Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did we not prosecute the Bush Administration

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why did we not prosecute the Bush Administration

    I think this is a topic worth discussing again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. fabricated evidence that caused 4500 Americans to lose their lives, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's that lost their's. Why have we allowed him to get away with it?

    Would the burden of prosecution rest on the shoulders of Obama and Holder? Should have Bush's own AG started proceedings after the truth was known and proven?  I've never really been able to figure this out. It seems like prosecution would have further damned the republicans if that is possible.

    I particularly interested in the left's take on this. Maybe we didn't want international egg on our face by admitting our guilt.

    Help me understand...we need to attack Syria because Syria attacked Syria?

  • #2

    Jack Walker wrote:

    I think this is a topic worth discussing again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. fabricated evidence that caused 4500 Americans to lose their lives, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's that lost their's. Why have we allowed him to get away with it?

    Would the burden of prosecution rest on the shoulders of Obama and Holder? Should have Bush's own AG started proceedings after the truth was known and proven?  I've never really been able to figure this out. It seems like prosecution would have further damned the republicans if that is possible.

    I particularly interested in the left's take on this. Maybe we didn't want international egg on our face by admitting our guilt.


    I doubt that either major party has any desire to risk setting such a dangerous legal precedent.

    Comment


    • Sloppy Santa
      Sloppy Santa commented
      Editing a comment

      mdwagner73 wrote:

      Jack Walker wrote:

      I think this is a topic worth discussing again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. fabricated evidence that caused 4500 Americans to lose their lives, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's that lost their's. Why have we allowed him to get away with it?

      Would the burden of prosecution rest on the shoulders of Obama and Holder? Should have Bush's own AG started proceedings after the truth was known and proven?  I've never really been able to figure this out. It seems like prosecution would have further damned the republicans if that is possible.

      I particularly interested in the left's take on this. Maybe we didn't want international egg on our face by admitting our guilt.


      I doubt that either major party has any desire to risk setting such a dangerous legal precedent.


      I take it you mean dangerous to those in power? If so I completely agree with you.


    • moonlightin
      moonlightin commented
      Editing a comment

      mdwagner73 wrote:

      Jack Walker wrote:

      I think this is a topic worth discussing again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. fabricated evidence that caused 4500 Americans to lose their lives, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's that lost their's. Why have we allowed him to get away with it?

      Would the burden of prosecution rest on the shoulders of Obama and Holder? Should have Bush's own AG started proceedings after the truth was known and proven?  I've never really been able to figure this out. It seems like prosecution would have further damned the republicans if that is possible.

      I particularly interested in the left's take on this. Maybe we didn't want international egg on our face by admitting our guilt.


      I doubt that either major party has any desire to risk setting such a dangerous legal precedent.


      Yep. And it might diminish their own power in some way. Oddly enough, it already diminishes them that they don't. They show themselves to be as less as honorable.


    • Edward
      Edward commented
      Editing a comment

      mdwagner73 wrote:

      Jack Walker wrote:

      I think this is a topic worth discussing again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. fabricated evidence that caused 4500 Americans to lose their lives, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's that lost their's. Why have we allowed him to get away with it?

      Would the burden of prosecution rest on the shoulders of Obama and Holder? Should have Bush's own AG started proceedings after the truth was known and proven?  I've never really been able to figure this out. It seems like prosecution would have further damned the republicans if that is possible.

      I particularly interested in the left's take on this. Maybe we didn't want international egg on our face by admitting our guilt.


      I doubt that either major party has any desire to risk setting such a dangerous legal precedent.


       

      Yes, I suspect that may well have a lot to do with it, bearing in mind the wisdom behind the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighte" adage. Of course, I've also long believed that the Obama admin probably didn't want to look like they wre simply trying to sore political points and going after Bush because he was on the other side. I shoul imagine they all well remember how Clinton's prosecutors ended up looking in pursuing a case against him which came more and more to appear to be motivated by little other than partisan sniping. On balance, I feel this wa the right decision. Not that I don't think Bush etc should have faced justice, but a government-led prosecution would not have had a sufficient impartiality (or at least even the appearance of same) for such a task. Best left to an international crimial court - alas, to the best of my knowledge the US still refuse to recognise the same. 


  • #3

    Why did we not go after Iran/Contra? Both Clinton and Obama dropped these issues. It's a Presidential "tradition" going way back.

    Comment


    • Jack Walker
      Jack Walker commented
      Editing a comment

      I don't see Iran/Contra as being in the same realm of severity as starting a war in which your own army attacks another country under false pretences.


    • Sloppy Santa
      Sloppy Santa commented
      Editing a comment

      SHRED wrote:

      Why did we not go after Iran/Contra? Both Clinton and Obama dropped these issues. It's a Presidential "tradition" going way back.


       

      There was a probe into Iran/Contra and whatshisface got convicted of it (Ollie North?) but then pardoned. That's how power rolls.


  • #4

    a

    Attached Files
    Change Liberals can believe in...Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.

    Comment


    • The Badger
      The Badger commented
      Editing a comment

      burningsg wrote:

      a


      And as the night shall follow the day...

      Burningsg will express an "opposing opinion." 

      Attached Files

  • #5

    Jack Walker wrote:

    I think this is a topic worth discussing again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. fabricated evidence that caused 4500 Americans to lose their lives, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's that lost their's. Why have we allowed him to get away with it?

    Would the burden of prosecution rest on the shoulders of Obama and Holder? Should have Bush's own AG started proceedings after the truth was known and proven?  I've never really been able to figure this out. It seems like prosecution would have further damned the republicans if that is possible.

    I particularly interested in the left's take on this. Maybe we didn't want international egg on our face by admitting our guilt.


    I don't understand the question. When has ANY President's administration prosecuted a former President for anything?

    Comment


    • Rudolf von Hagenwil
      Editing a comment

      Several people have filed charges against the ex-president - in total 17 so far. Also a former inmate of the U.S. prison camp Guantanamo want to file a lawsuit against Bush in Geneva,  because of the torture he had suffered during his captivity between 2001 to 2008.

      Bush cancelled several trips, also his trip to a gala dinner of a Jewisch organisation in Geneva.

       

      US jurisdiction is banana republic style. For getting Bush it needs a country with a working jurisdiction.


    • Jack Walker
      Jack Walker commented
      Editing a comment

      When has a president fabricated a war that killed 4500 Americans and literrally tens of thousands civilians?

      Don't you think this was a good place to start?


    • 74strings
      74strings commented
      Editing a comment

      yanktar wrote:

      Jack Walker wrote:

      I think this is a topic worth discussing again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. fabricated evidence that caused 4500 Americans to lose their lives, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's that lost their's. Why have we allowed him to get away with it?

      Would the burden of prosecution rest on the shoulders of Obama and Holder? Should have Bush's own AG started proceedings after the truth was known and proven?  I've never really been able to figure this out. It seems like prosecution would have further damned the republicans if that is possible.

      I particularly interested in the left's take on this. Maybe we didn't want international egg on our face by admitting our guilt.


      I don't understand the question. When has ANY President's administration prosecuted a former President for anything?


      I blame Ford's pardon of Nixon.

       


  • #6

    Sacred cows. The untouchables.

     

    Even if we changed the system, or drop both political parties, eventually efforts would be made to bring back being above the law. Right or left don't matter. It's human nature I believe.

     

    My thoughts.

    Comment


    • #7

      Jack Walker wrote:

      I think this is a topic worth discussing again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. fabricated evidence that caused 4500 Americans to lose their lives, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's that lost their's. Why have we allowed him to get away with it?

      Would the burden of prosecution rest on the shoulders of Obama and Holder? Should have Bush's own AG started proceedings after the truth was known and proven?  I've never really been able to figure this out. It seems like prosecution would have further damned the republicans if that is possible.

      I particularly interested in the left's take on this. Maybe we didn't want international egg on our face by admitting our guilt.


      Nixon, Kissinger and their crew contributed to the illegal killing of 750,000 - 1,000,000 Laotian and Cambodian civilian men, women and children, and we didn't do anything about that. The trick there was that Nixon set Gerry Ford up to pardon him for "any and all deeds, known or unknown" day for day for the whole time he was in office.

      I'd bet that there was a deal worked out, and somebody was standing by to pardon good 'ol George and the boys if somebody was rude enough to bring up the subject.

      Funny, I don't remember you objecting to a single thing Bush did from January 20th of 2001 until January 19th of 2009.

      Comment


      • #8

        Although very justified, it just never happens

        Comment


        • #9

          Jack Walker wrote:

          I think this is a topic worth discussing again. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove etc. fabricated evidence that caused 4500 Americans to lose their lives, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi's that lost their's. Why have we allowed him to get away with it?

          Would the burden of prosecution rest on the shoulders of Obama and Holder? Should have Bush's own AG started proceedings after the truth was known and proven?  I've never really been able to figure this out. It seems like prosecution would have further damned the republicans if that is possible.

          I particularly interested in the left's take on this. Maybe we didn't want international egg on our face by admitting our guilt.


          There are only three reasons I can think of:

          1. "Presidential Priviage" -- the president is sheilded from being held responsible for the things he does while in office, unless he is impeached by the House of Representatives, tried in the Senate, found guilty and removed from office. After that, it becomes a matter for the courts, but nobody took that option because there aren't enough Democrats to force the issue. 

          2. It was an extraneous extra problem at a time when President Obama had a lot of other more important things to do. 

          3. Handing Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and the rest over to the International Court would have set a bad precedent. Or rather, it would have brought back the Nuremburg Trials precedent to an American president who was still in office. 

          At this point, the burden of prosecution would indeed lie on Obama's and Holder's shoulders, assuming the protection of "presidential privileage" could be broken, an overwhelming amount of evidence could be gathererd and somebody could find a prosecutor with some huge stones and 12 impartial rich guys to bring them to court. It's tough setting that kind of precedent. It's even more dangerous to do so because if the Bush Bunch go to jail for what they did during his administration, every succeeding president would have to face the same possibility that someone, years later, would haul them into court on for ammount to political reasons.

          Personally, I'd like to see that bunch stand trial for what they did, what they ordered and what they allowed others to get away with. That includes letting the financial industry run wild.

          __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
          How Come Other People Can Get Away With Jokes Like That?

          Face it Tea Bagging Neo-Cons...if Reagan ran today, you'd be calling him a RINO socialist! -- scott666

          Barack Obama must be kenyan - everytime he speaks they trot a translator out the next day to explain what he said.-- ToBeAnnounced

          And even then some people still don't understand.-- RogueGnome

          Comment


          • #10
            I'm not going to read all this..


            My take is; for the same reason sharks don't attack lawyers... professional courtesy
            I'm not a gynecologist, but I'll be glad to take a look

            Float like a butterfly, sting like VD

            What happens up north, stays up north

            Comment













            Working...
            X