Again trotted out to discuss Pelosi-CIA controversy, Miller says "this story has really come back to bite her in an unmentionable part of the anatomy, appropriately so"
May 16, 2009 3:18 pm ET
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Bush administration: "We didn't torture. Also, we briefed Democrats about the torturing we were doing. In addition, torture works. However, even though it worked, we didn't do it after 2004."
These Bush administration people and their supporters are not only lying to their intended audience, they can't even agree internally on which lies to tell.
oh you mean like nancy not knowing which of the voices inside her head to repeat from moment to moment?? I knew that wide eyed stare couldn't just be the botox.
You don't think this is something that is overwork for the current Justice Dept do you. Those folks draw a salary regardless of what they do. An investigation would be a good use of resources already paid for.
If there were any chance for the 40 million spent investigating Clinton, to have resulted in at the least a conviction on perjury. Nothing would have stopped the GOP from doing so. Even if they'd have had to pony up another 10 million to do so.
Regardless that you believe the charge is true. What is your opinion of Gingrich's personal life in this time frame?
Regardless my point was that revenge/retribution investigations will get the Obama admn. nowhere fast. Too many politicians of both stripes will be found complicit and will lose their jobs and/or face charges. Time would be better spent on other issues instead of chasing ghosts...if you disliked the previous admn. that much let it go into history that much faster.....I am!(fiscal responsibility my eye!!! Anyone know how many spending bills Bush vetoed? Try zero!!!)
Somehow you missed my point that with out any investigation or penalties for their actions, they show up again in positions of power later.
Any Dem found complicent in this deserves action against them. You really think shurb and Ole 5 deferments had any inclination to bring Dems on board with this? Other than for uses such as that like Pelosi? A distraction, someone to blame if need be.
The only ghosts I'm currently concerned about are those whose death came by or was aided by american torture. I want those involved by the short hairs and facing real justice and the consequences of their actions. Illeagal acts are not defined by who comits them. Equal justice for all is American. Torturing peopel we don't like because we can or need spacific confessions to abet chickenhawk dreams of glory is unamerican.
Was Nixon committing a crime?
Was Clinton revenge for Nixon?
Do you think Clinton's impeachment was just as deserved as Nixons?
Do you think the potential issues against bush equates to Clinton's, or Nixon's impeachment?
If the previous poster doesn't know that it wasn't perjury, then he's too ill-informed to be attempting to educate us! If he does know that it wasn't perjury, but still claims that it was perjury, then he's too politically partisan and biased to take seriously.
Sure, there will be spin either way. But when justice is pursued, the spin is "it was partisan". That's much easier to address. We have the Geneva Conventions, we have the CAT signed by Reagan, we have historical establishment of waterboarding as torture, etc. For the failure to pursue justice, the defense is either "you guys would scream bloody murder if we did anything" or "we just want to move on". Either of those could be true, but they still sound like the words of an unprincipled jellyfish. If there's cause for investigation, then it should be done.
Democrats lack assertiveness, by and large. Not even aggression, just standing up for what's right in the face of potential political backlash. Frankly, I don't get it. Republicans impeach Clinton for zero legitimate cause, and there's no political penalty for that. But if Democrats want to investigate torture, after the American people widely reject the Republican party in general and the actions of the Bush administration specifically, that's just a political minefield, isn't it?
And what really baffles me is how that glaring difference in mindset and behavior is overlooked by people who claim that both parties are the same. If Democrats grew a spine, while Republicans just threw as much crap around as possible, then I could at least see someone trying to spin the two things as equivalent. But as things actually are, it just doesn't make any sense at all.
If Newt the toot Gingrich can spend eight years and $70 million in taxpayer money investigating
- a BJ
- a travel agency
- some files
- and a real estate deal,
surely the Dems can spend time investigating something done illegally {i.e., torture} . . .
1. Clinton did not perjure himself on the topic of what the investigation was being conducted on, that being Whitewater. There is a reason he was not removed from office, it was because the perjury that he did commit (that lie under oath) had absolutely nothing to do at all with the investigation. Clinton being on the receiving end of a BJ from Lewinsky had nothing to do with Whitewater. It was the end game of the GOP to try and "get" Clinton, which they had been trying since he was sworn into office in 1993.
2. If investigations are started, which I think that they ought to be, and if Dems are implicated in agreeing to use of torture on detainees, and they are removed from office because of it, I don't care. I want illegal acts to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and I don't care who commits said acts. The true extent of what happened, and who was responsible, will not be known, unless investigations are conducted. Now, the fact remains that this was executive policy, backed by legal briefs from the DOJ, and we know who was responsible for signing off on this, and that would be the President of the United States at the time, George W. Bush. There is nobody in Congress that can be held accountable for this, republican or democrat, no matter what they were briefed, and no matter what they were told. Congress does not make executive policy, POTUS does. And this isn't about going after the previous administration, it's about going after people who BROKE THE LAW. We, as we are constantly told, are a country of laws, not of people.
3. They are not all crooks, there are decent and honorable people who serve the people of the United States, and saying that they're all crooks is a cop out to the extreme end of the scale. If my elected political officials did illegal things, they ought to be prosecuted for such things, and their aides, and employees as well. And I think that saying you're just changing rhetoric is wrong as well, and there are documented cases of when administrations were changed, results ensued, although some folks don't like to review history. If this were true, that only rhetoric changes, we wouldn't have the country we have now.
It's just not true. When one compares the two parties and individuals in those parties, the Republican Party is more corrupt. They have more hypocrites, more criminals, more people guilty of really offensive behaviors, more people covering up for others in their party, more crooks, more deceit about their own actions, more deception about the opposition's plans and policies, etc, etc.
Whenever anyone says "both parties are equally guilty", it's a sure sign of a dishonest person from the right trying to whitewash Republicans shameful behavior and unfairly tar Democrats.
If you go back, and look at, historically, which presidencies produced the most convicts, republican presidencies produce the most, or have produced the most convictions in the past.
When I see someone say that "both parties are doing it" I automatically assume that they're a republican, and can't come up with anything better than that old carrot. Why don't we call a spade a spade, and agree that if someone breaks the law, he/she should be held accountable, and I don't care WHAT party they're from.
Saying it makes it true then. The old(bunco) philospher was right then.
And I believe my name is Mr. Sneezegroin, but I'll get back to you on that.