DoJ veteran sees ‘dangerous precedent’ in letting Bush officials walk

[derby378]

Source: Raw Story

In a rare blistering attack on the Department of Justice, a career veteran of the agency recently told Raw Story that the Obama administration handing Bush-era officials "a get out of jail free card” sets “a dangerous precedent" that could encourage other offenses by future leaders.

J. Gerald Hebert, a former acting Justice Department chief who served the government's enforcement wing in various capacities between 1973 and 1994, said in an exclusive interview that the failure of federal prosecutors to charge former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) with even a single crime was indicative of a greater problem.

On the heels of the successful prosecution of DeLay for money laundering and conspiracy in Texas, Hebert said he hoped it was clear that the Department of Justice had nothing to do with that conviction.

Rather, the Obama administration's Justice Department in August closed down a six-year investigation into DeLay -- without filing a single charge.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/justice-dept-veteran-obama-sets-dangerous-precedent-letting-bush-officials-free/

[dmosh42]

1. Obama signaled that when he appointed useless AG! n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidinalameda]

2. Holder needs to go

I've said that time and time again

he's just a horrible AG

[Demeter]

4. Then so must the man that put him in the job

because there's no separation between the two of them.

[pnorman]

54. "THERE'S NOT A DIME'S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN................."

n/t

[indepat]

17. I had thought no one could top Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Mukasey: I hope that

assessment was not fatally flawed. ;)

[Art_from_Ark]

61. Look up "John Mitchell" and "Edwin Meese"

Mitchell, Nixon's AG, was actually convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice

[indepat]

65. Remember "tits in the ringer" John, Martha, and Ed well as well as John's conviction:

today no such convictions are forthcoming because we are forward-looking, not backward-looking, no matter how seeming flagrant and egregious the alleged crimes. ;)

[Art_from_Ark]

66. Mitchell really overstepped his bounds with that remark, didn't he?

And he paid the price for his crimes, which seem to pale in comparison to what has been going on for the past decade or so.

[indepat]

69. John was the epitome of amoral and arrogant arses and Martha was a

refreshing hoot. ;)

[Art_from_Ark]

73. She was indeed a refreshing hoot

I think every still photo I saw of her showed her on the phone. She and her telephone were inseparable!

[No Elephants]

86. That expression always reminds me of a mammogram, and vice versa.

Did not know it had roots in Nixonco.

[ArcticFox]

77. He goes whenever obama wants

Pretty sure the & AG serves at the pleasure of the President..

[sabrina 1]

83. What difference would that make unless the person who

appointed him is not happy with what he is doing? I think this president is very happy with the job Holder is NOT doing. We have found out from the Wikileaks Documents that this president interfered directly in the Spanish court's decision to prosecute the Bush Six torturers. He pressured that court NOT to prosecute them. Obama, iow, is protecting the Bush war criminals.

Besides, he stated clearly right from the beginning that we would not be seeing any prosecutions of Bush era war criminals. I think that said it all and if Holder were to go, Obama would simply appoint someone else who would be sure not to prosecute them either.

[dotymed]

88. Sadly,

If Holder were "let go" we would just get another version of him. He/she would be thoroughly vetted to make sure that the (much needed) prosecution would never happen.

[Demeter]

3. No Kidding

Ditto with the white collar banksters. The Hate media, the propagandists...

We are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of, by and for the Cronies.

[cognoscere]

26. I believe one of the earlier drafts of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

had the line, "...government of the people, by the rich, for the rich..."

[fascisthunter]

5. this Government is Absolutely Corrupted

there is no excuse for letting them off the hook.

[HopeHoops]

6. Hell, if the GOP gets the WH again, they'll prosecute Obama just for being a black man.

Cheney, the shrub, and the rest of the crooks should already be in jail.

[glinda]

11. No doubt on that one. They are already looking for charges of any kind.

[JDPriestly]

20. Holder and Obama are both African-American

And what are they doing to make Martin Luther King's dreams of peace and justice a reality? Absolutely nothing. If they don't care about peace and justice, who will?

[TheMadMonk]

67. So was "Uncle Tom".

Just because you identify with them, it does not follow that they must identify with you.


Well I guess YOU might have to care since your president won't do it for you.

[Athena66]

29. More than

just in our jails. They should be turned over to the International Court in The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.

[NewJeffCT]

32. welcome to DU

I agree that Bush, Cheney & company should be up for war crimes. However, it isn't happening any time soon.

[Athena66]

35. Thanks!

I've been reading DU for awhile. I agree- it won't happen any time soon. Unfortunately, probably not ever. :-(

[Carolina]

71. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[xchrom]

7. ...

:applause:

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. We've only been turning blue saying it these last two years.

[Hissyspit]

33. +1

[OnyxCollie]

9. Policy differences.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

But Holder left open the door to some legal action, saying that though he "will not permit the criminalization of policy differences," he is responsible as attorney general to enforce the law.

"If I see evidence of wrongdoing, I will pursue it to the full extent of the law, and I will do that in an appropriate way," he added.

Refusing to kick out the politicized US Attorneys (which could have been done in recess appointments) is a clear example of the fraud that is the Obama administration.

[Enthusiast]

50. Plus one. nt

[sabrina 1]

84. So torture is 'just a policy difference'? Who knew? n/t

[JackRiddler]

92. Unfortunately the pursuit of aggressive war is not even a policy difference.

[bvar22]

10. To be fair,

the precedent was set by Centrist Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1992 by letting the Reagan criminals walk.
(Iran/Contra, BCCI, October Surprise)

It was further reinforced when the Democratic party turned a blind eye to the Florida stolen election in 2000.

[The Wizard]

15. And how did the Repubes

reward Clinton? Never mind.

[valerief]

28. Well, they let him live. nt

[liberation]

43. He now has primo T-times with Papa Bush, doesn't he?

Bush Sr. gets to have the son he always wanted, and Clinton now has the father figure he always craved.

It seems the office of the presidency has been used by certain individuals to sort out their daddy issues. Good for them I say, too bad they get the screw the rest of us in the process. But at least I am glad there is a positive in all this. What can I say, I'm a positive individual.

[Submariner]

22. Warren Commission and JFK assassination

I feel the cover ups go back further than Reagan.

[Enthusiast]

52. No question. nt

[avaistheone1]

24. For a precedent to be set

it would have to be followed.

But, but, but we have President Obama now, the change we can believe in president.

So how is that going to work?

[jobendorfer]

37. goes back to Nixon at least

A few of the key players went to jail, but the whole corrupt republican dirty-tricks apparatus and engine was left mostly untouched.
Junior players in Nixon's dirty-tricks team went on to bigger and better things in the Reagan/Bush era ( Rove and Atwater are the
first to come to mind. )

The Republican takeaway from Watergate wasn't that they should change their ways, but rather, that they needed to get better at
managing the spin control. Which they did.

J.

[liberation]

40. BIN to the GO!

[hootinholler]

90. Rumsfeld was another low-mid level Nixonite

HE brought in his Pal Cheney when Ford took over.

-Hoot

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Clinton was not President in 1992. He was sworn in January 1993

[FailureToCommunicate]

45. And even further back...but sadly so true, so true

[JackRiddler]

93. Yes, Clinton set the precedent and paved the way for Bush Jr.

Bush Jr. happened because Bush Sr. and Co. walked free.

[abq e streeter]

12. +1 re: the OP and every single reply so far

including the one above this pointing out the precedent set by the Clinton administration.

[goforit]

13. I agree with him totally. But let the world try them at the hague

[Paka]

63. The two tiers of justice...

Some one should try them and I do think the Hague would be the appropriate place.

[JJW]

16. Crime Family

It really is just like one big crime family (unless it involves sex).

[smuglysmiling]

18. It's nothing new...

the cabal who planned to overthrow Roosevelt in the 30s were let off...and then there was Nixon...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

30. the relationship between the 2 main parties has too cozy

scratching of backs etc.

[JDPriestly]

19. Obama's Justice Department is a bit of a joke.

What does Holder really do for a living?

[cognoscere]

27. Correctamundo. It's almost as big a joke as the "Supreme Court".

Unfortunately, neither one is the least bit funny, unless there is something humorous about watching mindless assholes acting like...mindless assholes.

[Solly Mack]

21. K&R

[Citizen Worker]

23. The "rule of law" depends on your class status. Black or brown the law comes down hard on minor

crimes, like drugs. Rich and white, not so much.

[DeSwiss]

25. K&R

What is worse, they are now scheming to pass an extension of that traitorous Patriot Act so that they can "legally" continue to subvert our freedoms. All in the name of "keeping us secure."


- But I suppose it matters little since we weren't using them anyway......

[AlbertCat]

31. Ya think....? Duh!

"the Obama administration's Justice Department in August closed down a six-year investigation into DeLay -- without filing a single charge."

Hey, how much did that cost? Don't the Teabaggers and those "fiscal responsibility" Repugs want to know why that money was wasted? At least we need a report explaining what they found, didn't find and why they closed it.

[aquart]

34. Oh, so do I.

Any president is now unimpeachable for any crime whatsoever.

[hulka38]

36. As the Brits piece together the crimes

of their leaders that led to the Iraq invasion, can the American media continue to ignore it and the Bush administration's heavy handed influence on Blair?

[rhett o rick]

38. In a class war, would you expect any thing different? Why do you think Bush/Cheney left office so

quietly. Cheney was never so quiet.

[Enthusiast]

53. But it is so blatant now.

One would think they would be ashamed of themselves. I guess we're supposed to be to dumb to notice.

[rhett o rick]

56. Seriously, they have no shame. The ruling class is made up of sociopaths.

It's not personal, they just dont care if we die.

[liberation]

39. Obama is simply following the rules of n-dimensional chess.

If nature had intended humans to look backwards, we would have eyes in the back of our heads. Duuuuuh!

[russspeakeasy]

41. It would appear to me that Eric Holder is the guilty party

in this injustice.

[Bluebear]

44. Obama himself said it was time to "MOVE FORWARD" from Bush-era crimes. nt

[bobbolink]

68. Well, then, dammit Bluebear, git bizzzzy and figure out what crimes are being committed in the

future, so the DOJ can prosecute them.

:crazy:

[Bluebear]

75. lol

that is EXACTLY the twisted logic of this group's sense of "justice".

===

Subzero in New England tonight. I hope people are sheltering :(

[bobbolink]

91. It takes one to know one. OK, it takes two.

Twisted.

That's what I've always liked about you.

:pals:

Thanks for being concerned..... watch your inbox, pleeeeeez.

[sabrina 1]

85. Obama has directly intervened to protect the Bush War

Criminals from prosecution in a Spanish Court. This we found out from the leaked Wikileaks cables.

So, no, it cannot be blamed on just Holder, although he certainly is complicit. They are all complicit in those crimes now. How sad to think we thought that electing Democrats would restore the rule of law only to discover that we actually had more hearings when Dems were in the minority.

It really is time to face the reality of what this country is all about. And it is not about democracy either here or anywhere else. And you won't get to the WH unless you are willing to overlook war crimes and corruption in the Financial Industry.

Now the question is, what can be done about it?

[Jefferson23]

46. Looking forward has it's consequences for the country and Obama

knows this to be true..he isn't stupid yet he has decided to take an irresponsible position nonetheless.

[Enthusiast]

55. Looking forward = dereliction of duty. nt

[Jefferson23]

59. In this case, absolutely true, pathetic state of affairs. n/t

[amyrose2712]

47. This enrages me. Move forward my ass. That whole 9/11 thing was in the past too.

Let us just move forward and forget about that whole thing. Ridiculous reasoning.

[JohnWxy]

48. SHIT! more post-partisan crap. Recommended!

[Enthusiast]

49. K&R Very disturbing.

No justice. Unless, of course, you are a poor or lower income strata.

[Capitalocracy]

51. *ahem*

OF COOOOOOURSE!!1!

[defendandprotect]

57. Just moves fascism along a litltle faster when DOJ doesn't address these issues ....

[rschop]

58. re: DoJ veteran sees ‘dangerous precedent’ in letting Bush officials walk

DoJ veteran sees ‘dangerous precedent’ in letting Bush officials walk

What about the mother of all 'dangerous precedents', allowing the people in the CIA and the FBI HQ who had intentionally and deliberately allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. There is now iron clad proof that officials and mangers at both agencies had allowed these attacks to take place, proof found right in the reports from the four investigations on 9/11.

See my Journal or www.eventson911.com for additional details on this information.

[alfredo]

60. My earlier prediction was if Obama's DoJ was going to

prosecute, it would be after the 2012 election. It would be political suicide in the first term. Do you think we would have gotten any legislation through congress if bush/cheney would have been prosecuted during Obama's first two years?


I think Cheney would be the prime target for prosecution, and bush painted as his useful idiot.

[dreamnightwind]

87. Yes I do!

"Do you think we would have gotten any legislation through congress if bush/cheney would have been prosecuted during Obama's first two years? "

I actually think, and thought all along, that following the law where it led after the criminal Bush years would have sent the cockroaches into hiding, disgrace, or in some cases even prison. They and their entire Republican Party were on the rocks anyway, only to be re-legitimized by Obama coming in, looking only forward (looking away from the exiting criminals) and enacting very close to the same policies.

Prosecuting, right away, the abuses of power that happened from 2001 - 2009 would have seemed entirely appropriate to the nation. It was a re-birthing type event when we elected Obama, you could feel it in the air. People wanted real change, and they also wanted accountability for a nightmarish 8 years, especially with the economy only right then revealed for all to see as an empty ponzi scheme rigged to move assets upward to the wealthy.

Instead of people's rage being properly directed at the causes of their situation (which would have happened with investigations and prosecutions), a vacuum was allowed to form which was then eagerly filled by the haters who can only see corruption if a Democrat is involved. They took the straw man bait like sharks to chum, black muslim socialist has his evil hands on the controls. This was enabled, in my opinion, by Obama not moving aggressively to expose past crimes, and his willingness to continue many of them.

[alfredo]

95. Prosecuting bush would not have created jobs or fixed healthcare.

The first thing you do is stop the bleeding. If he hadn't, I'd venture to guess we'd be looking at a republican senate too. I want to see bush and chaney prosecuted, but the needs of the American people come first. Anyway, it is the DoJ that is in charge of filing charges. The president is an administrator, not law enforcement. Put pressure on Holder. He's the top cop, it is his job to smack down the bad guys.

The prosecution of bush would have sucked all the air out of the room. Washington would have been fighting over that instead of closing the donut hole in Medicaid.

[dreamnightwind]

96. Ridiculous

So much I disagree with in your post, not sure where to start.

First, I'll say that Holder is doing what he was put there to do. On such a serious issue as prosecuting Bush/Cheney crimes, there's just no way Obama would have selected someone for AG who was not on board with his own agenda. So don't give me that administrator, not law enforcement line. I'm sure that's true on very specific issues, but this was the plan from the top, look forward not back, the criminals walk, and we'll be continuing most of their criminal activity with this administration.

I'm still waiting for Obama's jobs program. What a joke. He did a few good things such as save the US auto industry, and he backstopped unemployment benefits and other band-aids, but no real jobs program, no job retraining program, no answer to the unprecedented foreclosures and bankruptcies.

His tackling of health insurance reform, in some weird hands-off way that allowed Baucus and his lobbyist friends to write the legislation, was precisely what cost him the House. People without jobs and losing their homes weren't too thrilled to see so much of the efforts going into mandating purchase of private health insurance without a public option or meaningful cost controls. It looked like Obama was delivering a larger market to his health insurance industry and big pharma friends.

I believe I would disagree with you on pretty much any policy issue, we must be in parallel universes. Good luck in yours, the one I'm in could really use some better leadership.

[alfredo]

98. We were in such dire straits I don't blame him for putting

his efforts behind the most pressing issues. Presidents have a narrow window in which to get things done and must be single minded with enacting their agenda. As much as I want to see the bush junta in cages, I can understand Obama not wanting to further complicate his job during his window of opportunity. I don't think the American people would have been behind the effort and that would have made it more difficult to get any thing down.

I believe 2013 would be the best politically to press the prosecution. Let's wait and see. Obama will be a lame duck and has little to lose politically. We will have to be armed with facts and a plan to educate the public on why bush and cheney should be prosecuted. If we don't make our case, it won't happen.

[dreamnightwind]

100. Thanks for your reasonable response

I was probably a little harsh, strong feelings on this.

"We were in such dire straits I don't blame him for putting his efforts behind the most pressing issues."

Yes, but I don't agree that he did that.

Some serious trust-busting was what was needed, along with accountability for past crimes that got us in this mess, and re-regulation of the runaway multinational corporations who had found creative and fraudulent ways to leverage insane amounts of imaginary money.

The banks have made out like bandits under Obama. They probably should have been broken up and their troubled asssets dealth with in bankruptcy courts. Instead Obama treated the banks as the end, rather than as a means to an end. Healthy banks, problem solved. So, the finance industry is doing great, maybe better than ever, while the rest of us get austerity.

Same thing with health care. The private insurers ARE the problem. It is painfully obvious, and there is plenty of data from other nations to support this position. What did Obama do? He went against his campaign position by implementing a system with mandated buy-in. He also dropped any public component that could serve as a brake on runaway corporate profits. He made a deal with big pharma to keep their obscene profit margins safe. It goes on and on.

Housing prices collapsed, leaving many of us with negative equity. Over 1 million foreclosures last year, a new record. Obama's answer to homeowners was his Making Home Affordable Act. The instructions to the lending institutions on which mortgages to modify was to do so when it would financially benefit the lender. And those few modifications rarely solved the problem for the homeowner.

Jobs? That's the real problem, and Obama has done very little to create jobs in this country. He's probably done more to create jobs in countries with dirt cheap unregulated labor. His focus has been on how U.S. corporations can be profitable in this new global labor pool, by using cheap foreign labor as nothing but middlemen, while investors make money from the profits and U.S. citizens get to buy cheaper goods made by that cheap labor. In Obama's mind, that's a successful economic model. Where was Obama the night the Repubs took the House? Why, he was in India doing exactly what I'm talking about, greasing the wheels of our corporations profiting with foreign labor pools. I honestly don't know what Obama envisions for American workers. He also championed a new trade agreement, involving the Koreas IIRC.

So I want to be civil with fellow Democrats, but I honestly don't see the world or Obama's actions in any similar way to the sentiments expressed in your posts here (not just your posts, there are plenty of other posters on here I would say the same about). We're probably actually on the same side of things, just seeing things through different lenses, I don't know. But I've looked long and hard at what this administration has been up to, and I don't feel that they're on our side. It seems to me that they pretend to be on our side and throw us a few very small and trivial bones so they can be seen as better than the repubs, but keep the corporate dollars coming in to their campaigns by enacting policy that almost universally benefits the wealthy corporate elite.

Finally, 2013 will not bring any prosecutions of the Bush/Cheney regime, not if Obama and his Justice Department have anything to do with it.

[alfredo]

101. By the time Obama took over, the banks already had us

by the balls.

It is hard to create private sector jobs if the monied class refuses to invest in the US. They are creating jobs in Asia, not here. I think the best plan is to tell them "create jobs here, or risk nationalization." Nationalization is the only way to create jobs in America. Corporate America won't, they have turned their backs on us.

Remember, bush's wars were for the corporations. They were the only ones who profited. Read "Imperial Life in The Emerald City" and "The Shock Doctrine. " "The Shock Doctrine" should be read first, because it will provide the background needed to really understand what was going on in the other book. "The Dark Side" goes into methods for population control using torture.

Judging from the fight over health care, we were lucky to get what we got. I see it as a platform to build on, not a finished product. We need Socialized Medicine. I'm in the VA system and I can say without reservation, Socialized Medicine works.

[dreamnightwind]

107. Agreed

We are on the same team for sure.

I was naive enough to think Obama would be an actual change. Seemed to me that a substantively positive change would be quite easy, given the over-the-top nature of the previous regime, so I am totally blown away at how little "they" will let us have.

I won't let Obama off the hook, though, I mean look who he appointed. He could have chosen people who have our interests at heart, even if they aren't able to fully deliver. They would be working in the right direction, and demonstrating the need to elect more reps who support these not-yet-politically-feasible reforms, and bringing the actual needed changes into the public discourse. Even the MSM would have to have discussions on socialized medicine, for example, if Obama had appointed an active advocate of it to, say, head of HHS, instead of a corporatist like Sebelius. His other appointments just further this point. Summers, Geithner, Gates, McChrystal, Petraeus, it goes on and on. These are not the choices of a change president, it's called more of the same. And we really, really needed a change president at this point in time.

Whether you agree with any of that or not, it seems that we're working towards the same reforms, so tip of the hat and good luck in your efforts.

[alfredo]

110. I never saw Obama as a Liberal. I remember his first vote

in the Senate. That vote had Moderate written all over it. The more I saw of him, the more center and at time center right he looked. So I am not disappointed at how he "turned out."

I saw people project their desires on him. They voted their hopes, not the man.

He's been a good president, not perfect, and not near as Liberal as I'd want, but he's a lot better than the alternative. At least he kisses us before he shoves it in. For now, I can live with that.

His appointments are a mixed bag.

The second term will be the real measure of the man, because the second term is not burdened with reelection concerns. If he is to tack left, it will happen in 2013. If he doesn't, then my first impressions were correct.


I loved Clinton, but was disappointed on many occasions. I didn't like triangulation, but understood it. One aspect I loved about triangulation was how it drove the Reps crazy. Obama does it, but not with the same zeal.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. Aw, you worry too much. After all, we let Nixon walk

and the Republicans have all behaved themselves since then, right?

[lovuian]

64. Obama and the Justice Department are complicit

and it will take the European union to convict these felons

It really shows that a Torturer gets away with it

[Veracious]

70. YEP and NOW Obama is complicit

This is the single biggest mistake of the Obama administration. If they had prosecuted these criminals the Republicans would have been on the run for years.

[LawnKorn]

72. I am disappointed that Dick Cheney is going to die a free man

Not one person from the Bush Administration has been charged with a crime stemming from the Iraq war. Dick Cheney and Halliburton are guilty as sin in profiting from that war, but we haven't seen jack from the Justice Department in bringing charges against Cheney.

[JudyM]

76. Disappointed doesn't begin to touch it. Travesty of justice. n/t

[Senator]

74. It Will Be Obama's ONLY Legacy

As Driver of the Torture Getaway Car, he has become just another icon of Our Lamest Generation.

The rest is just trivial and selfish busywork.

---

[ElsewheresDaughter]

78. Mr Hebert is absolutely correct!

[Robeson]

79. LOL.

[orbitalman]

80. Obama might end up being America's downfall . n/t

[Raksha]

81. K & R

[bertman]

82. Get used to it, folks. This today's Democratic party. The leadership is as corrupt

as the Republicans. They all know they can violate the laws with impunity because their replacements will cover for them.

"Looking forward, not backward."

Except of course, for you and me if we fuck up.

REC.

[obxhead]

89. More change we can believe in. nt

[floriduck]

94. I wrote to the White House months ago

that by not holding the prior administration accountable for war crimes, they were setting precedence for future criminal acts by future administrations. In my opinion, this failure is the single biggest mistake Obama has made. The groundswell he would have maintained from his base would have fueled a stronger health care bill, a victory (or smaller loss) of seats in the midterm elections, and quicker results on many issues.

[Poll_Blind]

97. Very few still see this as 11-dimensional chess. The rest realize it's a shell game.

Very fucking sad.

PB

[JackRiddler]

103. Yup. Sometimes things are very simple. For example:

The template being followed by the Obama admin at each stage is identical to the one followed 16 years earlier in each stage by Clinton. Hope and Change were the Clinton campaign slogans (no difference whatsoever) and all hope of change went out the window from Day 1. No move was made to even allow investigation of the crimes of the Bush regime that preceded the Democrat. The Ministry of War was kept with a Republican in both cases. In fact, most of the Obama personnel are Clinton holdovers (just like Bush Jr. appointed an administration of neocons from the Bush Sr. years). The left was called enemy and blamed for everything, until the Republicans were put back in control of Congress so that a triangulation strategy could be followed. The right-wing have played their role perfectly and near identically, characterizing the "Third Way" Rockefeller Republican in the White House as a COMMIE SOCIALIST FOREIGN AGENT TYRANT TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS!!! In both cases, there was a kind of right-wing terrorist attack in the third year (back then OKC, now Tucson) that caused the Republicans to restrain themselves slightly and everyone to bemoan the loss of civility and the horrid "partisanship of the right and left," blah blah.

Only difference is that the empire is no longer in triumphalism but visibly falling apart. The rest of the world has moved on from the American freakshow. The postwar capitalist model has failed miserably and the system is in terminal crisis. Peak oil has arrived and nothing effective was done about the global ecological disaster of pollution and warming in the meantime. War is still the primary activity of the US regime. We've wasted all the opportunities and are still playing the same theater.

[Poll_Blind]

105. Depresing but I can't find much to disagree with. I have to say, though, that...

...Obama seems so much farther to the right than I remember Clinton, even in his second term.

PB

[JackRiddler]

106. I think that's mainly a function of how far to the right all the rhetoric has continued to move.

[Youth Uprising]

109. Wow...

The parallels are eerie.

[yurbud]

99. why do you think Obama was allowed to win?

[goforit]

102. Bingo!!! Rigged election again and again.

This looney toon minority would never be in power with a real democratic election.

[annabanana]

104. Boy Howdy, ME TOO!. . . . . n/t

[Youth Uprising]

108. It's over... It's time to primary Obama

By refusing to prosecute the Bush war criminals and thwarting any investigations into their criminal activities, President Obama is complicit in covering up the crimes of the Bush administration and is therefore guilty of aiding and abetting its perpetrators. If he won't adhere to the rule of law, then he himself must be prosecuted. If Obama or the Republicans win the next election, chances are no one is ever going to be brought to justice. That's why we all need to rally behind a real progressive who will restore our civil liberties and restore the rule of law. Obama is a neo-con in sheep's clothing. Sad but true.

[cbdo2007]

111. Thinking more about this - I really think this was a turning point to our country.

Our leaders do something horrible and everyone just turns away while they do it.

History will look back on the invasion of Iraq as the moment we changed. Unfortunately, the spinners will claim it was because of Sept. 11 and the terrorists, but letting our leaders have total rule without consequences is something that will forever haunt us. The sad thing is that George W. Bush could have probably even won a 3rd term because our people are just that stupid.

It's very sad.