What is Digg?255 Comments
- 0dnj0, on 04/19/2009, -13/+78you guys are so lost,of course nothing is going to happen to the bush admin...obama and bush,cheney,clintons,mccain,they are all buddies behind the scenes its all as fake as wrestling,wake up morons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Nothing in politics happens by accident - if it does, you can bet it was planned that way" -Theodore Roosevelt
- northwatuppa, on 04/20/2009, -8/+73That's very generous of you. But you realize you just glibly agreed to sweep a heap of war crimes and crimes against humanity under the rug to save the US a little embarrassment, don't you? Should they have canceled the Neuremburg trials because they were an embarrassment to Germany?
It would be nice if moral issues could be conveniently set aside because of public relations concerns, but they can't. Somewhere down the road, the US will have to pick up the tab for this horrendous behavior and it won't be pretty. - bobothedorkboy, on 04/20/2009, -4/+67Hard to find someone to prosecute them when they're ALL dirty...
- JohnEHubertz, on 04/19/2009, -15/+75This is only acceptable if we are arranging to extradite them to the Hague for war-crimes trial and punishment.
- Bloodwine, on 04/20/2009, -2/+40Obama knows if he opens the gates for Bush prosection, then his own ass might be on the line after he leaves office. I doubt any President wants to start that precedent.
- Waiting2awake, on 04/20/2009, -6/+44If you do not prosecute Bush and Co. there will be another, worse. History has shown it to be true.
We don't just put people in jail as punishment, we do it as a warning for others that would consider doing it themselves. Understand the precedent not doing anything would result in? - frcc, on 04/20/2009, -10/+46Obama is a puppet.
- jaymzdean, on 04/20/2009, -5/+39This is wrong-headed.
Gravely serious crimes swept under the rug.
Moral decay has taken both parties. - pimpofpixels, on 04/20/2009, -5/+33And Justice is optimistically disregarded for the luxury of civility.
I wonder if cops should just let drunk drivers get away to avoid a potentially ugly scene at the apprehension. - kurttrail, on 04/19/2009, -2/+30Obama isn't right to allow those at the highest levels of gov't to get away with ordering a war crime. By not pursuing justice, he is creating an injustice. This is setting the precedent that our elected leaders can get away with breaking the law, and one day it will come back to bite us in We The People's ass!
Obama is doing what is politically expedient, not what is right. - Rich75, on 04/20/2009, -8/+36It is my opinion that Obama has really tricked me and a lot of other folks. I worked and voted for him with the understanding, from what he said during the campaign, that he would make right and accountable all the criminal acts that were made in the Bush administration.
I don't believe in looking in the rearview mirror in most cases. However, I don't want domestic and international crimes committed in my name, and the ones responsible laughing at me all the way to theirs and my grave while my feeling of guilt keeps festering. Also, I didn't even vote for Bush either time he ran.
Unless something changes, President Obama isn't doing his job and I know he has an extremely difficult job ahead of him. Nevertheless, he can find the time to properly take care of MY business too.
Obama, needs to put his knowledge of constitutional and international law to work, like he definately stated and implied he would. - dreamtiger, on 04/20/2009, -9/+37I believe Obama is making a mistake here. I can understand the need to move forward, but true closure on the last 8 years requires a much deeper investigation, IMHO.
- MinibossMike, on 04/20/2009, -7/+32Obama is a puppet.
Bush was a puppet.
They're all puppets.
Of course the puppet masters won't prosecute themselves.
Get past your left/right black/white. They keep us divided for a reason... - shig, on 04/20/2009, -5/+30Let's not report or prosecute crime, because having a crime rate and prisons makes us look bad.
- duke_nate, on 04/20/2009, -5/+29Change we can believe in.....wait, what now?
- Waiting2awake, on 04/20/2009, -1/+24Why is anyone surprised? Wasn't it told that no one was going to be held accountable when you keep picking between two sides of the same coin. Where ever one side goes, the other side is right there..
- joe361, on 04/20/2009, -4/+26The Obama administration wants to reserve the right to break the law.
- wjappe, on 04/20/2009, -5/+24It doesn't matter if it drags on, it needs to be done for the health of our country, respect for our laws and the general moral of the people and for justice! This cannot be ignored!
- Ranzera, on 04/20/2009, -8/+24Shame on you Obama. I'm dissapointed in you.
- boydrew, on 04/20/2009, -2/+18May sound cynical, but i can nearly guarantee that every administration for the past 50 years could be tried for war crimes or other serious crimes. Like a few have said above me, no president wants to set this practice (of prosecuting presidents and their administrations) into effect.
- duncan202, on 04/20/2009, -1/+15This is the correct answer. Once one side is prosecuted, every sitting president/administration will face accusations, hearings and trials every 4 years.
- wissler, on 04/20/2009, -3/+17"Rule of law" only applies to us peasants.
- rottencod, on 04/20/2009, -4/+17Personally I think it would improve our image abroad more to prosecute the people responsible for this disgusting behavior than to just pretend like it never happened. Pledging that it won't happen anymore is only going halfway.
- breakbread, on 04/20/2009, -1/+12Wtf? This just validates the Nuremberg Defense, doesn't it? "I did it because i was ordered to." We executed people for that.
- CrazedLeper, on 04/20/2009, -4/+15How long will this charade go on before everyone, collectively, wakes up and realizes that the president does not run the country? Probably never because the keep telling the people what the people want to hear.
How is it that the American agenda (war and profit) has continued on a straight line through 43 presidents? The only exception being Kennedy and you see where making decisions got him.
There is a single, 2-faced, corporate party (Demopublicans until 2012 at which time it may revert back to being Republicrats) that makes all the decisions. The charade of elections every four years is just to keep the idiots (voters) from revolting because you belie that you picked the guy whom you would never even have seen had he not been financed by Wall Street or the European, old-money, banking elite (even they are one-and-the-same). Democracy, itself, is a deception. - mparker21311, on 04/20/2009, -2/+13Moral of this story: The Government can and will do anything without any consequences.
When will America refuse to support bad behaviour? Because as of now we're only going to get more of it by doing nothing. - normlsparky, on 04/20/2009, -3/+14"...Obama has a gigantic mess of fubar'ed ***** to clean up and if he were to do this without the firm support of at least 85% of the country he would spend all political capital doing so, Bush and Co would STILL get off with a slap on the wrist {look @ Nixon,Ollie North etc} and we would get no health care reform, or any other badly needed tackling of problems we face in this country..."
First of all, the Republican Party has not been supportive of anything Obama has done. They have opposed him at every opportunity. There is not, nor will there likely be, an 85% majority who will support his efforts to pass any legislation regardless of what happens to Bush.
Turning a blind eye, so that certain political goals can be accomplished, is condoning the behavior and setting a dangerous precedent. It is no different than how the religious right tolerated and defended Bush's behavior, because they thought he may be able to further their anti-abortion / pro-religious agenda. - jpsoraire, on 04/20/2009, -1/+12If true, this would be yet another disgraceful, shameful, embarrassing moment in United States history.
- inactive, on 04/20/2009, -5/+15god, shut the ***** up. Seriously. I'm sick of this *****.
This has been the democratic mantra twice now. Once after the democrats won Congress in 2006, when Nancy Pelosi completely rolled over. And now, after Obama won.
And here is why I tell you to shut the ***** up: you are a hypocrite. The democrats used justice as their election platform both in 2006 and 2008. THEY GOT ELECTED BASED ON THE IDEA THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING.
Do you realize that if we don't put a lid on this unitary executive nonsense that we will have future incidents such as Abu Ghraib?
Nothing less than our integrity and our system of justice is on the line here. We need to set the precedent that there are, indeed, limits to the executive office. Secret torture campaigns should be one of those. - directedition, on 04/20/2009, -1/+10It's just to show he's part of the club. As long as he doesn't charge any previous adminstrations for crimes, noone will charge his with any. You aren't allowed to join the game if you aren't going to follow the rules.
- jaymzdean, on 04/20/2009, -6/+15If Obama ever starts BBQing babies on the White House lawn, I fully expect...
Obama Supporter For Life: "On one hand, I'm disappointed, on the other hand Obama (insert intellectually dishonest rationale here)." - sandbun, on 04/20/2009, -2/+10The problem is not doing anything begs for this same stuff to happen again and again. We cannot afford to set a bad precedent here.
- DooM, on 04/20/2009, -2/+10If you feel tricked it's only because you weren't listening when during the campaign he said things like:
""I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve.""
Or when he voted to give the telecoms immunity as part of the FISA bill.
Here's my thing - given all options Obama was (and is) in my estimation, the best candidate for the job. So I don't agree with him on these things but I was well-informed enough to expect them. That being said, I'm still going to fight him on where we disagree and support him where we agree. I don't need to knee-jerk and start screaming about the sky falling when this should NOT be a surprise to ANYone who did their civic duty in figuring out where the candidates stood. - youliveinfear, on 04/20/2009, -3/+11This doesn't surprise me really. The repubs go after Clinton for a BJ, and still the democrats are afraid to prosecute real crimes.
- homercles337, on 04/20/2009, -4/+12This is sad. Why wont the Obama administration do its god damn job?!
- treehugger87, on 04/20/2009, -0/+7The media wouldn't give us the option to vote for the guy who *would* prosecute Bush. Did you see Kucinich, Paul or Nader's name on the ballot? Were they given serious consideration when they were running?
- Waiting2awake, on 04/20/2009, -3/+10No it isn't progress, think about it. Regardless of the vote, the same policies would have happened.
So the purpose of your voting is? - PdxPhoenix, on 04/20/2009, -3/+10Time to get the "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers printed...
- praha, on 04/20/2009, -4/+11"...its all as fake as wrestling..."
whoa, wait. - Manther, on 04/20/2009, -1/+8It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't pursuing this because it would implicate almost everyone in the government, Obama included. Remember all the people who voted for Bush policies...even if only so they didn't look like they were "anti-american"
- inactive, on 04/20/2009, -3/+10To be fair, Obama made it abundantly clear he wasn't going to pursue these criminals.
- eboy, on 04/20/2009, -9/+15SUCH *****!!!
- kkonarik, on 04/20/2009, -0/+6@mpress24
You got it, why would Obama open the door for that? They will cover each others arses before they do what is right. No president wants to be held accountable. - mithrasinvictus, on 04/20/2009, -0/+6Time to change "yes we can" into "oh no, you didn't".
- mithrasinvictus, on 04/20/2009, -1/+7That's not likely to happen while there are only 2 parties to choose from.
- jaderaven, on 04/20/2009, -1/+7If that is what is needed to keep them from breaking the law the so be it. I for one think there should be consquences for breaking the law... EVEN if you are the president. Just because you are the president does not mean you can break the law.
I think this should not even be up to Obama to investigate and prosecute. The other two branches should be leveling the law at the executive branch. That is what they are there for. Checks and balances. We have almost eliminated the built in checks and balances our government is suposed to have. How logical is it to have the executive branch police itself?? Of course they don't want to set a precedent. That is why it should not be up to the executive branch to decide to prosecute Buch and Co. - Loonacy, on 04/20/2009, -3/+9So basically you're saying that if we investigated and prosecuted war crimes, that would be embarrassing. But telling the world we aren't even going to investigate the torture we KNOW happened won't damage global opinion of us?
- humptyz, on 04/20/2009, -3/+9It's official: we're a nation of laws for the rich & powerful and everyone else. Damn, didn't think democracy was supposed to end up like this.
- Plughie, on 04/20/2009, -2/+8The best we can hope for is arrest and trial of Bush & Co. by either the Hague or an aggrieved foreign government.
- kurttrail, on 04/20/2009, -2/+7Waterboarding is torture. Only you Neanderthals don't believe it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 262 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is