Check in and apologize if you posted that Obama/Holder would NEVER prosecute Bush crimes!!

[HamdenRice]

We'd love to hear from you!









:crickets:

[niyad]

1. you mean, as in MEANINGFUL, far-reaching,comprehensive and worthwhile?

[ConnorMarc]

2. This Thread Doesn't Apply To Me But...

Lets not count our chickens before they hatch.

Mmmmkay?

[Solly Mack]

3. I read Holder's statement and it says this

"...information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter..."

So it's a preliminary review to see if laws were violated, as a means to gather information to determine if there will be a full investigation...


http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2009/ag-testimony-090824.html
Holder goes on to say:

"I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow."


Which doesn't mean there won't eventually be some kind of prosecutions... but if people want to be fair, his statement doesn't say "we will prosecute"...it does say it is a review to determine if there will be a full investigation though

If people want to be fair, that is

[joeybee12]

27. Naw, the blind cheerleader brigade doesn't believe in fair...

...they believe in, well, blind cheerleading. This development really says nothing yet.

[slipslidingaway]

38. "If people want to be fair, that is" +1000 n/t

[polichick]

4. Actually, this isn't about prosecuting Bush/Cheney crimes...

It will only cover what "goes beyond" the crimes permitted in those phony legal briefs ordered by Bush/Cheney.

[HamdenRice]

5. I see the unrec'ing crew is slinking in anonymously!

I'll take that as a check in!

:rofl:

[Cant trust em]

6. Crickets was exactly what I was thinking. nt

[Cant trust em]

7. Don't worry. There will still be plenty for the complainophiles to whine about. nt

[HamdenRice]

8. "complainophiles"?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I love that term!

[cwydro]

9. Hmmm,

wonder who is unreccing this?

[endarkenment]

10. wow this is one idiotic post

happy to unrec!

[HamdenRice]

14. Not as idiotic as people who are already saying, "too little, too late." nt

[polichick]

23. Why are you ignoring the fact that this doesn't address Bush/Cheney crimes? nt

[HamdenRice]

24. Another seer, predicting the future. But past predictions of the future didn't work out so well

Have you watched the way other scandals unfolded? You start with one issue, gather evidence and expand the investigation, if needed.

How do you know that this won't eventually address Bush/Cheney crimes?

You don't. Just like you didn't know that Holder would never appoint an independent counsel.

[polichick]

26. THIS investigation only allows for a narrow scope...

...just what goes beyond those phony legal briefs Bush/Cheney ordered.

It's WAY too early to count your chickens ~ and WAY too early to crow!

[joeybee12]

28. I know...it's a development that means nothing right now...

...you have to see where they take this, but of course, the nuts are out in force.

[madokie]

11. I spent 15 months of my life at a most impressionable time

because I had faith that my country was worth it. Today I have that same faith that of the many war crimes commited by this criminal crew there will be prosecutions and I suspect convictions. Followed by the imprisonment that these crimes warrant, possibly even death to some of the bush/cheney cabal. Its coming, I'll bid my time and not pressure anyone about it but I am damn sure waiting for that day when charges that I feel should be are filed. Before this is all over I suspect that some of these criminals will be wishing they never heard the word Iraq or for that matter Afghanistan before.

[HamdenRice]

12. Just to temper this nice post with realism -- how long did Iran Contra take? Watergate?

By historical standards, we may see the first indictments in 1.5 to 2 years at the earliest.

Iran contra was disclosed around 1987. The final report of the independent counsel was 1993.

You're going to be hearing a lot of gnashing of teeth for a good five years from the Day 1 Impeachers, doomers, Trotskyite mob and PUMAs.

[omega minimo]

19. Watergate and Iran/Contra were investigated at the times they occurred. There is no Independent

Counsel. There have been no investigations.

Oh and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are still dangling by a thread. :toast: Enjoy your smugosity.

[madokie]

30. Sometimes I have to check to make sure I'm at the right place with all the Obama bashing and all

Obama didn't do this or Obama is gonna' do that. Hell I'm just happy to have a good man with our best interest at heart in the oval office. I don't put upon his shoulders the task of doing every damn thing and I don't expect miracles overnight. I guess you could say I like the decision we all made last November.

[Winterblues]

13. When were there prosecutions of Bush* or any in his Cabal?

I hear a special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate the CIA but haven't heard of any yet to investigate Bush*. Let me know when that happens, in the mean time I'll just hold my breath.

[JuniperLea]

15. The goal post will be moved, you know...

It reminds me of arguments with some of my Fundy cousins... I've been telling them for months that it's only a matter of time before people who actually know things realize BushCo really ISN'T in charge any longer, and start singing.

Now that we're hearing a few choice tunes, it doesn't matter because they are not really going to prosecute... or they are trumped up charges... sure. Whatever.

Here y'all go... with a little greens on the side...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

16. Where does Holder say anything about prosecution

of Bush crimes? Which crimes are you speaking of, the illegal invasion of Iraq that not only is never mentioned it is in fact lauded?

:shrug:

In any case here's the statement by Holder;
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2009/ag-testimony-090824.html

which if you have read it you might wish to place under your pillow with the HOPE(tm) that you'll awaken to find a quarter.

[HamdenRice]

18. So you are demanding prosecutions before investigations?

Why do I even have to stoop to discuss reality with such people?

[Truth2Tell]

22. No. But I AM demanding prosecutions before

I apologize in a stupid thread demanding people apologize for posting that there will be no prosecutions.

Don't you think that makes sense Hamden? :shrug:

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. This particular post is absolutely hysterically laughable in light of:

"Check in and apologize if you posted that Obama/Holder would NEVER prosecute Bush crimes!!"

You were demanding apologies...

[gratuitous]

17. I don't know that I ever said that

But I certainly had my doubts that even the preliminary review proposed by AG Holder was going to happen. I'm certainly happy to see my doubts were groundless. As for actual prosecution of crimes, I don't see any money on the table. Forgive me if I continue to hold my cards real close to my vest.

[HamdenRice]

20. I didn't mean this as a particularly serious OP, but thanks for the serious answer! nt

[frylock]

i'll check in and apologize when that actually happens..

thx.

[Soylent Brice]

21. is it hot in here, or is it just me...

[damntexdem]

25. I would love to be able to apologize for my doubts.

But I have yet to see whether there will be prosecutions.

I have never said, however, that there would never be prosecutions, only that it was doubtful that there would be.

[Cant trust em]

29. Shouldn't there be an investigation to see if crimes have been committed...

before there are prosecutions? I don't think you can jump the gun here.

It looks like this is getting us on that path. I can't ask anything more than that.

[Forkboy]

31. What are you, 10?

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. Just checking in to post that President Obama/ AG Holder STILL HAVEN'T prosecuted * crimes.

Thanks for that opportunity.

[rug]

33. I will begin a preliminary investigation to determine whether such an action is warranted.

[mmonk]

34. Here I am.. The executive branch cannot request legal arguments from his OLC

to commit crimes against the Constitution and laws of the United States and be immune to prosecution. I find it in no statute nor any line of the Constitution.

[NightWatcher]

35. I didnt hear, when's the trial start?

[librechik]

36. Holder's "preliminary review" is very far from a prosecution.

I will still be very surprised if any of the players in the Bush regime are prosecuted. Libby will be the last,IMO.

(and the last of my faith in The American Democratic Experiment)

[ddeclue]

39. How about Obama checks in and apologizes for having to be forced into doing the right thing all the

time by the progressives that elected him?

Not exactly leadership in my book.

[nc4bo]

40. Hasn't happened yet, not even close.

But we can certainly keep the pressure on until it does.

All of these people received their orders from somewhere and if this opens the cave door then it's a good start.

Still, it's a only start.

[Greyhound]

41. As soon as an indictment of IFB, Cheney, or Turd Blossom is handed down for their crimes,

I will happily admit I was wrong.

But right now there is nothing but a suggestion of the possibility that they might be looking into allegations of alleged policy mistakes of minor players, if that.

Are you a professional jerk, or just a gifted amateur?

[bermudat]

42. Who has been prosecuted?

Have no doubt Obama/Holder Justice Dept will cave in the end.