Do you think Obama should have investigated the Bush Administration for war crimes?

[SummerSnow]

I say hell yes, and I bet he regrets not doing so.

[riqster]

1. FUCKING Hell yes.

And if he doesn't regret it, he damned well ought to.

[COLGATE4]

8. +1 (X 1000)!

[n2doc]

156. agree 100% n/t

[Mike Nelson]

2. Yes.

If it were reversed, Republicans would still be investigating... in fact, they would have impeached.

[Louisiana1976]

30. I agree. Look at how the Repukes have been pissing and moaning about four dead in Benghhazi

when many, many more died in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush's watch.

[DeeDeeNY]

50. Not to mention the 3,000+ who died on American soil

[Turbineguy]

3. Considering that

the repubs would have made sure he got off and the whole thing would have been over, no. Now, this is hanging over him and if the American electorate decides that their self-destruction is not a desirable end, the investigation and possible trial can move ahead.

You have to pick the fight you can win and you have to do as much good as you can. If Obama had gone after this, nothing else would have been accomplished.

[gratuitous]

29. As opposed to all that has been accomplished the last six years

Sometimes it's not the fight or the political points; sometimes it's doing the right thing, regardless of the political consequences. I am disappointed in the Obama administration's lack of leadership on this. No investigation, no development of evidence, and the miscreants get off scot-free for their crimes against humanity. History should not be kind to us. We don't deserve it.

[GoneFishin]

78. Yep. Political hedging sucks. Our politicians are paralyzed by political calculations, instead of

just doing the right thing because it is the right thing.

Living to fight another day sounds like a sane strategy, provided that you do actually ever fight.

But playing nice for eight years is just a waste of 8 years.

[ChazInAz]

42. Let's follow Bugliosi's advice.

Try the bastards for murder in a criminal court.

[red dog 1]

47. I can't stand Bugliosi, but if he said "try the bastards for murder in a criminal court"

I would have to agree with him.

[riversedge]

55. At the time, I initally thought yes--Then no as the health

care legislation got underway. I do not think we would have gotten anything passed (I am and always have been an advocate of Medicare for all-or Universal health care.


Now with the Benghazi issue rearing its ugly head again, maybe the Dems should start their own hearings on the reasons we got into the war with Iraq and the Republican lies told.

[NV Whino]

4. No

I think he should have used the republican tactic of... ready, fire, aim.

[L0oniX]

143. If Bush got caught smoking weed we would already have a conviction.

[NV Whino]

157. But, he didn't inhale!

Oh, wait....

[librechik]

204. nah they wd have discovered it was legal in that case. n/t

[CherokeeDem]

5. YES

These bastards should have been held accountable....

[whatchamacallit]

6. That was when he lost me

The fix was in.

[tech3149]

11. The fix has been in for decades

I never expected he would be the "Great Savior" that some expected. I read an article during the primaries that quoted from his books that showed he was a true believer in free market economics. When he appointed his staff, especially with regard to economic policy, I knew we were fucked.

I am a firm believer in the concept of the deep state/deep government concept. There are thousands of people in and around Washington that are considered "serious thinkers" that influence policy so it doesn't matter who gets elected from whichever party.

Beyond that, the financial royalists decide even before the primary which candidates we have to choose from. There are days that I think about just electing Republicans, since they are more historically in their pocket, to just bring the whole thing down. The problem with that is I know how much pain will be inflicted on those that least deserve it while those that have gained the most will just ride it out.

Bottom line is, WE"RE FUCKED unless we get informed and share that with everyone we meet to fight against the astounding power of those who want to have it all.

I've got no problem being considered the the old crazy guy that puts politics into everything., I've got nothing better that I could do.

[dreamnightwind]

25. You're just not a serious thinker!

+1,000,000 for your post, right there with you. Never let them define acceptable debate, each of us gets to decide what is important and what reality we strive to create.

Deep State is something everybody needs to understand. They're not going to hear about it on the TV, unless it's about some other country, but even then it is rarely framed that way. Clearly it is the situation in the USA.

Is it possible to oppose the deep state and remain a Democrat? I think so, I think it's the obligation of any good Democrat, we have to take our party back from those forces. I don't see much support for that here on DU, mostly it's about "go team!", which only strengthens the hold the monied elites have over our party.

Re your statement about electing Republicans to bring it down, that would bring things to a head, but the Democratic Party supporting and legitimizing deep state policies is what cements the situation in place. My wish is that we could force Democrats in the pocket of the machine to run as Republicans. It's not a stretch at all for someone like Hillary Clinton to run as a Republican. She would have an excellent chance of wining the primary, because her competition is mostly idiots and another Bush. And it would allow the Democratic Party to go back to representing the regular American instead of the corporate beasts-of-no-nation.

Anyway I appreciated your post, keep on keepin' on.

[tularetom]

7. Do I think so???

Hell, I'm absolutely positive he should have done it.

And I don't know if he regrets not doing it, but he might when the same assholes that cheered on the Bush/Cheney war crimes try to get him (Obama) thrown out of office for something that's a joke by comparison.

[Louisiana1976]

31. +1 million

[pangaia]

36. I seripusly doubt it ever occured to him to go after those two.

[Politicalboi]

9. Nancy Pelosi should have started it

When Bush was still in office.

[red dog 1]

58. + 1

[homegirl]

152. Yes!

A missed opportunity. But we Democrats are known for letting the best opportunities slip past us. Sad. Bush & Co, should have been tried in The Hague. Probably too late now.

[GeorgeGist]

10. I think he obstructed justice when he told Holder not to.

[truedelphi]

14. Me too.

But he knew that the PTB wanted him to avoid doing it, and he sure doesn't like to disturb them.

[red dog 1]

63. Me three.

Obstruction of Justice is exactly what it was, IMO.

[FiveGoodMen]

12. I think it was an absolute duty on his part.

And I don't think he regrets not doing it at all.

Any more that Ford regrets pardoning Nixon.

[Demeter]

132. Towards the end of his life, Ford confessed that he thought he had made a mistake pardoning Dick

But he was abruptly elevated to the White House and played like a fiddle by the fiddlers there.

I tried to find a citation of this, but was unsuccessful...it sticks in my memory as dating from his death...


Ah, now I have it. Ford confessed to the fraud of the Warren Commission....and if he were party to that, why not to the pardon?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-82044.html

[FiveGoodMen]

141. I didn't know that.

"Played like a fiddle" may explain some current events as well.

[Demeter]

145. Nixon had his wealthy keepers. Even then the 1% ruled, just not as blatantly in your face

In 1952 Nixon was selected by Republican Presidential nominee Dwight D. Eisenhower to be his running mate. During the campaign, it was revealed that wealthy patrons in California maintained a secret fund to pay for some of Nixon's expenses; when controversy swirled and debates raged regarding Nixon's worthiness to be on the ticket, Nixon responded with the "Checkers" speech, a televised plea for understanding and sympathy that bordered on, and sometimes invaded the territory of, the sickeningly maudlin. While insisting that the fund was neither illegal nor unusual (true), and that he and wife Pat were not wealthy (mostly true), he proceeded to jump the shark with the statement that the only gift he had received was his little dog Checkers, whom his young daughters loved too much to give back....

http://www.cracked.com/funny-2562-richard-nixon/

Look up Bebe Rebozo

[hlthe2b]

13. All I know is that the failure to do so has made our "checks and balances" no more than a cruel joke

Had he done so, it is hard to say how much it would have emboldened the haters, whose desire to remove or assassinate him would undoubtedly gone into overdrive.

That said, one wonders if the sheer audacity of his opponents in Congress, the five ugly men on the Supreme Court, and the various racist factions throughout the country, might not have been put on notice--and thus been constrained even slightly if there was some accountability for these war crimes.

[dionysus]

81. you realize what the punishment is for those crimes, right? putting bushco on trial for their lives

would cause absolute chaos.

in a sane world, it would be done, but America isn't big on executing or throwing past admins into prison for life...

[Demeter]

136. Chaos? Like what we have now? How about Justice, and Return of the Rule of Law?

I think the priorities would be temporary chaos and resolution, as opposed to the endless chaos and lawlessness we have been cursed with, as well as the failure of democracy, the rampant inequality, and the end of democratic principles.

[truedelphi]

15. You say he regrets not doing so - well,

The statute on limitation of time to prosecute murder is never over - he could do this tomorrow if he really wants to ease his regrets.

We lost approximately 4.500 of our service people, and close to a million civilians would never have died in Iraq if our nation had not de-stabilized theirs.

Malia Obama has a good head on her shoulders, and years from now, I wonder how he will explain away his refusal to do the right thing, should she ask him about it.

[Louisiana1976]

32. Well said.

[red dog 1]

59. + 1000

[SummerSnow]

166. Wow, IN ever thought about her asking him one day. I wonder if any of her college

classmates will ask her when she goes to college.

[truedelphi]

197. Malia had asked her Daddy what he was doing to end the BP

spilling a gazillion tons of oil into the Gulf, and she was quite young at the time.

I don't think you can change someone - if they question things early on, it doesn't matter how status quo the parents, the kids will be rebels.

Rebels with questioning minds will be needed more and more as time goes on.

[malaise]

16. Wasn't that up to the House of Representatives?

I hope Nancy sees how these ReTHUG goons operate.

[truedelphi]

19. History teaches us that those who collude usually do quite well

For themselves.

I pretty much believe: Neither Pelosi or Obama will have any regrets, as neither have demonstrated any type of conscience, and both prefer the power, glory and moulah they signed up for when making their deals with the Devils.

[XRubicon]

67. "thanks for the kick"

[grasswire]

160. why was that post hidden?

Wow.

[Duppers]

189. yes, strange

that something was hidden that was posted here yrs ago.

[Stryder]

205. Yah, wow.

I'm gonna have to watch my step. Didn't realize pertinent direct quotes were inappropriate.

[malaise]

70. I know

I know

[TheKentuckian]

179. That is impeachment, that can remove one from office but it isn't a criminal proceeding.

Should he been removed from office? Absolutely.

Should he be criminally prosecuted? Most definitely.

Failure to do one does not provide cover to fail on the other.

[malaise]

181. Thanks for that

So both Obama and Congress failed

[XRubicon]

17. Yes

We need to win congress back and start the proceedings.

[winter is coming]

18. Yes. Even if the Obama Administration had failed to convict anyone,

naming and shaming should have taken place. Sweeping things under the rug is a way of saying "it wasn't so bad". It was bad, and we should damned well act like it. Anything else is an invitation to more and worse behavior in the future.

[Maven]

20. Let's ask our friend Droney what he thinks!!!

?1360594247

[XRubicon]

24. Hello Droney!

I have so many questions for you!

How many Iraqi civilians were killed?
How many Iraqi civilians were maimed?
How many US military were killed?
How many US military were maimed?

Oh, yeah, how many have you killed?

[red dog 1]

60. How many drones are being used here in the USA to spy on "targeted individuals"?

I'll bet that drones are being used here in the USA to "track & harass" whistle-blowers, anti-war activists, and other "targeted individuals" 24/7.

[XRubicon]

64. Buy me a bag of weed, ok.

How's the weather in Denver this time of year?

ETA: Nice quotes!

[Tikki]

21. YES

Tikki

[Lint Head]

22. Bush and Cheney are fucking murderers!

[upaloopa]

23. Not Obama but Congress should

[Squinch]

26. He could still do it.

[Louisiana1976]

27. I also say hell yes. The Bush regime shouldn't have gotten off scot-free for their offenses.

[dreamnightwind]

28. We sure as hell needed to at least empower a truth commission

to investigate every aspect of how we got ourselves into that war, setup with the aim of it never happening again. That commission could make recommendations as to prosecutions and any actions needed to prevent something similar in the future. Because we let them get away with it, they are constantly on the watch for the next elective war.

The U.S.A. still has some 'splainin' to do re the Iraq War.

[mehrrh]

34. investigation interruptus

No good deed goes unpunished.

Yes, I understand why he chose not to investigate them in his first term -- he wanted to look forward and accomplish his agenda.
Little did he know that the GOP had intentions to destroy him, using everything they could muster to make him a lame duck from day one. Obama didn't believe the GOP could be so completely evil and destructive in their efforts to thwart anything from Obama.
I suspect that quietly the president may regret his taking the high road -- if one ever does regret doing so -- because taking the high road has not only allowed the previous war criminals to go free and continue to wreak havoc, it has alienated some Democrats who demanded justice.
Unfortunately, when justice is finally served, it will be long after President Obama.

[KittyWampus]

35. No. I would have supported Truth & Reconciliation Hearings for the purpose of getting historical

historical record straight.

[XRubicon]

38. I'd be ok with making everyone in America watch every hour of cable news 90 days prior to Iraq

Up to the invasion.

Call it a reminder.

[Sunlei]

37. regret?? I am pretty sure Bush/cheney et all are immune by our own laws.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Politics. A lot of Dems supported Bush's adventures and still support drones.

[seveneyes]

40. If you put any realistically serious thought into it

No. Civil wars have been started with less.

[bvar22]

41. Not just YES...but HELL Yes.

Refusing to investigate and prosecute IS a De Facto endorsement of clear War Crimes.
President Obama is under a legal Treaty obligation to investigate and prosecute War Crimes.

Looking the Other Way.. or "Looking Forward" actually makes him an accomplice.

[heaven05]

43. yes

[The Traveler]

44. There should have been such an investigation

It should have been handled by Congress.

Our failure as a nation to clean house has practical consequences. Our ethical credibility has taken a serious hit. And that has myriad implications in the context of diplomacy and strategy.

Trav

[WhiteTara]

45. He couldn't but the House sure should have and we had 2 years to do it.

But Nancy wouldn't. I still get angry over it.

[Cosmocat]

46. Sure, if you wanted Mitt Romney to be President now

no health care reform, no finance reform ...

Not the trade off I would make, but ...

[MohRokTah]

48. Nope, would end the tradition of peaceful transitions forever.

No president wants to set that sort of precedent.

[santamargarita]

49. They should all have been sentenced by now at the Hague.

Problem is, now President Obama is part of the problem.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

51. What I think

and what is political reality are diametrically opposed.
Being a President is an exclusive club and once the door is opened to investigate the one before me, I risk being investigated myself.
Not gonna happen................

[PumpkinAle]

52. Without a doubt. n/t

[barbtries]

53. i don't know if he regrets it are not

after all he still could. and yes, i think they should all be in prison.

[goldent]

54. No, would have set a terrible precedent that would live on forever.

[Dragonfli]

62. The precedent that WAS set is that there are those above the law, that the law

does not apply to certain people.

You do not believe in the rule of law? Really?

When crimes are committed they should be investigated and those found guilty should pay the price, I don't understand why you think that an investigation following crimes would set a bad precedent, that assertion makes no sense, unless you feel there should be no laws and no penalties for breaking them.

Did the Nuremberg trials set a bad precedent as well?

[myrna minx]

99. As opposed the current precedent that lying the country into war and war crimes

has zero ramifications for the monsters who commit them. In fact, revisionist history is being written as we speak, trying to rehabilitate the credibility of the Bush crime family.

[Rex]

122. It is strange, these posters that don't want any type of prosecution or even an attempt.

Their reasons are paper thin.

[randome]

127. Under what law would a prosecution take place?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

196. It's strange these posters that don't want the BFEE brought up on charges.

I think their motives are paper thin.

[Swede Atlanta]

56. Yes....

I do believe sincerely that BO realized his election as the first African American would create "ripples" across the country.

We know that all new presidents get the "reality" briefing and BO was probably sobered by that briefing. But I do believe he knows, and Eric Holder knows, that the GWB administration engaged in illegal, immoral and likely unconstitutional acts during their tenure.

But I think he knew that his very presence in the "white" house was going to be very, very controversial. Had they undertaken investigations of the GWB administration the heat would likely have been unmanageable. As well BO decided early on that death by drone was perfectly fine. He doesn't seem to lose any sleep over killing unarmed, innocent civilians and even Americans in his quest to quell AQ and other militant organizations. It is a matter of the ends justify the means.

While I don't condone this worldview I believe it is his. He will have to live with that just as GWB will be when his epitaph is written over the next 30-40 years.

[Dragonfli]

57. The idea that we are a nation of laws and not men should have assured it.

Not doing so unfortunately reveals him to be a man that feels there are those above the law, and those that are not. His idea of "moving on" can only mean that he did not believe at the time that we are a nation of laws and not men. That presents a problem as he is also the President of the United States and as such has taken an oath that was broken with ease.

If he does regret it then he will shortly order the long awaited investigations, if he does not than he does not regret it at all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024852198

[WillyT]

61. Hell Yes !!! - K & R !!!

[leeroysphitz]

65. That's the Congress's job and if they won't do it they won't do it.

No sense in trying to pin useless stuff on Obama.

[mopinko]

97. thank you

pinning useless stuff on obama is a damn party game around here.

i do know this about the man- he does not fight battles he cannot win. but he sometimes comes back later when he thinks he can.
so, there is no statue of limitations. we know he will need a hobby when he leaves office. i believe he quite rightly feared a coup, and seeing as the supreme court was in THEIR pocket, along with so much else, i woulda done the same. just get done what helps people most.

[red dog 1]

68. K&R...Thanks for posting

I say "Hell Yes" too....but I'm not sure that he regrets not doing so.

[oneofthe99]

69. No

[Jake2413]

72. I still do....

It's never too late!

[Gemini Cat]

73. Yes. nt

[sorefeet]

74. Absolutely, they are going to

try and charge Obama with something when he gets done.

[flvegan]

75. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, Lord but that's funny.

Just considering he would consider it...shit, thanks for the laugh. Oh man, that's hilarious.

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. I thought "war crimes" were the purview of an international tribunal.

Which leaves me wondering why there have been no charges brought by The World at Large. If they were charged by The Hague, it seems it would be easier by half to charge them in THIS country.

This hasn't happened though.

Serious question though... is "war crimes" a blanket charge, or are there specific actions that qualify?

I know for a fact that "lying the country into war" isn't a chargeable offense, otherwise LBJ would have been charged for lying the country into the Vietnam War.

Those things said; if there were a way, I'd get behind it with both shoulders. I just think if it were possible, people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others would have DEMANDED IT. I'm not seeing it though, and I have to wonder why... Bernie Sanders... NO ONE is sounding the drum.

[Vattel]

83. They could have been prosecuted for vioations of the war crimes act or the torture act.

Those are federal criminal statutes. They are poorly written, though. Early in his first term Obama could have proposed and possibly got Congress to pass amendments to those acts that would have made practices like waterboarding unambiguously criminal. That would be a better safeguard against torture than his little executive order. But he didn't. I don't know why. Maybe he doesn't understand the need for such amendments. Or maybe he buys the stupid Yoo line that the President is above the law when it comes to national security issues.

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. "Early in his first term" Look up "ex post facto".

[Vattel]

88. Sorry, I wasn't being clear.

I was suggesting that Bush and company could have been prosecuted under the War Crimes Act or the Torture Act. Of course, they couldn't be prosecuted under an amended version of those acts if the amendments were made in 2009. My point about the amendments was that Obama and Congress should have passed such amendments to deter future presidents from using torture.

[Demobrat]

77. Yes.

They committed crimes and should have been investigated, and not doing so didn't buy him a thing. I doubt if he regrets it though.

[dionysus]

79. in theory, yes, but in practise, it would be a disaster.

I don't think you could get a vast majority of the country to go for it, because war crimes and treason call for life imprisonment, or death.

if you think the militia types are itching to start a fight now, just imagine what would happen if buscho were literally on trial for their lives... it'd be the ugliest incident in American history.

of course we know they're guilty, but the American public won't go for it.

I'm amazed at the people who think this would go down as no big deal.

[treestar]

101. +1

over simplistic view of how things would have gone.

[lostincalifornia]

108. I really do not believe that the ACA, and other significant accomplishments would have occurred if

that happened. Democrats in Congress were divided on it.

[sabrina 1]

80. 100% YES!! n/t

[SamKnause]

82. Yes.

It is sad that the question has to be asked.

He has aided, abetted, and enabled a two tier justice system by allowing war criminals and torturers to go free.

I doubt the president has any regrets and therein lies part of the problem.

[Ready4Change]

84. Yes.

But it shouldn't have had to wait until he was in office. Bush43 shouldn't have been able to win in 2004, and it should have been the Kerry Administration that brought key members of the Bush administration to trial.

[Doctor_J]

85. no way does he regret it

He has proven himself to be a sell out on nearly all issues

[slipslidingaway]

87. Hell yes, although I am not sure he has any regrets :( n/t

[polynomial]

89. The Bush Crimes and...

Wall Street, the Media, the American University system, with legions of political/ military, all the intelligence agencies loaded with loyal cronies especially subcontracted types in secret that do the metadata collection with political/ business people are the cause and effect of the decadence that permeates modern society, not only in America but worldwide.

Please understand that I love this country, but know there is a need to be realistic. Several times my ontological button is pressed to search the human mental quintessence aether for the good in America.

Those minds that created the Constitution are part of an era that developed an incredible wave of understanding many in Congress and the Senate don’t care to respect law or worse redefine laws against humanity. Bush is the premier example of fraud if not treason. Worse the mainstream media helps him.

America would open an incredible era of self-awareness that is way overdue. Yes, making a Constitutional review in the actions that our government leadership takes obviously has a potential to rip apart our economy, or worse start another civil. That is basic governance toward fraud or treason.

It’s all stalled by the media with influence of the one percent because those that are very rich have the most to lose. Begging a simple question of where do those very rich get their money, yet answered in a constant rant to profiteer in terror, fear, and endless military profiteering, actions filled with arrogance and defiance with no respect to the general public. That’s demonstrated by a military suicide rate higher than combat deaths.

American culture could change through media pressure of the Internet or brave Journalist to speak honestly, in some cases better in honesty than the Supreme Court that is unquestionably part of an inadequate justice system America has at present. American Justice is balanced for fraud.

President Obama knows this imbalance and likely will be silent, keeping the secrets, secret for any prosecution of the Bush administration. In a sense president Obama is using the same hostage approach on the Republicans just as we all sense and feel the hostage approach for many pieces of legislation drafted and channeled through Congress.

From my view that is the very reason president Obama got the Nobel peace prize. Saving Wall Street, the Bush profiteers and the too big to fail types has frustrate many Americans but trying to prevent an increasing rift in society, openly encourage healthcare for everyone, promoting better job opportunities, and stop torture and war is a pretty good legacy.

With a laugh and a chuckle President Obama perhaps thinking " Let the white guy's do it ".

[Mira]

90. Before I look at any other answer

I say
YES
OMG YES
if only

The way he allowed the horror of the previous administration go unexamined takes off half or more from how much i love him and the good he has done and tries to do.

Let's just say it's the core of where I'm conflicted.

[dickensknitter]

91. Yes

I thought the admin. should've gone on a massive offensive day minus one. But you know bankers were in need of bonuses.

[Enthusiast]

92. After the ridiculous Clinton witch hunts of the 1990s

I was shocked when President Obama said we must look forward. Where did that get him? How did this benefit the nation?

Some of the Bush Administration issues simply had to be addressed or the rule of law would be forever compromised.

Well, you know the rest.

[goldent]

115. "Where did that get him?"

It got him a 2nd term. Can you imagine the country being in the midst of the huge recession and the president would be spending his efforts prosecuting the former president? This is covered in Politics 101.

[Martin Eden]

93. Nancy Pelosi should not have taken impeachment off the table

Hell yes, but I doubt Obama regrets it.

[Martin Eden]

94. When Bush left office, I expressed my thoughts in a poem:

What I'd say to him, if I could:


I'd tell you to go fuck yourself
But that is much too kind
Because if you could perform that feat
You'd take pleasure in your behind

I'd like to say eat shit and die
But you deserve much more
You should suffer all the grief and pain
Of your misbegotten war

Though I can never make you feel
or think, or understand
I'll take pleasure when you hear your name
Cursed throughout the land

From inside a lonely prison cell
Dark and bare and cold
Where every day you pay for your crimes
Until you're sick, heartbroken, and old

Then when you finally leave the earth
You fucked over oh so well
If there is a God and afterlife
You're going straight to hell

[Martin Eden]

95. Do we all agree that deliberate LIES took us to war?

Do we all agree the war was a disaster?
Do we all agree it was a colossal war crime?
Do we all agree we must stop the next colossal war crime before it happens?

Letting the perpetrators go unpunished undermines the rule of law, makes America the land of shameless hypocrites, and gives the next would-be war criminals in the White House confidence they can do whatever the hell they want.

The Democratic congress didn't act in 2006 because they were complicit.
The next president didn't act because he's a politician who calculated the political downside of going after his predecessor.

Justice will be served and the next war crime averted only if We The People demand it.

But the American people are a house divided, and cannot stand up for their own best interests. Far too many have been brainwashed by decades of corporate media propaganda and a political ideology that marries Randian greed with bible thumping pseudo-morality. When SUPPORT OUR TROOPS means sending them off to be maimed or killed for a pack of lies and the profits of Big Oil, we are well on the way to Orwellian dystopia.

[randome]

113. What law did the Bush administration break?

Ultimately, I think that's the question Obama asked himself and he couldn't find one. Not one that would be supported by Congress, that is.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Martin Eden]

164. The invasion of Iraq was a war of agression, in violation of the UN Charter

Additionally there were numerous crimes & misdemeanors. here's an interactive link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2008/07/crimes_and_misdemeanors.html

Without a doubt, Bush and other members of his administration systematically and deliberately misrepresented the available intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD and alleged alliance with al Qaeda to Congress and the American people, pursuant to taking our country to war under false pretenses. My bet is they broke laws in doing that. Most definitely impeachable.

[randome]

170. I agree with everything you said.

However, many other countries aided in the invasion so I don't see anything happening from the U.N. I wish it was different. I really do. The invasion of Iraq was the most appalling thing to have happened in my lifetime. Worse than Vietnam since there wasn't even the pretense of national concern.

And it's a bitter pill to swallow but I don't see that anything is to be gained by an endless battle in Congress on what to do.

The 'best' thing to have resulted from Iraq is the weakening of the Republican party.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Martin Eden]

183. The "weakened" Republican Party controls the House

And it doesn't seem likely the Dems will recapture it this November. Part of that is due to the failure to call a crime a crime and lies, lies. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Just politics as usual.

Unfortunately the Dems were complicit with their own "tough" talk about Iraq and when nearly half voted for the IWR in October 2002.

Our country desperately needs to understand its own history, especially when it's still fresh, and learn from it.

More likely, we're doomed to repeat it.

[badtoworse]

96. No. It would be a bad precedent

[Octafish]

112. That might be what they told Bill Clinton about Poppy Bush and Iran-Contra treason.

And, thus, history repeats.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

128. It would actually be the best ever precedent.

The idea that no one should be above the law is a central idea of the country, and it would show that we give the idea more than just lip service. We SHOULD want to work towards making that idea reality, rather than just something we say cynically.

We should be willing to prosecute our own war criminals, not just those of other nations.

[loyalsister]

186. Just as the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a bad precedent

I'm glad the Democrats decided not to perpetuate it. It's painful for the country, and should be reserved for things that are truly illegal.

[rhett o rick]

98. As a nation we committed horrible war crimes and we should atone. But I predict

that Pres Obama pardons the lot. The justification can be seen in a couple of posts here. "We need to put this behind us", "it's a bad precedent", "it will be messy", etc. Apparently the idea is to ignore the problem and it will go away. This is wrong thinking. Our presidents have been breaking the laws for decades and we choose to ignore it and yet it doesnt go away.

The Blue Dog/ Republican coalition wants to ignore this, IMO they are responsible for the decline of our nation.

[randome]

111. Pardon them for what? Seriously.

Is it a crime to go to war under false pretenses?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

146. Of course the Right-Wing say there were no war crimes. I dont agree. We illegally invaded a

sovereign nation without cause. And there was the torture thing. Again, the Reich-Wing doesnt agree.

Just to be safe, I think Pres Obama will pardon the lot.

[randome]

153. There is no subjective interpretation of the law unless we're talking about purposefully vague ones.

Are you seriously suggesting I am saying there are no war crimes? I agree there were. But how to prove that in a way that gets both Republicans and Democrats to cooperate in putting Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney behind bars?

It won't happen. It's a fool's errand that would do nothing but derail the government even further than it is today. We would not have ACA if Obama had made going after the Bush Gang his priority.

There is nothing to pardon them for since they haven't been charged with any crimes. Reality is often not pleasant.

And stop accusing me and others of being 'right-wing', please.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

154. I was merely pointing out that the Right-Wing supports the no prosecution for war crimes stand

while the Left supports trials for war crimes. They can be pardoned without being charged.

"Reality is often not pleasant." I find it interesting when people claim to understand "reality", as reality has long baffled philosophers.

[randome]

159. Well, I'm part of the Left so your black-and-white characterization falls easily apart.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

163. So you dont favor prosecution of war crimes. You favor putting it all behind us. Do you favor

pardons for the criminals?

[randome]

173. I do favor prosecution of war crimes. I do not favor pardons for those who committed them.

But it won't happen because it can't. Congress will never cooperate. The Republicans will block any and all attempts. That's the unpleasant reality. History will characterize the invasion of Iraq as the worst foreign policy move by this country in decades, if not centuries. In fact, it already has by many writers.

That doesn't change the fact that Congress will stymie any effort to bring the criminals to justice.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalLovinLug]

168. Not right wing

Seems more like be mismatch hodgepodge stitched together on the fly.



Even if you can actually overlook the illegal invasion of Iraq, the lying to the public, fabricating false evidence etc.. leading to thousands of deaths there were other crimes,

I would add the use of torture, breaking the international Convention Against Torture:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/11/united-states-investigate-bush-other-top-officials-torture

(Washington, DC) - Overwhelming evidence of torture by the Bush administration obliges President Barack Obama to order a criminal investigation into allegations of detainee abuse authorized by former President George W. Bush and other senior officials, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Obama administration has failed to meet US obligations under the Convention against Torture to investigate acts of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, Human Rights Watch said.


Then there is illegal wiretapping:

In a huge ruling, a court has said that the US government violated wiretapping laws in eavesdropping on phone calls without a warrant.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/1228088813.shtml

Oh, but that ones OK because Bush made sure they retroactively made it all legal, right?

[randome]

172. Is fabricating false evidence by the Executive branch a crime?

Only if Congress says so. They won't so...as bitter a pill as it is to swallow, nothing is going to happen.

Yes, they did make sure they had immunity from wiretapping and torture. A more naked grab for self-serving power has not been seen. But all that would happen if Obama tried to push this is an endless squabble that would result in even less happening in Congress than now, if that's possible. And it would end with nothing being done.

We know what the GOP did. That's why they are so weak today. And getting weaker.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

100. Far far more complicated than DU thinks

Politically and legally. There would be no slam dunk case there. The Republicans would have had plenty of fodder to help them win more elections. Executive immunity issues just for a start. Looking at the wording of the statutes to be used. What code section of the US Code would be used? We can't just charge "war crimes." It has to be a crime under the code.

[JoeyT]

102. I initially thought so.

It was a brilliant piece of ten dimensional chess on his part to not do so. If he had pushed for prosecution, the Republicans would have opposed him at every turn during his entire presidency. It would have created eight solid years of partisan screeching from them instead of the reasonable debate between people of differing opinions we have today. We dodged a bullet on that one, and it's why he's the smartest man in the room and the best president ever.

[lostincalifornia]

107. your sarcasm is obvious, however, for arguments sake assuming he should have done it and it was not

the responsibility of Congress to institute the investigation, as you point out the republicans have opposed him at every turn during his presidency.

If during his first two years when we had a majority in Congress if this investigation was started, do you believe anything would have really gotten done in those first two years? Democrats in Congress were not walking lock and step on any of the issues.

I would suggest that much less would have been achieved, and I suspect the probability would have been very low that the ACA would have been realized.

That being said, there is nothing to stop an investigation into that from occurring now, especially seeing that with the makeup of the house, it is quite unlikely anything meaningful from a legislative stand point will be done, now would be the appropriate time.

[hrmjustin]

103. Yes.

[Zorra]

104. Yes, and it's never too late to do the right thing. nt

[lostincalifornia]

105. was that the Obama administrations function or Congress?

[MoonRiver]

106. Of course!

But presidents rarely suffer any punishment for crimes against humanity.

[randome]

109. Of course. But it was his call to make.

I doubt anything would have come of it other than more intransigent battles in Congress and, ultimately, conceding defeat on the issue.

I doubt Obama has any regrets about his decision. And I bet he wishes things were different.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[lostincalifornia]

110. I think areason that won't happen is because there were enough Democrats who went along with it

[randome]

114. And it wouldn't end there.

Would the troops then be culpable?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jesus Malverde]

116. Why would he regret it. If anything he did the opposite.

He could have ruined that family permanently, instead he gave them respite in the storm.

[ladjf]

117. Of course! nt

[JHB]

118. Needed to start small, with investigations about contractor abuses...

...and the Bushies' permissiveness about them. Particularly with regard to the cronyism involved.

Start mixing in investigations of the cronyism all over the Bush administrations, particularly in Iraq, for example selecting inexperienced twentysomethings to rebuild the Iraqi financial system, whose main "qualification" was having sent resumes to the Heritage Foundation within the previous few years.

In short, take a page from the conservatives' playbook of producing a constant stream of news about corruption of the Bush administration. Just do it with real things instead of the sort of bullshit-stuff the conservatives threw (and keep throwing) at Bill Clinton and Obama -- and are now gearing up for Hillary.

Not only would that sort of drumbeat help create conditions where it becomes politically viable to bring the needed charges against the Bushies and make them stick (no pardons from the next Republican president claiming "it was a witch-hunt&quot , but the equating of "Republicans" with "so corrupt they add to the danger for people serving their country" would also have helped undermine the "block everything" strategy. If they're going to vote in lockstep, make each of them individually answer "why are you in lockstep with these people?"

But to do that, it would have been necessary for Obama and his people to recognize that the effective leadership of the Republicans wasn't interested in bipartisanship. At all.

[Vincardog]

119. I say "yes" and he is hopping his crimes are not investigated

[Mondavi]

120. Yes, but

most things Obama should have done he hasn't done.
And most things he shouldn't have done he has done.

[Demeter]

138. + Several Brazillion!

You've just written the epitaph for his gravestone.

[winetourdriver]

121. warcrimes

Well there is still time damnit! Hearings in the senate, run them at the same time as the house hearings on BENGAZZI! ! !

[ctsnowman]

123. Yes

[Richard D]

124. Absofuckinglutely

[L0oniX]

125. Law and justice is dead. What you see is a zombie owned by the 1%.

[world wide wally]

126. Right now I think that investigating the likes of Lindsay Graham, Dan Issa, and a few more of them

would be more fun

[LibGranny]

129. Absolutely!

[Demeter]

131. Obama doesn't strike me as a man capable of regrets

It would require one to NOT "look forward", for one thing. One has to reflect on past decisions and the outcomes generated, to reflect.

(I could make a joke about vampires not having reflections...but to my knowledge, Mr. Obama only ASSOCIATES with blood suckers like Jamie Dimon, Timmy Geithner, etc. No one has a shred of evidence that he actually partook of the sacrifice, himself. he's more like the pack of hounds that flushes the game for the hunters.)

[JackInGreen]

133. That's like asking if I want an icecream sundae.

YES.
YES EVERY FUCKING SECOND YES

[judy]

134. An Emphatic YES

Though I am not sure he regrets not doing so, since he even asked the court to give Smirky immunity from prosecution for this most heinous of crimes...
http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war#.UhPHfrX5o3Q.facebook

But if he had done it, he would have changed how the world looks at aggression, and tipped all international balances on the side of peace.
Oh well...instead, he chose to continue the policies of assassination and saber rattling. Shameful.

[The_Commonist]

135. No.

I think it should have been an international body, and one with some teeth. I think the only thing the Obama administration should have done would be to abide by whatever that international body ruled, and to agree to hand over anyone that was convicted of war crimes.

Otherwise, it just becomes more "partisan bickering," and "their side" will (and does, obviously) investigate "our side" every time someone looks at them funny.

I'm serious about this, I'm glad that the Obama administration has not done investigations. Obama Derangement Syndrome is bad enough as it is. Just imagine how much worse it would have gotten with that kind of thing. It really would have started the race war that "they" seem to want so badly.

And all the "hell yes" replies on this thread is nothing more than "rah rah team pride." You're really not thinking this through.

I just wish someone else would. Someone with the power do something about the cockroaches in our midst. Because obviously, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld et al belong in prison cells in The Hague.

[judy]

194. The Hague would be fine with me...

But GWB has unsigned the treaty...so all Obama would have had to do is re-sign it.

[Hoyt]

137. As much as I HATE george war bush, I don't think that would have been beneficial to country.

[TBF]

139. Really, now why wouldn't it "have been beneficial"?

[Hoyt]

147. Wouldn't have changed anything. Congress should have gotten him at time. President's have to

have the freedom to do what they think is best (within reason). We should not have elected him in first place, and ignorant people did it again in 2004. I think they were bad wrong, but they still elected and re-elected him. Maybe we should go after them.

Again, I literally hate george war bush more than you'd imagine. While only a small thing, I have not capitalized his name, even in formal documents, since 2003. I think he will live with the consequences of his Presidency and in shame.

But trying him, and giving him the punishment he deserves, would not be good for the country as a whole.

If it were up to me, I'd support torturing him every day of his remaining life -- maybe even burying him in the desert he bombed so that the poor innocent Iraqis he wounded can get their just revenge.

[TBF]

149. How about turning him (and his co-conspirators) over to the Hague?

Let them try him. Would you go for that?

[Hoyt]

151. If charges are levied, I wouldn't stand in the way of international law. :)

[TBF]

161. That would probably be an ideal solution -

it also gets him the hell out of this country.

[AnalystInParadise]

198. Tend to agree with you

And with all the people on our side that could get roped into this, I think I ow why this was buried by our Congress. Too many people on both sides of the aisle would go down....

[HelenWheels]

140. Absolutely!!!! nt

[vkkv]

142. I'll never forgive Nancy Pelosi for

taking the process of impeaching of George W. Bush "off the table".

The blame falls squarely on Pelosi.

[BlueCollar]

144. Yes...n/t

[polly7]

148. I don't believe it was ever an even semi-serious consideration. nt.

[Mz Pip]

150. Congress gave him the green light

They passed the Patriot Act giving the administration the power to do pretty much anything it wanted.

They are all complicit.

[Helen Borg]

155. Bush Admin & Wall Street criminals...

[lobodons]

158. No. He should not have needed to

No, He would not have needed to IF Pelosi Would have done her job in 2006.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

162. Yes he should have...

All should be charged.

Although now charges should include those that did nothing.
Doing nothing could be construed as a coverup.

But the corporate overlords will never allow that to happen.

Go shopping youse guys, nothing going on here. Get on with your piddley little life.

[libodem]

165. HELL YES

[BlueJac]

167. For sure......

he is paying for it now. Who would of thought you can't trust a Republican? They always do this with a second term Democrat.

[allinthegame]

169. Riddle me this

Any more waste of time than the IRS hearings
The fact that everyone wants to play Revenge shows how helpless government and its people are if this all we want to focus on

[dicksmc3]

171. what good would it do? (

When O took office he said let's look to the future and not dwell on the past. When he said that I knew the Bush crew was not going to be investigated let alone sent to jail....

[JDPriestly]

174. Yes!

[shanti]

175. Well...

does a bear shit in the woods?

[iandhr]

176. Did anyone on this site actually expect that?

[ancianita]

177. He can let the ICC do it. It would help our standing if we did it. Either way, there's be justice.

The fear of Hillary involves an intense fear of her conducting investigations against the very posse who've tried to string her and Bill up over the years.

No matter what, the world needs to see some justice effort from this country, even if it's just in the hauling of these guys to an international court after we've tried our best but our systems have too much conflict of interest to see broader international interests served.

[Jakes Progress]

178. Well. . . . Duh!

Sorry, but that was what I thought at the time. An inexperience politician making his first mistake.

[BainsBane]

180. No, I think congress should have done so

Don't such investigations fall under their purview?

[Ap1977]

182. If I steal a bike I get locked up and sentenced

Why not the powerful too?

[randome]

185. STOP STEALING BIKES!

And welcome to DU.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

184. I love reading some of these "When the president does it it is not illegal" posts.

This is in part why we're fucked and will continue to be.

[MannyGoldstein]

187. No.

[bigwillq]

188. Yes (nt)

[redgreenandblue]

190. Yes, and k&r.

[Duppers]

191. YES!

Hell yes!

[toby jo]

192. Yes.

[sawdust]

193. ABSOLUTELY...YES

PLEASE PLEASE DO

[Spider Jerusalem]

195. I think that anyone who believes that any US presidential administration...

is going to investigate any previous presidential administration for war crimes is not part of the reality-based community. It's never going to happen. Not least because Obama himself would be subject to some future war crimes investigation for his policy on drone strikes. Every single administration since Truman could probably be prosecuted for war crimes. (Every single administration since Lincoln, or earlier, probably, but "war crimes" as such weren't really recognised under international law until after WWII.)

[GoneFishin]

199. Maybe. But once it happened, it would cut down on those abuses in the future. Which is exactly the

point of prosecuting lawbreakers.

[Spider Jerusalem]

200. Except it won't happen

and I'm not sure why anyone happens to think that the US Government is a fit and competent prosecuting authority to determine whether war crimes were committed by the US Government. The only appropriate investivative and prosecuting body would be an international court.

[GoneFishin]

206. Sounds good to me.

[Half-Century Man]

201. Yes, But I don't think there is a statute of limitations on war crimes.

There is still time.

[notadmblnd]

202. I think that if he had- that he wouldn't have been president very long.

[librechik]

203. now would be a good time

red meat at the 2014 polls-- and they so deserve it.