We appear to have turned a corner tonight on Bush's war crimes.

[jgraz]

Before tonight: "It hasn't even been 18 months!! It's not like he can do everything!"

After tonight: "It's been over 18 months!! It's too late for him to do anything!"

:eyes:

[depakid]

1. I remember when the cry was: wait until we get the Justice Department

or... "we can't do anything until we get the Justice Department."

How quickly things "change."

Even among some of the very same posters.

[IndianaGreen]

3. John Yoo is teaching at a law school

meanwhile renditions are still going on.

[Skittles]

2. HE'S PLAYING CHESS

[Common Sense Party]

4. poorly.

[bvar22]

90. I think he is playing well.

Chess is a game where you sacrifice the multitude of Pawns to protect the Royalty.
.
.
.
It only sucks if you are a Working Class Pawn.
The Royalty (Wall Street CEOs, Health Insurance Execs, MIC OverLords) have been well protected under Obama's gamesmanship.

[chimpymustgo]

92. OMG. You nailed it.

[IndianaGreen]

5. He is playing quantum Parcheesi

[chimpymustgo]

97. Funny!

[QC]

106. Giant Chinese Checkers!

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Oh please.

I don't ever recall anyone saying we had to wait for it. It was never going to come. If you thought it was going to come, well you obviously have shown your ignorance and I feel no sympathy for your faux outrage.

There is a reason Pres. Obama never once said anything about prosecuting the Bush administration in 2008. And that's because it's an idiotic wet dream of those on the left who have no real connection to reality.

Well I'm glad maybe this act knocked you back toward the rest of us on earth.

Welcome back.

[jgraz]

7. Yep, the talking points have been well distributed tonight.

It's like synchronized swimming, only with more dead soldiers.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. Talking point for your warped view of reality?

Why would anyone expect Pres. Obama to go after Pres. Bush? Did he ever hint at such a thing in his campaign? Did he ever talk about the prospects? Has there ever been an ounce of evidence to suggest there is any type of support anywhere at any level for such a campaign?

Stop acting ridiculous. It was never coming. You knew it was never coming. Stop acting disappointed and shocked that it hasn't come yet.

[jgraz]

14. You mean the warped reality where we investigate and prosecute war crimes?

You mean that? I guess that is a pretty futile belief with this administration.

You know, I also don't recall Candidate Obama promising not to kill and eat a baby on live tv. If he does, I'm sure you'll be here reminding us that raw babies are healthy and delicious.

Honestly, does it ever bother you? Is there ever a time when you actually realize what it is you're defending and you feel the smallest sense of shame? Ever?

[Drunken Irishman]

18. I can't help it if you were naive to believe Bush would be prosecuted.

I mean, that's your right. But don't get pissy when something most on planet earth knew wasn't happening didn't happen.

It does no one any good. It's why FDR and LBJ and Reagan and all their like were never once really brought up on charges for anything.

Even Nixon got off. I'm not condoning it - I just realize it's reality.

That's the difference between you and me.

But go ahead, show more faux outrage. Maybe next month we can start a thread about how it's been 19 months now!

GRR! RAWR! ANGRY FACE!

;)

[jgraz]

21. You can help it if you choose to defend war criminals

But it seems you enjoy doing that.


(Seriously, not one bit of shame? Really?)

[Drunken Irishman]

31. You can try to shame me all you want...

It ain't workin', bud.

You see, the difference with you and me is that I realize life isn't perfect. I realize Bush did a lot of fucked up things. I realize, in a perfect world, he'd be sitting in a jail cell with little to no interaction without the outside world.

Of course, this ain't a perfect world. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have firebombed Dresden during WWII. In a perfect world, Vietnam would have never happened. Then maybe my father wouldn't be as fucked up as he is today.

In a perfect world, none of that happens.

In a perfect world.

But this ain't a perfect world. This is the real world. There is a difference between not expecting something and condoning it. I get why Pres. Obama isn't going to prosecute Bush.

Does it make it right? No.

But rarely are presidents ever always right.

Obama has decisions and his decisions are no different than that of those who served in the WH before him.

You want to get into a debate about charging former presidents with war crimes - fine! But we've got to open the entire book on it.

Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman and FDR all get a new look. They're just as potentially guilty as any president who has ever had to use military force, or some type of military intervention throughout their presidencies.

Hell, maybe you can add Obama to that list.

See that's the not so perfect world.

In the perfect world, Truman would have investigated Roosevelt for all his actions. He would have investigated whether Roosevelt intentionally allowed Pearl Harbor and the merits behind the firebombing of Dresden.

That's the perfect world.

You see, it's a fine line between just going after those we hate and going after everyone who has ever served in the Oval Office.

Because every president, I guarantee you, has somehow, someway, done something that could be construed as illegal.

By the finest definition.

That's what I understand. I understand this isn't an issue of one worded answers.

It's not about shame, my friend. It's about reality.

[jgraz]

37. Just wanted to see what I was dealing with.

Now I know. Thanks for making that clear.

[Swede]

84. You forgot Eisenhower and the Guatemala coup.

But you are spot on.

[The Doctor.]

42. Wow... straight to the strawman, eh?

The only place DI is 'defending war criminals' is in your imagination.

Amazing how, when it's suggested you aren't living in reality you get straight to proving it.

We ALL wanted them tried for blatant war crimes, we all HOPED it would happen, and we all KNEW it might not.

It is profoundly naive to think that ANY President is going to stand up to the real owners of this country just to have his term ended before he can even do some small good.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

46. Oh, I dont think the possibility of having one's term ended prematurely is any real excuse...

But I can well imagine, with the PTB where they are, that it would become the PERFECT opportunity to plunge the nation into complete fear and chaos.

Remember; the justifications for the war were carefully crafted. Millions of hateful, angry people think the BA were saints. Imagine what would happen if those people saw ALL OF THEIR FEARS of Obama validated right on their TVs. "He's going after our leaders... we're next!".

You'd better believe the MSM would stir it up, and if you think there's danger out there now, you ain't seen anything.

No... fear of death is no excuse, sending the nation straight into civil war does seem a consideration though.

Or do you really believe the 20,000,000 or so wingnuts will be told sending the BA to The Hague is nothing to get upset about?

[Go2Peace]

52. And you think the nation is not already full of fear and chaos?

How old are you? We haven't treaded ground like this in generations. This country is going freaking nuts.

If it going to be stopped it better be soon.

[The Doctor.]

55. that's what; 'if you think there's danger out there now, you ain't seen anything' meant.

Why would you ask a question I already answered?

[Mira]

64. Remember Nuremberg? That's reality, too. And a setting of a standard we violated. N/T

[dionysus]

98. "Maybe next month we can..." jesus, don't give them any ideas!

:rofl:

[TheKentuckian]

17. Somewhere around the point he laid his hand on Lincoln's Bible and said

I, Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear to that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.

No campaign promises required.

[jgraz]

20. Yeah, but he had his fingers crossed.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. Really?

That's when you knew the second he took that oath he'd prosecute Bush for war crimes?

Well that's awesome.

But I don't see it that easy. I don't see it that easy because every president takes that oath. And yet, President Truman, President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton and President Bush again never once, in their entire presidencies, decided to prosecute the crimes of their predecessors.

You know why? Because, if you want to get technical about it - especially when dealing with wartime presidents like Roosevelt and Johnson, you're going to find a lot of nasty, potentially criminal actions.

So let's blame them too. Let's get our panties in a bunch over the fact Truman and Kennedy didn't once look into the potential war crimes of Roosevelt. Or that Nixon didn't look into what happened during the LBJ administration. Or that Ford didn't prosecute all of them for war crimes throughout WWII and Vietnam. Maybe we could even get on Clinton's ass for not criminally prosecuting Reagan.

Hey, Bill, it's been almost twenty years since you took office - where'the charges?

Ha!

[TheKentuckian]

47. Others failing to live up to their oaths does not negate it

You asked when and an answer was given. You don't have to like the answer but it is an honest one according to the law and the words contained in the oath.

[Mira]

67. Your views are beyond my comprehension.

You are saying you condone that the right actions are not taken because that is what we were to expect, and those who object to it deserve your blasting and ridicule.

That strikes me as simply weird.
I might put you on "ignore" - I've never done that before.

Maybe I'll learn something from that.
Your mouthings teach me nothing.

[Drunken Irishman]

96. When did I never say I condoned anything?

It's not a surprise you're lacking comprehension toward what I am saying because you obviously don't get it.

It's not about condoning. It's about being realistic. You want to charge Bush with warcrimes, fine. But get ready to charge Obama. Then maybe we can go throughout history and charge past presidents as well!

How about that?

Put me on ignore. I'm not even familiar with who you are, so it won't mean much to me. In fact, I'll ignore you to get the ball rolling.

:D

[JoseGaspar]

91. You do realize...

... that your elaborate, extended dissertation on realpolitik amounts to nothing more than "Obama is just like Bush", don't you?

Obama is just like Bush is just like Clinton is just like Bush is just like Reagan... etc., changes nothing.

And for the record, your exact logic was explicitly rejected at Nuremberg.

But, don't let that stop you.

[Drunken Irishman]

95. Exactly...

SO let's try 'em all! FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson! They're all guilty of the same ghastly acts, right?

Let's do it, now!

[JoseGaspar]

101. And as a matter of morality, you may be right...

...you can certainly make your case.

But the issue is not one of morality, nor is it one of politics. It is a matter of law - U.S. Law in particular.

The Nuremberg Laws were narrowly drawn. It is unlikely that FDR or Truman or Eisenhower or Kennedy are at risk. Perhaps you argue that they should be but the point is moot. LBJ and, to a much larger extent, Nixon, were accused of War Crimes by several international tribunals. Still, the case was ambiguous. For one thing, the evidence was not out in the open.

Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton may have done many "bad things", but again, the case for war crimes is ambiguous. You may believe it and you may be right, but there is no clear cut legal case based on an obvious set of facts.

Not so with Bush (and Cheney). They openly violated several U.S. laws... and admitted to such. That is something different.

Instead of silly pontification, you might want to do a little research. For example, several of the Nuremberg prosecutors (half of whom are Republicans), are still alive and have commented extensively on the obligation to prosecute. Some even have websites. You might start with Ben Ferencz: http://www.benferencz.org/ There are several others.

While "all politicians are bad", if Bush had pulled out a gun and shot someone on national television, it would still be Obama's duty to prosecute him, even if he hadn't run on "Let me be clear. No one is above the law."

In the case of War Crimes, it goes further than that. Failure to prosecute a war crime is itself a war crime.

Your position is not that great, anyway. You invite a bottomless pit in which nothing stops the descent except for what is convenient for you. But in this particular case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Have a drink.

[paulk]

105. +1

[hulka38]

103. The case against the Bush administration was much stronger and more provable than the others

with the possible exception of Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin. But the difference there was the evidence against the BA was hemorrhaging out of control while he was still in office. Presented with the facts, the jury (the American people) would have found the BA guilty. Given the threat level, the scale and degree of the deception and public opinion, the Bush administrations crimes against humanity cannot be lumped in with that of FDR, Truman or Kennedy. FDR's Dresden does not compare with Bush's Iraq. Public opinion would have laughed that out of court. The scale of the Bay of Pigs and living under the threat of nuclear annihilation would have given Kennedy a slap on the wrist at most.

How blatantly does a president have to abuse the no prosecuting your predecessor precedent (sorry) as Bush did and how much damage needs to be done before it isn't tolerated? The party that perpetrated the crime won't prosecute. It's up to the opposition party to make the claim to the American people when war crimes have been committed. Late in Bush's 2nd term (approval <20%) the vast majority of the American people were already there. The opposition party wasn't. And that's just a crime.

[dflprincess]

99. I see - all the other presidents did it so it makes it okay

To paraphrase my mother when she'd hear that kind of argument "If all the other presidents had jumped off cliffs would it be a good idea for Obama to as well?"

Obama is the one who promised to restore the rule of law. Ignoring crimes as obvious as the one Bush committed - and has even admitted to in public - is not how the rule of law is restored.

[depakid]

23. Prior to that there was also a bit more detailed oath sworn on admission to the Bar

[Wilms]

49. Joe Biden said he was 'not ruling out' prosecutions for Bush administration officials over torture.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/21/biden-on-prosecution-of-b_n_152662.html

:shrug:

[Steely_Dan]

73. Well...Biden Isn't The President

Biden might have been speaking out of turn. He is known for that. Not that ever bothers me...I just think he's being honest. Once he made those statements, I bet he was quickly reeled in.

[Wilms]

79. "reeled in"

Now there's a point worthy of exploration.

[dflprincess]

8. He did say something about restoring the rule of law

though I think that was candidate Obama so I guess it doesn't count. Besides, it's hard to restore the rule of law when you're pursuing some of the same policies and covering up the crimes your predecessor committed.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Well there you go...

Obama was a war criminal just like Bush.

So maybe the next president (Republican) will go after the Obama administration and lock 'em all up. Then we can all celebrate about the rule of law!

Maybe we can posthumously charge LBJ with war crimes while we're at it! Roosevelt too! :D

[depakid]

11. Always nice to see Americans show their true colors

Accountability under the rule of law means nothing to some folks- even those who consider themselves Democrats.

A lesson that people living in other nations need to see and have hammered home repeatedly.

[jberryhill]

41. I'd like to start with Jefferson Davis

If it were up to me, we'd dig up the remains of Davis, Lee, Forrest and the rest of them; encase their bones in shit; and have them hanging upside down in the Rotunda on permanent display.

[depakid]

43. Once upon a time, we could be and were proud of this:

(and for those of us involved in research- reminded of it every time we had to deal with an IRB).

[jberryhill]

45. Only because we were prosecuting Germans

We don't have the conviction to go after our own infections with the same rigor.

We let them keep their "honor" so that the fine gentleman from South Carolina can tell us we need to do away with the 14th Amendment. How slowly does the news travel in South Carolina?

[depakid]

56. No, not only

Once we really were trying to be better than this.

Though it pays to recognize that history rhymes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

[jberryhill]

58. Wow 3.5 years of house arrest

Golly - don't murder people, or you might have to live on base for a few months. Boy that's harsh.

It's a good thing there was only one such incident during the conflict in Vietnam.

[suzie]

85. So, you were seeking more convictions like those of the guards at Abu Ghraib?

You've have been perfectly happy if lower level people were prosecuted?

[tourivers83]

86. Was burning Atlanta a war crime?

Well I’m glad it’s not up to you. But basically we were in the same situation then as now. Trying to achieve some proverbial higher good. And then it all worked out. The south came back into the union and remains one of the most loyal sections of the country sending many men who have fought and died in this countries wars. Both just ones and unjust ones.
:beer:

[jberryhill]

87. I do not know the relevant legal standard for "war crime" at that time

Treason, however, has always been a crime.

I also didn't say anything about "The south", so I don't understand the bulk of your commentary.

Jefferson Davis was a traitor, plain and simple, and should have been hung with his cohorts.

Levying war against the United States has never been legal.

Failing to make an example of the leaders of the rebellion was a mistake.

But since you asked, burning Atlanta was no more a crime than bombing Hiroshima. The rebels were well beaten before then, and refused to surrender.

[tourivers83]

88. No cause like a lost cause.

Jefferson Davis was charged with treason but never tried. If I remember right it was because the government was afraid he would be found innocent. And if so would reopen the argument that the succession really was legal. And as you know, war crimes are determined by the winning side. Do you think the bombing of Dresden was a war crime?
:shrug:

[jberryhill]

89. Like I said

I don't do international law, and have not once touched on what is or is not a "war crime".

The "argument that secession is legal" is a well-settled argument. It is not. "Secession" is not even recognized under the Constitution (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)).

There is no doubt that Jefferson Davis was a US citizen who levied war against the United States of America. It is a no-brainer. I believe we both can agree on that.

We let him and his cohort get away with it, and apparently some folks are under the impression that the Civil War has simply been in a long beer break of some kind.

[tourivers83]

94. The past is never dead. It's not even past.

Davis could have stayed in the North as he was against succession. He could maybe even have become President of the United States himself someday. But his loyalty to his state was above all things.
After the war he was imprisoned for two years before his rich friends in the North bailed him out, which just goes to show that this war was about money,tariff laws, and the rich ruling class.
Texas v White was also about money and it so resolved that Texas had never left the Union which was completely contradictory to reality.

[griffi94]

12. faux outrage

so what then in your opinion is worthy of genuine outrage.
there's a pretty long list of disappointments as i'm sure you're aware.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. I'm sure.

You people let me know every goddamn day how disappointed you are with Obama.

Over time, it becomes rather repetitive and, dare I say, a parody of true concern.

:eyes:

[griffi94]

15. but you didn't answer my question

which issue in your opinion is worthy of genuine outrage.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Realistic issues...

Issues that have an ounce of legitimacy.

[griffi94]

19. okay, you still didn't give me an aswer.

i asked for a specific issue and you instead gave an umbrella "realistic issues with an ounce of legitmacy'

here'sa specific one.

for me the deal breaker was signing a HCR bill with an individual mandate and no PO.
obama had publicly supported this position while he was campaigning, it was scrapped after he was elected president.
i'm still more than a little bit outraged over that. does that meet your standard, or is that faux outrage as well and i should never had expected obama to deliver on an issue he campaigned on because that's not reality.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. I think he delivered on the issue.

Not as ideally as I wanted - but he delivered.

The degree of that is up for interpretation.

[griffi94]

27. but he said

any bill i sign that includes individual mandates would also have to include a strong public option.

that's what he said, how did i misinterpret that.
and no he didn't deliver the public option.

[flyarm]

51. there are no "DEGREE"S" of our constitution, it is in black and white.

maybe you think you are better than our forefathers who wrote it and you think you can interpret it anyway you choose..but it doesn't work that way..we are either a nation predicated on the rule of law and our constitution or we are not. Your hypocrisy is astounding!

Your little group of minority here at DU keep telling us all how bad it would be to have the republicans win back a body of our government , while you defend the worst of what they have done to this nation and her laws and constitution!

What hypocrites.

[jgraz]

25. He can't help it if you were naive to believe Obama would actually be honest about that.

Sorry, I know his script too well at this point.

[Control-Z]

33. I don't remember candidate Obama

ever talking about a PO. If he did, I missed it. He did however, talk about individual mandates, which origiannly he wanted only for families with children.

[griffi94]

39. then you missed it

when the HCR debate was going on there was a youtube clip of the him saying any bill with individual mandates would have to include a strong public option. of course that was when he was still campaigning.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Here is a long quote for you:

"I think one of the options should be a public insurance option. (Loud cheers) Let me clear. It would only be an option, nobody would be forced to choose it. No one with insurance affected by it. But what it would do is provide more choice and more competition. It would keep pressure on private insurers to keep the policies affordable, to treat their customers better. Minnesota I have said I'm open to different ideas on how to set this up we're going to set this up but I'm not going to back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage we're going to provide you a choice."

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

34. "I didn't know Yoo and Gonzales were Irish names"

:spray: :applause: :yourock: :rofl:

[Drunken Irishman]

35. Coming from you, sir, I take that as an honor!

:hi:

[flyarm]

50. so you are saying our Constitution has no legitimacy? Because that indeed is what you are saying! n/

[readmoreoften]

53. I promise you: my outrage is real and sincere.

[flyarm]

59. + 1 million! eom

[suzie]

80. Thank you. And well said.

[HughMoran]

100. Never.

Anybody who said otherwise was tilting at windmills.

[scheming daemons]

26. Strawman much?

Nobody associated with the administration ever even hinted that prosecutions would be coming at any point.

[jgraz]

28. Hey, I'm just distilling your talking points down the their bare essence

You're the one saying "it's been X number of years!! Why are you complaining now??"

Just thought someone should point out the absurd contortions you're engaging in. Now you should go ice after all those stretches.

[Skittles]

30. did he hint he would kiss repuke ass when discussing the Iraq War?

he reminds America of bush "patriotism" and leaves out.....well, read for yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9054917

[jgraz]

32. Oh come on. He never promised *not* to.

It's your fault for believing that he wouldn't kiss Repuke ass over their illegal war that killed a million Iraqis. I mean, how naive can you be?

[griffi94]

36. i'm just glad that the rule of law has been restored

and we got rid of the patriot act

[jgraz]

38. You forgot the "oh wait..."

;)

[griffi94]

40. oh wait

[HughMoran]

102. Big time eh?

:eyes:

[chill_wind]

48. This says it all, and very well, IMHO:

"And it's interesting that anyone would be more concerned about 'bashing' a politician than about bringing war criminals to justice. No wonder nothing ever gets done. Too many 'team players' more interested in politics than justice."

Same topic and directly to the point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9053667&mesg_id=9053836

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. When did anyone with a firm grip on reality beleive that it was only a matter of timing?

[NJmaverick]

57. Yes, let us throw the millions of unemployed under the bus

so you can get your satisfaction. After all it's not like the unemployed need jobs or homes or something to eat. Yes, let us focus our nation's attention on the war crimes issue, because THAT is what is really important. In fact I guess we can throw the GLBT community under the bus as well, because with YOUR war crime investigations there will be no time to repeal DADT.:eyes:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

65. Maybe it's just the liberal compassion side of me, but to me helping

is more important than punishing.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

69. That's funny coming from someone who would rather punish

than help the unemployed and the GLBT community.

[Wilms]

77. With your 'logic' I now see how fundies' families are threatened by gay marriage.

:crazy:

[BeyondGeography]

61. Nothing short of taking BushCo out back and shooting them would satisify you anyway

And then you'd still be screaming about the public option, bank nationalization (fyi; your preferred candidate made millions from a hedge fund), cap and trade and DADT. All the shortcomings of the first half of a first term after three decades of Reaganism!

Did you ever strike yourself as unreasonable?

[flyarm]

70. I want them held accountable for the crimes they committed..is that so damn hard to understand?

Buch and Co. Committed war crimes..there is no higher crime.

To let them walk is to doom this nation to them being repeated on us all..and it is the door to a dictatorship.

Be very careful what you wish for!..but you are subjecting me and my family to what you wish for..and for that I will not stay silent..not for you,not for any one man, nor any politician!

My constitution is the most valuable thing I own....as is my democracy....or did own before you so willingly gave it up!

You sir have no right to speak for me or this nation, because you obviously don't give a rats ass for the rule of law predicated in our constitution!

[BeyondGeography]

75. As has been noted, every U.S. President has committed war crimes

and LBJ's record alone would make Bush look like a peacenik. Of course, we do have the consolation prizes of Medicare and the Civil Rights Act to point to.

With Obama, you get the wind-down of two BushCo wars and the potential to roll back the nihilists of the right who landed us here in the first place. I know, not good enough.

And, btw, I love the rule of law, but, first, I try not to clap for Tinker-belle.

[tourivers83]

83. I can watch the birds at the bird feeders.

Man, I can take a couple of my pain pills and go set on the porch swing and build fantasy castles in the sky all day. But I can’t live in a one of them.
:shrug: :loveya:

[Kaleva]

104. Then do something about it.

Making angry posts here at DU accomplishes nothing.

[Mira]

62. Effective last night I have given up hope

for this administration to do one of the things most important to me: Restore America's honor, educate the populace to what was done to them, and to safeguard a future without recurrence of such crimes.

But I will NEVER GIVE UP - other than having elected President Obama, I do not, at this point, know what to do.
Recommended

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

74. Another solid application of Goodwin's law

[truebrit71]

66. That corner was turned as soon as he took the oath of office...

...

[flyarm]

71. + 10,000!!! That oath obviously meant nothing to him! Nor his defenders of destroying our

Constitution!

[Catherina]

72. Recommended. That was shocking and extremely distressing. n/t

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

81. When was it ever promised by Obama?

Oh, that's right -- never. :eyes:

[avaistheone1]

82. Yes, we have turned a corner on Bush's war crimes.

Now Bush's war crimes are good.

:puke: :puke:

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

93. "When the President does it, it is NOT illegal"

28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (with the exception of oral sex, of course, and then only for Democrats)