My thoughts on pursuing Bush war crimes/constitution crimes charges

[Thickasabrick]

I personally do not think Obama's new administration will focus on rigorously pursuing all the crimes that have happened on Bush's watch. Maybe if the economy wasn't in the crapper and we were not waging two wars (3 if you count Pakistan), he might see that as a bigger priority but I don't think it will reach the radar screen.

The truth is, that ship has pretty much sailed. If the Democrats were going to go after Bush and his cohorts, that should have happened in 2006. We should have impeached the bastard then, but Pelosi and gang said no. When that happened, there was major gnashing of teeth going on within DU but pretty much nothing happened outside of the leftish leaning blogosphere.

I don't know if there are any polls out there about this but I think if there was one, pursuing Bush and gang would be way down on the priority list. Obama has already said that the deficit is taking a back seat right now until the economy gets hopping again. We can only handle so many fires right now and I will be really surprised if anything other than scathing editorials come of Bush's crimes.

Would I like to see the whole gang frog-marched off in orange....absofuckinglutely...but I do not see how he could allow this to become a priority for his administration while still gaining consensus for his health care and economic agendas among republicans because whether we like it or not, we need some republicans to join with us to get this stuff passed.

[frogcycle]

1. sadly, I think you're right

it is distressing to think of them getting off scot free, but I can deal with that. It is far more distressing from an historical perspective. Nixon's "if the President does it it's not illegal" claim becomes fact.

Maybe if he's not going to prosecute, he should pardon them. That would at least put it on the record that they did things that MIGHT have been prosecutable, but for the pardons. We can all holler about it, like was done re Nixon, and history can say they were a bunch of criminals that were let go, rather than that there were no actionable crimes.


Nahhh... I'd rather they had the sword of Damocles over their heads forever. You suppose this is why numbnuts is being do accommodating to Obama? Nahhh... he's still raping the environment and stuff while pretending to be gracious.

Hey, there's a plan! Recall that Al Capone was imprisoned not for all his murders criminal enterprises, but for tax evasion. Maybe key bushco characters can be prosecuted for peripheral stuff that won't get up all the angst, and one at a time sent away for a year or two. You suppose any of them have outstanding parking tickets?

[Thickasabrick]

4. That's an excellent idea. Cheney must have gobs of stuff in his

tax returns that need to be scrutinized....heavily.

[Ezlivin]

2. You don't go after criminals when you were complicit in their crimes

The only reason that the Congress isn't investigating these crimes is that they know where it would lead. And it would lead straight back to them.

This is political expediency, nothing more.

[Mari333]

3. yes, the spineless dems have their panties in a twist

when it comes to impeachment.
if the obama admin and/or dems dont pursue the bush admin for high crimes and misdemeanors, it will set a horrific precedent . horrific. basically, it will state that any future admin can get away with the same damned thing.
there should be consequences. there should be action.