Suggesting we "move forward" and ignore Bush crimes is insulting to us still facing consequences

Isn't it a little like telling the family of a murder victim to "walk it off"?

We're still facing the economic consequences of the Enron presidency
We're still dealing with the very real consequences of the Iraq war
We're still living in the aftermath of Katrina
We're still living in a country where our journalists and politicians are openly spied on
Many people are still dealing with the consequences of the Bush DOJ
etc.

Sorry, many of us don't have the luxury of "moving forward" with smiles on our faces, ready to reach across the aisle to those who have no respect for constitutional law.

he damn well better address this stuff.

that Eric Holder would be the one to get to the heart of the matter as the AG.
Said that it was Holder's responsiblity, which it is, and not his as president.

You may want to read the entire transcript or watch the entire interview and not cherry pick.

Yeah, thanks for the suggestion that I pay attention, that's an idea.

I'll assume you're not being purposely obtuse and I'll clarify. Obama's the boss of this. He's said a lot of the right stuff, as you pointed out. Holder works for him.

His actions will speak louder than his words. By this I will make my judgements. I remain cautiously optimistic, and I take into account the problems he's faced with. That being said, I repeat:

He'd better address this.

Cherry pick that.

Obama loses a vote next time?

Oooh! I'm sure he's scared.

YEAH I'm threatening him with my vote.

You don't think he needs to address this? WTF.

"It would be better for him, us and the entire country's future if he addressed this."

How's that?

jeez.....

base of support, & they'd better pay attention.


if folks like you, telling a dem his vote & opinions don't matter, mocking them, represent the "leadership," i can see what the problem is.

I choked down the bile this time when I cast my vote because I was convinced it was for the greater good--no matter how I felt personally. I was convinced that SS and Medicare would only be saved by Obama. Well guess what? They aren't.
I promise I won't do it next time. I will not have blood on my hands.
There are very very few public servants out there anymore...the majority are self-servants. I will not vote for another one of those in my lifetime. Change had better happen and it had better be progressive. If not, I will not support it and I do not stand alone in this.
I will no longer buy the guilt trip that republicans are worse than democrats--because the prelims are coming in and the answer is--no, they really aren't.

x(

In fact it's his only chance. :grr:

a 'hearing', a 'special prosecutor', a 'committee'..it will make for great tv, and lots of recommendations..maybe a couple of fall guys will do a few years time.

The conclusion will be like the 9-11 commission.

"Everybody was at fault, and no one was at fault.
Time to move on".

as the mother of a murder victim who was advised to "let it go" before her killer's criminal case had even been adjudicated, i maintain that it is way too soon to let it go. Justice demands that consequences be paid for bad acts, especially those bad acts that have resulted in the premature and violent deaths of so many people.

after years had passed and justice had been denied by the criminal court, on my own i came to the decision to "let it go" - for my own good health, for the sake of my surviving children and grandchildren, because the hatred and bitterness could ruin me while it could not touch the person who killed my daughter. but those years had to pass. and at least we TRIED. she spent some time in prison. not enough, but better than nothing.

:hug:

i don't believe for one second they have stopped this shit

But your honor...we need to stop dwelling on what WAS, and look forward to what could be. We need to stop looking back, we need to MOVE FORWARD and forget that I ever committed a crime or acted negligently in a way that hurt other people. Please, judge, who are you to judge? Let's move forward!

.

:spray:

:eyes:

I DARE YOU.

How about the families of fallen soldiers. Are they "playing the victim", too?

Don Siegelman and Paul Minor are just playing the victim?

Those of us who have been cleaned out by speculators driving up the cost of gas are playing the victim?

Please clarify if I misunderstand. I'm not sure what you meant, or who you were addressing.

:eyes:

I am asking this seriously. The "victimhood" idea is one that the right wing propagandists have been pounding into the public for decades now, and they use that to shut down any and all discussion or consideration of actual suffering, actual injustice, actual perpetrations.

What do you think the value to us might be in promoting this idea? What is your thinking on this?

"Playing the victim" is one of several similar right wing verbal weapons, along with "playing the race card" and "reverse racism" and "advocating class warfare," that have done tremendous damage and that are knives to the heart of all opposition to the extreme right wing. Why would we want to use those weapons on each other and give them credibility and popularity?

1) The politics of victinhood/outrage

2) Identity Politics

Nothing, and I repeat, nothing good comes of the practice of either.

I am not convinced, and you need to present a persuasive argument if you expect people to accept your idea here or take it seriously.

I deny that there is such a thing as "the politics of victimhood/outrage" and that anyone is "practicing" this. You have made an assertion. Support it and defend it.

the intellectual dishonesty inherent in those forms of politics or the lack of benefit from practicing them?

I am not convinced that the thing you are describing even exists. You are now adding "intellectually dishonest" to the mix, as though that supported your claim. It does not. Rather it is yet another claim you are asserting that you would need to support before we could consider it - that these people you claim exist who are practicing victimhood and outrage are intellectually dishonest.

You have not denied that this a right wing theme, regardless of your purpose for using it. If we have a theme being promoted that happens to be a pet favorite theme of the right wing, and one that has been used to great effect to damage us, I think you need to defend it and support it rather than merely asserting it and expecting us to accept it and not challenge it.

Can you make a case that would support your assertions?

if you don't believe the politics of victimhood/outrage and identity politics don't exist, I just see anyway of having a constructive conversation. Hell you even dismiss ideas, with out properly examing or considering them, by waving your "it's a right wing theme" wand around.

I am see little point in trying to convince you of two very real styles of polics, only to THEN discuss the merits. It's too much work, for very little payoff.

Why must we unquestioningly accept your assertion before you are willing to have a discussion about it?

I am more than willing to consider your idea. What is it?

Lots of RW agenda pushers here these days.

I would love it if you expounded on your argument, instead of calling names and running away--if you really have a point to make. What is your point?

to reconsider the logic and reasons behind my views.:eyes:

I've asked you to make your case several times. Please begin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4814179

It was a challenge to DU, for deeper thinking. It failed, but you will see what I am considering.

Are our only options "letting the criminals walk vs. disrupting the intelligence community, or eroding bipartisan support"? I think there would be plenty of bipartisan support once Bush's crimes see the light of day. You don't think the rats would jump off the sinking ship, then?

You can take all the emotion in the world out of it, and the problem is still the same. If you don't hold people at the highest levels of government accountable to the rule of law, there is no validity to the rule of law. I don't see how that's an emotional issue.

If we put the stamp of approval on secret renditions, warrantless wiretapping, and torture, those things go from being Bush crimes, to being American crimes, certified by both sides of the American spectrum.

I just don't get how you're saying these are primarily emotional issues. The people in New Orleans have had years to deal with the emotional element of Katrina, but an investigation would help rectify the VERY REAL PHYSICAL ASPECTS of Katrina that remain, and may even take longer to deal with.

It's a question if one wants to view the world in black and white (ala george bush) or being willing to view the many subtle shades of gray.

Just because people are emotional about the crimes that Bush has carried out, doesn't make that an emotional issue. There are other reasons to hold them accountable to the law besides "payback".

I just don't see how the Constitution is an emotional issue. Though people are rightly upset, can you really say that accountability in the Katrina response is purely an emotional issue? Say that to the 1700+ who are now dead, in part to that response.

Take the emotion out of it. There's the practical matter of making sure these things never happen again. When Clinton took a similar approach to the one you advocate, he left all the same players in place to perpetrate even bigger crimes once he was gone.

Making sure something illegal and very bad doesn't happen again, is as far from emotional victimhood as possible. It's doing something proactive, in a very concrete way.

surrounding this topic. It seems most people here are more than happy to just indulge their desires for vengence, rather than consider what is truly best for our nation and its people. Fortunately Obama isn't one of those people, which is what makes him a great leader.

You don't think that would be good for the country right about now?

Ascribing "vengeance" to the people who disagree with you on this is a classic strawman. Of course, no one wants to hurt the country for their own petty emotions.

On the contrary---shouldn't the concrete goals like restoring laws, punishing criminals, and investigating to find hard truths be above emotional, nebulous goals like "moving forward?

I gotta admit, you're pretty tenacious on this. If I were running for president, I might even hire you for viral PR.

:eyes:

What evidence can you present to defend the idea that the motivations of those calling for prosecutions now are the same as the motivations of the Republicans when they went after Clinton?

This is another unsupported claim.

you suggest that Democrats are not driven by the human desires for vengence. I find that highly unlikely.

If a prosecutor is driven in part by emotion to prove a murderer's guilt, does that take away the validity of the facts of the case?

You're throwing out fallacy after fallacy here.

because the Dems are willing to consider that our nation can be wrong. Yet when it comes to party politics, those same open minded critical thinkers, suddenly become as closed minded as the Republicans

The right wingers accuse dissidents of being disloyal. Now we see too many Democrats accusing critics of the party or the politicians in the party of being disloyal.

What does that have to do with this issue?

I opened my mind to your point.

I do see that there will be difficulties to holding Bush accountable. I still think it's worth it.

I understand that you think Democrats would be motivated by vengeance, and that this is a reason for not pursuing criminal prosecutions. It is not up to any of us to prove to you that your assertion is false. Your assertion would not be true merely because others cannot, or do not prove the opposite to be true.

When you say "Democrats" are you referring to the politicians, or to us?

Regardless of your claims about motivations, there certainly is a massive difference between what Clinton did and what the Bush administration has done.

If a local prosecutor had prosecuted someone for jay walking, spent an inordinate amount of time and resources on that, had bad motives for doing that, and failed to get a conviction, would that then justify not prosecuting people for murder in the future? How is your logic different from that?

a crisis that doesn't allow the luxury of pursuing vengeance or vendettas.

We certainly should not waste time and energy on petty things.

No one is advocating "pursuing vengeance or vendettas." Nor is justice a "luxury" that can be dispensed with. Nor is justice a separate issue from, or oppositional to responding to the crisis.

Injustice IS the crisis.

I don't believe that things are sooo bad we must let the War Criminals go free.

Do you?

Your argument is falling apart, and seems to be more emotion-based than mine.

Just because people do not agree with you, that does not mean that people are not willing to do "deeper thinking" on this subject.

Thanks for pointing out that thread to us. I posted my thoughts there.

I accept your challenge, and would love to discuss your topic in more depth and at length.

instead all that I got was more superficial and shallow thinking. I don't have a problem with people not agreeing with me, I do have a problem when people don't excercise intellectual discipline.

You may not agree with my thinking on this, but it is hardly "superficial and shallow thinking" nor am I failing to "exercise intellectual discipline."

When you make claims and assertions, the burden is on you to defend them.


.

have not done their due diligence.

I told you that prosecuting Bush crimes would restore the validity of our laws, and was seconded by another member. That was met by silence on your thread where people just gave "shallow answers".

have not done their due diligence.

I am not dismissing anything, I am asking you to expand on and explain and defend your theme. I am welcoming that.

the idea that we have the luxury of doing anything but focus on solving these problems, is a bad one (at best). Feel free to examine.

The cause of the crisis is Reaganomics. Reaganomics were advanced by a hijacking of our government by the extreme right wing, on behalf of their wealthy clients, as well as a hijacking of the national political discussion. The fight against that and any serious efforts at solving the crisis are one and the same - mutually supporting and going the same direction.

In fact, I do not think we can solve the crisis if we ignore the perpetrators. That is because I am a Democrat, and that means that I think left wing political programs are not merely "right" but are in fact the best way to practically solve the crisis, and that it is the right wingers who are the obstacle to that - ruthless and motivated opponents who will fight on all fronts until the bitter end.

We would not try to solve the problem of theft by ignoring the thieves, nor would we think that going after the thieves distracted us from solving the problem of theft.

If, on the other hand, you see the crisis the way that too many people do - if you think that the danger we should be worried about is from left wing politics, and that the task is to somehow get out of the crisis before the people demand left wing political programs, and to keep the fundamental premises of economic conservatism in place, then prosecution of the perpetrators would be a distraction from that.

asking for justice = "being a victim".

yeah, right.

cause "non-victims" just do whatever the hell they please, in total disregard of law, other people, or common decency, & mock demands to play "by the rules."

justice? not important, says our "leadership".

It's about the rule of law and justice, anyway.

to our congressional representative, our senators and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. When Obama takes office, letters to him and Joe Biden would be in order too.

I won't hear any of the lets move on type bulltalk. Best its going to do is piss me right the fuck off. I want justice for the dead and dying because of the little man and his happy shitforbrains merry assed enablers. Toast or roast those bastards, I want to see hard time for all of 'em, the dick too.

What laws can be passed by Obama that can't just be flouted by the next president, if we let this administration skip?

In order to pass anything through Congress that would not already have the full support of both parties, he must first bring that issue to the public and ensure that the public gets behind the initiative to such an extent that a Congressman voting against the bill would be, to some extent, imperiling his career. That is how influential Presidents, from FDR (for good) to Reagan (for evil) pass legislation. In order to do this, a President must place the trust, respect, and command that he possesses on the line. These are collectively known as "political capital," which is gained through elections, re-elections, crises, and successes in office, which is spent in pushes for new legislation, and which is lost through failures in office.

Initiating a prosecution would require a significant expenditure of political capital. He must first convince the nation that taking the completely unprecedented step of prosecuting the a previous President for the decisions he made in office is a valuable thing for the country to do. This will be difficult (but not impossible); many Americans will ask why he is not spending every minute he has trying to fix the economy, and he will have to lay his credibility on the line in his answer. Sustaining a prosecution will bleed political capital and will make it almost impossible for Obama to launch any new initiatives as long as the investigation and the trial continue, which will very likely be years. Each night in which a news broadcast revolves not around the President's pleas to the nation about health care, but rather around the previous President's defenses for his national security actions, is a night in which Obama's agenda is stalled. Any trial of Bush will lead to many, many such nights. And if it comes to pass that the evidence is not strong enough for a criminal conviction (as it might well not be, for Bushies have a way with covering their tracks and destroying the evidence), then Obama will have almost no credibility to speak of, and the President in 2013 will almost certainly be a Republican.

As for your question in the body text? Forget "flouting." Any law Obama passes can and will be outright changed by the next President and Congress, regardless of whether Bush is prosecuted, as long as the public can be convinced to either support or ignore such an endeavor.

Just make it so that the next president has so many problems, they'll never have the political capital to prosecute the previous president. When would anyone have that much political capital?

Wouldn't investigation either clear out, or weaken those Republicans who would obstruct Obama's agenda?

If Obama leaves it to Holder, or a special prosecutor, he would take away the meme that prosecution was taking up "his" time. I also don't think it would necessarily take several years. But I hear you, and understand he still has to appeal to Republicans. My thinking is that by making it an issue of law and not party, he won't be alienating any Republicans who weren't going to attack everything he did anyway.

I also definitely think Obama could--if he wanted--end this practice of signing statements, and each new president getting to make up the laws willy-nilly as they go. On some level, he's got to differentiate himself from Bush on these issues if he's going to keep his credibility with his base.

After all, a true tyrannical President would ensure that his successor was inclined to pardon him. Rather, the balance to the power of the President was supposed to be the oversight (and, in the case of reckless lawbreaking, impeachment) powers vested in Congress, as well as the Supreme Court watching over the actions of the Executive branch. Congress dropped the ball badly, and the conservative-stacked Supreme Court gave Bush a pass on most (but not all) of his bullshit.

Leaving it to a special prosecutor would indeed help, though not nearly enough (I believe), and either way we're still left with the twin problems of the large degree of disruptive media attention that would garner, and the second bully pulpit that would give the Bushies to use to defend themselves, much as Hitler did at his 1924 trial, and as Nixon intended to do with the Frost interviews. Perhaps I'm being over-pessimistic about the pitfalls of such a prosecution, but then again perhaps I'm not.

to which those obstacles should discourage us from going down this path.

My concern is that if you set a precedent that
*it's never a good time to impeach when there are other problems facing us
*it's political suicide for a sitting president to go after his predecessor

you pretty much set up a guarantee that we don't hold our highest office accountable the way we hold everyone else accountable.

I don't think it would be a bed of roses, but I believe it'd be worth it.

Nobody likes the Falcons.

Fine, I guess I'll defraud my employer & shoot my neighbor. Crime pays.

Doing a great job of driving people out of the party, our "leaders".

it is pathetic indeed

That's okay, there's nothing I can tell you that Drew Brees hasn't told you 5 out of the last 6 meetings already ;)

disgusting beyond belief

...until we know where we've been.

The following is ABSOLUTE:

Unless mistakes, "bad decisions", and criminality are thoroughly examined, and responsibility is assigned, we will never know for sure What went Wrong, and we won't be able to make informed decisions about correcting the system.


EG: The Clinton Administration, 1992

is somehow a way to move forward, as if criminals can't be prosecuted at the same time we all move forward. It's not a situation where only one thing can happen at a time, they both have to happen at the same time.

...because I do STRONGLY believe in holding Democrats as responsible for things as Republicans, and in Obama's case he hasn't had a chance to really show what he's going to do yet. Verbally he did leave it open... and while his cabinet picks are........
....
....
....STRANGE...
....
....I'm thinking he's hoping most of them (like Gupta) get rejected.
....
.....
......
.......well I can hope can't I!

but I still believe in "Justice for all". I think the American people WANT justice.

I say we already do tell the families or murder victims to "walk it off."

http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/12483781.html