Who will hold the Bush regime accountable for its crimes - Clinton or Obama?

[JackRiddler]

Which administration - Clinton or Obama? - is likelier to intitiate investigations and release documents that lead to public exposure, accountability and justice for crimes committed by the Bush regime, its agents and allies?

As our example, let us use the lies and deceptions used to go to war in Iraq.

PLEASE KICK FOR VOTES. THANKS.

(EDIT: Typo.)

[Labors of Hercules]

1. Edwards will.

If he is AG.

[book_worm]

2. I don't know, but the first Clinton didn't hold the elder Bush responsible for his.

[Lerkfish]

6. True.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. Neither. Time to contribute to Kucinich's campaign to retain his seat.

[Lerkfish]

4. if they have not been held accountable thus far, they are not likely to in the future

In other words, if a campaigning candidate does not have the temerity to do so when the public wants it, they are not likely to get motivated AFTER election.

[TexasObserver]

5. We know Clinton won't.

Bill will be needing a job at Halliburton, to recover their "loans" to the campaign. Takes some real chutzpah to have $30 million in cash and bonds, and still ask ordinary folks to send in their dollars, doesn't it?

[avaistheone1]

Actually only Obama is on the record saying "NO" to impeachment on Bush/Cheney. WTF!

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/28/america/NA-PO...


Gee, a president and a vp who lied us into war, wrote hundreds of illegal signing statements on bills, spy on the American people, and approve torture are not grave and intentional breeches???!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama, how can you be a constitutional scholar and have such an outrageous and ignorant opinion?

Beware of Obama. The new boss is the same as the old boss.

[rinsd]

7. I doubt either will.

Both will be more concerned with getting their agendas passed.

[blm]

12. Heh - except the lesson learned from 90s should be to expose the corruption because it is

a DANGER to your agenda to let the corupt have a pass.

It is also DANGEROUS to national security, as the TRUTHS more widely revealed in IranContra and BCCI's matters would have PREVENTED a 9-11 event, Iraq war and soontobe war with Iran.

Truth matters to the safety of the nation and our economy.

The Coverups COST TOO MUCH.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

And, btw, Kerry said a couple days ago that this is the time for accountability in Washington and he will work with President Obama to see it happen.

That is something Bill Clinton would NEVER do.

[Alexander]

8. I'm not sure Obama will, but I am sure Clinton won't.

So I voted that Obama is more likely to hold them accountable.

[BadgerKid]

9. Neither. Thought Edwards would. n/t

[derby378]

10. Unless we have serious Democratic support in the House or Senate for such...

...I fear calls for bringing the Bush junta for justice will go ignored. That's why it's important to keep up the pressure on House and Senate Dems and replace the underperforming Dems during the primary season.

If a Democrat in Nancy Pelosi's district feels that she has let the nation down, that person needs to challenge Pelosi in the primaries instead of waiting to see how Cindy Sheehan's campaign fares.

[magatte]

13. Obama has principles and repects the constitution enough to get the ball rolling.

That's my honest opinion. He won't do it in a confrontational way, as in no witch hunting and burning on the public place.
But he will make sure that they pay and MORE IMPORTANTLY he will make sure that this abuses of our system are never allowed to happen again.

[avaistheone1]

24. Ahh no... Obama does not have principles: Obama Forces Scuttle Bush Cheney Impeachment Drive

Obama Forces Scuttle Bush Cheney Impeachment Drive
Obama Candidacy Means No Impeachment Of Bush-Cheney

By Webster Tarpley
2-5-8

Wondering why Congressman Kucinich has withdrawn his impeachment resolution against Cheney, and
dropped out of impeachment in general? Wondering why the Los Angeles impeachment center has
decided to liquidate itself and shut down? Wondering why impeachment meetups across the US are
folding? Wondering why so many left-liberal spokesmen are dropping the impeachment issue like a
hot potato?

All signs suggest that the demagogic needs of the Obama presidential campaign provide the
answer. Impeachment is being sabotaged by left-wing Democrats now moving to support Obama so as
to spare the messianic Illinois senator the political embarrassment of having to comment on a
serious impeachment effort, which his craven rejection of political struggle makes a taboo. In
effect, Obama's phobia against impeachment is even stronger than Hillary's.

As is well known, Obama's fatuous utopian rhetoric promises a golden age and earthly paradise
of political harmony in which all real conflicts will be magically neutralized and submerged by
the senator's personal charisma. Above all, partisan political clashes will be forbidden. Well,
the impeachment of Bush-Cheney is a vital necessity for the future survival of representative
government in this country, but carrying it out will necessarily be a rather acrimonious and
partisan business. Obama cannot tolerate such a messy process, which might interfere with his
ability to float like a seraph above the ignorant armies who clash by night. Struggle in any
form is not part of Obama's playbook; it might upset Goldman Sachs, Soros, and his other Wall
Street contributors ¬ to say nothing of the fussy independent voters upon whom Obama's future
rests. It might not play well in the wealthy suburbs. It might spoil his carefully cultivated
apolitical, post-partisan image.

Therefore, it is clear, the word has gone out to Obama's leftist backers: impeachment must be
dumped, betrayed, sandbagged, and sabotaged without further ado. That is what is now happening.
Congressman Kucinich shocked his supporters by telling them to support Obama on the second
go-round in the Iowa caucuses. Now he has dropped out of the race and abandoned his own
signature issue.

Every vote for Obama is a vote to take impeachment off the agenda ¬ forever. Obama supporters
should get ready to live with those Bush-Cheney precedents, signing statements, and practices
of entrenched totalitarian corruption for the rest of their lives. If Obama wins the day, there
will be no question of impeachment, the only way to wipe the slate clean of all the Bush-Cheney
obscenities. Obama and impeachment are incompatible. Impeachment supporters should dump the
Illinois senator ¬ the cause of impeachment is far more important than the vapid slogans dished
up by Zbigniew Brzezinski's puppet Obama.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.news-media/browse_thread/thread/46ce69ea4a4997a0

[magatte]

28. Impeach and hold accountable and not equal things. Or are they now?

You don't need to shut down government, spend incredible amount of energy building coalition to do that in the Congress, and possible alienate some voters, when there are many more direct and easier ways to make them accountable once you come into power next year.
That just stupid.

[billyskank]

11. Neither will.

I'll be delighted if I'm wrong, but I don't trust either to do this.

[EFerrari]

14. Neither of them will. How can they without exposing either themselves

or colleagues they need to criticism? It won't happen.

[MrCoffee]

15. I have no doubt in my mind at all...

Neither Clinton nor Obama will go after the Chimp's regime.

[AndyA]

16. What crimes? Obama has stated that no crimes have been committed by Bush/Cheney.

He said that impeachment should be reserved only for grave breaches of authority. And that he did not support impeachment of Bush/Cheney.

Another reason why he's the wrong candidate for President. He's going to allow Bushco to go free, and I fear what he - personally - will do with his unitary executive powers.

[avaistheone1]

17. Obama says Bush and Cheney have done nothing wrong/worthy of impeachment.

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.

"I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction," he added. "We would once again, rather than attending to the people's business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, nonstop circus."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/28/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-No-Impeachment.php



That tells me alot of how Obama does business and his character, and I think I will be saying "No thank you, Obama"

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Popol Vuh]

18. Kucinich

would have been the most likely candidate who would have.

[Vinca]

19. Neither. The only candidate with the balls to do that was Kucinich. nt

[Meldread]

20. Neither will. Hillary won't because she supported most of them, Obama will be more concerned with..

...looking forward rather than backward. So in the end, neither will. Even Edwards would not.

[FrenchieCat]

21. There is a reason that John Conyers and Robert Wextler both

Endorsed Barack Obama. They are the ones that have done investigations.

Obama knows the constitution. Don't think he won't do what the constitution requires when he is able to.

[ProgressIn2008]

22. Neither. There will be no accountability and we'll be told to "get over it."

[MadBadger]

23. Neither...including Edwards.

[JackRiddler]

25. kick for votes

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Nobody

That's not how it works.

[JackRiddler]

29. Oh, I know - that's how it's worked so far: CRIME PAYS.

Their getting away with it means it will be worse each time.

[zanne]

27. It's impossible to stress "unity"...

While investigating the other party.

[JackRiddler]

30. kick 4 votes

[JackRiddler]

31. kick 5 votes

[Exultant Democracy]

32. Well we know what the Clinton's did last time, not to say it might not be what both of them would do