The best arguement to let Bush off the hook...
I am not saying I condone this article. I can not process it well enough to counter it. I usually prefer more extreme writing and opinions in general and especially on this subject. I challenge anyone to come up with a better plan for handling Bush and his crimes against humanity and the United States. I know most of my friends care more about
( Read more... )
What's needed is a fair and thorough congressional investigation. Subpoena witnesses and lay the whole wretched business out on the public record. Look into the heart of darkness and meditate on it. But don't round up a few symbolic suspects and throw the book at them and let all the others go free. Which is what would happen if we launch a criminal prosecution.
OK, well I agree with this. And there is something to the faults in our justice system when Scooter Libby gets convicted, and Cheney is skulking freely in alleyways and steak restaurants. But just because our system is faulty doesn't mean we should use it.
Holding the Bush administration responsible for torture would give us some... drama that would feed the media goat for the next two years and also sap the body politic. The healthcare system would go unfixed, schools would crumble, basic public services would deteriorate, all so that the left could have at the right. ... I've been with old lefty friends who can get emotional about the Haymarket bombing in Chicago and the innocent men railroaded to the gallows, ... it happened in 1886. Let's move on.
I don't think that a trial versus the Bush administration would distract our justice department nor our executive or representative branches. This isn't all or nothing here. These are fucking lawyers. They'll git-r-dun whenever you sic them on anyone. Additionally, what we're talking about is not 1886, it is about a war that we're currently still engaged in. That is a drain on our resources. Maybe we need to halt the war first, and then spend 1/1-millionth of that money on a Bush administration investigation.
The main reason that the administration should be prosecuted is that they did unprecedented abuses of our Constitution, of media manipulation, of information parity, and they overtly lied to get us into a war which lined pockets of the industries that much of the administration was involved in supposedly before (not during) their tenure there. As far as public service goes, this is about as bad as it possibly gets. In order to ensure that there is no repeat of this, there must be consequences for such action. This coming from a guy who is not into revenge! I'm looking at this from a dispassionate perspective; if I were emotionally involved in the argument, there'd be a lot more F-bombs in this response. We're talking about human lives lost, and we're talking about a mass murder in the 1M+ range. It is no laughing matter, and isn't something to brush off. Keillor, should we just continue to ignore Darfur because it is costly and inconvenient as well?
I think the American electorate knew whom they reelected in 2004. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney did not run on a human-rights platform. They ran as rough men who would guard our sleep. So go talk to the voters of Ohio about war crimes.
They actually ran on a pro-life, anti-gay, imperialistic platform. And we don't need to talk to Ohio voters, but Sequioa and Diebold about voter fraud. Still, just giving the benefit of the doubt there about voter machine fraud, it was close. But again, I must repeat about media manipulation. People do very odd things when they're racked with fear. And that's really the platform that the 9/11 administration ran on. 9/11 was political capital, and that's why I think they weren't in on it, but let it happen.
I would forgo the pleasures of tormenting a few malefactors for the rightness of hearing a kid from Newark stand up and give an impassioned recitation of "When in Disgrace With Fortune and Men's Eyes."
This is definitely coming from a man who doesn't understand how government funding is doled out. Again, it is not an all or nothing proposition. And 20K$ in one sector is light years away from appearing as 20K$ somewhere else when it comes to government funding. The fact that the cost is even a consideration over the notions of justice lead me to believe that Keillor may also argue that incarceration of criminals is too expensive, so we should let all of them out. Why not? If it is money he's worried about, let's discuss the elephant in the room whose name starts with an I and ends in a Q.
Reply
Leave a comment