Not to mention, public support in the near term is irrelevant. Public support in the long term is the vital thing. And popular opinion decades from now will be shaped mostly by whether we prosecute now, not by what narrative happens to hold the mass media for a few months.
Do you honestly think that history will find us wanting if we prosecute in the fall or winter of Obama's first year in office or even the second year, having spent the time building a case and public support, versus doing it by the first summer? They'll care whether we held the right people responsible and stamped out that mindset, not how quickly we did it.
Foot-dragging is rarely a good sign for prosecutions. And funnily enough the more you politicize them by "building support," the more political they look and become. The best case is to quietly appoint a special prosecutor who will issue brief press releases at appropriate junctions to which the administration and Congress will respond with appropriate nothings.
You're better than that argument moniker. I think we'll see a revision of popular history that Ford's pardon of Nixon was a disaster in the next few years. Much like this President will have a grievous black mark on his record in the minds of historians in a few decades if he fails this test.
That's what he was referring to, though he overstated the need for immediacy. I think the next election is an absolute deadline as much as I'd like to see it, you know, tomorrow.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Not to mention, public support in the near term is irrelevant. Public support in the long term is the vital thing. And popular opinion decades from now will be shaped mostly by whether we prosecute now, not by what narrative happens to hold the mass media for a few months.
...so you voted for Barack Obama because Ford pardoned Nixon?
Now that's a bizarre non-sequitur. To answer the question you should have asked, do I think Bush would have been much more leery of his warrantless wiretapping program if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon? You betcha.
You're better than that argument moniker. I think we'll see a revision of popular history that Ford's pardon of Nixon was a disaster in the next few years. Much like this President will have a grievous black mark on his record in the minds of historians in a few decades if he fails this test.
That's what he was referring to, though he overstated the need for immediacy. I think the next election is an absolute deadline as much as I'd like to see it, you know, tomorrow.
There are a great number of things that will potentially count as grievous black marks on Obama's record in history books if he fails to meet their challenge. Blundering about in his handling of war crimes prosecutions will make accomplishing them that much harder.
Not to mention, public support in the near term is irrelevant. Public support in the long term is the vital thing. And popular opinion decades from now will be shaped mostly by whether we prosecute now, not by what narrative happens to hold the mass media for a few months.
...so you voted for Barack Obama because Ford pardoned Nixon?
Now that's a bizarre non-sequitur. To answer the question you should have asked, do I think Bush would have been much more leery of his warrantless wiretapping program if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon? You betcha.
You're better than that argument moniker. I think we'll see a revision of popular history that Ford's pardon of Nixon was a disaster in the next few years. Much like this President will have a grievous black mark on his record in the minds of historians in a few decades if he fails this test.
That's what he was referring to, though he overstated the need for immediacy. I think the next election is an absolute deadline as much as I'd like to see it, you know, tomorrow.
There are a great number of things that will potentially count as grievous black marks on Obama's record in history books if he fails to meet their challenge. Blundering about in his handling of war crimes prosecutions will make accomplishing them that much harder.
Right. All those late nights he'll have to put in, studying relevant precedents, practicing his opening and closing arguments, developing lines of questioning for his witnesses...
We've had this argument before a bunch of times, but fundamentally it boils down to this:
There is a belief that I think a growing number of people subscribe to that had Nixon actually faced jail time instead of being given a blanket pardon, the staffers of that administration would not have been quite so cavalier about breaking the law when they were the heads of a subsequent presidency.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Not to mention, public support in the near term is irrelevant. Public support in the long term is the vital thing. And popular opinion decades from now will be shaped mostly by whether we prosecute now, not by what narrative happens to hold the mass media for a few months.
...so you voted for Barack Obama because Ford pardoned Nixon?
Now that's a bizarre non-sequitur. To answer the question you should have asked, do I think Bush would have been much more leery of his warrantless wiretapping program if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon? You betcha.
I don't see how.
I don't see how you can be serious here, but on the off chance you are, there are two reasons. First, the idea of holding a president legally accountable would seem to be possible, as opposed to now where the idea is considered the ridiculous frothings of the crazed fringe. This would produce real incentives in any administration to error on the side of legal caution. Instead, it's tacitly understood that you can get away with anything with the appropriate smokescreen. Second, a fear of possibly going to jail is a much more personal and concrete motivator than a fear of being "judged by history."
We've had this argument before a bunch of times, but fundamentally it boils down to this:
There is a belief that I think a growing number of people subscribe to that had Nixon actually faced jail time instead of being given a blanket pardon, the staffers of that administration would not have been quite so cavalier about breaking the law when they were the heads of a subsequent presidency.
Right, they would have been even more careful about how they broke the law.
You're better than that argument moniker. I think we'll see a revision of popular history that Ford's pardon of Nixon was a disaster in the next few years. Much like this President will have a grievous black mark on his record in the minds of historians in a few decades if he fails this test.
That's what he was referring to, though he overstated the need for immediacy. I think the next election is an absolute deadline as much as I'd like to see it, you know, tomorrow.
There are a great number of things that will potentially count as grievous black marks on Obama's record in history books if he fails to meet their challenge. Blundering about in his handling of war crimes prosecutions will make accomplishing them that much harder.
Right. All those late nights he'll have to put in, studying relevant precedents, practicing his opening and closing arguments, developing lines of questioning for his witnesses...
We've had this argument before a bunch of times, but fundamentally it boils down to this:
There is a belief that I think a growing number of people subscribe to that had Nixon actually faced jail time instead of being given a blanket pardon, the staffers of that administration would not have been quite so cavalier about breaking the law when they were the heads of a subsequent presidency.
Right, they would have been even more careful about how they broke the law.
Wow, we caught you at your most cynical.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
We've had this argument before a bunch of times, but fundamentally it boils down to this:
There is a belief that I think a growing number of people subscribe to that had Nixon actually faced jail time instead of being given a blanket pardon, the staffers of that administration would not have been quite so cavalier about breaking the law when they were the heads of a subsequent presidency.
Right, they would have been even more careful about how they broke the law.
Wow, we caught you at your most cynical.
He's right though. Any effort at establishing a lawful government is doomed to failure. The appropriate course of action is to just let them do whatever. That way, at least they'll be open about it.
Not to mention, public support in the near term is irrelevant. Public support in the long term is the vital thing. And popular opinion decades from now will be shaped mostly by whether we prosecute now, not by what narrative happens to hold the mass media for a few months.
Do you honestly think that history will find us wanting if we prosecute in the fall or winter of Obama's first year in office or even the second year, having spent the time building a case and public support, versus doing it by the first summer? They'll care whether we held the right people responsible and stamped out that mindset, not how quickly we did it.
Foot-dragging is rarely a good sign for prosecutions. And funnily enough the more you politicize them by "building support," the more political they look and become. The best case is to quietly appoint a special prosecutor who will issue brief press releases at appropriate junctions to which the administration and Congress will respond with appropriate nothings.
There's a difference between foot dragging and not racing as fast as you can. And what you want to be doing is not building support against the republicans, but support against torture. Keep it low key and hands off, but let the left continue loudly making the case against it and keep trickling information out, like the photos from Patreaus and so on.
We've had this argument before a bunch of times, but fundamentally it boils down to this:
There is a belief that I think a growing number of people subscribe to that had Nixon actually faced jail time instead of being given a blanket pardon, the staffers of that administration would not have been quite so cavalier about breaking the law when they were the heads of a subsequent presidency.
Right, they would have been even more careful about how they broke the law.
Wow, we caught you at your most cynical.
He's right though. Any effort at establishing a lawful government is doomed to failure. The appropriate course of action is to just let them do whatever. That way, at least they'll be open about it.
I rather enjoy the way that you misinterpret people who disagree with you. It's kind of funny. Not 'ha ha' funny, mind you, but still.
We've had this argument before a bunch of times, but fundamentally it boils down to this:
There is a belief that I think a growing number of people subscribe to that had Nixon actually faced jail time instead of being given a blanket pardon, the staffers of that administration would not have been quite so cavalier about breaking the law when they were the heads of a subsequent presidency.
Right, they would have been even more careful about how they broke the law.
Wow, we caught you at your most cynical.
He's right though. Any effort at establishing a lawful government is doomed to failure. The appropriate course of action is to just let them do whatever. That way, at least they'll be open about it.
I rather enjoy the way that you misinterpret people who disagree with you. It's kind of funny. Not 'ha ha' funny, mind you, but still.
I'm not misinterpreting you. I'm pointing out the logical absurdity your flippant cynicism leads to. If you had some deeper, more cogent point to make, perhaps you should have made it with more than two sentences so that it was possible to discern.
We've had this argument before a bunch of times, but fundamentally it boils down to this:
There is a belief that I think a growing number of people subscribe to that had Nixon actually faced jail time instead of being given a blanket pardon, the staffers of that administration would not have been quite so cavalier about breaking the law when they were the heads of a subsequent presidency.
Right, they would have been even more careful about how they broke the law.
Wow, we caught you at your most cynical.
He's right though. Any effort at establishing a lawful government is doomed to failure. The appropriate course of action is to just let them do whatever. That way, at least they'll be open about it.
I rather enjoy the way that you misinterpret people who disagree with you. It's kind of funny. Not 'ha ha' funny, mind you, but still.
I'm not misinterpreting you. I'm pointing out the logical absurdity your flippant cynicism leads to. If you had some deeper, more cogent point to make, perhaps you should have made it with more than two sentences so that it was possible to discern.
No, you're just misinterpreting me. You've been doing it to me and several other posts for a number of pages now.
So you don't think there would be any deterrent effect of having had Nixon's ass thrown in jail?
Not in the way that you mean it given the subject matter. In a few other areas it very well might have.
I think there's a shot it would have had the effect I want it to have had.
But I'm (obviously) not one to worry about political consideration when larger questions of justice are involved. I hate the idea of the lawless all-powerful executive and the idea needs to finally be destroyed.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So you don't think there would be any deterrent effect of having had Nixon's ass thrown in jail?
Not in the way that you mean it given the subject matter. In a few other areas it very well might have.
I think there's a shot it would have had the effect I want it to have had.
But I'm (obviously) not one to worry about political consideration when larger questions of justice are involved. I hate the idea of the lawless all-powerful executive and the idea needs to finally be destroyed.
What did you think of my proposed solution to it a handful of pages back?
So you don't think there would be any deterrent effect of having had Nixon's ass thrown in jail?
Not in the way that you mean it given the subject matter. In a few other areas it very well might have.
I think there's a shot it would have had the effect I want it to have had.
But I'm (obviously) not one to worry about political consideration when larger questions of justice are involved. I hate the idea of the lawless all-powerful executive and the idea needs to finally be destroyed.
What did you think of my proposed solution to it a handful of pages back?
I might have missed it, could you repost? Or link?
I was pretty pissed earlier in the thread, if you didn't notice. :P
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
No, you're just misinterpreting me. You've been doing it to me and several other posts for a number of pages now.
You know, it's funny. I try to avoid just telling someone "you're misinterpreting me." I often say, "You misunderstand," which I follow up with an explanation of what I meant, or a reiteration in different words. So I can't help but suspect, fairly or not, that when someone says "You're misinterpreting me" and refuses to follow up on it, that really what they mean is that they were caught out in a stupid statement and realize they don't have anything to gain by trying to clarify the debate.
In this case, the fact that both I and enlightenedbaum interpreted you the same way, and that you refused to clarify what you meant, suggests that that's what's going on here. But by all means, explain what exactly you intended to say.
Actually, I'm not sure I did, I just pointed out he was being cynical and asked him a question about it. You stretched that to he doesn't want the people punished at all, which isn't right.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So you don't think there would be any deterrent effect of having had Nixon's ass thrown in jail?
Not in the way that you mean it given the subject matter. In a few other areas it very well might have.
I think there's a shot it would have had the effect I want it to have had.
But I'm (obviously) not one to worry about political consideration when larger questions of justice are involved. I hate the idea of the lawless all-powerful executive and the idea needs to finally be destroyed.
What did you think of my proposed solution to it a handful of pages back?
I might have missed it, could you repost? Or link?
I was pretty pissed earlier in the thread, if you didn't notice. :P
AG appointments, approved by the Senate, are staggered so as to occur midway through a President's term, or it gets shifted so as to be a 6 year appointment (maximum of 3 terms). He cannot be fired or forced to resign. Basically make DOJ more apolitical and independent in more or less the same way that the Fed is a bit more apolitical and independent. It would take a few administrations in order to build up the credibility and technocratic approach like at the Fed or State Department, but after that it should work out pretty good.
Actually, I'm not sure I did, I just pointed out he was being cynical and asked him a question about it. You stretched that to he doesn't want the people punished at all, which isn't right.
No, I stretched that the logical conclusion of his cynicism would be the uselessness of punishment. Which is what I just explained to him. Which is why that kind of cynicism is both useless and stupid.
So you don't think there would be any deterrent effect of having had Nixon's ass thrown in jail?
Not in the way that you mean it given the subject matter. In a few other areas it very well might have.
I think there's a shot it would have had the effect I want it to have had.
But I'm (obviously) not one to worry about political consideration when larger questions of justice are involved. I hate the idea of the lawless all-powerful executive and the idea needs to finally be destroyed.
What did you think of my proposed solution to it a handful of pages back?
I might have missed it, could you repost? Or link?
I was pretty pissed earlier in the thread, if you didn't notice. :P
AG appointments, approved by the Senate, are staggered so as to occur midway through a President's term, or it gets shifted so as to be a 6 year appointment (maximum of 3 terms). He cannot be fired or forced to resign. Basically make DOJ more apolitical and independent in more or less the same way that the Fed is a bit more apolitical and independent. It would take a few administrations in order to build up the credibility and technocratic approach like at the Fed or State Department, but after that it should work out pretty good.
I think that's a workable system. I was trying to decide if I wanted it to be an elected position and I tend to think it shouldn't be. While we're at it, let's change the Supreme Court to single 18 year terms.
We definitely need to make Justice far more independent structurally from the White House while giving the President some authority to direct the general tone. So I think that's a pretty good plan.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I know. And we keep explaining it to you. It's sad.
I'm enjoying the condescension, but your points quite frankly don't make any damn sense.
We have a pretty good idea of where people stand on the following figures:
Barack Obama
The Democratic Party
George Bush
The Republican Party
We have a less clear, but decidedly leaning in one direction, idea that the American people would like to see these programs investigated further.
Furthermore, we know that the Republicans are going to be obstructionists on the entire Democratic agenda that Americans just voted for. What's more, Americans know they voted for that agenda and would like to see it passed (see: Democrats in Congress approval has been going up, Republicans in Congress have managed to go down).
Now my point is this: justice demands that Attorney General Holder appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the Bush war crimes.
In response to this, you have apparently decided that the Republican obstructionism that will result will not be noticed by the American people and they will instead blame the President and his party. Note that they kind of adore the President and the Democratic Party's favorability ratings generally are approaching 50%. Logic dictates that the people will blame the party they hate if the Democrats can make any decent kind of messaging effort against them. As we've seen, this President doesn't lose long term messaging wars very often.
I think your argument is stupid, which is why I dismissed it and said that you were a coward. Because you're politically afraid of a rump, powerless, hated minority that has no idea where the American people are.
So there's the political consideration. Of course, the political consideration doesn't fucking matter, because there's the larger issue of our former President is a god damn war criminal.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think the better response would be everyone here clearly feels strongly as hell about the issue, and no matter how pissed off we are about what has happened or how things are goign there's no need to tear into each other. We're all roughly on the same side, and even if we weren't personally going at each other wouldn't make anything better.
I think that's a workable system. I was trying to decide if I wanted it to be an elected position and I tend to think it shouldn't be. While we're at it, let's change the Supreme Court to single 18 year terms.
The problem with that is you run the risk of political and philosophical orthodoxy due almost solely to blind luck in how elections turn out. Obama is going to be replacing 2, maybe 3 Associate Justices. He is going to be keeping the balance of the Court in doing so, and it's going to stay that way for a good bit with Bush's replacements sticking around for awhile. Scalia has at least 8 years left in him, and Thomas will likely outlast 3 Presidents if he wants. (He did not age well.) But what if that was reversed? Bush replaced Ginsburg and Stevens instead of Rehnquist and O'Connor, and Obama would be replacing the remaining liberal wing? If the VP wins the Presidency after a 2 term Presidency you have a brand new majority appointed by what is basically the same administration. And one that would last.
If you want me to consider the political side, then yeah we should be in a hurry. Do you think the President's going to have a approval ratings in the low 60s forever? Do it while he has the moral force for people to trust him instead of waiting til he's in the 50s or lower and we have an even bigger clustefuck on our hands.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If you want me to consider the political side, then yeah we should be in a hurry. Do you think the President's going to have a approval ratings in the low 60s forever? Do it while he has the moral force for people to trust him instead of waiting til he's in the 50s or lower and we have an even bigger clustefuck on our hands.
That's an extremely poor analysis of the situation.
Your still doing the same thing though. Acting as if we don't have time.
To go with the "pithy sayings" theme from before:
Fools Rush In
And your a fool.
Oh hey, more platitudes!
Your point is understood -- we should wait until we have all the information. Well, EnlightenedBum isn't saying we shouldn't gather more information. He's saying we should appoint a prosecutor and investigate this now.
Because, you know, even if we appointed a prosecutor tomorrow it isn't as if trials would begin on Wednesday.
Your still doing the same thing though. Acting as if we don't have time.
To go with the "pithy sayings" theme from before:
Fools Rush In
And your a fool.
Oh hey, more platitudes!
Your point is understood -- we should wait until we have all the information. Well, EnlightenedBum isn't saying we shouldn't gather more information. He's saying we should appoint a prosecutor and investigate this now.
Because, you know, even if we appointed a prosecutor tomorrow it isn't as if trials would begin on Wednesday.
As soon as the process begins, so do the politics.
The GOP isn't gonna wait for the trials to start calling this a witch-hunt.
I think that's a workable system. I was trying to decide if I wanted it to be an elected position and I tend to think it shouldn't be. While we're at it, let's change the Supreme Court to single 18 year terms.
The problem with that is you run the risk of political and philosophical orthodoxy due almost solely to blind luck in how elections turn out. Obama is going to be replacing 2, maybe 3 Associate Justices. He is going to be keeping the balance of the Court in doing so, and it's going to stay that way for a good bit with Bush's replacements sticking around for awhile. Scalia has at least 8 years left in him, and Thomas will likely outlast 3 Presidents if he wants. (He did not age well.) But what if that was reversed? Bush replaced Ginsburg and Stevens instead of Rehnquist and O'Connor, and Obama would be replacing the remaining liberal wing? If the VP wins the Presidency after a 2 term Presidency you have a brand new majority appointed by what is basically the same administration. And one that would last.
Yeah, I was just throwing out an idea, I hadn't thought about it too much. The problem with the Court as it is currently structured is that it promotes finding young ideologues instead of the best jurists. I find that troubling. Thomas in particular is a joke but gets to serve forever. Maybe shorter terms than that even with a possibility for re-appointment? Problem there is it might get too swingy based on elections, though I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Your still doing the same thing though. Acting as if we don't have time.
To go with the "pithy sayings" theme from before:
Fools Rush In
And your a fool.
Oh hey, more platitudes!
Your point is understood -- we should wait until we have all the information. Well, EnlightenedBum isn't saying we shouldn't gather more information. He's saying we should appoint a prosecutor and investigate this now.
Because, you know, even if we appointed a prosecutor tomorrow it isn't as if trials would begin on Wednesday.
As soon as the process begins, so do the politics.
The GOP isn't gonna wait for the trials to start calling this a witch-hunt.
The politics have already begun. Haven't you noticed all the spinning going on by Cheney, Rove, Hayden, etc?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
Foot-dragging is rarely a good sign for prosecutions. And funnily enough the more you politicize them by "building support," the more political they look and become. The best case is to quietly appoint a special prosecutor who will issue brief press releases at appropriate junctions to which the administration and Congress will respond with appropriate nothings.
In other news, a bare majority of voters support an investigation. Which of course won't make Obama and Congressional Dems any less desperate to avoid having any.
That's what he was referring to, though he overstated the need for immediacy. I think the next election is an absolute deadline as much as I'd like to see it, you know, tomorrow.
Now that's a bizarre non-sequitur. To answer the question you should have asked, do I think Bush would have been much more leery of his warrantless wiretapping program if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon? You betcha.
There are a great number of things that will potentially count as grievous black marks on Obama's record in history books if he fails to meet their challenge. Blundering about in his handling of war crimes prosecutions will make accomplishing them that much harder.
I don't see how.
Right. All those late nights he'll have to put in, studying relevant precedents, practicing his opening and closing arguments, developing lines of questioning for his witnesses...
There is a belief that I think a growing number of people subscribe to that had Nixon actually faced jail time instead of being given a blanket pardon, the staffers of that administration would not have been quite so cavalier about breaking the law when they were the heads of a subsequent presidency.
I don't see how you can be serious here, but on the off chance you are, there are two reasons. First, the idea of holding a president legally accountable would seem to be possible, as opposed to now where the idea is considered the ridiculous frothings of the crazed fringe. This would produce real incentives in any administration to error on the side of legal caution. Instead, it's tacitly understood that you can get away with anything with the appropriate smokescreen. Second, a fear of possibly going to jail is a much more personal and concrete motivator than a fear of being "judged by history."
Right, they would have been even more careful about how they broke the law.
Wow, we caught you at your most cynical.
He's right though. Any effort at establishing a lawful government is doomed to failure. The appropriate course of action is to just let them do whatever. That way, at least they'll be open about it.
There's a difference between foot dragging and not racing as fast as you can. And what you want to be doing is not building support against the republicans, but support against torture. Keep it low key and hands off, but let the left continue loudly making the case against it and keep trickling information out, like the photos from Patreaus and so on.
I rather enjoy the way that you misinterpret people who disagree with you. It's kind of funny. Not 'ha ha' funny, mind you, but still.
I'm not misinterpreting you. I'm pointing out the logical absurdity your flippant cynicism leads to. If you had some deeper, more cogent point to make, perhaps you should have made it with more than two sentences so that it was possible to discern.
No, you're just misinterpreting me. You've been doing it to me and several other posts for a number of pages now.
Not in the way that you mean it given the subject matter. In a few other areas it very well might have.
I think there's a shot it would have had the effect I want it to have had.
But I'm (obviously) not one to worry about political consideration when larger questions of justice are involved. I hate the idea of the lawless all-powerful executive and the idea needs to finally be destroyed.
What did you think of my proposed solution to it a handful of pages back?
I might have missed it, could you repost? Or link?
I was pretty pissed earlier in the thread, if you didn't notice. :P
You know, it's funny. I try to avoid just telling someone "you're misinterpreting me." I often say, "You misunderstand," which I follow up with an explanation of what I meant, or a reiteration in different words. So I can't help but suspect, fairly or not, that when someone says "You're misinterpreting me" and refuses to follow up on it, that really what they mean is that they were caught out in a stupid statement and realize they don't have anything to gain by trying to clarify the debate.
In this case, the fact that both I and enlightenedbaum interpreted you the same way, and that you refused to clarify what you meant, suggests that that's what's going on here. But by all means, explain what exactly you intended to say.
AG appointments, approved by the Senate, are staggered so as to occur midway through a President's term, or it gets shifted so as to be a 6 year appointment (maximum of 3 terms). He cannot be fired or forced to resign. Basically make DOJ more apolitical and independent in more or less the same way that the Fed is a bit more apolitical and independent. It would take a few administrations in order to build up the credibility and technocratic approach like at the Fed or State Department, but after that it should work out pretty good.
No, I stretched that the logical conclusion of his cynicism would be the uselessness of punishment. Which is what I just explained to him. Which is why that kind of cynicism is both useless and stupid.
I think that's a workable system. I was trying to decide if I wanted it to be an elected position and I tend to think it shouldn't be. While we're at it, let's change the Supreme Court to single 18 year terms.
We definitely need to make Justice far more independent structurally from the White House while giving the President some authority to direct the general tone. So I think that's a pretty good plan.
You continue to confuse "care" with "cowardice".
How Republican of you.
I don't even know what you're trying to say.
I'm enjoying the condescension, but your points quite frankly don't make any damn sense.
We have a pretty good idea of where people stand on the following figures:
Barack Obama
The Democratic Party
George Bush
The Republican Party
We have a less clear, but decidedly leaning in one direction, idea that the American people would like to see these programs investigated further.
Furthermore, we know that the Republicans are going to be obstructionists on the entire Democratic agenda that Americans just voted for. What's more, Americans know they voted for that agenda and would like to see it passed (see: Democrats in Congress approval has been going up, Republicans in Congress have managed to go down).
Now my point is this: justice demands that Attorney General Holder appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the Bush war crimes.
In response to this, you have apparently decided that the Republican obstructionism that will result will not be noticed by the American people and they will instead blame the President and his party. Note that they kind of adore the President and the Democratic Party's favorability ratings generally are approaching 50%. Logic dictates that the people will blame the party they hate if the Democrats can make any decent kind of messaging effort against them. As we've seen, this President doesn't lose long term messaging wars very often.
I think your argument is stupid, which is why I dismissed it and said that you were a coward. Because you're politically afraid of a rump, powerless, hated minority that has no idea where the American people are.
So there's the political consideration. Of course, the political consideration doesn't fucking matter, because there's the larger issue of our former President is a god damn war criminal.
To go with the "pithy sayings" theme from before:
Fools Rush In
And your a fool.
The problem with that is you run the risk of political and philosophical orthodoxy due almost solely to blind luck in how elections turn out. Obama is going to be replacing 2, maybe 3 Associate Justices. He is going to be keeping the balance of the Court in doing so, and it's going to stay that way for a good bit with Bush's replacements sticking around for awhile. Scalia has at least 8 years left in him, and Thomas will likely outlast 3 Presidents if he wants. (He did not age well.) But what if that was reversed? Bush replaced Ginsburg and Stevens instead of Rehnquist and O'Connor, and Obama would be replacing the remaining liberal wing? If the VP wins the Presidency after a 2 term Presidency you have a brand new majority appointed by what is basically the same administration. And one that would last.
That's an extremely poor analysis of the situation.
Oh hey, more platitudes!
Your point is understood -- we should wait until we have all the information. Well, EnlightenedBum isn't saying we shouldn't gather more information. He's saying we should appoint a prosecutor and investigate this now.
Because, you know, even if we appointed a prosecutor tomorrow it isn't as if trials would begin on Wednesday.
As soon as the process begins, so do the politics.
The GOP isn't gonna wait for the trials to start calling this a witch-hunt.
Do you honestly think the GOP isn't going to violently oppose this if the Democrats wait to appoint a prosecutor?
Yeah, I was just throwing out an idea, I hadn't thought about it too much. The problem with the Court as it is currently structured is that it promotes finding young ideologues instead of the best jurists. I find that troubling. Thomas in particular is a joke but gets to serve forever. Maybe shorter terms than that even with a possibility for re-appointment? Problem there is it might get too swingy based on elections, though I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing.
The politics have already begun. Haven't you noticed all the spinning going on by Cheney, Rove, Hayden, etc?