One more reason to vote for Obama

[Stella_Omega]

He says he will investigate Bush's war crimes.

 

[3113]

He says he will investigate Bush's war crimes.

Well, that's worth voting for, but I don't know if he needs an even bigger target on himself--politically or otherwise.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Democrats will always be the home of the lunatic fringe.

 

[jomar]

I'd love whoever gets in to hold the right person responsible for outing Valerie Plame, among all the other Bush stuff.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I need more out of my president than investigating things that don't affect my quality of life.... now, if he wants to rollback the Fed, cut taxes, reduce governmental spending and regulation, eliminate DHS, sell off a few hundred bases, and re-empower Congress?

That'd be a reason to vote for him.

Unfortunately, him looking into whether Bush's administration overstepped itself is, for me, in the same category as him seeing to it that Mother Teresa gets a Comgressional Medal of Honor.

Its pretty window-dressing, but entirely useless to me.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOMAR

The whole world wants to know the answer to THAT riddle! We'll add it to the IMPORTANT SHIT TO DO FIRST LIST.

1. Investigate Bush
2. Who fucked Valerie?

 

[jomar]

JOMAR

The whole world wants to know the answer to THAT riddle! We'll add it to the IMPORTANT SHIT TO DO FIRST LIST.

1. Investigate Bush
2. Who fucked Valerie?

Works for me. Probably won't get good odds in Vegas on who the real culprit is though.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I read the article, and Obama didn't really give much of an answer, except to say he would look into it. Big Deal.

There is a lunatic fringe in the Dem. party and there is a lunatic fringe in the Rep. party. All parties have extremes. Some, like the Prohibitionist Party, are all lunatic fringe.

I don't remember now who it was who outed Valerie Plame, but it was a member of the news media. Being sacred cows, members of the media almost never have to answer for anything they say or do, but they might find out who leaked the info in the first place.

 

[cloudy]

.....

 

[popcorn2721]

JOMAR

The whole world wants to know the answer to THAT riddle! We'll add it to the IMPORTANT SHIT TO DO FIRST LIST.

1. Investigate Bush
2. Who fucked Valerie?

Ken Star knows the answer to number 2

 

[jomar]

Ken Star knows the answer to number 2

I'd love to hear the truth from him. And to see them held accountable.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I read the article, and Obama didn't really give much of an answer, except to say he would look into it. Big Deal.

There is a lunatic fringe in the Dem. party and there is a lunatic fringe in the Rep. party. All parties have extremes. Some, like the Prohibitionist Party, are all lunatic fringe.

I don't remember now who it was who outed Valerie Plame, but it was a member of the news media. Being sacred cows, members of the media almost never have to answer for anything they say or do, but they might find out who leaked the info in the first place.

God, Box, I really wish you would do some reading before you spout off.

Really.

OKay, this is what Obama was quoted as saying:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.

Actually, he said he would have his AG look into the possibiity. I don't really trust The Huffington Post all that much, but that is all there seems to be to it.

 

[cloudy]

.....

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I've got $20 that it was Cheney. I don't like that man one iota . . . and I'm registered Republican!

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

I'd vote for any candidate that would

Free Leonard Peltier

Reign in the FCC or at least install a chair that had a fucking clue

Tell the MPAA and the RIAA to go fuck themselves

Can talk intelligently about emerging technology

Rewrite the DMCA

Reform Education so that it fits the needs of current students who have to compete in a global economy not ones that were in school 100 years ago

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Salvor, you can write off #4. Candidates are all lawyers and they haven't a clue about anything more technological that the on/off switch on their Blackberries.

 

[cloudy]

.....

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

I'm not writing off either. I can dream. I have standards. If I get a chance to ask a question at one of those town meeting things, I fully intend to make them squirm.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I don't remember now who it was who outed Valerie Plame, but it was a member of the news media.

This is what I was talking about.

Just where do you suppose the new media got their info, hmmm?

Okay, I looked it up. It was Robert Novak. I wasn't concerned as to which specific person it was, because I considered that fact to be immaterial.

What IS material is this: Why is it TREASON when Cheney or Libby or Bush or somebody tells a secret to an American citizen, but perfectly alright, even good journalism when that American citizen tells the same secret to the whole world? Granted, the leak should not have occurred, but the outing was done by Novak.

If I had been the one informed, and I had told the world by posting the info on a billboard, or some other way, I would have been regarded as a traitor, and rightly so. Why does the journalist get a free pass?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Attaboy, Box!

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]
If I had been the one informed, and I had told the world by posting the info on a billboard, or some other way, I would have been regarded as a traitor, and rightly so. Why does the journalist get a free pass?

The 'journalist' (and I use the term very broadly to include Novak) is protected by the First Amendment. Geez, Box, was 7th grade Social Studies THAT long ago?

That's why this whole affair is doubly outrageous - Cheney's office orchestrated the leaks, believing that their role in outing Plame wouldn't be revealed because the journalists would not reveal their sources. Thus, they could pursue their treasonous policies without fear of prosecution.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If he (or Hillary) keep all the promises they've made to the unions, enviro-whackos and class-warriors you'll all be too busy dealing with the worldwide depression this generates to worry about irrelevent things like partisan revenge-fantasy investigations.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The 'journalist' (and I use the term very broadly to include Novak) is protected by the First Amendment. Geez, Box, was 7th grade Social Studies THAT long ago?

That's why this whole affair is doubly outrageous - Cheney's office orchestrated the leaks, believing that their role in outing Plame wouldn't be revealed because the journalists would not reveal their sources. Thus, they could pursue their treasonous policies without fear of prosecution.

I'm quite familiar with the First Amendment but, just as the amendment does not extend to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, there ought to be some limitation on the press. They can criticize the government all they want, and I am all for that idea, The shield laws are supposed to protect sources from retribution; they are not intended to protect the powerful.

Suppose in 1944, a journalist had learned when and where D-Day was going to be. Suppose he had splashed that info all over the newspapers the day before, causing the whole attack to be scrubbed, or launched with even greater loss of allied forces? What should have happened to that journalist. That would have been a more extreme case than this one, but it is the same sort of thing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

If he (or Hillary) keep all the promises they've made to the unions, enviro-whackos and class-warriors you'll all be too busy dealing with the worldwide depression this generates to worry about irrelevent things like partisan revenge-fantasy investigations.

Or war crimes. I mean, WTF! We voted for him we must have wanted him to go destroy an entire country in our name!

The destruction of an entire country is pretty irrelevant, I guess. Some of us have money to make.

honey, if you hadn't noticed... the world-wide depression is NOW.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I need more out of my president than investigating things that don't affect my quality of life.... now, if he wants to rollback the Fed, cut taxes, reduce governmental spending and regulation, eliminate DHS, sell off a few hundred bases, and re-empower Congress?

That'd be a reason to vote for him.

Unfortunately, him looking into whether Bush's administration overstepped itself is, for me, in the same category as him seeing to it that Mother Teresa gets a Comgressional Medal of Honor.

Its pretty window-dressing, but entirely useless to me.

Not entirely useless, Joe. I mean, there are principles to be upheld, aren't there? Rule of Law, to start with...

If the only accountability for the Executive is election every 4 years, and (s)he is limited to 2 terms, that leaves the Executive to be King of the World should the nation be stupid enough to elect him again.

Have a little faith in some philosophical constructs, please...