Should a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate the Bush administration?

[okarol]

i wonder how bush senior feels about fathering the worst president in american history?
 

Sheeesh you guys are amazing.

[BigSky]

Careful with that whole deficit/debt thing. Why not judge deficit performance as a percentage of the year before ... that seems more telling. The economy was in a very different place in January 2001.

If all Bush did was continue Clinton policies he'd have nothing to worry about. Tenant testified that Echelon complied with FISA, I don't think anyone in the Bush administration can testify that their programs comply with the relevant laws.

After living through eight years of W I think you'll have a hard time getting people to go back to hating the Clintons.

So the answer is yes, go ahead and authorize a special prosecutor because there is no reason not to.

Because we always judge the national deficit in terms of its amount.

I believe you mean it was Tenet who testified and and it doesnt matter what he testified about because of two things.

The most important being

1.  Tenet was in charge of the CIA, we are talking about the NSA.

2.  Just because he testified doesnt mean he was telling the truth, especially in light of what the NSA said about the program and what a spook said about what went on  with the program and the incident in Seattle. 




What is done isnt exactly what ones would consider torture but for all intents every labels anything done as such.

What is done produces results and saves lives.  This isnt the dark ages where they are relentlessly tortured to get any type of confession. When techniques are done properly pushing the individual outside their box it gets results.

Torture has saved thousands of lives despite claims otherwise.

Case in point was when it was used and the Bojinka plot was busted wide open.  Stopping that plot saved eleven planes from being bombed in the sky and saved 4000 people. 

 

[okarol]

I've been thinking about who the worst president was - I think Andrew Johnson or James Buchanan would win that title. As far as most hated - even John McCain got a larger percentage of the votes than Abraham Lincoln, who got only 40% of the popular vote in the 1860 election.  Time has rehabilitated Mr. Lincoln's place in history.

Anyway, that's off topic.  

[LightLizard]

now i see why i don't spend more time on this site.
too many rednecks.

proof that retards mate with apes.
 

[okarol]

Wow that's really funny 

You're always welcome to find another site LL.

[paul.karen]

WOW

Even if this was meant as a joke it is in pathetic form.
Many can have discussions and debates without acting like a four year old.
You are not in the MANY category  i see.


I hope you feel better by TRYING to insult people.
P&K

[Bill Peckham]

Careful with that whole deficit/debt thing. Why not judge deficit performance as a percentage of the year before ... that seems more telling. The economy was in a very different place in January 2001.

If all Bush did was continue Clinton policies he'd have nothing to worry about. Tenant testified that Echelon complied with FISA, I don't think anyone in the Bush administration can testify that their programs comply with the relevant laws.

After living through eight years of W I think you'll have a hard time getting people to go back to hating the Clintons.

So the answer is yes, go ahead and authorize a special prosecutor because there is no reason not to.

Because we always judge the national deficit in terms of its amount.

I believe you mean it was Tenet who testified and and it doesnt matter what he testified about because of two things.

The most important being

1.  Tenet was in charge of the CIA, we are talking about the NSA.

2.  Just because he testified doesnt mean he was telling the truth, especially in light of what the NSA said about the program and what a spook said about what went on  with the program and the incident in Seattle. 




What is done isnt exactly what ones would consider torture but for all intents every labels anything done as such.

What is done produces results and saves lives.  This isnt the dark ages where they are relentlessly tortured to get any type of confession. When techniques are done properly pushing the individual outside their box it gets results.

Torture has saved thousands of lives despite claims otherwise.

Case in point was when it was used and the Bojinka plot was busted wide open.  Stopping that plot saved eleven planes from being bombed in the sky and saved 4000 people. 

I think the clearest way to understand the federal government is to look at year on year performance. What does it being the first or eighth year of the Presidency have to do with the US deficit? Are you suggesting Presidents start off with budget constraint and then get better at running up giant debt as their term progresses? That does not make sense to me.

Just today the first Bush administration official has come out and said yeah we torture. It isn't even the 20th yet.

This idea that torture has saved lives has to be addressed in the open. Your post and PK's point up that it is an important question. As Obama said lets look at everything and give it a fair evaluation before we decide what to toss out. This was in response to a Cheney quote. I think Cheney was thinking of Gitmo and I think Obama has already concluded that Gitmo has to go but it applies just as well to all these new Bush techniques.

All 16 US intelligence agencies have said that US actions over the last seven years have made us less safe. Maybe there is some secrete body of evidence that would make your case but I do not expect that. We've had thousands of years of human history - torture has never worked. It has always signaled the decline and corruption of the authority practicing it. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. I have no question that that is true.

I don't think the plot you describe as the Seattle plot helps your case. It was caught by an alert border guard doing her job. The plan was for the guy to stay at a Seattle Hotel before going down to LA to blow up the airport. That guy cooperated for years while he was treated under the previous approach to interrogation - he provided useful, accurate information. Recently as the techniques have changed he's stopped cooperating.

I've read nothing to suggest that it is a bad idea to lay this all out in the light of day. All I've heard is you preemptively concluding that it kept me safe and in any case it was legal. I don't think the facts will bear that out but why not find out the truth?

PK you wrote Bush had the hardest 8 years of anyone in office. That's just hard to accept. The disasters facing this country didn't just happen. The financial meltdown didn't just happen. The divisive politicization of the Justice Department didn't just happen. The total lack of fiscal oversight in rebuilding Iraq didn't just happen. It was not foreordained that OBL could never be caught. It wasn't a surprise to everyone that the reasons for going into Iraq turned out to be fairytales. In that link Zach provided there is an interesting quote (Where Is Our Ferdinand Pecora? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/opinion/06chernow.html ):

On Black Thursday of 1929, the nation had applauded a seemingly heroic attempt by major bankers, including Albert Wiggin of Chase and Charles Mitchell of National City, to stem the market decline. Pecora showed that Wiggin had actually shorted Chase shares during the crash, profiting from falling prices. He also revealed that Mitchell and top officers at National City had helped themselves to $2.4 million in interest-free loans from the bank’s coffers to ease them through the crash. National City, it turned out, had also palmed off bad loans to Latin American countries by packing them into securities and selling them to unsuspecting investors. By the time Pecora got through with the bankers, Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana was likening them to Al Capone and the public referred to them as “banksters,” rhyming with gangsters.

I think a if we have a Pecora-like commission the actions that are being held up as heroic will be revealed as criminality.

[paul.karen]

Bill your very bright.
You make good points but that doesn't make them right.
I don't trust much of what i see or read in newspapers or newsstations. Let alone the NY Times. To much information is misleading or flat out false.  Or the newscaster recently admit to being biased towards one candidate.  While bashing the other.  back and forth.  I make conclusions form various articles and views of many commentators.  Right or wrong they are my conclusions.  The boarder guard you speak off.  Are you sure she wasn't tipped off?
Do you truly think we the public have the right to know everything the CIA FBI or government in general knows or does?  I am sure if the general public knew half the stuff many higher level members of the intelligence and armed forces knew there would be mass panic.

We may never know what was figured out from strick intelligence gathering from Terrorist out to kill us.
But i for one think it saved lives.   you dont.

Look im neutral when i vote i vote my heart not a party line.  This may make me different but i have no agenda so to say other then to speak what i feel.  I voted Clinton twice and Bush twice.  I feel Clinton dropped the ball. 
I feel Bush has kept us safe.  Only time will tell.  I just dont feel we need to spend Billions of dollars to see if Bush did anything illegal when it comes to saving American lives.



If we had a terrorist in custody who knew that in one day five Americans were to be shot and killed at a specific place and at a specific time.  And he said he wasn't talking for 48 hours.  And you came to find out he was waterbaorded and the five Americans were saved and the terrorists holding them were all killed.     This would be a bad day for you?  you would be upset with your government.  Cause it may come.  And at a much higher expense then 5 Americans.  Do you think terrorsits dont want to bring a nuke into our major cities.  And kill as many people as they can.  Preferably children and ladies.

I understand the constitution rules of engagement ect ect.  I also understand this isn't a war like years gone by.  New millennium new rules new threats.  We are still the goodguys.  We aim or bombs at specific targets.  Terrorsits aim for our children.  You have to put two and two together IMO and do what has to be done.  If that means offending some terrorists or Americans at a time when so many can be killed by ONE person with a dirtybomb then i say offend a few to save the masses.

[BigSky]

I think the clearest way to understand the federal government is to look at year on year performance. What does it being the first or eighth year of the Presidency have to do with the US deficit? Are you suggesting Presidents start off with budget constraint and then get better at running up giant debt as their term progresses? That does not make sense to me.

No I am suggesting that obama will add far more to the debt his first year vs Bush first year.  Showing he was full of bs on the campaign trail when he kept complaining about the amount that was added to the national debt of this country and how he was going to do something about it.

But hey, remember its my prediction.

All 16 US intelligence agencies have said that US actions over the last seven years have made us less safe. [

How many terrorist attacks have occurred in the US in that time?


Yes the financial mess didnt occur overnight.

However the major thing that sent out the shockwave to the rest of the business sector was predicted and not only Bush but McCain wanted to have oversight of that trigger before it happened.

Just maybe if those top dems were stuffing so damn much lobbyist money in their pockets from that trigger and telling the American people that those corporations were fine and didnt need oversight we could have avoided the huge impact that occurred.