I wish some people would understand that we don't want a Democratic Bush.

[Zynx]

I won't name the names of people on DU saying it since that's against the rules, but many have been saying that they want Obama to claim his mandate and govern right in the Republicans' faces because that's what Bush would have done. He will govern plenty strongly, but he will not govern like Bush and just ram things down people's throats. That's what cost the Republicans their majorities and their party's image among moderates. The base loved it and still loves it, but that's all they have now. As such Obama will not be petty, he will not be bellicose, he will not be vengeful, and he will not be arrogant. He will be a gentle voice that will work with even our opponents to solve our nation's problems, which are vast. This is a post-ideological era. It just so happens most of the pragmatic policies land on our side of the ideological spectrum. Some do not.

Obama is going to govern as a 180 degree opposite of Bush in style and 160 degree opposite in terms of policy. Since Bush led to catastrophic disaster for both country and party, I think this bodes well for us.

[...of J.Temperance]

1. Agreed

President Obama will be a pragmatic, intelligent, strong and also a gentle President.

Which will make a nice change after 8 years of gung-ho bully boy tactics running the show.

[navarth]

2. this is all true BUT

I think we should see war crimes tribunals eventually. There should be a reckoning. Otherwise you're leaving the door open for it all to happen again. Right??

[...of J.Temperance]

6. I'm not sure that War Crimes Tribunals sends the right message

It would send a message of being vindictive, which is something that our side ISN'T.

Also War Crimes Tribunals I don't think would be a smart move politically because of future elections, the mid-terms in 2010 and the next Presidential Election in 2012.

[CrispyQ]

10. No, it would send the message that no one is above the law.

Bushco should be tried.

As for future elections, we won in '06 in part because Pelosi said she was going to drain the swamp. I think more people than not want to see justice carried out toward this administration. Their actions are criminal & they should be held accountable.

[...of J.Temperance]

25. Answering you and #17 and #18 in one post

I'm sorry, there are MORE important things to do, more pressing problems that President Obama and his Administration and both Houses of Congress are going to have to devote their attention to.

Also a recession is on, a War Crimes Tribunal would cost A LOT of money, money that really can be better spent doing stuff like....creating more affordable healthcare, more affordable childcare, assistance for the Middle Class etc.

I was AGAINST going into Iraq from day one, I believe that the so-called "intelligence" was cherry-picked, I believe that W and Co. did massage the truth, and yes I believe they did systematically tell constant lies.

BUT a War Crimes Tribunal would be seen as vindictive, also it'd be bad politics, also it'd cost a ton of money....and also it WOULDN'T bring dead soldiers back to life.

It would serve little purpose....I mean, did the Nurembourg Trials STOP future wars? No.

[CrispyQ]

42. So upholding the Constitution & the law should only be done

if it is to our political advantage or economically sound to do so? :eyes: Holy shit. I cannot believe I'm reading this on a liberal board!

Your excuse that because the Nuremberg trials didn't stop more wars is about the lamest thing I've ever read. You're advocating two classes of citizens - those who are allowed to break the law & get away with it & those who are not.

[...of J.Temperance]

44. Re.

"You're advocating two classes of citizens - those who are allowed to break the law & get away with it & those who are not."

I don't think I said that at all.

[CrispyQ]

53. You implied it with this:

BUT a War Crimes Tribunal would be seen as vindictive, also it'd be bad politics, also it'd cost a ton of money....and also it WOULDN'T bring dead soldiers back to life.

It would serve little purpose....I mean, did the Nurembourg Trials STOP future wars? No.

If you stole a car or even a candy bar, you would be prosecuted, without regard to political advantage or economics. In a just society, those who took us to war based on lies, would be investigated & prosecuted without regard to political advantage or economics.

[CrispyQ]

55. We're already there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4543164#4543467

[The Magistrate]

57. Unfortunately, Ma'am, The Crimes Are Real, And Justice Ought To Be Vindicated

There is no room for doubt, from evidence already in public prints, that grave breaches of international humanitarian law, and violations of Federal statute making such breaches crimes under U.S. law, were planned and directed at the highest levels of the waning administration. If this is allowed to pass without prosecution, these actions become the responsibility of succeeding administrations, and our country becomes an outlaw state. Restoring respect for the United States requires official action in this matter.

[...of J.Temperance]

59. I did say that the crimes were real, when I said this set of comments:

"I believe that the so-called "intelligence" was cherry-picked, I believe that W and Co. did massage the truth, and yes I believe they did systematically tell constant lies."

I think a War Crimes Tribunal would be primarily up to The Hague though.

[The Magistrate]

61. Those Are Not The Crimes, Ma'am

The crimes are torture of prisoners, on occasion to the point of death. The torture was policy directed from the highest levels of the administration, and judging by the nonesense they claim to have relied on to judge it as rightful action, was done in full knowledge they were behaving criminally.

[...of J.Temperance]

62. Torture policy was and is a crime against humanity

Do you yourself feel that the Obama Administration will prosecute the W people responsible for the torture policy?

[The Magistrate]

63. They Ought To, Ma'am

They may choose not to, as a judgement of expediency, but over the long run that would prove out a bad mistake.

[...of J.Temperance]

64. I have approached

This awful topic from a purely political point of view, that it'd wouldn't be a good political move....which is the same as in your words "they may choose not to, as a judgement of expediency"

Personally I believe that the W Administration repeatedly and in cases deliberately violated the Geneva Convention, they also made the rules up as they went along, the most heinous being the torture policy, we all saw the Abu Ghraib photographs, we also saw several people in those photographs that had been tortured to death, one gentlemen was wrapped from neck to toe in plastic and was clearly dead.

From a political point of view, I think Congressional investigations would be a very good idea.

Maybe some deal might be talked about with The Hague, whereby they could do their own thing and then those who formulated the torture policy and directed it could be handed to The Hague to face a trial.

I think that might be a better plan, because it would be doing something to ensure that those who committed crimes were put under the microscope of justice, yet at the same time it would allow the Obama Administration to say that President Obama isn't being vindictive....because that's the accusation that the media etc would probably hurl at him.

[H2O Man]

67. Prosecuting murder

rarely brings the victims back to life. I'm not sure that has ever been identified as a goal in a criminal prosecution.

[Kahuna]

69. The unfortunate reality is that unless the American people are behind..

punishment for bushco they will walk. That's just the way it is.

[rhett o rick]

17. So you don't want to prosecute war criminals because it might not be a good political move?

These people are criminals and need to be brought to justice. If we let them go they will be around to do it again and again. Many of them were guilty of crimes in the past but were not prosecuted because it might not be politically smart and look what happened.

it would send a message that We the People are not going to let them get away with war crimes that amount to the torture and deaths of thousands, hundreds of thousands, many innocent children. These (spit) people destroyed Iraq and this country as well.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. The fuck I'm not vindictive!

These people trumped up a war which has murdered over a million Iraqi civilians and we're supposed to let them walk because it's not good politics?

There are twenty or thirty minimum who should spend the rest of their lives behind bars. Anything less is a travesty of justice.

It is not about "pay back". It is about vindicating our democracy and justice, and repudiation of the "pragmatic" political philosophy that put us here.

If Clinton and the fucking DLC had let justice prevail after the Reagan years - had not stopped the investigations of BCCI and Iran/Contra before they reached those who initiated those crimes - the 2nd Iraq war and the so-called War on Terror would have never happened.

WHEN YOU COOPERATE WITH CRIMINALS IT IS CALLED ABETTING, AND YOU BECOME A CRIMINAL YOURSELF.

[rhett o rick]

21. AGREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[pocoloco]

24. WTF

Why does reading your post make my head hurt??

[Laelth]

50. The whole DLC makes my head hurt.

Libertarianism (as described--liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues) is the driving force behind the Republican Party. Social issues matter far less, and far less has happened in regards to social issues in the last 30 years, than economic issues. Republicans preach a lot about the social issues but, in truth, do little to advance their announced social agenda which they use merely as a wedge to get votes. It's the economic issues that make us Democrats. The economic issues make us liberals.

The DLC isn't Republican-lite. It's just plain Republican with a (D) in front of its name.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[CrispyQ]

54. Hear! Hear! I wish I could nominate your post.

If people "pro-life" crowd really cared about abortion, they would vote for the party that implements policy that actually decreases the number of abortions, not the party that uses it to garner votes. All these years & these people still do not see how they are being played.

I know lots of people who claim to be democrats, but are only democrats on social issues. They are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-separation of church & state. But on economic issues, they are conservative through & through.

[Doctor_J]

30. Our lack of vindictiveness is why we got * in the first place

His dad should have been sent to prison, as should have his brother Neil. Failing to prosecute * and Rove for Plame, the AG firings, Anthrax, Katrina malfeasance, cronyism in the Iraq contracts, torture, et. al. ill mean that we will relive it very soon.

[...of J.Temperance]

33. I would support

Some form of Congressional investigation into how the invasion of Iraq happened, because a lot of things simply don't add up, there are many, many questions that ought to be answered.

Of course how much of those findings would be made public, I'm not entirely sure.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. If the findings are not public, they don't exist.

It does fuck-all good to find out four decades later what was the truth when first investigated.

[...of J.Temperance]

43. What I mean is

They might use that old chestnut about keeping the findings private for "National Security reasons" or somesuch.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. As I said... nt

[Laelth]

47. We need to stand up for the Constitution.

I am sick of the "Democrats are wimps" meme. If we don't fight for the Constitution, we are the wimps that many Americans already think we are.

Impeach and/or imprison those who shred the Constitution.

As I said here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/12

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--sloppy editing.

[guruoo]

52. All depends on how it's handled, IMO. n/t

[Marrah_G]

3. Recommended

Well Said!

[onehandle]

4. True. We don't need another grown man who could be overpowered by a pretzel. nt

[patrice]

5. If we become them, they win. nt

[kenny blankenship]

15. And if we don't overturn what they put in place, they win. nt.

[patrice]

48. TRUE!

:hi:

Solidarity, KB!

:hi:

[...of J.Temperance]

29. Exactly, we are not vindictive, if we act like them, we are then no better than them n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

32. I suggest amnesty for all criminals, Republican or not! That will be a change!

And when we let them all out of prison, it will save a pile of money.

Their crimes are in the past and we need to look to the future!


Or do mean we should ignore the crimes of only the wealthy and the powerful and the Republican? That wouldn't be change at all. And it would be exactly like the Repos.

[...of J.Temperance]

34. Amnesty for all criminals, well that's going a little too far

But I know your comment was sarcastic so.

As I commented up thread, the Nurembourg Trials didn't stop future wars, and that crowd all got strung up, well the ones who didn't kill themselves got strung up.

I think we need to choose our battles, a Congressional investigation into how the Iraq war happened would be sensible, I'm not sure that a full-blown War Crimes Tribunal would be a good idea.

As has been pointed out down thread, no Administration has prosecuted a previous Administration in that manner and I think it's highly unlikely that the Obama Administration is going to adopt something such as a War Crimes Tribunal.

On Edit: Added comment

[John Q. Citizen]

37. So some criminals are exempt?

[...of J.Temperance]

38. Well yes, criminals like multiple rapists, pedophiles, serial killers etc

Should be exempt from any sort of amnesty for criminals.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. So let's just let all the mass murders off --

that would include the Bush administration.

[Laelth]

49. The Nuremberg trials ensured a liberal Germany.

Fascism has been rearing its ugly head in France for over a decade (though, mercifully, it has gained little traction). In Germany? Not so much. The Nurmeberg trials made a big difference to modern Germany.

We must defend the Constitution. If we don't, we truly are wimps. How can Americans expect us to protect them from terrorists if we can't even protect them from Republicans?

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

Edit:Laelth--sloppy editing.

[CrispyQ]

56. You confuse vindictive with defend.

Just because you fight back doesn't mean you are vindictive. You & I have had more than one exchange in this thread & I simply cannot comprehend where you are coming from!

How many times do the bullies have to beat us down before we defend ourselves? We're talking defense here, not vindictiveness. Our very Constitution is at stake here - the ideals this country was based on. We're just supposed to roll over in fear of being perceived as being vindictive?

Whatever your reason for not wanting to stand up to the bullies who have shredded our most treasured ideals, don't dismiss those who do.

===
vin·dic·tive (vn-dktv)
adj.
1. Disposed to seek revenge; revengeful.
2. Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful.
===
de·fend (d-fnd)
v. de·fend·ed, de·fend·ing, de·fends
v.tr.
1. To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.

[...of J.Temperance]

60. I perfectly respect your opinion

I think we differ on methods, as I've just commented upthread, a War Crimes Tribunal would be the responsibility of The Hague.

Congressional investigations on how the Iraq war happened, the lead-up to, the lies told and then the covering-up of everything, I think this would be better for the Obama Administration to encourage.

War Crimes Tribunal, The Hague.

[Raineyb]

66. Since when is prosecuting crimes being vindictive?

If we don't do anything about these crimes we will have already become them.

Regards

[atreides1]

7. You're right

We don't want a Democratic Bush, but we also don't want an Obama administration that spends too much time trying to convince the die hard Republican base that they should join us in a rousing chorus of Cumbaya!

The Obama administration should take the time to win over the moderates, but no matter what they do they will never get the die hard base to go along.

Accept the fact that there is a group that will never accept a pro-choice, rule of law, black man as their president, and no matter what he does it won't mean a damn thing to that group.

Win the battles that can be won now.

[derby378]

8. Compromising with neo-fascism is no way to defeat it

What you may call "ramming things down people's throats," I may refer to as the political version of CPR.

Obama needs to be gentle, but firm at the same time. He must present himself to Republicans as a velvet glove that covers an iron fist. He needs to tell Republicans, "I know that you still have concerns. I know that your constituents have ideas on how to turn this nation around. Everyone will have a place at the table. But make no mistake - we are putting the Bush paradigm to pasture once and for all. Never again will our nation be brought to its knees by neo-conservatism. The people have spoken. Let's get to work."

[gravity]

51. You compromise with the moderates

And alienate the neo-conservative base.

There is always going to be a vocal opposition who won't compromise, but we can marginalize their influence on government.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I'm so glad FDR didn't buy your logic. The Repos still hate his guts, but the country loved him.

[Occam Bandage]

11. And they'll hate Obama, too. The opposing party hates our success,

no matter how it is achieved. That doesn't change the necessity of political strategy. Our goal isn't for Mitch McConnell to love us; it's for 65% or so of the electorate to love us.

[Zynx]

58. FDR governed completely differently than Bush.

It wasn't at all the same.

[CrispyQ]

12. "This is a post-ideological era."

46% of the voting public disagrees with you.

[cali]

22. really? then how the hell come 65% of the people approve

of Obama now? You're confusing people voting for McCain as being de facto anti-Obama right now, or in the future.

[MarjorieG]

13. He isn't in office, yet, but he does seem to be highlighting differences and deficiencies.

We need to bury the philosophy and selfishness, and he's doing that. Slowly, investigations will happen to highlight the money and the laws, so they don't happen again, at least with that hubris.

Just saying we don't torture, said a lot.

[pgh_dem]

35. We shouldn't kid ourselves. There will not be investigations or accountability.

President Obama has a lot to fix, and not a lot of real support from elected Democrats (and NONE from GOP) with regard to holding the Bush administration accountable for its many criminal and unethical actions. There would be no sense antagonizing those complicit in the corruption, since we'd need their votes for the repairwork.

There will hopefully be a lot of barn doors shut (albeit with no horses left inside), but it simply defies reality to imagine that there will be serious investigations with consequences. There is no machinery in place anymore that could conduct an investigation, given the absence of a competent, Constitution-minded Justice Department to investigate, an independent Federal Judiciary to rule on evidentiary status and classified disclosure, or majorities/pluralities of Senate and House politicians untainted by the conduct of this corrupt administration.

Just like Nixon, just like Reagan and the first Bush...for the 'healing' of the country, we will be expected to 'move past' the crimes of Republican administrations and the complicity of the beltway folks. Meanwhile the inevitable consequences of that abuse of power will be conveniently blamed on the administration which forgave the abuses and attempted to fix the broken government, just like Carter, just like Clinton.

This might seem overly pessimistic, but I look at it this way: we all joined together, put our shoulders to it, and knocked the Grand Old Psychotic Killing and Looting Machine (tm) off its rails for a couple years. YAY US!

And positive (rather than reactive) measures President Obama has already taken (with the campaign, with the inauguration) to remove PAC and lobby $$$$ from the process promises at least a little vacation from the Executive Branch/K-street revolving door politics. YAY OBAMA!

[happychatter]

14. I wish you'd let go of that fucking term "democratic bush" IT'S INSULTING

Obama is a Constitutional Scholar and a Patriot that does NOT believe in "tyranny by the majority."

If you're characterizing Democrats that question his appointment of friedman economists and iraq war cheerleaders, as wanting Obama to be a fucking tyrannical "Bush 3" then....

you're just posting bait and you can blow it out of your ass

You don't give a flying fuck about unity if you want to run off every progressive on this board with snide insults

[nichomachus]

19. Did you read the post -- or are you just ranting about the headline?

Welcome to DU

[happychatter]

27. Did you imply everyone here, left of center with fears, is no better than a fucking Neocon?

yes, you did

I have been here watching since there's been a "here"

I've been participating all year, just changed handles when my computer crashed prior to november 4th.

I've been voting against Republicans longer than most of you have been alive.

Don't pull rank on ME, with your saccharine, disingenuous "welcome," you insipid shit starter...

"Oh, if it's not Kucinich they'll never be happy....."

blah blah fucking blah

did I read it? jeezus you're so fucking predictable there is nor reason for ANYONE to read it... yes, I did. and you get none of MY good energy

You have a hidden agenda... I question your MFin loyalties

[...of J.Temperance]

36. Gosh, I think you should tone down the potty mouth

I mean surely it's not difficult to at least be civil and courteous?

[snake in the grass]

16. The fact of the matter is...

...this country needs that 180 degree turn not only because an overwhelming majority voted for it but because the predatory capitalism touted by the Republicans as the best of economic systems is actually killing people here and abroad. I do not care whether he is nice about it or not, it has to be done and the Republicans are going to have to grow up and embrace their responsibility. Either that or shut the hell up. For the life of me, I can't name more than five Republicans with whom it would actually make sense to work with. Most of them are going to throw shit at Obama as soon as he assumes office. Hell, they are doing it now and he really can't be blamed for anything. These people are not interested in working together and the sooner we face that fact, the better off we will be. Obama should make them an offer to climb aboard but also make clear that if they don't and he succeeds, then they will own that defeat. Don't give them a damn thing. Make them earn it.

[rhett o rick]

20. I want Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Gonzo, and the gang tried for war crimes.

It is the right thing to do, damn the political consequences. These vermin are responsible for the torture and deaths of hundreds of thousands including innocent children. Many millions of Iraqi's are refugees do to our occupation. These crimes can not be overlooked, especially for political expediency. We have a chance to right some of the horrible wrong done in our name and it must start with justice. How in good conscience can we let these criminals go. Our prisons are full of people that have done much less.

[cali]

23. Who else? All those in Congress who voted for the IWR. John Edwards?

John Kerry? Or are you going to give them a pass on the lame excuse that they were lied to? And what are the charges exactly?

Personally, I do think bush and cheney fit the description of war criminal. And I'm all for Congressional investigations and Justice Dept investigations- even though I know they will NEVER EVER lead to prosecution in this country.

It ain't gonna happen here. Maybe in the Hague, but not here. No president has EVER prosecuted a preceding one.
And that's not gonna change now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. No president has EVER prosecuted a preceding one.

And changing that is change that I could believe in.

Nixon SHOULD have been prosecuted.
Reagan SHOULD have been prosecuted.
Bush 1 SHOULD have been prosecuted.

They all committed crimes in the belief that, in the words of Nixon, "if the president does something, that means it is not illegal."

We have prosecuted, and convicted, congressmen, senators, even vice-presidents. There is NOTHING sacred about the person of the president that puts him above the law.

The ONLY reason no president has ever been prosecuted by his successor is because the sitting president is the most powerful person in the country, and can use that power to protect himself from his successor, as Nixon did, having Ford preemptively pardon him, and Bush did, pardoning all those who served beneath him and Reagan, insulating the office from the crimes.

And, if it can be proved that Democratic senators voted for the war with full knowledge that it was trumped up, then fuck yes - prosecute them too.

[rhett o rick]

31. Just because a lot of people were complicit doesn't mean the leaders shouldn't be

held accountable. And I realize it will never happen here because we have a two class system. The aristocracy almost never get held accountable while if you are in the lower class you go to jail if you so much as protest.

Please can't we prosecute at least Cheney? Please.

[Bread and Circus]

26. K and R

[Batgirl]

40. President Fuckwit, post-election 2004: ""I earned capital in this campaign, political capital,

and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."

Of the hundreds of teeth-grinding moments we've endured over the past 8 years, for me, this was one of the most infuriating. It was more than just arrogant, it was a chill inducing threat. Pure my-way-or-the-highway arrogance.

But even though the authoritarian approach "worked" for a while, it did ultimately backfire. Bush's public downfall and extreme humiliation has to have broken through even his considerable powers of denial. I would have loved to see him and Cheney impeached, but after that option was taken "off the table" it was quite gratifying to watch the public go ahead and impeach him anyway.

Bush ruled as an authoritarian because he's a small, mean and petty man. A spiritual weakling. Obama has genuine strength that comes from a different place. Generosity of spirit. Inclusiveness. I think he has a very high emotional IQ and knows that inviting sane members of the opposition to become invested participants (disclaimer: I'm still pretty pissed about Lieberman though), will actually give him more power to run the country effectively, while further marginalizing the crazies, the freepers, the Dittoheads.

[okieinpain]

45. agree, and if he can pull off this first 4 years, you can almost

guarantee we will be in control of the white house and congress for 16 years.

[BlueMTexpat]

65. Prosecuting individuals who have deliberately and with malice aforethought

have broken the law is not "vindictive" ... it is holding our elected officials, of whatever party, accountable; it is believing in a "rule of law."

As someone who has lived abroad for the past eight years and seen firsthand the enormous harm that the criminal actions of BushCo have done, not just to individuals, but to America's credibility, goodwill and standing abroad, to international institutions, to international treaties and the Rule of Law generally, as well as to our own US Constitution, I believe that we cannot afford NOT to prosecute the wrongdoers to the full extent of the law. If we do not, if we let them continue along their merry way ... and they will ... we are ourselves complicit in their crimes; we are no less than enablers. Make no mistake, their actions are literally crimes against humanity, as well as treason. They are not petty little differences between political ideologies, where the "Ins" punish the "Outs" ... which I agree should not be the focus.

America is the nation that won the admiration of the world's legal community for holding those who commit crimes against humanity responsible for their crimes by holding the Nuremberg Trials. Just because the international criminals are American this time doesn't mean that they should not be held accountable.

Or are you advocating one standard for America and another for the rest of the world?

[Kahuna]

68. Obama is trying to build a permanent Democratic majority by being

inclusive instead of exclusive like bushco. That will be the BEST revenge.