Is it possible that Rachel's show Hubris is a lead in to prosecutions?

[shraby]

Maybe it was an attempt to educate the public about exactly what transpired and open the dialogue about prosecuting them. Most of the show was no surprise to DU'ers, just a walk down memory lane and the anger about the whole pack of lies.

Obama is in his second term, so now has the freedom to prosecute the Bush bunch and the constitution Geneva Conventions demand they be brought to justice as well as the part that forbids wars of aggression.
I'll have to sit down and read what the procedure to prosecute them is...whether the DOJ or Congress starts the ball rolling.

[madokie]

1. We can sure hope so

[msongs]

2. if you have your own war crimes, you do not prosecute other people's war crimes nt

[Loudly]

3. Alas, it is a substitute for them.

[aptal]

4. We can only hope, but it looks like most the blame will be dumped on the intelligence community.

[shraby]

8. There are enough of the rank and file who worked in those buildings to testify

how the "stovepipe" operated. Seasoned intel gatherers were shoved aside and Cheney's minions took over.

[Marrah_G]

5. I doubt anything will come of it

[RobertEarl]

6. Let's hope so

Maybe Obama was asked and he said please run it?

I R Bush = hubris

[goclark]

7. It should win every award they give for this special

She is a brave , brave , brilliant lady!

Something tells me she checks in to DU sometimes - hope so.


We love you Rachel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[avebury]

9. I would not hold your breath. Those who do not learn from

the past are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[GoCubsGo]

10. Nope.

The book on which it was all based has yet to do so, so why should this? I doubt it will even generate outrage beyond those who were already outraged. Just more preaching to the choir.

[Exultant Democracy]

11. Only if wishing were to make it so. Has anyone ever been prosecuted for something like this?

Not as far as I can recall.

[Solly Mack]

12. I don't think so.

[oldhippydude]

13. actually it seems to me that the neo-cons are pushing on Iran

this is a big neon "Don't go there"...

[northoftheborder]

14. Remember Kucinic introduced bill to impeach Bush but was ignored and laughed at.

[Warpy]

15. At best, it's a shot across the bow.

If and when it is repeated on broadcast television, which still has the largest audience, then maybe it has a chance of leading to prosecutions.

One thing Obama knows for certain is if he goes after these murderers, the next Democrat will be hounded out of office because putting an outgoing administration on trial is a bad precedent to set with a party as spiteful and childish as the Republicans have become.

We will have to wait for the next reasonable administration, if then. Remember, it took 30 years to get Pinochet.

One thing Cheney needs to think about is that he will always be under the shadow of legal action for his role in lying this country into a war of corporate convenience and the murder of so many Iraqi citizens in our name.

[BainsBane]

16. No

It won't.

[Brigid]

17. We can only wish.

I doubt it, though.

[City Lights]

18. I highly doubt it.

They are untouchable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Nope

But I am as cynical as they come.

[magellan]

20. It's more likely we'll all win the lottery on the same night

At most I expect that some day, far in the future, when all the main players are dust, there'll be some belated "sober discussion" of the failure to prosecute. At most.

[aristocles]

21. Nope.

Who or what body would have jurisdiction?

[shraby]

39. Have you read the Geneva Conventions? It's in the constitution and as such is a part of our

constitution because it's a treaty we signed. It states that if the offending country doesn't act, the international community must.

[hay rick]

22. I'd rather see a lynch mob.

No. Our judicial system has been co-opted.

[Arctic Dave]

23. It will never happen but it should remind bush and gang to live in fear.

There is an entire region who would love to be the one to claim they took revenge for what he did.

Not only would I not shed a tear for any of them if that were to happen but I would cheer that person who did it also.

[Lugnut]

24. I wish.

I won't be holding my breath waiting for it to ever happen.

[kenny blankenship]

25. I suppose so, in the same way that it's possible that Iraq had WMDs

I can't prove that it's impossible that Iraq had WMDs so I suppose in some sense it's possible that they did have them. Somewhere. Just not anywhere anyone could ever find them. Possibly in an alternate dimension. Just so, I cannot prove that Rachel's showcasing of Hubris is not part of a coordinated lead in to belated prosecutions of the Bush Administration for crimes of war, by leaders of what remains one of the most war happy countries in history. I can't prove that it's impossible. So you'd have to say it's possible. But let's just say that I doubt it highly, in both cases.

[defacto7]

26. Maybe it's the world court that should intervene.

There is plenty of world wide hatred, disgust and evidence outside of the US to make it a crime against humanity and put out an international warrant for their arrest. The US has too many closets and political baggage to do diddly squat about the Bush regime. Here, it's a dead issue. In the World's eye view, the momentum has only started.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. No.

Not a chance.

[davidn3600]

28. Obama aint going to do jack no matter what comes out

It's been made quite clear the current government has no intention of investigating the Iraq war in any shape or form.

Remember in 2006, Nancy Pelosi publicly came out and said there will be no impeachment hearings or investigations concerning the Iraq war.

So no... For one reason or another, our government just does not have the stomach for this. 1) I think Democrats are afraid the public will view it as partisan and pointless and wasting time. 2) They think the truth could diplomatically damage the United States. and 3) Do you hand over a former president to a war crimes trial?

It's too messy...and no one wants to deal with it. So don't expect any government action.

[gateley]

29. I doubt it. Unless the majority of the country shares this outrage, it could truly

tear the country apart.

Not sure what they could prosecute them WITH, either. Maybe some DU attorneys could enlighten us.

These people deserve to rot in jail. David Corn told Tweety he thought that Cheney believed the neo-con BS, but I think it was just power and greed.

I hate him with a passion.

[Lil Missy]

30. I doubt it. But the Justice Department would make that decision, not the President

[CanonRay]

31. Only in my dreams

it will never happen, although it should.

[MrSlayer]

32. Hahahaha!!!!

No way. These sons of bitches will never be held accountable. Thanks for the laugh though.

[Javaman]

34. Sadly, I believe you are correct. nt

[1-Old-Man]

33. The problem is not lack of information, its lack of Prosecutions by Eric Holder

I thought for a long time that there could be no worse Attorney General than John Ashcroft, but I sure was wrong about that.

[tarheelsunc]

35. I can already imagine the conservative backlash...

"Putting Bush on trial for Iraq? When are you going to put yourself on trial for Benghazi?"

[hack89]

36. There will be no prosecution.

Obama wants to pass his agenda - he can't do both. Prosecution would gridlock our government like never before.

[spanone]

37. as we can see this morning, even rachel's own network is acting like it never aired.

the media was complicit in the war, why would they want to resurrect it?

[The2ndWheel]

38. Still holding out hope?

The US Government is above international law. Always has been. It basically created international law, or at least is all that keeps it from crumbling.

The US Government bombs and kills whoever it wants to. Accept it.

1. US
2. UN
3. Everyone else

That's the way it's been, is, and will be. Unless that dynamic changes somehow, and it won't be a voluntary change.