Would concervatives here support a bi-partisan investigation into possible crimes by Bush and his people since a fair investigation might clear them of any illegal wrongdoing?

Comments

Comments

• @Rollie - Please tell me where you live. I'll come over and steal everything out of your house.
  .
  When you complain to the police, I'll say, "Let sleeping dogs lie least they awake and bite you on the butt. We have enough on our plates without some jerk opening a new can of worms."
  .
  Sounds fair to me....;-D...

  • Report
  

  by Old School on August 26th, 2009

• I agree. Why do those who are suspected of committing huge crimes get immunity? After all - Clinton was impeached for a blow job - in which no one was injured.
  .
  And it wouldn't help to clear the Bush team's name - should things come out that way?
  .
  But thanks for you opinion. +6

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on August 27th, 2009

• We were talking politics where one party says YES and the other says NO and there is a real division on whether it is right or wrong.
  BTW, My house is always locked and there isn't much you would want to steal anyway. (Oh, our neighborhood watch would call the police the minute you backed a truck up to our door.) Much better protected than what political parties set up.
  Also, we have additional .40 cal. and 12 gauge protection.

  • Report
  

  by Rollie on August 27th, 2009

• @Rollie - I was, of course, joking about stealing your stuff (which I would never do even if you left your house wide open and your neighbors ignored me).
  .
  But you clearly missed the point. What people are calling for is an investigation of CRIMES, and we should not dismiss crimes because investigating them would be politically unpleasant.
  .
  From the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (to which the US is a signatory).
  .
  http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
  .
  2. NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE WHATSOEVER, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
  .
  Clear enough for you?

  • Report
  

  by Old School on August 27th, 2009

• Your meaning and points are clear, but the issue isn't clear to all. A lot of folks would look at the whole thing as political.

  • Report
  

  by Rollie on August 27th, 2009

• @Rollie - Oh, there absolutely ARE political implications
  .
  On the Republican side, I suspect that if enough of them went to jail for committing or authorizing torture, it would further erode GOP support in 'swing' states.
  .
  On the Democratic side, I suspect that there are enough Democrats who knew about the torture and abuse, but did nothing (making them complicit in the war crimes) that it would lead to prosecutions (at worst) or political embarrassment (at best).
  .
  If there's anything that our leaders have repeatedly shown (on both sides of the aisle), it's that their reelection is more important to them than any public good.
  .
  I wonder if Jane Harman's problems were a 'warning shot across the bow' at the Obama administration....:-?...
  .
  http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/21/harman/index.html

  • Report
  

  by Old School on August 27th, 2009

Comments