policy: use the American taxpayer to finance and establish a privately controlled new world order, promising the right wing evangelistas to be Christian and preying for it to be God's will.
Whaddya think about dem apples meetbeetle?
The McCain/Obama ticket represent nothing more than a change in the face of administrators of US empire, the idea that Obama - would do anything to bring any criminal charges against anyone in the Bush administration - has got to be the biggest laughable news that I've read in some time.
The only thing they will change are names, everything else will be more of the same, no matter if Obama is the face, or McCain is the face.
If Obama wanted change, he would have condemned the bombing of children in Afghanistan for one, he would have even strongly condemned the ongoing campaigns to expand the war in Pakistan. But he won't do that, because as he himself has said, he wants to take the war to Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want more war, more slaughters of children all over the world: vote McCain/Obama.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Given a "choice" between the doddering old warmonger and the slick young player, I pick the young player.
I have no illusions about Obama but, just in case there is any reality to presidential elections in the US (which is doubtful after the last two were rigged by the GOP) I will cast my vote for Obama.
Bring America Back !!!! I must join my fellow/sister Proggers in here (rhymes with bloggers & with Froggers)_ and am a heavy Skeptic of either Obama or Biden successfully prosecuting criminally King George or Prince Cheney !!
CRIMES are crimes now--Severe War Crimes==Evidence is abundant the Neocons lied this country into Iraq==murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent children, women, and men with the so called "SHOCK & AWE" attack. Iraq was, in fact, a defensless nation==unable to fly aircraft in its own airspace for 10 years, or to provide food for its people due to USA blockade policies.
These and the other many criminal acts of Bush Neocon Nation are here now, and do not become effective as of the inauguration day of Barak and Joe--if indeed that happens. If they have NO intention to prosecute Bush and Company now, then they have None if and when they get into the White House !!
The Obama Campaign is getting out-smarted consistently by the McCain team.
Obama's Team is DESPERATE==they will now say and do anything to keep from blowing yet another chance at a sure Democratic Victory==duh, yep they sure need to read 'Elections for Dummies ".
Sarah Palin's joining the McCain Team was a Stroke of Genius==they took away Clinton's glass ceiling; they again laid claim to the immense/hugh Catholic Vote with Palin's Right to Life family values; they can make just as much history
with a female VP, as a black Pres. She's got a natural gas pipeline in Alaska!
So many things Sarah Palin brings to the Repubby Ticket==she's attractive, well spoken, and vibrant !! THEN< Obama looks to his right hand man and what does he see==Joe Biden !!!!
Yeah, sure, they're gonna prosecute the Neocon Crimes---YEAH< SURE !!!!
Bring America Back !!!! I must join my fellow/sister Proggers in here (rhymes with bloggers & with Froggers)_ and am a heavy Skeptic of either Obama or Biden successfully prosecuting criminally King George or Prince Cheney !!
CRIMES are crimes now--Severe War Crimes==Evidence is abundant the Neocons lied this country into Iraq==murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent children, women, and men with the so called "SHOCK & AWE" attack. Iraq was, in fact, a defensless nation==unable to fly aircraft in its own airspace for 10 years, or to provide food for its people due to USA blockade policies.
These and the other many criminal acts of Bush Neocon Nation are here now, and do not become effective as of the inauguration day of Barak and Joe--if indeed that happens. If they have NO intention to prosecute Bush and Company now, then they have None if and when they get into the White House !!
The Obama Campaign is getting out-smarted consistently by the McCain team.
Obama's Team is DESPERATE==they will now say and do anything to keep from blowing yet another chance at a sure Democratic Victory==duh, yep they sure need to read 'Elections for Dummies ".
Sarah Palin's joining the McCain Team was a Stroke of Genius==they took away Clinton's glass ceiling; they again laid claim to the immense/hugh Catholic Vote with Palin's Right to Life family values; they can make just as much history
with a female VP, as a black Pres. She's got a natural gas pipeline in Alaska!
So many things Sarah Palin brings to the Repubby Ticket==she's attractive, well spoken, and vibrant !! THEN< Obama looks to his right hand man and what does he see==Joe Biden !!!!
Yeah, sure, they're gonna prosecute the Neocon Crimes---YEAH< SURE !!!!
I do however, have fond memories of Joe Biden from the ancient political past.
During the Clarence Thomas hearings, after Anita Hill accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexual harassment, rabid right winger Orrin Hatch, the Senator from Utah, called Anita an "alligator" (thereby confusing someone who makes an allegation with a large swamp living reptile). Biden, as I recall, was the judiciary chairman and even he cracked up laughing. I also remember that a copy of "The Exorcist" was used by Hatch in Thomas's defence. Classic politics, nothing's changed. A bunch of confidence men pretending to be on opposing sides.
Huh. They fooled me once when they lied and got my vote and captured the House and the Senate to stop the war, you can’t fool me again.
Bush/Cheney represent the corrupt, undemocratic system that needs to be put on trial and trashed. That includes the self-confessed Zionist Biden.
Might? MIGHT? MIGHT!?!?!? Sorry, Senator, but you're going to have to do better than "might" if you want my vote, although judging by your behavior since winning the primary, you apparently don't want my vote anyway.
Obama or whoever becomes the next "emperor" doesn't really make policy. He carries it out. The decisions are made by the powers that be (PTB) and the water boy and the Congress carry it out. That's why it won't really matter whether we get the White Republican or the "Black" one, either way we will be up to our elbows in the Middle East, killing and dying so Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex can make a killing too. The drilling will start too.
We live in a time of delusions. Americans are under the delusion that it actually matters who they vote for, Democrat or Republican. It doesn't. The Republicans lost the last two presidential elections and still managed to occupy the White House because the PTB wanted it that way. We are living in 1984. Perpetual war for perpetual peace as Gore Vidal pointed out.
Democrats go vote for your Obama and then stick your collective heads back in the sand and "hope" everything works out. Hope. Keep hoping and voting for status-quo candidates of "change" and what you'll get is status-quo "change".
We need to shake it up and throw them both out by such large majorities they can't steal it back. We need to decisively turn our backs on them and take our country back. We have the numbers but too many saps buy into the very system that is screwing them so good.
Corruption at the highest levels, continual war, drill rig populated shorelines, nukes and $5 gas. D or R? Or something else? Hunt or be hunted.
Well, okay, if this is not just so muxh "red meat" thrown to progressives to try to seduce their vote, maybe we might take a cue from Al Capone, the Chicago gangster and original Mafioso. Although guilty of everything from extortion, to bribery, to murder, What put him away for good was the homely and tweedy crime of tax evasion.
Maybe, just maybe, the Bush crime family (and I am talking about GHW, GW, Jeb, Neil, the entire bunch of them, might be simlilarly entangled in the web of their own stupidity and past entanglements. For the dramatic amongst us wanting them tried for crimes against humanity and murder, forget it. The basic problem is not lack of evidence. The basic problem is that those who would be responsible for conviction have the same blood on their hands and they know it.
Poet
"...GHW, GW, Jeb, Neil, the entire bunch of them..."
Don't forget Barbara, Laura, and the twins.
"...running mate Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration..."
Yeah right! What bull. Notice he says "COULD" not WILL. This is just a trick to win votes from saps that believe Democrats can be trusted to follow through with their promises, which of course is bunk.
Didn't Obama promise to filibuster the FISA capitulation and wasn't he antiwar before he became an AIPAC serving, saber rattling, warmonger?
"..."[I]f crimes have been committed...."
-IF? Only a sold out Democrat would have any doubts about whether crimes were committed. Nancy Pelosi, their leader has doubts too. Just ask Bugliosi. He has a blueprint to prosecute the war criminal Bush as soon as he leaves office. The Dems will do nothing. The one hearing that had was a farce.
Anybody self deluded enough to believe either a Democrat or a Republican, especially during an election year, deserves them. If the Democrats had wanted to prosecute Bush they wouldn't have granted him immunity for the crime of illegally spying on US citizens and waited until the 11th hour to do anything about his many crimes. Obama, by the way, voted for that immunity.
Go Greens! Go Nader! Go any 3rd party that is opposed to war, for people and against corporate and government corruption!
The FISA Bill did not grant criminal immunity to anyone. All it did was limit the civil liability of the cooperating telecom companies.
As far as being "opposed to war", Obama stated from the very beginning that we must pursue the original war in Afghanistan against Bin Laden and the Taliban for their perpetration of the attacks of 9/11. Unlike Iraq, this is a valid war of response against those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on us. Bush's diversion of military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq and using deceit to justify waging war against Iraq was what was illegal and wrong.
Right. We'll just count on those blood-thirsty greens
Obama-Biden are already starting to flip-flop.
Joe Biden on Fox:
"What is true is the United States Congress is trying to preserve records
on questions that relate to whether or not the law has been violated by
anyone. You know, there's been an awful lot of unsavoury stuff that's gone on.
And the mere fact that it occurred in a previous administration doesn't mean [a subsequent] Justice Department, if, in fact, there's evidence, shouldn't pursue them."
Ah, good, he's for bringing lawbreakers to justice! ... But then in the next sentence, the next breath, he says:
"But I have no evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush criminally."
In other words, millions of people will have read the headline: "Obama May Prosecute Bush and Company." But only a small percentage of them will have heard Biden's backpedling on Fox -- re. the above excerpt.
That's classic political doublespeak.
What will happen is that any number of less-than-fully-informed people will say: "Hey, did you hear? Obama may prosecute Bush!"
Congratulations, "Team Obama" -- Mission Accomplished! You've once again laid down a load of all-too-predictable bullshit.
Problem is if Bush goes down a few (or many?) key Democrats will go down with him. For example, it is probable that there were people on the intelligence committee (I'm lookin' at you, Nancy Pelosi!) who knew about Bush crimes long ago and did nothing about it. If Obama has to choose between doing what's right for the American people and protecting his political cronies, which do you think he's going to choose?
I know what youre saying--and what he would choose! But, for most Ams. , who have been so blindsided by this go-along to get-along Congress--I personally dont care if they lock ALL of their asses up , if they were involved! This is NOT a "partisan" issue. The prob is, how do we get it done, when most are guilty! Feingold? Sanders? I dunno--who i probably. NOT guilty and a good lawyer? Doesnt matter--let the chips fall where they may. "The Am. people are so dumb", "the am. people let this war start"-some of that is true. But, I also say that the Am. pepole have been sorely abused! Lied to, left naked and put to bed without my supper, as Romeo would say, I think LOL. Unfortunately , it seems many of them want to go back to the same bullshit trough. I, my fellow citizens, have had quite enough, thanks! I keep getting denounced, but--I just cannot do this anymore!! I was mad as hell when friends voted nader in 2000! I had to apologize! (Most did Nader's traders and were in blue states--I'm stuck in Red!)Eveytime I get castigated for not "bering OPbama enough", I TRY to find reasons to trust him, like him, believe he is "so different"--he doesnt even throw progressives a bone! If I feel I have to do it, because I'm in a Red State, it would be impossiboe for those of you who love Obama (as a candidate) to understand how difficult it is year after year to vote for "better than the fascist"!
One reason to vote for Obama over McCain, (and in fact to forget entirely "third party" candidates who will do noting except to syphon off Democratic votes), in fact the most important reason, is who will be appointed to the Supreme Court during the next presidency (or possibly next two).
Due to the ages of the current Justices there is a strong possibility of up to three vacancies occurring in the Supreme Court during the next presidential term.
If you want to see a right wing ideologue Supreme Court for a minimum of the entirety of the next generation - a minimum of the next 25 to 30 years, then it doesn't matter if Obama doesn't win. One more right wing Supreme Court Justice will ensure the reversal of Roe V Wade and further diminish the rights of citizens in America. It therefore becomes the most important thing to prevent if we are ever to reinstate liberty in America as we have known it!
Judge Obama/Biden and the rest not on the pablum they're spewing now for public consumption, but on their past voting records. That should tell you all you need to know.
WSWS.ORG: Love the dead McCain campaign concept.
SPACE CADET: Good point, one not raised by others.
It's kind of "ageist" isnt it?? LOL!!
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder - During DNC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIL64mxKUa4
The BIGGEST story week before 9/11 was approx 3 TRILLION DOLLARS MISSING!
The Story was dropped by the MSM. They got their cut.... for cooperation. There was also approx. 6+ TRILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS when Bush and Co. took control in 2001.
Bush and Co. do not work for the People of the United States. They work for a network of International NWO (Criminals) Synarchist Bankers of Europe.
Coffeelover,,,,,,,
Having made this announcement, if I were Obama, I would be damn sure not to be boarding a plane from now until ,well, ever.
Remember what happened to Paul Wellstone?
Walk in peace.
Remember what happened to Patrice Lumumba!
I doubt that Obama and Biden would actually go through with it, but at least the notion that Bush and Co. are far more than a bunch of Keystone Cops is getting even more attention.
I still think they should all be hung.
wsws:
I heard that McCain will never die as Spielberg made a McCain puppet they will put in front of the camera.
Obama-haters....
Those are strong words.
I fundamentally understand that Obama is not worse that John McCain. Bless his heart, McCain's an elderly man who looks more elderly daily. Neurologically, his best days are long past.
But Obama has not grabbed my attention, he does not lift my hopes. He's absolutely floating on a sea of money. The thing, the treacherous thing where Obama and McCain do not differ is that they are _beholden to the same interests_. These are the same interests that have landed us in Iraq and want to keep us there.
In the Bill Moyers interview of Andrew Bachevich, Bachevich said that Congress exists _solely_ to get itself re-elected again. There is nothing that has happened in the last eight years, but even more in the last 20 years, to cause me to disagree with that. And so we have two senatorial members who are vying for the presidency. They bring a predictable set of rules and values with them. "Gotta get re-elected, gotta fundraise, gotta get re-elected, gotta fundraise. Yes, sir, ma'am, deep pockets. I'm _YOUR_ man." Bought and paid for.
Even though Barack OBama is at least not senile yet, he's purchased. There is nothing that I hear him say that gives me hope that he will be about the people's business. Think of pragmatism and "political will" as code words for doing the things your moneyed supporters WANT you to DO and will continue to PAY you to do.
OF course there is no "political will" to prosecute Bush and associates for their crimes. Bush's policies have made a lot of people very, very rich.
What would mark a leader here is willingess to do these things, to divest of the influence of the monied interests because it is simply the right thing to do.
I don't hate Obama. I WANT to want to vote for him.
But I don't see that voting for him would bring America the changes it so desperately needs.
SO I am the undecided. I'd vote for a third party candidate if I thought it mattered. I don't think it will. I think it will take a constant, noisy grass roots. I tend to agree with Vincent Bugliosi who says that prosecuting Bush for his crimes may come down the road, done by some hungry young lawyer eager to make his mark.
I think it will take everyone of us being active and vocal and overcoming the absolute complicit silence of the corporate press.
We need to create a culture of questioning.
Every day in our newspapers, we need to question the moneyed interests that dominate Washington; how a corporately influenced government loses its' incentive for peace (bow to Naomi Klein); how the policies have fed what Krugman calls the second gilded era; how silly ideas like "health savings accounts" are little more than a way to gild neglect of the people's health; on and on. Every destructive idea that gets floated from both sides of the aisle.
Get the people to start asking questions.
I think it is a slim hope at best, but I believe that it is our only hope.
"Even though Barack OBama is at least not senile yet, he's purchased. There is nothing that I hear him say that gives me hope that he will be about the people's business. Think of pragmatism and "political will" as code words for doing the things your moneyed supporters WANT you to DO and will continue to PAY you to do."
Except that Obama's funds come from hundreds of thousands of small contributors - not from lobbyists and mega-corporations. Obama has even ruled that the DNC will not take PAC money.
I understand why you're cynical - but at least take the time and effort to be accurate!
Dump_Bush,
I decided that your challenge to check out the funding was legitimate and this is what I found:
If you go to Open Secrets.org this what they say about the sources of Obama's funding:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638
You will like it: they point out that the great majority of his funding comes from "small contributions".
However, when you click on the link to see who these small contributors are, you find this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Well,there were no "Jo and Mary Public" type listings. All big sounding companies. But with the exception of Goldman Sachs, none of these companies really ring a bell for me.
So, I looked a little further. This is from SourceWatch but since it is public generated Wiki, it just has the problems that go with that kind of sources. But still let's take a look:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing
It seems to say that PAC's had a significant role at the beginning of Obama's campaign. And it also talks about how Obama has said that lobbyists and PAC's will have a seat at his table but not a big one. That statement may be more of an indication of how big money interests PERVADE the political process more than anything.
Let's look further:
I pawed through my Google results. Disclaimer: I didn't click on the links that purported Obama's links to terrorists.
Then I came upon this blog, which is nothing I've ever been to before:
http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/06/how-should-one.html
This guy suggests that the numbers in Obama's campaign have been tweaked to over-emphasize the small donor impact. I can buy his analysis.
But since my general thesis is that big money interests control the debate and the outcomes in our politics TO THE DETRIMENT of the common person, very little suggests that Obama is "different" from others. He's taking their money.
Check out this link:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=D
This lets you look at how different industrial groups are contributing to different campaigns. There are simply no big surprises here: Look at defense, lawyers and lobbyists, health care (big pharma likely here)and even labor (which is probably more appropriately placed in the "paper tiger" sections).
When big money interests, unrestrained and unfettered, have so much capacity to influence candidates what would cause them to listen to us first?
That is my fear
What you're leaving out is that opensecrets says that the corporate donors account for 4% of his total---the rest, 96% are from individuals...
................................A MODEST PROPOSAL ..................................
Although I plan on voting for Ralph Nader, if my only choice was voting for Barack Obama or else voting for a *dead* John McCain ... frankly, I'd vote for the corpse.
I mean, let's face it, a dead John McCain will do far less harm than a live John McCain or a live Barack Obama.
Why wait for the inevitable? We all have to die, don't we? ... So here's my modest proposal. ... Summon Dr. Kevorkian to the Republican Convention. Have the good doctor ease John McCain out of this travail of tears. Then prop up ole Johnny-Boy, freshly-deceased -- and run that sucker for president!
In a heartbeat the title of "lesser-of-the-two-evils" would switch from a *live* Barack Obama to a *dead* John McCain.
I mean, how much harm can a dead guy do???
Stuff the guy! Get a good taxidermist, then tour the corpse around these United States of America.
Book that sucker on Oprah. Wheel that stiff onto the Jerry Springer Show. Nobody would lay a hand on him. How can you dislike a dead guy?
Come on, how many times have you dealt with a difficult person and, so exasperated, you yelled out: "Shut up! Goddammit, shut the f*** up! Just sit there and don't say a word!" ... Well, sir, there you have it, there's your perfect candidate -- John "Just-Sit-There-and-Be-Dead" McCain.
I guarantee you: a dead John McCain in the White House would all but guarantee world peace and environmental sanity.
The same applies to Barack Obama. Either candidate would win the Election in a landslide if they'd just be willing to "run dead."
So, come on, John McCain; or else how about you, Barack Obama -- just do it -- JUST DROP DEAD!
Once cremated, a grateful nation will *sweep* you into office.
Good idea on the culture of questioning. Two points.
"Even though Barack OBama is at least not senile yet, he's purchased. There is nothing that I hear him say that gives me hope that he will be about the people's business. Think of pragmatism and "political will" as code words for doing the things your moneyed supporters WANT you to DO and will continue to PAY you to do."
I could be wrong, but my impression was that Obama got the vast majority of his money from a huge base of online donors. ( I think it's been changing since he won the primaries) That's always been something that caught my attention.
"where Obama and McCain do not differ is that they are _beholden to the same interests_. These are the same interests that have landed us in Iraq and want to keep us there."
My impression of the thing that landed us in Iraq was that an insane man named Bush decided it would be a good idea. I could just be naive I guess...
But Obama does saber rattle toward Afghanistan and his recent line about the 79 million Iraqi surplus is certainly bankrupt. I hate to see him pander---but look what he's trying to do, get elected in the USA
Please allow me attack you twice. Well, thrice.
You write, "I hate to see him (Obama) pander---but look what he's trying to do, get elected in the USA."
- If "trying to get elected" excuses a Democrat for playing to the interests of the MIC, Wall St & AIPAC, etc, it also excuses a Republican.
You also write your theory of Iraq: " an insane man named Bush decided it would be a good idea."
- This is wildly wrong. There is a long history of the fond desire, in certain US circles, to use military force to seize control of Middle East & Caspian oil & gas resources. People like Wolfowitz & Cheney proposed seizing Iraq during GHW Bush's admin, but were quickly shushed, because it wasn't considered politically feasible at that time. But the idea has been around for a long time, more or less waiting for the first moment where it would seem politically "doable." It's not an idea having to do with GW Bush in particular, and it's not because he's 'insane.' He was in synch with a significant portion of ruling class sentiment on this.
I'm also skeptical about that story that Obama "got the vast majority of his money from a huge base of online donors." I think he gets much more corporate money than McCain (though of course, that's a different question).
1st point: I wasn't excusing, just trying to explain.
2nd: You're probably right---my "insane" was simplistic.
3rd: skeptical is good
RichM, I agree...
No sooner than Obama and Biden make utterances about bringing Bush et al to justice, they begin their predictable back peddling so they can worm out of their promises. It's all part of the con that Obama is perpetrating on the gullible. All Obama's and Biden's talk of justice adds up to a bucket of warm piss.
Let's see. You're standing in the back of your cave with the light shining in and you're scrutinizing the shadows for the truth of the future.
I'll take try instead of promise.
Joel
Dear Senator Biden,
Vincent Bugliosi is sure as hell talking about it, and his record as a prosecutor would lead one to believe he certainly should know what he is talking about.
George W. Bush is the Charles Manson of the 21st century. Let Vince have at him.
Obama needs a great Attorney General like Ralph Nader.
Biden took it all back today on Fox News:
When asked about his comments by Fox news today, Biden said he has no
evidence that criminal charges would be warranted and no intention of
pursuing action against the current president.
"What is true is the United States Congress is trying to preserve records
on questions that relate to whether or not the law has been violated by
anyone," Biden said, adding: "But, you know, there's been an awful lot of
unsavoury stuff that's gone on. And the mere fact that it occurred in a
previous administration doesn't mean [a subsequent] Justice Department,
if, in fact, there's evidence, shouldn't pursue them [? MCM] .... But I have no
evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush
criminally."
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/uselections2008.joebiden
Joel
If Obama is serious, he only has to appoint Vincent Bugliosi Attorney General. If you doubt that, read Bugliosi's book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder".
Biden took it all back today on Fox News:
When asked about his comments by Fox news today, Biden said he has no
evidence that criminal charges would be warranted and no intention of
pursuing action against the current president.
"What is true is the United States Congress is trying to preserve records
on questions that relate to whether or not the law has been violated by
anyone," Biden said, adding: "But, you know, there's been an awful lot of
unsavoury stuff that's gone on. And the mere fact that it occurred in a
previous administration doesn't mean [a subsequent] Justice Department,
if, in fact, there's evidence, shouldn't pursue them [? MCM] .... But I have no
evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush
criminally."
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/uselections2008.joebiden
Cindy,
In other words, millions of people will have read the headline: "Obama May Prosecute Bush and Company." ... But only a small percentage of them will have heard Biden's backpedling on Fox -- re. the Biden excerpt you posted.
What will happen is that any number of less-than-fully-informed people will say: "Hey, did you hear? Obama may prosecute Bush!"
I mean look at what Biden said. Joe Biden:
"What is true is the United States Congress is trying to preserve records
on questions that relate to whether or not the law has been violated by
anyone. You know, there's been an awful lot of unsavoury stuff that's gone on.
And the mere fact that it occurred in a previous administration doesn't mean [a subsequent] Justice Department, if, in fact, there's evidence, shouldn't pursue them."
Ah, good, he's for bringing lawbreakers to justice! ... But then in the next sentence, the next breath, he says:
"But I have no evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush criminally."
Nice work, "Team Obama" -- Mission Accomplished! You've once again laid down a load of all-too-predictable bullshit.
I love this. A candidate for the Senate, having important conversations with the people.
Cindy Sheehan, you are the wave of the future!
Francis Boyle, University of Illinois law professor and activist (specializing in international law, constitutional law), has also laid out serious charges against Bush, the most impeachable presidents ever.
Boyle was one of the expert witnesses in the Ehren Watada case. You can find his articles on the internet. His last book was: Protesting Power (2007)
I am actually running for the House of Reps, Hank.
I know Francis Boyle.
I like to check in here every so often. I find the comments very
thought provoking, and find this the most progressive sites, even
though CD is not where I think it should be, the posters are still,
for the most part, very cool.
I agree with you on the "morsel of hope" thing and my opponent,
Nancy Pelosi, said the same thing in a Time interview....many
Democrats are also complicit (including herself...that's me talking) in the crimes
of the Bush regime.
XO
Cindy
,,,even though CD is not where I think it should be...
Where else?
I thought someone was just using the tag Cindy Sheehan --very cool!! Hey! Iwish you all the best and a great victory!
Thanks KDelphi!
xoxo
Cindy
That's the House, Hank. But, yes, it's great.
Today the House, tomorrow the...
I think we need more nationally elected people somewhere. Like maybe 25 Members oh the House and 10 Senators responsible to a larger electorate. Even if they had no vote, just a 'bully pulpit' -- nah, give'm a vote.
"Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".
"[I]f crimes have been committed, they should be investigated..."
Duh...You know, of course, that Obama and his people are not *that* dumb. They are screwing with us again. Even full-fledged Obama supporters must admit that. "Really bad policies" covers a lot of territory and is another "useful" concept. "Let's do it right!"
Forget Ramsey Clark or Vincent Bugliosi as AG. I think the Obama administration will be chock full of former Clinton staff and we will be led to believe Clintonian corporatism and globalism are "progressive", glamourous, etc. Even the reform-lite of Carter will be off-limits and shut away in some dark room down the hall.
Exactly right!
If Obama gets elected, it's goodbye Bill Clinton, hello Bill Clinton.
I said something like that awhile back, during the DNC, when people asked why Clinton adn obama "seemed to dislike each other"--I said, "Because they are almost exactly alike! Theyre both lying charmers!". BOY, I got kicked out of a room for that one!Isnt this ridiculous, that we have al these peole running around screaming at people that dont support Obama completley? What do they think that they are achieving? Is it winning anybody over, it sure as hell isnt me!~I wonder if Obama has any clue how much progressives feel shat upon. If we could open the debates, he might get a strong ideas of it!
Remember when Gerald Ford kicked the bucket. ...
How all the hack politicians came out of the woodword to tell us what a wonderful "service" Gerald Ford had done for the country by pardoning Richard Nixon. ... How good ole Gerry saved the country the "trauma" of a Nixon trial.
What a crock of you-know-what!
Have you ever run into anyone, say, at a bar or a bowling alley, or at church or walking in the park, who in having a conversation with you about politics said: "Sweet God in heaven! I'm so glad Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon! I'd be just so, so, soooooo traumatized to see that poor man brought before the bar of justice."
Down here in Florida, there's a local radio show on each week that features former Florida Congressman Lou Frey, a Republican during the Watergate days. Last week he was discussing Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon and he said: "I agree with the pardon. But I just wish it had come after the Congressional elections. It would have spared the country so much unnecessary hardship."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That was a classic! Yeah, pardon the lyin' crook -- Congressman Lou was all for that -- but the only mistake Gerald Ford made, according to Congressman Lou, was not having waited until *after* the Congressional elections -- see, that way the Republicans wouldn't have lost as many Congressional seats as they did.
And all in the name of "sparing the American people." ... In other words: what's good for the Republican Party is good for America. (But of course!)
Yeah, Obama *might* prosecute Bush and Company. And I might have to fight off Angelina Jolie with a wet noodle.
Is this the same Barack Obama who vowed not to vote for FISA? ... And then did.
Is this the former "peace candidate" who is now willing to fight four (count 'em FOUR) wars in the Middle East -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.
Pleeeze! Barack Obama and his DPAers ("Democratic Party Apologists") should take the following to heart -- "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
As one poster in this thread put it -- politicians are scared to death of any of their ilk being prosecuted. FOR ANYTHING! After all, it might start a trend.
Justice ... what a concept!!!
As one poster in this thread put it -- politicians are scared to death of any of their ilk being prosecuted. FOR ANYTHING! After all, it might start a trend.
But of course!
No king would ever support the idea of the citizens removing their sovereign!
Snow wolf:
Man bring that stuff you have been smoking to the next party. We can Hope ? If GB/Cheney /ROVE/RICE and the rest had swung from a rope 2 years ago it would have made change. Our man from Kenya or his neo running mate will do F all I will bet money on that.
Well...as I've said before...you need to read up on what Presidents can (and do) during Wartime...
Lincoln and FDR are good models to study
The Democrats are well aware of this...and in the end will do nothing because they know one day a Democrat in office will have to do the exact same things
Bush and Cheney change it so often, how could one possibly keep up??
Sounds pretty tepid. Won't get my hopes up on this at all. We've all been just tossed a bone, a morsel.
An extra large bucket of "might" and fist full of change will barely buy a cup of coffee. I'll believe it when I see it.
It really pleases me that you all see through Politicians Bullshit...there may be hope for you yet
How many of you think this is actually going to happen?
It will happen, no matter how much the cynics attack instead of back his attempts to do so.
And you're so sure of this why?
We must prosecute even if only to stabilize our waning constitution and allow us to go forward with what we have long since established as our guiding principles; our Constitution. If we do not, then what's the point of law at all? Perhaps we need to have an amendment to the constitution to re-comit ourselves to the principles that do work for us-when applied. These folks are already in contempt. If we allow them to walk, then why should any of us care at all about the law? Judge Brandeis.,..and all that.
And where are all the lawyers when you need 'em? Lawyers need to stand up and see that this gets corrected, and quickly. After all, if they don't, then who needs 'em?
Lawyers represent clients, not ideas. They rarely get to pick the facts to be tried. When Drs were putting leaches on Geo Washington's ass to cure him of pneumonia, lawyers were writing the Constitution. We live in a democracy. The governed must act.
Ok Doctor...you are a PhD?
I am just a layman...please enlighten me as to why the Democrats (who are now in the Majority) have not moved thusfar to impeach Mr. Bush?...
Especially in light of their patron Saint William Jefferson Clinton being the only elected President ever to be impeached...I would think, a) they are looking for some payback and b) if the case is so clear cut (which I disagree strongly) they are shirking their Congressional duty?
Thank you, Sir
They haven't had the votes. Impeachments, at some stage of the proceedings, requires a super-majority which the number of repluguglicans has prevented.
Clinton was NOT impeached--he missed it by one vote!
Yes...He was Impeached...he was not removed
Dear KDelphi,
Actually, Clinton was impeached in the House.
It's a two step process: Impeachment happens in the House and is like a criminal indictment and then it goes to the Senate for the trial...which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over...if the President, or whomever is found guilty in the Senate, then that person is removed from office.
So, yes, Clinton was impeached.
Cindy
We must prosecute even if only to stabilize our waning constitution and allow us to go forward with what we have long since established as our guiding principles; our Constitution. If we do not, then what's the point of law at all? Perhaps we need to have an amendment to the constitution to re-comit ourselves to the principles that do work for us-when applied. These folks are already in contempt. If we allow them to walk, then why should any of us care at all about the law? Judge Brandeis.,..and all that.
And where are all the lawyers when you need 'em? Lawyers need to stand up and see that this gets corrected, and quickly. After all, if they don't, then who needs 'em?
For Sale: Ocean Front property in Arizona. Call Biden or Obama.
So our Senators won't perform their constitutional duty unless we vote for them. Blackmail, anyone?
BINGO!
We have a winner...give that man a kewpie doll!
by the way Obama's already backing away from it...if Bush had done anything illegal they would have impeached him already...
"You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve." -Barack Obama
But hey...they've gotten this far with empty rhetoric...why stop now?
black mail bullogna. There is nobody in America who would like more than me to see these criminals stripped of all their assets and all the warprofits of their cronies and sentenced to life in the lower 9th war under the auspices of FEMA, but, even more, I'd like to see some fundamental redirection of the government. There is no doubt but that, even if these criminals were found guilty by a jury of their peers, the wingnut lawn order jackasses would be up on the dais whining and smirking in a smug self-induced log-jam. We need to focus first on rebuilding, cleaning up W's mess after him, and on going forward. The predators will just keep going, and feeding diversions to the electorate to hide what they're doing until the dream collapses underneath them and on top of us. But we keep electing these rapists.
black mail bullogna. There is nobody in America who would like more than me to see these criminals stripped of all their assets and all the warprofits of their cronies and sentenced to life in the lower 9th war under the auspices of FEMA, but, even more, I'd like to see some fundamental redirection of the government. There is no doubt but that, even if these criminals were found guilty by a jury of their peers, the wingnut lawn order jackasses would be up on the dais whining and smirking in a smug self-induced log-jam. We need to focus first on rebuilding, cleaning up W's mess after him, and on going forward. The predators will just keep going, and feeding diversions to the electorate to hide what they're doing until the dream collapses underneath them and on top of us. But we keep electing these rapists.
Failure to respond to the criminal charges all ready on file in the US House of Representatives would be President Obama's first breach of his oath of office.
It would be political suicide for the Democratic Party since the GOP have used criminal behavior to seeze and maintain power.
MADCOW writes: "I'm glad CD puts up stories like this so all you Obama haters can get together and make your same old arguments."
MADCOW, Obama said corporate "globalization is INEVITABLE". That's what the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said. I suggest you find out what a right-wing, corporate servant he turned out to be, even going so far as lying for Bush to hand him the invasion he wanted.
Blair also lied about Rwanda (the 1994 massacre, in which one million men, women, and children were slaughtered), claiming Britain and America would not sit idly by and let such a tragedy happen again. Britain and America were far from spectators - they actively played a role in ensuring the genocide went ahead, and protected those that perpetrated it:
"Bloodshed and whitewash: Britain and the Rwanda genocide"
http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/rwanda/mc_rwanda.html
Extracts:
"General Romeo Dallaire, commander of the UN force in Rwanda...complained that 'my force was standing knee deep in mutilated bodies...looking into the eyes of dying children bleeding to death with their wounds burning in the sun and being invaded by maggots and flies'.
"The following month, with perhaps hundreds of thousands already dead, there was another UN proposal - to despatch 5,500 troops to help stop the massacres. This deployment was delayed by pressure mainly from the US ambassador, but with support from Britain. Dallaire believes that if these troops had been speedily deployed, tens of thousands more lives could have been saved. The US also ensured that this plan was watered down so that troops would have no mandate to use force to end the massacres.
"The US and Britain also argued that before these troops could be deployed, there needed to be a ceasefire, even though one side was massacring innocent civilians. The Czech republic's ambassador confronted the security council saying that wanting a ceasefire was 'like wanting Hitler to reach a ceasefire with the Jews'. He later said that British and US diplomats quietly told him that he was not to use such inflammatory language outside the security council.
"Britain and the US also refused to provide the military airlift capability for the African states who were offering troops for this force.
"All this information is in the public domain...
"The British role in the genocide was more than turning a blind eye - Whitehall went out of its way to ensure the international community did not sufficiently act, and thousands more died as a result."
-
Tony Blair, meet Obama; Obama, meet Tony Blair. I'm sure you'll both be good friends!
(I'm not saying vote McCain, I'm saying be realistic about the two-party system that Americans have nurtured, and watch grow up, with the utmost naivety).
"(I'm not saying vote McCain, I'm saying be realistic about the two-party system that Americans have nurtured, and watch grow up, with the utmost naivety)."
Though I think it's a bit unfair to equate Obama with Blair based on one statement taken out of context, I do completely agree with you on being realistic about the two party system. I just don't think we're going to bring the system down by trashing the best alternative left to us. Most 3rd partiers mean well and are driven by good ideas. Some of them think that if they withhold support and the Democrats lose, then the Democrats will be forced to listen to them and become more progressive. I think this is wishful thinking, and counterproductive. Recent history of presidential elections shows that when a progressive candidate like McGovern loses the election, it pushes the Democratic party farther to the right. They move right to pick up more centrist and swing-voters. (Clinton won as a populist, lost congress and then did his right-ward pivot.) We're not going to bring down this fascist empire by trashing the one alternative that stands a chance of pushing back.
Others are more idealist and refuse to support any party that fails to stop the corporate/militarist takeover of our country. I can respect this view, though I think most of us citizens here reap the rewards of this bloody empire, and we ALLl have innocent blood on our hands, not just our leaders.
delete
there should be a way to cancel a post
Yes...I agree...its happened to me too...I was just teasing you...I hope you weren't offended
no, but I can't say the same about some of your views...although it is sort of cool having a resident right-winger
Its kinda cool being here...thank you for that...I mean that
there
is
no
spoon
"(I'm not saying vote McCain, I'm saying be realistic about the two-party system that Americans have nurtured, and watch grow up, with the utmost naivety)."
Though I think it's a bit unfair to equate Obama with Blair based on one statement taken out of context, I do completely agree with you on being realistic about the two party system. I just don't think we're going to bring the system down by trashing the best alternative left to us. Most 3rd partiers mean well and are driven by good ideas. Some of them think that if they withhold support and the Democrats lose, then the Democrats will be forced to listen to them and become more progressive. I think this is wishful thinking, and counterproductive. Recent history of presidential elections shows that when a progressive candidate like McGovern loses the election, it pushes the Democratic party farther to the right. They move right to pick up more centrist and swing-voters. (Clinton won as a populist, lost congress and then did his right-ward pivot.) We're not going to bring down this fascist empire by trashing the one alternative that stands a chance of pushing back.
Others are more idealist and refuse to support any party that fails to stop the corporate/militarist takeover of our country. I can respect this view, though I think most of us citizens here reap the rewards of this bloody empire, and we ALLl have innocent blood on our hands, not just our leaders.
No,no,no...
It is not to force the democratic party back to the left but the realisation that both parties are married to the money provided by the corporations that control legislation, foreign and domestic policy and stifle progress. It is to build a third party not influence a party become irelevent......
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I have no idea how that repetition happened.
you can say that again...
Oh, you did
you did
you did
you did
At the risk of sounding a tad cynical: All politicians are pathological liars.
The trick is to find one who is a statesman, strives at all times for peace in the larger sense of the word, is intelligent and understanding, has an appreciation for culture outside of the country, has charisma for the masses and who uses dishonesty as little as possible or for honest reasons if you get my drift. Amongst other attributes, they should also not have a massive ego or be a sociopath/psychopath.
It's a tall order in a septic tank of politics where only the big chunks rise to the top.
This would be amazing if they did this.
I have no illusions that this is probably hyperbole. But it is better than talking about Palin's "speech." Come on! We need to hold them accountable for this! Don't let it slide off the radar!
You Nader people make me laugh- as if this vote could make a difference really. Let me ask you- if Nader would win, what are his chances of accomplishing something? Instead of voting for Nader, you should be organizing boycotts. You should tell us what corporations are supporting which candidate so we can neglect to support them if they support policies we don't like.
Change will start when Americans wake up one day and realize they truly are truly poorer than they thought. It will start when they are upset by this and begin to organize locally and think locally. It will start when the breadlines get longer.
It will also come when we start addressing our overconsumption either by choice or by reality. Neither party addressed this. Therefore they will both fail.
When Pigs Fly
j.a.h.OK so we will see.But don't..hold your breath! peace ,johnathan, aluisious,hempseed.
Moonpie,
Thanks for your support of Nader/Gonzalez '08. We are soulmates: kindred spirits on the issue of the moral and political bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.
In a recent post you wrote: "Wow, sadly another loss by the most worthless party in modern America: The Democrats. Who'd have believed this would happen three months ago."
Here's who -- see the following: http://newsblaze.com/story/20080302075722tsop.nb/topstory.html
Note the date on this article by Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's running mate. As Matt Gonzalez points out, Barack Obama has been a "known commodity" for quite some time now.
What Obama counts on is the short memory of the American public. ... The above article doesn't focus in on Slick Wille Obama's latest speech, his latest suit, or his latest "tack" -- to the left, to the right, and then back again to the left. It focuses in on *WHO OBAMA IS* -- how he votes and what he stands for, morally and politically.
Obama-rationalizers -- a.k.a. DPAers (Democratic Party Apologists) -- tell us that once Obama is president, "we can pull him to the left." ... Oh, really. Dream on! ... After Obama captured the nomination from Hillary Clinton, THAT was the perfect time to "pull Obama to the left." Instead, what did Hustler-Obama do? He spit in the face of the left and lurched to the right -- saying, in essence, to the left: "SCREW YOU, SUCKERS! YOU HAVE NOWHERE TO GO EXCEPT TO VOTE FOR ME."
In other words, he trotted out T.I.N.A. -- "There Is No Alternative."
Except there *is* an alternative. Vote Nader, or else vote McKinney, or else vote socialist. Vote your conscience.
Votes, organizing, solidarity ... these are the only things politicians listen to. They have the money and the power, but the general public has the numbers -- millions of people! -- and the only way the needs of those millions of people translate into anything meaningful politically is if the general public uses *their* wealth, i.e., *their* millions to reject T.I.N.A.
The voting public needs to use their power -- the power of sheer numbers -- to reject the brainwashing, the bullshit, the indoctrination that says "There Is No Alternative."
Because if there truly is no alternative, then pucker up and kiss your children, your grandchildren, your dad, your mom, Mother Earth, and your own sweet ass good-bye.
Just look at the picture. Obama has his arms folded while Joe is telling a whopper.
I'm glad CD puts up stories like this so all you Obama haters can get together and make your same old arguments. They're easy to ignore when they're all grouped together. And it's funny how you can guess, just by the title of the article, where you all will be...
And just because you all group together in your feeding frenzy, doesn't mean there are that many of you out there...maybe 10. Have fun guys!
This is the best Laugh I have had all day!...Who writes Biden's material?...(oh thats right...he steals it)
another mean spirited comment from the usual source, and with two candidates like McCain and Superwoman too...how shallow of you Wolfie.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
mean spirited?...geez...that was just a funny quip...did it hit a nerve?...Ok I'm sorry...sorry Joe was Plagiarizing speeches...
Do you wonder at the lack of respect you get here? Do you care to engage in reasoned debate? Stop posting like a supercillious little shit and people will respond to your obvious intelligence instead of your pomposity and arrogance.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Notice that both candidates went hard a'starboard with their VP picks.
Mr. 'Change' picked an ultimate insider (and McCain went to the extremist wing for his).
After the Democrats bow to their money masters will there be any spare 'change' for us?
Gee, perhaps they'll raise the minimum wage again so we can afford the next increase in gas prices.
Despite the usual noise from the usual suspects up above, I am a bit heartened by this. I remain wary though. If Obama does win (which is in doubt as the Democratic Party of current vintage has a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory), whom he nominates as Attorney General will speak volumes. Though Ramsey Clark is not bad, he has way too much fringe baggage. Vincent Bugliosi is an eminently better choice, and he has already written a good part of his brief in the form of his last two books. John Dean is not bad either.
This is the biggest laugh of all.
Right, just like this weasel was against FISA, The War.
And this bunch of loser/suck-ups in congress are going to do something about BushCo? Ryyyyyyyyyyyght!
Unfortunately for O/B, they now find themselves in deep doo-doo. They've lied so much and alienated everyone (but the core group of hacks & Kool-Aid Kids) they're now grasping at straws.
Wow, sadly another loss by the most worthless party in modern America: The Democrats.
Who'd have believed this would happen three months ago.
Sad.
cheer up moonpie.
To quote Donna Volatile in a recent article she wrote:
"If you want to help put a stop to the rigged election game, if you really want to make a difference and you want your voice of disapproval to be heard, then VOTE! Vote for ANYBODY but the two buffoons, who have been pre-selected for you by the global elitist machine. Send a message, loud and clear: We refuse your choices.
"Vote Nader, vote McKinney, vote Ron Paul, vote Bob Barr, write in a vote, do whatever but don't support the corrupt system. Commit to a protest vote. Vote your conscience, do not vote under the “lesser of two-evils” threat because then YOU are part of the problem, not part of the possible solution. (We've been on this trip too many times before. From “hope and help is on the way” Kerry to Obama's constant harping on “Change We Can Believe In”, you have been sold a bill of goods from first to last. For all of Obama's talk of change, his words and actions show quite clearly, he means more of the same...)
"For those die hard Obama supporters who refuse to see the hand writing on the wall. ... YOU are the problem. ... For those die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters, promising to vote for McCain because your war-monger wasn't the chosen one, seek psychiatric help immediately.
"And one more thing. ... Evil is evil, bad is bad, wrong is wrong regardless of sex, race, creed or color.
"And another thing. ... If you vote for Obama, you are neither liberal nor are you progressive, so let's get that straight. If you vote for Obama, you are a neoliberal, so get use to it.
"Stop making excuses, there are none and time is running out as an even larger war may be in the making.
"Get those blinders off!
"This is your wake up call!"
(Words in parenthesis Ms. Volatile's)
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html
OK, friends, fellow bipeds, and especially you linguistic majors out there ... let's take a close look at the above story and see what awful truths we can come up with.
First, here's the story's headline (Note: I'll capitalize the words I would like to emphasize). ... Headline:
-- "Obama MIGHT Pursue Criminal Charges Against Bush Administration."
Might.
Then there's the sub-headline. (Again, I'll capitalize the word I'd you to pay particular attention to.)
-- "Biden Says Criminal Violations WILL Be Pursued."
Will.
Then the article begins (again, caps for emphasis).
-- "Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden said yesterday that he and running mate Barack Obama COULD pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November."
Could.
Say, here's a thought! ... How about if Obama gets elected president he actually takes his oath of office seriously. ... You know, the part where a president swears to uphold the Constitution.
If he actually does that, upholds the Constitution, he has a RESPONSIBILITY to immediately direct his Attorney General to initiate criminal prosecutions against Bush and his fellow criminals.
Not a coulda, not a mighta, not a woulda. A right, a responsibility, a *DUTY* to prosecute!
I mean, why in the world should anyone, at this point, believe one damn thing Barack Obama says?!! I recall "Slick Willie" Obama running in the primaries as a peace candidate. (Remember way back when?) I also recall that no more than 48 hours after he captured the nomination from Hillary Clinton this "peace candidate" lurched to the right
... changing his position of Iraq, leaving withdrawal to the judgment of the commanders in the field
... arguing for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan
... indicating his willingness to invade Pakistan and/or Iran, with the possible use of nuclear weapons
... voting for FISA, after he vowed not to
... and sticking his nose so far up AIPAC's ass that even Joe Lieberman would have gasped.
And then, after his post-primary lurch to the right, you recall what happened? He began to lose ground in the polls. Oh no! Quick, call out the marketers! -- who cleverly advised him to move back to the left, "re-energized his base."
Or, put another way -- he jerked 'em off on the right, then he jerked 'em off on the left.
Jesus H. Yuletide, you'd have to be a blithering idiot to believe anything Barack Obama, or his Sicilian messenger boy Joe Biden, says at this point.
-- We all know Obama isn't going to go after the military-industrial complex.
-- We all know Barack Obama isn't going to go after Big Oil.
-- We all know Barack Obama isn't going to go after Big Pharma.
-- We all know Barack Obama isn't going to go after Wall Street.
-- We all know Barack Obama isn't going to go after the koo-koos on the far right, in particular, the Christian fundamentalists -- the Palin nomination being a perfect time to do just that. Quoting from the following article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/pali-s03.shtml --
"Neither Obama, nor his running mate Joseph Biden, nor any other Democratic Party representative dares to put the spotlight on the critical political fact demonstrated by the Palin nomination -- the ability of extreme right-wing and fascistic elements to dictate the policies and even the candidates of the Republican Party."
-- And we all know Barack Obama isn't going to go after the insurance companies, especially the healthcare companies. Because, along with John McCain and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is against single-payer healthcare -- albeit single-payer healthcare has been adopted by every advanced industrial country in the world.
So what the hell is all this "change" bullshit Hustler-Obama is talking about? He isn't going to change a damn thing -- certainly not anything that would put the general public's interests above the interests of the economic elite.
Perhaps some crumbs will trickle down from the tables of the rich but, then again, "CHANGE" is a lot better marketing slogan than "LET THEM EAT CRUMBS."
Do you know how many *zillions* of votes Barack Obama would get if he stood outside the White House tomorrow afternoon at noon and announced to the American public:
"If I'm elected, I'm gonna bring the murdering son of a bitch who lives in that House to justice on Day One of my presidency!
"And then, on the same day, January 20, 2009, I'm gonna stop the War in Iraq, apologize to the Iraqi people -- apologize on behalf of every single American -- and then take the $15 billion per month that's being spent on the War and spend it instead on health, education and welfare. Half on Americans and half on Iraqis.
Know why Obama doesn't do that? Of course you know why he doesn't do that! Because, he's been bought, paid for, sponsored and marketed by Corporate America. And if he were to dare speak on behalf of the democratic interests of the general public as opposed to the oligarchic interests of the economic elite, he might, he ... MIGHT ... upset his corporate paymasters.
And, hey, Slick Obama is way to smart to do that, isn't he?
(Continued)
On re-reading your comment I must admit it makes a lot of sense... Sorry about the terse reply below.
Obama MIGHT, McCain WONT!
How would Obama pursue impeachment after Bush leaves office? The House needs to be doing it right now!
The idea is prosecute for crimes after he leaves (if he ever does)---not impeachment. It's actually a better plan than impeachment which needs 3/4 of all senators to vote him out. That will never happen with all those lock-step fascist in there. But after he's gone, with the full force of a true Justice Dept... If only.
Riki Griswold
Hell with impeachment!
Indict, convict, sentence and send them off to Pelican Bay.
Hurry before they bring back Habeas Corpus, Miranda, Geneva et al.
This should have been done much sooner.
We still have habeas, we must still be mirandized and the MURDERER just releases a PDD, like from 20 September 2007 rewriting CAT3 of Geneva, coulda woulda shoulda, damn well do it and stop whineing, like pissant toddlers and the news about an attack on Iran might be just the trick, False Flags being such as they are.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66838§ionid=3510203
BillofRights
So you think Bush is leaving office, do you?
I don't make the assumption that he is leaving, as many people do. I've seen the level they have stooped to since 2000---where they are literally above the law and there's Directive 51 they've put in place---and I'll believe it when I see it that they are leaving. I don't think these people have any intention of going anywhere. And there's no one to force them to leave.
Why would they put something in place such as Directive 51 with no intention of using it?
Bush will leave if the vote tally in November is close enough that McCain can be presented as the "winner." I think Bush wants out, and Darth is overdue for a complete refurb, but the owners probably won't retire them until the succession of the right party is assured.
If it turns out that it's not reasonably possible that McCain 'won' then all bets are off....
In a perfect world, it would matter what we the people think. In this one....
Neither Obama or McCain will in reality.
Before the 2006 "election," did you also say that Pelosi wasn't serious when she said "impeachment is off the table?"
Did you also expect the Dems to do a 180 overnight and stop enabling Bush/Cheney just became they became the majority following the 2006 "election?"
Did you also rattle off the long list of what the Dems were supposedly going to do after becoming the majority following the 2006 "election?"
Well, as we see, NONE of that BS happened but I remember the Dem koolaid drinkers saying all of these wishful-thinking delusional things before the 2006 "election" about what their Dems were going to do.
NONE of it happened.
And now the same people are projecting all of these things that they WISH and HOPE (which has as much effect as prayer) would be the case onto their pro-war, pro-Bush, anti-US Constitution, corporatist lord and saviour Obama.
I might be misremembering, but I thought Pelosi's "off the table" comment came after the election.
If she had said it before the election, I don't think I would have voted as I did, or done the phone canvassing I did, or had the hope I did.
But in any case, I have learned better. Don't listen to what they say. Look at what they've done.
It's a sad thing to be "hoping" for catastrophe and suffering (or rather increased suffering), which I now realize is our only portal out of same old/same old.
This is a joke, RIGHT?? Any true indepth investigation of the Bush criminal enterprise would find a large number of NeoCons involved in every scandal and criminal act. The COWARDS in the Democrat Party will NOT dare expose these criminals. Just ask
AIPAC and AEI. Abramoff and Libby were just easy examples that were convicted to keep the heat off, and the scam going. After all, the USA has needlessly caused the deaths of over 4100 American military, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraquis, and has spent what will be about $2 TRILLION of BORROWED money to knock off an enemy of Israel. Democrats are UP TO THEIR EYEBALLS in all of this.
My Congressman told me personally in an email that the Democrats don't impeach because they are implicated in the crimes! He said, "We'd have to impeach most of Congress."
They HAVE committed documented crimes. They are NOT above the law! Pelosi is a traitor to "We the People" and the Nation! Time for Real "change". Get off the stick and initiate investigations!
Obviously a lot depends on who the US Attorney General would be in the Obama-Biden administration.
Ramsey Clark perhaps? :-)
I guess John Edwards is off the A list.
You know I thought breaking the scandal about John Edwards affair was to guarantee that he wouldn't be VEEP but I also think that it was exactly to keep him out of the AG office. He's gotten a little soft but he used to have teeth and he used to know how to litigate.
"if" "might" "Democrats' strongest vow"
The Kool-aid stand in open for business! Step right up, folks! It's not another cynical pandering for gullible votes, it's a principled stand for law and truth!
Honest! Maybe!
And if you don't like it, you get called 'Obama hater' and get accused of 'Obama bashing' - not to mention the snarky 'McCain/Nader'.
Insults and threats from the Democrats. If it wasn't for their excuses (those mean Republicans keep yelling at us until we cry!) you couldn't tell the two parties apart.
...and I might learn to breath through my ears.....
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
This is an interesting new perspective on whether Obama-Biden are making these statements to gain support of more liberals or progressives and will drop the inquiry when they take power, or it is a legitimate attempt to deal with the crimes of the Bush administration.
________________________________________
It may be nominally interesting, sevenpointman, but with all due respect it sure ain't "new".
I just happened to hear some teevee analysis last night-- I don't remember from who, I was just flipping through the channels-- by some pro-Democrat who was explaining, in essence, that the Democratic Party truly values and works toward bipartisanship and "unity". For all I know, it may have been in response to this very question.
Anyway, he pointed out that Carter didn't pursue unresolved Watergate issues, and Clinton didn't pursue unresolved Iran-Contra issues (or S&L scandal issues, which the guy didn't mention) in the interests of "healing" the nation.
So the answer is the former option. IMO, Obama is just dying to be the Second Coming of Lincoln, and give a History-Making sonorous speech declaring that we must let bygones be bygones, etc.
And Democrats just love to dangle these little catnip mouses in front of a desperate and justice-starved constituency during the home stretch of a presidential campaign. Once they get in, they're invariably crowded by circumstances-- next thing you know, the discussion turns into "will they take on these controversial and divisive issues in their SECOND TERM?"
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... won't get fooled again!
lip service... nothing more, nothing less.
I fear as much.
It's infinitely better said by Nader. Upon leaving office, Bush & Cheney will be FUGTIVES FROM JUSTICE.
Nader/Gonzalez '08
Bush cannot pardon himself, everybody else but not himself. If He does blanket pardon before he leaves office, than I will continually request that the next President (plus my governor)to blanket pardon all but the worse criminals out of our criminal system. That would save a hell of alot of tax money. But; don't hold your breath because "to pursue would be detremental for the nation"
Some very low level flunkies 'might' go to prison for a few months until some Blue Dog Democrat Justice Department official paroles them. No one who actually made the most basic and fundamental criminal decisions in the regime of George Wanker Bush will even be investigated by an Obama Justice Department. If McCain wins, fuggitaboutit. The reason Nixon never went to prison after Watergate was because those people who actually are members of the Power Elite (many of them Democrats) do not want to see a former president actually spend time in prison. The very idea alone is horrifying to them. Such an idea is "off the table" and always will be, even for a demonstrable traitor like Bush.
This is an interesting new perspective on whether Obama-Biden are making these statements
to gain support of more liberals or progressives and will drop the inquiry when they take power, or it is a legitimate
attempt to deal with the crimes of the Bush administration.
Those on the left must hold Obama's feet to the fire on this and other issues to make the second mentioned option a reality.
Only time and the power of activist pressure will tell.
"Those on the left must hold Obama's feet to the fire..."
LOL.
Oh yes, that's worked splendidly since 2000, hasn't it?
Those on the "left" have supposedly been "holding their (the Dems) feet to the fire" (on impeachment, war criminality, USAPATRIOT ACT, torture, spying on and on and on) with phone calls, e-mails, letters, faxes, protests, sit-in and you see the state of things, don't you?
Give me just ONE example of this pabulum of "holding their feet to the fire" and when it has EVER worked?
It's grandiose wishful-thinking and false hope. And that's all it is.
These useless politicians don't give a damn what any of us think therefore there is no "holding their feet to the fire."
Because they have essentially said to us: Screw you. We don't care what you think. We don't take our orders from you. We take our orders from the Bush regime, the war industry and the corporations. Period.
The corporations and the war industry will "hold Obama's feet to the fire" most successfully. After your lord and saviour Obama gets your vote, he will forget about you.
I hear this "holding their feet to the fire" pabulum about as often as I hear "the #1 reason to vote for Obama is the Supreme Court."
Who do you think gave us Alito and Roberts? THE DEMS.
So people can put that Supreme Court argument in the trash where it belongs. To begin with Obama would only nominate and it's up to the Bush-enabling Senate to confirm or deny. And does anyone truly, honestly think that Obama or McCain would nominate a so-called "Liberal?" Ha! Dream on. And that's what the Obama people do. They dream these delusional thoughts of what their lord and saviour is going to do for them.
Please explain the leverage you are going to use to apply pressure?
Are you just talking about letters and calls and petitions? Because that's what people have been trying to use to 'pressure' the Dem leadership of Congress into impeachment. And we've seen how that is ignored and basically useless.
The leverage you have is today. Obama needs your vote. Right now, you've got something Obama wants. If you just blindly give Obama your vote without nailing down a deal on this now, you've given away all your leverage.
And even then, we know from the primaries and the discussion on issues like NAFTA that Obama has no problem lying to voters, then taking back what he says later calling it 'overheated rhetoric' from the campaign. So, even if you do use whatever leverage you have today, its a very likely possibility that Obama would just lie to you.
But, after the election, when you've already given Obama the one thing he wants from you, you will have no leverage and no ability to apply any pressure.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Does anyone seriously doubt that W will spend his last week in office issuing presidential pardons to half of the republicans in the US, including himself, Cheney, and Rumsfeld?
q
Yeah, I seriously doubt it, because none of them have been charged with anything, so they won't even need pardons.
The Democrats have allowed them to get away with everything from mass murder & war crimes to blatant violations of the Constitution to lining crony's pockets. Not a single charge has been filed against any of the big fish. The crimes & misdeeds of Republicans haven't even been a campaign issue! And now the D's are saying that they "might" move to do something about this -- but only AFTER the campaign!
Exactly how would the Democrats have stopped them? Even if the Dems had a majority in both houses of Congress - which they don't - Bush and Cheney would simply ignore any legislation that may have been passed to rein in the administration's recklessness.
So please explain exactly how the Dems could have stopped Bush and Cheney's crimes.
q
You don't need a majority in both houses to block proposed legislation. At the level of pure procedure, you can block any proposed bill with either a simple majority in the House, OR a mere 41 votes in the Senate (ie, enough to sustain a filibuster against cloture).
Bills don't get sent to the president for signature until they've passed both houses. So a determined contingent in either house is enough to block any given piece of legislation from going to Bush. So any of the occupation refundings, or anything else, could have been blocked in this way. The bills would never even have gotten far enough to be vetoed, so the problem of overriding a veto would not have arisen.
They could also have made far more use of hearings & subpoena power. They did almost nothing in this respect.
But beyond procedure, they could have taken their case to the public, if they were seriously opposed to the crimes in question. They could have tried to educate the public by explaining exactly what was wrong with, say, the Iraq War, or the torture, or the PATRIOT Act, the signing statements, or the warrantless spying, etc etc -- as opposed to quietly collaborating with Republicans on all these things.
The ability to block legislation is useless when previous Congresses have already given Bush what he wants and is now using to carry out his destructive policies.
As for taking their case to the public, the corporate media - backing Bush all the way - has diminished the Dems capacity to do so.
q
duplicate, sorry
Correct. It's called 'log jam'. We need a supermajority in Congress to achieve any meaningful change.
No, that's not what I said. What I said shows that the Democrats have had enough votes ever since 2000 to stop all the crimes, because even at their weakest point, they still could have successfully filibustered in the Senate. And of course, since taking back the House in '06, they could have blocked anything they wanted to there, as well. Criminal proposals could have been blocked either way.
The reason the Democrats didn't stop the crimes is because they don't really oppose the crimes. It wasn't because of the number of seats they held.
Just a note
Have you noticed how the minority republicans have blocked legislation, manipulated votes and controlled the direction of both Houses? Democrats could have filubustered and taken many parliamentary measures to act lie an opposition party and failed to do so. Why would you think they will alienate the corporate cash cow with greater numbers?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
A president cannot pardon himself -- assuming laws still mean something------------------lizard
The Constitutional restriction on the President's power to pardon himself is limited to cases of impeachment. He can pardon himself in other circumstances.
q
Well, isn't it obvious by now that the law means nothing to the bush administration? They'll just have one of their slimy lawyers draft a memo saying that, as a last act, the president may issue preemptive pardons for himself and Cheney.
Far too little, much too late.
Note the conditions: they're claiming only that they "may" do this, & only IF they're elected. That sounds like they're saying that the whole gigantic issue of the Bush admin's criminality -- which SHOULD HAVE BEEN the central element of the Democrats' campaign all along (not to mention the last 8 years) -- won't even be part of the discussion leading up to the election. And if it's not discussed leading up to the election, it won't help them in the election, & it won't harm the Republicans.
These guys seem to want to lose.
Well, who the heck knows what the Obama administration will do. Because on this issue, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. There have also been leading figures from his campaign saying 'there is no political will' to do this, or that they 'don't want to criminalize public service' and that they don't want even the impression that they were going after the Bush criminals.
As always with Democrats, its better not to even listen to words. We know from NAFTA and other issues in the primary that Obama will lie and say whatever he thinks will get him a vote today.
So, what we have to look at instead is ACTIONS. What is the track record of the Democratic majority in Congress on impeaching and investigating and charging the criminals in this administration. After all, the Dems have had control of congressional committees with the power to force witnesses to testify, obtain documents and do some serious investigations.
Take a close look at what this Congress has done (which is really to actively protect the Bush criminals from prosecution and impeachment), and that's your best guide to what the Democrats will do next year.
If you really want a strong investigation, elect Nader President and elect a strong Green Party contingent to Congress.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Please, some scepticism is fine, but please don't spurn a rare morsel of good news when it comes along.
My Congressman told me personally in an email that the Democrats won't impeach because they are implicated in the crimes! He said, "We'd have to impeach most of Congress."
You must be young to think this is a "morsel of good news." I'm over 60, I have been watching this charade of a "democracy" for too long to take seriously anything any of them say. They lie. Even the charming ones. Especially the charming ones! And the Democrats rival the Repubs. Johnson lied his way into one of the biggest, ugliest wars. The Viet Nam war was the Democrat's war fulfilling the Democrat's ugly agenda. And the current Democrats are further to the right than they were then. Richard Nixon (our GW Bush) is considered to the left of today's Democrats. They know how to work people.
It's just lucky for the empire that: You're always able to fool most of the people, most of the time, some of the people all of the time. Johnson said the Viet Cong had attacked at the gulf of Tonkin. Proven to be a lie. Everyone knows now. Millions killed for empire. Americans were fooled for a long, long time. And now we have the same thing. Both parties. Killing and maiming for empire and a hot career advancement.
Sorry to disrupt the happy-talk.
What good news is this exactly? A very vague and qualified statement that Obama MIGHT do something? Especially when it directly contradicts what others in the Obama campaign have been saying for the last month. When we've seen this before with the Obama campaign where they will happily talk out of both sides of their mouths to different audiences. And next we'll see Obama-writers talking about how there's 'confusion' in the campaign, right before just assuming that the part that's being directed towards them as audience is what will happen and thus ignoring the messages that say something else will happen.
The one thing you can rely on is ACTIONS. Forget the words, what have the Dems done in the last two years when they've had the power to do this? That's your best indicator as to what's going to happen after Obama is elected.
Sorry, I'm already tired of the Obama campaign lying to voters. This results in little to no trust in what they say.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"The one thing you can rely on is ACTIONS. Forget the words, what have the Dems done in the last two years when they've had the power to do this?"
Right! One direct action I see coming from the Democrats:
Nancy Pelosi TAKING THE CONSTITUTION "off the table".
GO Cindy!!!
So, would prefer that they say categorically that they won't prosecute?
I have no illusions about Obama; I doubt anything will come of this either, but you all are playing some kind of puerile game of "my cynicism is bigger than yours".
"impeachment is off the table" I seem to have heard that somewhere....I think this a ploy to woo Nader and McKinney voters and nothing more or less....While I would love to think of Cheney spending his last days in a federal prison, it simply aint in the cards...
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Although this will be just another forum for Barack Bashing On Common Dreams, it is good for the Common Person that Bush and Criminal Charges are being publicly linked by Obama & Biden.
The Obama haters on CD say the two parties are the same; I don't hear McCain calling Bush out. The are in bed together. BIG difference. For the Common Person. For the future.
Obama.
Or vote McCain/Nader if that's your truth.
I don't hate Obama - I hope he's reading this.
If politicians keep saying whatever they think will get them elected, and people keep voting for things they dont want - then all we have is lies all around.
If people let the politicians know we see through their lies - who's to say what can happen? Truth?
As long as the debates are closed to anyone who opposes the corporate plutocracy, the people might as well say what they think here.
That's not hatred - it's free speech.
It's stupid & dishonest to use phrases like "the Obama haters" or "Obama bashing." Are you really trying to pretend that irrational "hatred" is the only conceivable reason why someone might be critical of Obama, a typical Dem Party sellout?
It's not at all the case, as Dem apologists so often claim, that Obama is merely "not perfect." He's a hell of lot worse than "not perfect." He stinks, actually. With the positions he's taken, he could easily be running as a Republican. That's why rightwingers like David Brooks & many Wall Streeters like him so much.
He has scarcely articulated a whit of serious criticism of the last 8 years of Republican rule. He supports the War on Terror, sold out on FISA, & panders to virtually all the main rightwing constituencies. If it's justified to be horrified by the rightwing, it's plenty justified to criticize & "bash" Obama, because he's more similar to them, than different.
Well said, RichM.
Right-on. He's also voted FOR all war appropriations which makes him pro-war, despite his posturing to the contrary to fool those gullible ones who will allow themselves to be fooled by his "hope and change" BS. He's also talked about attacking Iran and Pakistan and sending MORE troops to Afghanistan. Ugh.
And on a cosmetic level, when I see him standing up there in front of a wall of flags with his little flag lapel pin on---just like Bush/Cheney et al---that doesn't look like "change" to me. That looks like the status quo, which is what one will get will Obama/Biden.
----------> Nader/Gonzalez 2008, if there is an "election."
So I am Stupid and Dishonest?
Insult me personally some more RichM.
Obama is polling at over 50% now. Around the world he's strongly preferred over McSame. Conclusion: You Obama Haters do not own the truth. Your sanctimonious platitudes repeated ad infinitum represent a minority of thought-and thinking processes too.
Insult me some more RichM-Then Go vote for Nader or McCain. Big deal, those horses are dead.
I doubt you are stupid, and Ive seen no evidence of dishonesty. But the polls change constantly, almost as much as has Obama's opinions and intentions. One might surmise that, after eight years of the worst president ever, even a dead democrat would slaughter any living republican in a race for the office. But instead we see Obama actually behind in Florida, to name only one such polling datum and McCain has yet to receive the "kick" he will get from the convention speech tonight.
I remember that McCain was an ardent opponent of Bush once upon a time, as Bushs' absence from the convention and his relegation to a short taped speech out of prime time indicates. Remember the abysmal lies of the South Carolina primary way back when? Just showing that it is conceivable that McCain has actually opposed Bush more than has Obama.
Calling those who will not vote for Senator Obama "haters", and I readily note that some use sophomoric and ill thought out rants, brands you as well as them. I believe that this is a momentous time in our nations history, a black man actually might become President, and about time too. However, I believe this is the wrong man at the wrong time , so am I a hater too?
I have voted for Ralph Nader twice now and will do so again in the fall. Not because I hate Obama but because Nader speaks to me of a shared vision for this nation, and has for eight solid years. It is less important to me that Nader cannot win this race frankly because either candidate, democrat or republican, will take this nation down the same road, for the most part, as we have seen since Reagan. The democrats have proven to be cowardly and complicit far too many times, and when they were most needed to be in opposition as well.
You may think me unreasonable, you may call me an idealist, but if I do not stand up for what I believe then I am not a good citizen.
"The reasonable man adapts to his surroundings, the unreasonable man attempts to change his surroundings to suit himself; and all progress depends upon the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee: Thoughtful. Thank you. One question if I may?
What is the benefit of seeing McCain in office rather than Obama? Many on CD openly advocate for this now. Why not work for change, start a revolution or whatever, under the Democrats? Why are the Republicans preferrable?
Thanks again for a reasoned post.
I prefer reasoned discourse. Thanks for it.
As to your premise above; it is the wrong question, in my opinion. However a true revolutionary might answer with the cant that things may just have to reach a tipping point before the American people awaken from their credit induced coma. If you believe that a centrist democrat like Obama is a better choice than a moderate republican as is McCain I think you operate more on the myth of the democratic party than on its reality.
Those here who profess disgust with both the party and its candidate may sink to hyperbole and sophomoric responses in their frustrations but they nevertheless understand that something is terribly wrong with the system and its processes. Perhaps they witness the Clinton administration with its NAFTA's and its tossing thousands off the welfare rolls to balance a budget on the backs of the poorest among us and fail to see their vision of the democratic party in that. Perhaps they
take the measure of the actions, or more precisely the lack thereof of that "opposition" party during the six years of a GOP majority in both branches and understand that we all were let down by their compliccity and cowardice when we needed them most.Maybe they note the way Senator Obama, in his brief and meteoric rise, fails to vote on key issues, or votes "present" and wonder at his position and his spine.
In truth I look at my vote a bit differently than do others. Many cannot see spending that vote on a candidate who cannot win, which, I really believe, is a short sighted vision of the power of that vote. I have always voted for that candidate who best expressed my own vision for the path of this nation, and I always will. I realise that the electorate has been made almost irelevent by the power of corporate monies polluting our process and actually buying our elected representatives. When we need two plus years and half a billion dollars to decide a presidential election while other nations spend pennies and take a few weeks to decide the same question something is very, very wrong. When democrats campaign on ending a war, on reducing corporate welfare and immediately renege on both promises after winning a majority a thinking voter should take pause.
In a culture seeking instant gratification building a third party is difficult, but it is very ,very necesary, and it starts with you and me.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Yes, the use of phrases like "Obama haters" to describe critics of Obama -- who after all is a militarist, corporatist, nationalist, & a sellout of almost all progressive principles -- is stupid & dishonest.
The fact that Obama is polling over 50% means very little. Don't forget, lots of gutless Democrats have blown early leads in the polls, and there was a considerable stretch where even GW Bush polled pretty well. The rest of the world may be currently under the impression that it prefers Obama, but that's only because they wrongly imagine that he's significantly different from Bush, whom they've rightly come to loathe. (The "rest of the world" also preferred Kerry in 2004.) But the sad truth is that Obama is not very different from Bush. He's Bush-Lite, with a better grasp of the English language, & a somewhat fairer tax proposal.
poo-poo to you. bush-lite indeed.
Calling Obama's critics "Obama haters" is no more disingenuous than your calling his supporters "Democrat apologists."
q
"Obama is polling at over 50% now."
I don't doubt that. Most people are sheep...even around the world.
In this country most people can't possibly think outside of the D and R rut. It's in their programming. And the D and R rut is, in part, how we got to where we are today.
The Definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...like voting for Dems one "election" cycle after the other and expecting positive change.
If anyone is DEAD it's the Dead Democratic Party. They became part of the Repug Party back in 2000, or have you not figured that out yet? They have helped give Bush/Cheney/Rove pretty much everything they have asked for since 2000. The Repugs and Dems are one party. They just hide behind different labels. How much more does one need to see to grasp that? It's called Denial.
I see someone is calling RichM "sanctimonious" and referring to his "sanctimonious platitudes." That's so typical.
Usually it's words like "self-righteous" that people drag out to attempt to slam those who tell the truth about Walk On Water Obama. Those who see Obama as their lord and saviour or "The Second Coming," can't bear to hear the truth about Mr Hope/Change.
Maybe RichM won't, but I will: Yeah, you're Stupid and Dishonest.
I was a supporter of this little weasel until he finally showed his true colors.
He's nothing but another shill for the republicans, much like Old Joe Lieberman. Same story. More war against the world and Americans at home.
Useless.
Keep "thinking" translucent, keep thinking. Hopefully, one of these days, you "thinkers" will come out of your caves and join the rest of the real progressives who really stand for humanity and the ending of the murder and war against it.
Its YOU guys who are the barbarians.
Vote for Obama and fire another bullet into the head of another Iraqi man, woman or child, in your name, translucent.
They MIGHT fly to the Moon on gossamer wings too. Don't hold your breath.
-- Gee, I wonder if Bush and Company *might* be in violation of the Constitution.
-- I wonder if they *might* be war criminals.
-- I wonder if they *might* have lied about weapons of mass destruction.
-- I wonder if they *might* have needlessly and murderously killed over a million Iraqis. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
-- And I wonder if Obama and Biden *might* have voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $500 billion.
-- And I wonder if I was dreaming when I heard Obama say that, if necessary, he's in favor of invading not only Iran but Pakistan as well -- with the use of nuclear weapons not "off the table."
-- And I wonder how "Team Obama" feels about George Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates? ... In a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article quotes Richard Danzig, Obama's top military adviser, as saying:
"My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
The "Times of London" article goes on to say:
"Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents. ...
"Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be 'responsible' in handling Iraq -- rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out -- to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4232070.ece
-- And I wonder if it was a *different* Barack Obama who voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees, executive as well as judicial.
-- And I wonder if, in 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Liberman's primary fight against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont.
-- And I wonder if it was a different Barack Obama who voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.
-- And a different Barack Obama who voted for the F.I.S.A. bill --after vowing not to.
-- And a different Barack Obama who, like John McCain, wants to increase the Pentagon budget.
*Might* all of the above be criminal offenses as well?
Dittos.
Obama MIGHT pursue criminal charges!? Either he thinks that there is a lack of evidence against the greatest cabal of criminals in the 21st century or else he is worried about the ensuing negative fallout from corporate America. I side with the latter. It is difficult to pander to the under-represented 'justice for all' electorate when you rely on corporate America to finance your campaign. Nevertheless it is obvious from Obama and Biden's mere mentioning of the possibility of prosecuting the current pack of thieves, that they feel they can no longer ignore the demands of the majority to try this administration for a long list of serious crimes.
I'll believe it when I see it. Must admit I still like the idea of having bush's state funeral behind bars. SHame that statements like that will make it more likely that bush will nuke Iran and declare himself dictator/decider in chief for life.
I think so, too.
Obama "Might" Pursue Criminal Charges Against Bush Regime
And the pope "might" become a protestant.