Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

To allow bush & the neo cons to go unpunished for their crimes would be criminal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 06:23 PM
Original message
To allow bush & the neo cons to go unpunished for their crimes would be criminal
It really would be a disgrace, to let the likes of the bush family and their associates in crime and mass murder and acts of high tyranny just walk away unpunished after all that they've done, and all the misery and grief they've left in their wake.

We can talk about impeachment pro and con, but Jesus, look what these men have done in our names, if you can stand to, most can't.

These men have been exposed as gigantic lying monsters, who made a war for money and power and nothing else, and they've lied to us every single day since they 'took' office.

It would really be a god damned shame if they just walked away in happy retirement, their names enshrined forever in the delusional history books of the republicans, who've made reagan into Christ himself.

Is that what will ultimately happen though? No punishment or justice for the most wicked men on earth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not only should we demand justice for those who have been
wronged, but letting them walk away into the sunset sends a message to all future political criminals that you can get away with lies and murder with no repercussions.

Why do you think all the retreads from the Nixon and Reagan administrations have resurfaced again in the Bush administration? It's time to slam the bars shut on this crowd and throw the key away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. If it's left up to the COVERUP wing of the Democratic party, that's what will happen.
Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. the truth hurts alright
Ol' Bill just doesn't seem outraged enough at daddy bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-19-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. How do you think 9-11 families feel about that once they realize it could've been stopped
back in 1993 with the simple act of justice and honest governance called open government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 04:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. ---------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
6. America is a war crime nation
Edited on Mon Nov-20-06 07:09 AM by Solly Mack
How do people just accept that? What kind of lie does a person have to tell themselves to push that to the back of their mind as the least of problems in America?

Good governments don't engage in war crimes - corrupt governments do. It might give people the warm fuzzies to believe the Bush regime is some sort of evil anomaly but that's just bullshit - a comforting lie that allows people to think it all goes away when the Bush regime is out of office.

Bush didn't just happen. He was a long time in the making. Good government would never have allowed Selection 2000 to stand. Good government would never have impeached a President over sex with a consenting adult. Good government would have never allowed the Iran-Contra players to go free. And there are a host of other things good government would have never allowed...


Bush didn't create corruption in government - corruption in government created Bush. Corruption in government allowed Bush to get away with everything up to now.

Constantly allowing the corrupt in government to walk free created Bush.Constantly allowing the lies and abuses to go unchallenged, to go unpunished, gave us Bush.

Buying into the get out of jail free thinking that holding those in government accountable for their crimes would somehow harm the country gave us Bush.

You can't make deals with corruption. It'll keep coming back to bite you in the ass when you do.

If people really give a damn about what kind of America future generations will have then what's more important than rooting out all the corruption and bad government?

You cut social programs to make your corporate Sugar Daddy happy then you're what's wrong with government. When campaign donations amount to nothing more than bribes for favorable legislation, that's corruption...and you're what's wrong with government if you engage in that practice.

The people go without health care - but elected officials do not. There's something seriously wrong with that picture. And that's just one example of the harm bad government brings.

No one in government is more deserving of health care than the people. No one in government does anything that merits them special treatment over the people. No one.

But government has convinced a good many people that that those in government are more deserving - that they are somehow better than the people. That they are somehow above it all...

Corruption fuels it all....the bribes dressed up as campaign donations, the power grabs, the contracts to cronies in a phony war, the erosions of rights, torture, extraordinary rendition.... the list goes on and on. It all stems from bad government - a bad government where corruption has been allowed to swell so much for so long, no outrage is too low.

When you think you can't be touched - when you have been allowed to get away with anything and everything for years and years, your crimes will get bigger and bigger and that much more horrible.

I don't think America has the integrity or the will to do the right thing and hold the Bush regime and all his cohorts accountable for their crimes. I'd be mighty surprised if justice was even sought much less achieved.

Still, I'm not going to lie to myself and pretend it all just goes away when Bush leaves office. I'm not going to lie to myself and pretend there can be lasting change without holding the guilty accountable.

If the Bush regime are not held accountable for their crimes, then that's exactly the kind of America future generations will have...the same kind we have now - where wannabe tyrants go free.























Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. If Congress does not impeach it will make them Accessories after the fact.
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT - Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC