Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential crimes in Bush WH

[suedanim]

I understand GOPers and other Bush co-signers are gonna fret about this too. imo... it just makes Obama look all the more the ONLY candidate with any true integrity.

This is a question I have asked both campaigns. I imagine a lot of others have been hopeful one of them would speak out about it. I'm not surprised Obama has finally. I hope he'll say more about it at some time, though I am sure he must be very cautious at this time.

April 14, 2008
Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House

(http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html)http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/11/15/waterboard-11-14-07_2.jpg

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4583256), confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. 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.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Classification_as_torture) and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.

[DamnYankee]

I understand GOPers and other Bush co-signers are gonna fret about this too. imo... it just makes Obama look all the more the ONLY candidate with any true integrity.

I agree. Especially among the kook leftist fringe, racist preachers, admitted and unapologetic terrorists, and other angry and bitter dems not living in small town USA.

[Osborn F. Enready]

suedanim, Obama is just playing on one group of Americas emotions, while selling out the same rights that Clinton and McCain intend on selling out.

This is simply another distraction to woo those who oppose Bush to his camp.

I don't support Bush, I don't like Bush, I don't think Bush has done any good for this country that wasn't washed away through his numerous other actions against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law in this country.... but this is just another tool of propaganda.


Obama is as bad as Bush, or the other two bi-partisan canidates. He is as biased, as bigotted and as tunnel visioned as the others as well, seeing only goals of global government, while working to eradicate national, state and individual sovereignty.

Obama is anti-gun, and that is equal to saying ANTI-2nd AMENDMENT.
Obama is pro-wealth redistribution, and that is equal to saying pro-slavery.
Obama is pro-UN, which is equal to saying ANTI-National soveriegnty.


There is no choice in the election for 2008 yet...... only ultimatums, put forth by two corrupt parties that have controlled the system of politics in this country for the last 157 years. They have both built the current house of corruption, they have both sanctioned the desecration of our constitution through LESS than constitutional methods rendering them all illegitimate to anyone BUT their parties exclusively, they have both rigged and gerrymandered the system to the point of being anything BUT representative, and they are both guilty of actions clearly defined as treason in the Constitution itself.

The only CHOICE in 2008 is to STOP voting for the same corruption (either major party) and to actually demand a choice of ballot access for OTHER parties who don't have blood, lies and thievery smeared all over their hands while claiming innocence.




I certainly wish people would educate themselves, instead of believing whatever hogwash falls from the mouth of their "favored" "partisan" candidate. The hypocrisy of our people is becoming comparable to the hypocrisy of our corrupt leaders, and once that happens, I think the demise of Rome will be our own, deservedly so.

[Easy90]

Sue..I thought the Democrat Congress was gonna "investigate Bush's many crimes." You BDS folks will get all tingly about the idea of an Obama doing that...won't you? LOL!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy90 said:
You BDS folks will get all tingly about the idea of an Obama doing that...won't you?

What does that mean? BDS?

[apdst]

Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential crimes in Bush WH

i.e. waste time and money.

[suedanim]

I knew this would get a negative reaction from the rightwingers. I won't call you names or insist you are crazy. But, this WH has not represented you. It has represented a neocon agenda. Its neither conservative or even competant and neither is McCain and you know this already. Your party and leaders abandoned you long ago. Catch up.

Osborn... keep talking. I will remain open-minded and listen to libertarian philosophy, which I find common ground with quite often. I DID like Ron Paul. He is NOT nut. And I agree both parties are played out, often corrupt. If I had my way I'd wipe the slate clean, fire everybody and start over... keeping the Constitution intact, mind you.

But I disagree with the below...

He is as biased, as bigotted and as tunnel visioned as the others as well, seeing only goals of global government, while working to eradicate national, state and individual sovereignty.

Obama is anti-gun, and that is equal to saying ANTI-2nd AMENDMENT.
Obama is pro-wealth redistribution, and that is equal to saying pro-slavery.
Obama is pro-UN, which is equal to saying ANTI-National soveriegnty.

...and feel you are exagerrating Obamas positions on the issues. Unless, of course, you can show me, with quotes, ect, how you base your pov.

Bottom line... I am encouraged greatly.... even TINGLY... at the prospect that George et al.. will have a sound review by an honest AG, instead of a partisan hack, in the club, ass kisser. Hell I'd almost settle for having John Ashcroft review it. Believe what you like but most ol skool Republicans, true conservatives... in Congress and out, have HAD IT up to the neck and beyond with the Bush admin. Why haven't you?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Suedanim said:
But I disagree with the below...

Based on what? Obviously not his record.

Suedanim said:
...and feel you are exagerrating Obamas positions on the issues. Unless, of course, you can show me, with quotes, ect, how you base your pov.

Certainly, allow me to do so....

My statement which you took fault with:
Obama is anti-gun, and that is equal to saying ANTI-2nd AMENDMENT.

Proof of this FACT:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm


2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month:

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."

It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998


A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

If you seek more proof of OBAMAS TRAITOROUS VOTES against the 2nd amendment, please review his voting record, same said for Hillary and McCain.

My second statement you took fault with:
Obama is pro-wealth redistribution, and that is equal to saying pro-slavery.

Firstly, I ask you what you take fault with.... the accusation that wealth redistibution by force is slavery, or that Obama supports wealth redistribution?

National Healthcare is obviously proof of support of wealth redistribution by force, among many other votes in his history and claimed "ideals" he holds dear.

The FACT that wealth redistribution is slavery, is that what you are contending?

What do you call it when a person robs from you at gun or knifepoint? Most people call that "thievery".

What do you call it when you are "taxed" for something, when you never had a chance to vote on that tax, the vote wasn't held to the correct "constitutional standards" for passage requiring vote percentage, and the impact for not paying the tax is the use of force against you? Most people call it theivery, and usually associate the age old concept of "protection fraud" used by gangs and the mafia. You either pay us what we TELL you to pay, or we come and bust up your body and property, until you start to pay.
That is the concept of wealth redistribution...... TAKING BY FORCE, that which you have not earned or been given through VOLITIONAL CHOICE.

If you want to see his "admitted" position regarding the issue, here is a link:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm

Please explain what you disagree with here and I will clarify as necessary.

My third statement you took fault with:
Obama is pro-UN, which is equal to saying ANTI-National soveriegnty.

Investigate the "global poverty act" which he openly supported and voted for.....

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=3879851


Please show me where my statements were "false" or not "factual"?

[Easy90]

What does that mean? BDS?
It's a friendly term coined by Sean Hannity I think....Means people suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Refers to the kind of folks who are so lathered up with hate for Bush that they go off on all this "war criminal" and other silly rhetoric in ref. to Bush. When you see that from a few here, you know they suffer from that syndrome.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Easy, you would easily consider me one of them, wouldn't you?

I in no way support Bush, or any of the majority of his actions. He is a traitor to my nations constitution, bill of rights, and has abused the trust people put in the government using those documents as the binding contract between us.

If you ask me, he is a war criminal on an international level..... that is what we called Hitler when he started agressive wars without valid basis for doing such.... why would Bush be called something different?

The only thing I think would be fitting for Bush, is a proper trial using objective standards of law, and if guilty, I think he should be executed as a traitor, which I believe the evidence will clearly bear out.

[Osborn F. Enready]

By the way, Sean Hannity is the most vile and partisan scumbag I have ever seen on a national broadcast.

[Pookie]

I know this has been said already, but here's my two cents:

I thought the Democratic Congress was supposed to do that? When are they going to get off their butts and do it? It seems that that was all we heard about during the run-up to the elections and right after, and that big "100 hours" thing.

Hillary and McCain haven't said anything about it. And if Obama is being a little cautious with his words, well, he should be. At least finally the subject has been broached, and I bet someone will ask the other two about it.

It will be really interesting to see what they have to say. If they don't dodge it, that is.
Purrs,
Pookie

[brien]

Although the Bush Administration may be guilty of impropriety, and may have even broken some laws, once you set the precedent of investigating any Administration after leaving office, it may come back and bite every succeeding Administration in the ass, not to mention the time and the money it would cost the taxpayers.

However, if you think this is a good idea, then perhaps the government should set up a permanent bi-partisan commission to investigate every Administration that takes and leaves office in the future.

Let the historians be the judge and the Administration's historical legacy be the final word.

[Trish]

Actually, a lot of what the Senator has to say is pretty well common sense. I liked this part of his comments "...are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity."

Now THAT's a position that I can support. From my perspective it exhibits a concern for certain decisions and policies which bear further investigation but doesn't automatically assume a preconceived outcome. Yep, that's a position I can respect.

[suedanim]

Although the Bush Administration may be guilty of impropriety, and may have even broken some laws, once you set the precedent of investigating any Administration after leaving office, it may come back and bite every succeeding Administration in the ass, not to mention the time and the money it would cost the taxpayers.

nah... just this one. If it takes setting a precedent to keep certain rogue special interests from hijacking the US government, then lets do it!

I doubt we'll be doing it over after every admin... Lets just get this one done. The American people have lost well over 8,000 American lives and tens of thousands of wounded, trillions of dollars spent and lost. We deserve to know the truth and we and the world deserve to know that all will be done to not just bring about some measure of justice, but some effort to not let it happen again.

However, if you think this is a good idea, then perhaps the government should set up a permanent bi-partisan commission to investigate every Administration that takes and leaves office in the future.

Over-reaction, overcompensation... We already have a permanent bi-partisan commission... or used to. Its called the US Congress. Remember back in the old days when there was a balance of powers.. checks and balances.

Let the historians be the judge and the Administration's historical legacy be the final word.

No! Let the American people be the judge.

Historians already are weighing in on this admins policies... but they do not have the full story with which to be the final word, do they? Of course not.

I understand some would like to wrap this up in a quick damn hurry...put a bigass rock on all those creepy crawleys. But I hope Obama and his new crew..shine a great big light on all of it.

I can have hope if I want to... :thumbsup:









JMO!

[lily]

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now.


Only problem with this is, it's either lost, erased, refused, or not on record.....and it's not going to mysteriously appear when Obama takes office.

[lily]

Originally Posted by brien http://www.democracyforums.com/images/democracy/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?p=164861#post164861)
Although the Bush Administration may be guilty of impropriety, and may have even broken some laws, once you set the precedent of investigating any Administration after leaving office, it may come back and bite every succeeding Administration in the ass, not to mention the time and the money it would cost the taxpayers.


Sure would make any president thereafter think about what he's doing, won't it?

[PostmodernProphet]

so much for Obama being an agent of change.....four more years of political shit slinging.....

[lily]

so much for Obama being an agent of change.....four more years of political shit slinging.....


How so, prophet? Do you think it's just a small minority that want answers to questions?

[PostmodernProphet]

How so, prophet? Do you think it's just a small minority that want answers to questions?

actually, yes.........just the rabid liberals.....I think this will cost him a huge percentage of the independent vote in the general election....those that are sick of what's been going on in politics for the last sixteen years and were hoping they could put it behind them by voting for Obama......

[Go Fish]

I understand GOPers and other Bush co-signers are gonna fret about this too. imo... it just makes Obama look all the more the ONLY candidate with any true integrity.

This is a question I have asked both campaigns. I imagine a lot of others have been hopeful one of them would speak out about it. I'm not surprised Obama has finally. I hope he'll say more about it at some time, though I am sure he must be very cautious at this time.

April 14, 2008
Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House

(http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html)http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/11/15/waterboard-11-14-07_2.jpg

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4583256), confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. 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.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Classification_as_torture) and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.

You don't really believe that there aren't hundreds of thousands of Bush-haters like yourself who can't find a single thing he's done wrong, do you? Get up off'a Allah's phallus and act like an American for a couple of seconds.

[lily]

actually, yes.........just the rabid liberals.....

I never considered myself a rabid liberal. Guess you can count me in on wanting answers.

I think this will cost him a huge percentage of the independent vote in the general election....

I think it will get him votes......I guess we know what they say about opinions.

those that are sick of what's been going on in politics for the last sixteen years and were hoping they could put it behind them by voting for Obama......

It's only 8 years that people have really been upset with what's going on....but I can agree, it feels like twice that amount........as for putting everything behind them.......isn't that what they have been doing? Sounds like change to me.

[ViolaLee]

Obama is the only candidate saying he would uphold the constitution in this way. If there were laws broken, he would seek justice, and he will have the facts reviewed to find out. This is who we need running our country. Good thread sue.

[PostmodernProphet]

It's only 8 years that people have really been upset with what's going on....

really?....the Democrats weren't upset over the Clinton investigations?....I kinda thought they were ticked off.....

[Elrathin]

i.e. waste time and money.

Yes, he needs to investigate if the president was getting a blow job, then others would agree with it.

[apdst]

Do you think it's just a small minority that want answers to questions?

Depends on if the questions are rigged, or not. Personally, I think the people that want, "answers", will only be happy if they get the answer they want. It has nothing to do with truth.

Yes, he needs to investigate if the president was getting a blow job, then others would agree with it.

I kinda feel like Clinton should have come under more scrutiny when he was accused of rape. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

[lily]

really?....the Democrats weren't upset over the Clinton investigations?....I kinda thought they were ticked off.....

I'm sure some were, just as some will be upset if Bush is investigated. We have to remember though, they will be investigated for very different reasons......I suppose you could hope that they find nothing on Bush and everything was on the up and up and they get him on lying about a personal matter. I think we also have to keep in mind that for the most part Clinton's presidency wasn't as secretive as the Bush administration......and they also didn't have a habit of saying they would investigate themselves, or erase, lose of refuse to give documents, or testify in front of hearings.

...........but then torture is only one thing I want him investigated on.....

[apdst]

We have to remember though, they will be investigated for very different reasons

And, those reasons are?

I think we also have to keep in mind that for the most part Clinton's presidency wasn't as secretive as the Bush administration

How do you know that?

[lily]

And, those reasons are?

Clinton was investigated for Whitewater.......and if you read the article you would know that we are talking about the torture memo.




How do you know that?


Well, let me see..........I CAN READ THEM.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Viola said:
Obama is the only candidate saying he would uphold the constitution in this way. If there were laws broken, he would seek justice, and he will have the facts reviewed to find out.

Good way to avoid that facts Viola.....

Preaching about enforcing the Constitution, as he breaks its laws and creates unconstitutional legislation......

Yes.... thats who we need running the country.... another Bush that pays lip service to the document until he is elected, and then mounts it on a stick to roast over the campfire......

Give me a break.

[Wndrtch]

I hope he pushes this in the campaign! It will end his ambitions right quick.

Although George is by no means a popular President, very few people want him on trial for doing his job of protecting the nation. You may not agree with how he's done that, or can argue he did it incompetantly, but "We the people" elected him to that job twice! Most rational people understand that war is nasty business, and will sign-off on his tactics, given the nature and back-drop of 911. Despite the Left's attempts to cast our President and military as thugs, they ARE doing an honorable job on our behalf and are starting to get things done.

[Wndrtch]

Obama is the only candidate saying he would uphold the constitution in this way. If there were laws broken, he would seek justice, and he will have the facts reviewed to find out. This is who we need running our country. Good thread sue.

Even for himself, regarding Rezko and his “mansion” deal?

We'll see. Rezko's trial start in the Fall, right?

[apdst]

When Obama gets elected, he will be shown, "the book". The book that only the president and his closest advisors get to see. After he sees the book, his politics are going to be modified, some and he'll be more interested in why so much classified material was leaked during the Bush Administration and less about investigating Bush.

If there were laws broken, he would seek justice

Yeah, he'll burn all those people that have been leaking classified info.

[preservanation]

When Obama gets elected, he will be shown, "the book". The book that only the president and his closest advisors get to see.

Yeah, he'll burn all those people that have been leaking classified info.Will that be before or after he burns the Constitution?

[apdst]

Will that be before or after he burns the Constitution?

Before, I believe. He'll have to plug the security leaks before he starts secretly reframing our government.

[lily]

When Obama gets elected, he will be shown, "the book". The book that only the president and his closest advisors get to see. After he sees the book, his politics are going to be modified, some and he'll be more interested in why so much classified material was leaked during the Bush Administration and less about investigating Bush.



Yeah, he'll burn all those people that have been leaking classified info.


..........well see, already he will be doing a better job than Bush......as he couldn't find the leaks.:nana:

[Osborn F. Enready]

I don't know Lilly, Obama is as much a hypocrite as Bush, Clinton(either), or McCain......

I don't see any good of it.

[SchmottyBeardo]

You don't really believe that there aren't hundreds of thousands of Bush-haters like yourself who can't find a single thing he's done wrong, do you? Get up off'a Allah's phallus and act like an American for a couple of seconds.

How about criminal negligence of his Constitutional responsibilities as Commander In Chief for willfully ignoring repeated warnings that the USA was about to be attacked?

How about failure to uphold his Constitutional oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America?

How about personal approval of the planning, implementation and micromanagement of a system of torture and lying about it?

How about the fixing of intelligence around a policy of unprovoked attack of a sovereign nation?

How about violation of the Constitutional balance of powers through the Unitary Executive interpretation of the Constitution and the perverted use of signing statements?

Go Fish, get back on your calloused knees before your RonnieGod shrine. I'm sure more garbage will soon be fed to you through the void that is the group mind of all Hatchling.

[preservanation]

How about criminal negligence of his Constitutional responsibilities as Commander In Chief for willfully ignoring repeated warnings that the USA was about to be attacked?

How about failure to uphold his Constitutional oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America?

How about personal approval of the planning, implementation and micromanagement of a system of torture and lying about it?

How about the fixing of intelligence around a policy of unprovoked attack of a sovereign nation?

How about violation of the Constitutional balance of powers through the Unitary Executive interpretation of the Constitution and the perverted use of signing statements?

Go Fish, get back on your calloused knees before your RonnieGod shrine. I'm sure more garbage will soon be fed to you through the void that is the group mind of all Hatchling.Welcome Schmotty!

Care to prove any of this?
Maybe you can succeed where others have failed.

[suedanim]

I hope he pushes this in the campaign! It will end his ambitions right quick.

Although George is by no means a popular President, very few people want him on trial for doing his job of protecting the nation. You may not agree with how he's done that, or can argue he did it incompetantly, but "We the people" elected him to that job twice! Most rational people understand that war is nasty business, and will sign-off on his tactics, given the nature and back-drop of 911. Despite the Left's attempts to cast our President and military as thugs, they ARE doing an honorable job on our behalf and are starting to get things done.

First... he hasnt protected the nation. Jeezus! We invaded the wrong country!! Why can't you deluded people see that?

Second... "We, the people".. meaning who..? Not the over 50 million who voted otherwise. Speak for yourself.

Third.. War may be nasty business, but lets make war on the right people. You know... the enemy we were SUPPOSED to be at war with... al qaida. And they reside, fat, happy and unmolested in PAKISTAN!! HA...the jokes on us. We might got control of the oil and Israel might love us for being in Iraq... but the world is NO SAFER because of those two things.

There is NO HONOR is outright murder, no honor in lies, no honor is running up a 10 TRILLION dollar debt on the wrong goddamn war.

Incompetance and malfeasance, high treason is the legacy of George Bush and Dick Cheney. I hope and pray to live to see their asses nailed to the wall for the DEATHS of innocent thousands, including thousands of Americans.