Cheney hospitalized

[Bbucko]

Well, ok, the point of my post was obviously satirical.

I really think every human being is capable of the emotion of hate. I think hate happens when people are hurt. I do not claim to be free from hate. But hate as an emotion and hateful action must not be confused. Hatefully damaging actions can not be tolerated. Hate as an emotion is natural, so as civilized people, we must recognize that hate is something that has the potential to rise within our emotions. If we have this awareness of hate, then that awareness is the key to putting hate aside when it arises, making sound, rational judgment without emotion, and eliminating hate from our actions.

I was raised to never, ever use the word hate. Far from being anything like a logical response to life's aggravations, it's an intensely evil and de-humanizing emotion. And no matter how loathsome or even monstrous someone's actions may be (or have been), the perpetrators were, in fact, still human. They may be/have been sociopaths intent on genocide, unfit for any participation in society, the very personifications of evil, but they are/were still human.

Humanity comes with important responsibilities, both to oneself and society at large. When someone fails at this, society has the right to judge and condemn his/her actions as evil, monstrous and hateful and proper consequences for such actions must be decided and enacted. But that person, regardless of the extent to which his/her action prove a lack civilization, is still a human being. When a society de-humanizes a human being, it debases and de-humanizes itself.

Please bear in mind that this view has nothing to do with any religiosity on my part; though spiritual, I cannot ascribe to any religion I've ever studied (and I've studied a great quantity, though obviously not all of the world's religions). I simply believe that decency needs to be consistent with me, my feelings, and my actions: I would fail miserably were I to succumb to indecency in such matters, regardless of the actions of others.

Therefore, I may hate actions but refuse to hate people, either as individuals or groups. When I use the word in speaking of someone (which is exceptionally rare), it's hyperbole, not an actual description of my emotion.

There is a case to be made that hate can be a good thing sometimes. Hate could muster deep motivation within a person to take action against something that is hurtful to him. In a case where hateful action is not damaging to innocent people or the environment, then that hateful action is the free right of every human being, and I would not dare to tell you that you are wrong for it. However, I still think decisions and actions free from emotional extremes are more appropriate and effective than emotional motivations.

Outrage and condemnation, complete with a desire for revenge and retribution are good things when one is certain that the person has been proven to have wronged either society in general or yourself in particular. Hate for the actions this person did is correct and civilized; hate for the actual person, no matter how "natural" is a denial of the humanity both of the person responsible for a heinous, unforgivable act. Again: I will freely agree that some people are unforgivable, however they are still human.

Finally, I think people who accuse their opponents of hate as if they themselves could never hate are in ignorant danger of letting hate sway their actions. If you deny that hate could exist in your soul, then you turn a blind eye to the task of ensuring that your actions are free from emotion, hate included.

Saying that everyone is capable of hate against another human is obvious: of course the potential exists. But embracing the hate of another human (either your own hate or that of another) facilitates de-humanizing, which is in itself a hateful act.

In current events, the left is in power, and there undoubtedly is some hate stirred up on the right because of the left's power. So, in politically fueled debates lately, the right is indeed frequently accused of hate by the left. These accusations of hate are often followed by a presumption that the presence of the emotion of hate must undermine and negate the principles for which the right stands and by default suggests the left as the moral superior. Time and time again we see the argument that the right is inherently hateful, so what they do and say must be blindly misguided by hate, and therefore, the left is morally superior. By that logic then, the left is assumed to be free from hate, or else they would be just as misguided as the right. Here is where I come in with my satire, assuming that the left is incapable of hate and suggesting that they express love for someone whom they obviously hate. Exaggerating the left's love for Cheney makes it clear that he is actually bitterly hated by the left.

I think both political sides in this country hate the other extremely badly and it seems to be getting worse lately. Accusing others of hate while denying the hate in one's self, I think, is a risky practice that could lead to unchecked and damaging hateful actions.

First of all, in American politics this tired old saw of left/right polarities is not just inaccurate but has led to the kind of paralysis we are currently experiencing in government, especially on a federal level (though it exists in local and regional politics as well).

The Democrats control both houses of Congress and won the White House in 2008. Last I checked, the majority of Governorships in the various states were also Democratic, though I'm feeling rather too lazy to verify that on Google right now (I've gotta eat and get to work in about two hours, and this is already running long).

But the Democratic party is a very big tent right now, much like the Republicans claimed theirs was in 1980. There is an enormous range of "acceptable" positions one can maintain, ranging from abortion to gay rights to the death penalty, and still call oneself a Democrat. The Republican party has inflicted so much damage on itself over the last 20-25 years by restricting more and more what it means to be part of their party. There is no Democratic version of a RINO: conservative Blue-Dogs are still Dems, liberal Republicans such as Charlie Crist have been jettisoned in the name of party purity.

Using Joe Lieberman as a counter-example might have been possible up until the time that he actively campaigned for McCain and against Obama: he is now officially an Independent: a brief tour of his official senate website does not mention party affiliation, except to mention that he ran as Gore's running mate in 2000.

So, to finally answer your question about Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic: Sure, the terrible things that these men have done do stir some hate in me. I can not stand to see such things as they have done. However, in my actions toward these bad people, I would hope to treat them as human beings. If I were a judge or jury examining these notoriously bad people, then it may be that visions of revenge and severe tortuous punishments would be lurking somewhere in my mind. But I would have to be aware of the emotion of hate for what they have done and keep that emotion clear from my actions. Hate should have no place in dealing with these men. I would not wish undue, inhumane, or overly harsh punishments on them. I would try to act in the most logical and most unemotional way and simply and solely do what is required to block such people from ever damaging society again: probably life in prison or execution; nothing hateful, just the simple black and white logic of preventing damaging actions to innocent human beings. That is what I think of Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic.

So, these men are commonly hated men as Bush and Cheney are commonly hated men. But, can you compare and contrast the actions of these two groups of men? Do Bush and Cheney really compare to Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic? Some will surely say yes. Other people who have experience being hurt by those 20th century tyrants may be deeply insulted by the comparison. If you think they compare well, then I would like to see it spelled out in writing how Bush and Cheney rationally compare to such extreme examples of hate-worthy men. We can't be the thought police and go around condemning people for their ideas, or worse, what we perceive and assume to be their ideas. Actions count. I think that Bush and Cheney have taken some actions that have done plenty of damage to human beings. But I still think that they are several tiers of evil below the actions of Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic. Apples and oranges, not even close.

I think you are taking the semi-anonymous rantings of the Politics forum denizens a little too seriously and much, much too literally.

No one with a functioning brain would equate the actions of Hitler, Stalin or Milosevic with those of Bush/Cheney. Much as I deplore most of their actions and feel that they've left the world a more dangerous place, I cannot say that I hate either one; though I'd like to think that they will eventually be held accountable for some of the more egregious actions of their two administrations, I'm not holding my breath.

If only to point out the very most obvious, the troika of evil listed above were dictators, the same cannot be said about Bush or Cheney. The illegality of much of America's eventual response to 9/11 is still to be proved in a court of law, though I have little doubt that, someday, it will.

 

[sbat]

If only to point out the very most obvious, the troika of evil listed above were dictators, the same cannot be said about Bush or Cheney. The illegality of much of America's eventual response to 9/11 is still to be proved in a court of law, though I have little doubt that, someday, it will.

And even if it isn't, the American public was far more complicit in their crimes than the populations subjugated by the others mentioned.

The biggest difference is that Bush lacked sinister intent. I think he saw himself as some Biblically inspired warrior-king of a great Christian land - a la Czar Alexander of Russia during the Napoleonic era. Cheney - like Metternich - simply used that delusion for the profit of himself and his cronies, without concern for who he harmed in the process.

 

[houtx48]

5000 plus dead soldiers and we hope dicky is comfy in government paid for hospital.

 

[slurper_la]

Wanted to say "Die, bitch, DIE!", but the OP's idea sounds better.

thank you, let's fuck! :tongue:

 

[Bbucko]

And even if it isn't, the American public was far more complicit in their crimes than the populations subjugated by the others mentioned.

The biggest difference is that Bush lacked sinister intent. I think he saw himself as some Biblically inspired warrior-king of a great Christian land - a la Czar Alexander of Russia during the Napoleonic era. Cheney - like Metternich - simply used that delusion for the profit of himself and his cronies, without concern for who he harmed in the process.

You are granting him much much more than his due: he was a cheerleader at Yale games.

Don't overthink it: he was the right dumb-ass at the right time. The propagandist machine of the Republican party took over often and early, much like the votes for James Michael Curley.

 

[dc46064]

Dick Cheney is a sorry excuse for a human being. What he has done to America, and the rest of the world, is truly inexcusable by anyone who isn't a saint. I do wish pain on him for a long time, until he repents of his horrible sins against humanity. I wish the World Court had the balls to put Cheney AND Bush on trial for crimes against humanity.

Very Well Said!

 

[maxcok]

Wow. You have written quite a long, involved response (defense) to my brief, simple question.
Unfortunately for me, it will require a rather long response.

How do you feel about Hitler? or Stalin? or Milosevic? Just wondering.

Well, ok, the point of my post was obviously satirical.

It was obviously sarcastic, it was not obviously satirical, there is a difference.
I will take your word though, if that was your intent, though it is still sarcastic.

I really think every human being is capable of the emotion of hate. I think hate happens when people are hurt. I do not claim to be free from hate. But hate as an emotion and hateful action must not be confused. Hatefully damaging actions can not be tolerated. Hate as an emotion is natural, so as civilized people, we must recognize that hate is something that has the potential to rise within our emotions. If we have this awareness of hate, then that awareness is the key to putting hate aside when it arises, making sound, rational judgment without emotion, and eliminating hate from our actions.

Though I tend to agree all humans are capable of feeling hatred, I find myself curiously devoid of that emotion, at least as far as it being directed at another human being. The few times I have felt what I would call hatred towards another, it was a temporary visceral response to the most egregious act committed against me or the people or other living things I care deeply about, an act that was sadistic and senseless, committed for no other reason but to cause extreme damage or severe pain. There are people I utterly despise for their actions, but I do not carry hatred within me. There is a difference.

There is a case to be made that hate can be a good thing sometimes. Hate could muster deep motivation within a person to take action against something that is hurtful to him. In a case where hateful action is not damaging to innocent people or the environment, then that hateful action is the free right of every human being, and I would not dare to tell you that you are wrong for it. However, I still think decisions and actions free from emotional extremes are more appropriate and effective than emotional motivations.

I believe that dwelling on and acting out of hate is ultimately self-destructive. As for the other "emotional extreme", I think it is generally a good thing to act out of love.

Finally, I think people who accuse their opponents of hate as if they themselves could never hate are in ignorant danger of letting hate sway their actions. If you deny that hate could exist in your soul, then you turn a blind eye to the task of ensuring that your actions are free from emotion, hate included.

You do not speak for me, though you may speak for yourself if you wish. I do not act "free from emotion", though I try always to act rationally. I do not have to harbor hatred in myself in order to recognize it in others.

In current events, the left is in power, and there undoubtedly is some hate stirred up on the right because of the left's power. So, in politically fueled debates lately, the right is indeed frequently accused of hate by the left. These accusations of hate are often followed by a presumption that the presence of the emotion of hate must undermine and negate the principles for which the right stands and by default suggests the left as the moral superior. Time and time again we see the argument that the right is inherently hateful, so what they do and say must be blindly misguided by hate, and therefore, the left is morally superior. By that logic then, the left is assumed to be free from hate, or else they would be just as misguided as the right. Here is where I come in with my satire, assuming that the left is incapable of hate and suggesting that they express love for someone whom they obviously hate. Exaggerating the left's love for Cheney makes it clear that he is actually bitterly hated by the left.

I have no doubt that some on the Left harbor deep hatred for Mr. Cheney, perhaps justifiably so. I would not be surprised if many in the Middle East hate Mr. Cheney, and justifiably so. I do not, though I do despise him, and I hate what he has done to this country - how he has undermined the Constitution, the rule of law, and the principles this nation was founded upon; the death and destruction he rained down upon the people of Iraq; the slimey associations with and war profiteering from his promotion of no-bid military contracts for Halliburton and Blackwater among others; the human cost and environmental damage he has unleashed from his secret dealings with big dirty energy companies; and the destructive influence he has had on the world in general.

As for the rest of your argument, those are some wild gymnastic leaps in your own "logic" and it is littered with exaggerations and false assumptions. I do not see the Right as "inherently" hateful, though there is much hatred in evidence among many neo-conservatives and more extreme factions on the Right. Clearly there is hatred of homosexuals and ethnic minorities, expressed plainly and often vociferously. Clearly there are many on the Right who hate the notion of having an African-American occupy the White House and lead this nation. Clearly there are many neo-conservatives who are fearful of changes to the status quo which serves them well, or at least they perceive it serves them well; though it does not well serve the disenfranchised in this nation or the country as a whole, nor does it bode well for our future. That fear of the different, fear of change, and fear of the unknown often manifests as hate. Hate, I believe, is the twin emotion to fear. The hatred expressed by those on the Right is not by the wildest stretch of imagination or "logic" a quid pro quo for the hatred some on the Left may feel for Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush.

I think both political sides in this country hate the other extremely badly and it seems to be getting worse lately. Accusing others of hate while denying the hate in one's self, I think, is a risky practice that could lead to unchecked and damaging hateful actions.

I do not hate. Again, you are speaking for yourself, and maybe you speak for your "side". As I have elaborated in so many other instances here, the Left and the Right are not the same and equal, not in this regard, not in many other regards, not by a long shot. Saying so is specious and simplistic. Saying so does not make it so.

So, to finally answer your question about Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic: Sure, the terrible things that these men have done do stir some hate in me. I can not stand to see such things as they have done. However, in my actions toward these bad people, I would hope to treat them as human beings. If I were a judge or jury examining these notoriously bad people, then it may be that visions of revenge and severe tortuous punishments would be lurking somewhere in my mind. But I would have to be aware of the emotion of hate for what they have done and keep that emotion clear from my actions. Hate should have no place in dealing with these men. I would not wish undue, inhumane, or overly harsh punishments on them. I would try to act in the most logical and most unemotional way and simply and solely do what is required to block such people from ever damaging society again: probably life in prison or execution; nothing hateful, just the simple black and white logic of preventing damaging actions to innocent human beings. That is what I think of Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic.

Aside from your "visions of revenge and severe tortuous punishments" which I do not share, I am otherwise in general agreement with you here. However, I am not in favor of execution. Neither would I treat these genocidal war criminals with kid gloves or bend over backward to ensure they received the most pampered and humane treatment. My sentence would be a lifetime in near solitary confinement as punishment for the horror and destruction they unleashed on humanity, holding them up publicly as a reminder of the evil that exists in the world, which we must all always be on guard to oppose.

So, these men are commonly hated men as Bush and Cheney are commonly hated men. But, can you compare and contrast the actions of these two groups of men? Do Bush and Cheney really compare to Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic? Some will surely say yes. Other people who have experience being hurt by those 20th century tyrants may be deeply insulted by the comparison. If you think they compare well, then I would like to see it spelled out in writing how Bush and Cheney rationally compare to such extreme examples of hate-worthy men. We can't be the thought police and go around condemning people for their ideas, or worse, what we perceive and assume to be their ideas. Actions count. I think that Bush and Cheney have taken some actions that have done plenty of damage to human beings. But I still think that they are several tiers of evil below the actions of Hitler, Stalin, and Milosevic. Apples and oranges, not even close.

It is unfortunate that you missed my point. I was not comparing Bush and Cheney with these genocidal tyrants, these "apples and oranges". I would have thought that was clear to any thinking person. My question was in response to your sarcastic comments implying that it was hypocritical for "liberals" to express hatred or wish misfortune on anyone, no matter how vile their actions. I deliberately envoked those extreme examples to counter the exaggerated tone of your post, to challenge you to think logically about what you had written, and to emphasize my point that what you were saying was an illogical, silly and cheap shot at your "opposition". Of course I in no way think Bush and Cheney rise (or sink) to the level of these homocidal maniacs, though to my mind, Cheney comes a lot closer. I believe Bush was and is an empty suit, a puppet and a figurehead for the administration, carrying out the agenda delivered to him by his advisors - Cheney being chief among them. I believe Cheney is completely self-serving, amoral, in fact evil. In another country, under the right circumstances, and/or given the right motivation I believe he would do whatever he deemed necessary to achieve his ends - including prosecuting the sort of terror campaigns we associate with the three I mentioned.

Do I wish him dead? No, I'd rather he stand trial for his crimes, though I realize that will never happen. Other than that, do I care if he dies? His life is shameful, and he has stayed at the party far too long. I will not shed a tear at his passing, nor will I dance on his grave. I do not hate him, but I do despise him.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Cheney's a very nasty fellow, but I don't wish him ill. However, he deserves to have his actions: press leaks, CIA data interference/manipulations and cover ups via Scooter Libby, as VP, reviewed by a specially appointed prosecutor as their legal, and ethical basis for which I imagine there is little-to-none. That would be the most fitting response to his abrasive behavior, and a better lesson for future politicians. If convicted, I'd love to see a judge sentence him to serve in some karmic capacity (KP?) the same soldiers he wanted so badly to be in Iraq.

 

[maxcok]

Cheney's a very nasty fellow, but I don't wish him ill. However, he deserves to have his actions: press leaks, CIA data interference/manipulations and cover ups via Scooter Libby, as VP, reviewed by a specially appointed prosecutor as their legal, and ethical basis for which I imagine there is little-to-none. That would be the most fitting response to his abrasive behavior, and a better lesson for future politicians. If convicted, I'd love to see a judge sentence him to serve in some karmic capacity (KP?) the same soldiers he wanted so badly to be in Iraq.

It was a blatant omission for me to fail to mention Cheney's outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame to retaliate against her husband Joe Wilson and to silence anyone standing in the way of the administration's march to war. Wilson, if you recall, had published factual information that discredited the false WMD argument, used as justification for the invasion of Iraq in the runup to the war. The threats on them and their family and the mysterious events that have occurred around them since have been ignored by the major media.

Why Cheney and Libby have not been prosecuted for treason is beyond me.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

It was a blatant omission for me to fail to mention Cheney's outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame to retaliate against her husband Joe Wilson and to silence anyone standing in the way of the administration's march to war.

Dude, it's hard for anyone to keep track of all the misdeeds by that individual. Don't be too hard on yourself.

The only reason he has not been prosecuted for his misdeeds is that the current administration doesn't want to be liable for their own once they leave office. Political CYA makes for ugly bedfellows.

 

[midlifebear]

I can't predict what's in Cheney's future, possibly more stents, a higher daily dose of Warfarin (the main ingredient in rat poison and also used to control blood pressure when complicated with chronic cardiac arrhythmia), but Lewis Scooter Libby remains in hiding as a convicted felon -- what ever that really means within The Beltway.

Scooter, because of his insouciance in outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in United States v. Libby, a grand jury convicted him on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice; two counts of perjury; and one count of making false statements to federal investigators. Yet, Scooter got a "stay of out jail free" card, rather than a full pardon from Bush the Younger, who commuted Scooter the Pooter's 30-month prison sentence the day before El Busho was spirited out of the White House. Scooter still had to do over 400 hours of "supervised" pubic service and pay a $250,000 fine. And after several appeals, his license to practice law in Washington DC was suspended and he was finally disbarred.

But wait. There's more! I'm certain we'll hear from him again, because his disbarment and suspension from participating in the vast world of juris prudence expires just in time for the 2012 election cycle. Coincidence? You decide (dum dum dum, dum!)

 

[maxcok]

Dude, it's hard for anyone to keep track of all the misdeeds by that individual. Don't be too hard on yourself.

The only reason he has not been prosecuted for his misdeeds is that the current administration doesn't want to be liable for their own once they leave office. Political CYA makes for ugly bedfellows.

I don't agree with that at all. Obama made a calculated decision not to pursue criminal investigations of the previous administration. The reasoning was that he had his hands full with the giant pile of shit left on his desk by the previous tenants. Pursuing the crooks and liars would have distracted from his pressing priorities to first put the house back in order, and then move his agenda forward. Although it would have brought the dirty deeds out into the light of day and changed the minds of some, it would no doubt have deeply divided the Congress and the country, as if we weren't divided enough already. Anyone who recalls the Lewinski affair or the Watergate scandal understands this, and those events pale in comparison to the firestorm and the governmental paralysis that would have ensued here. Though as a matter of justice I wish that investigations had taken place, and I do think the public needs to be made aware of the crimes that took place and the reasons behind the giant mess that's been created, I also understand the president's pragmatism. The book is not closed on these matters yet; we may eventually see investigations pursued, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Though as a matter of justice I wish that investigations had taken place, and I do think the public needs to be made aware of the crimes that took place and the reasons behind the giant mess that's been created, I also understand the president's pragmatism. The book is not closed on these matters yet; we may eventually see investigations pursued, but I'm not holding my breath.

Even though he inherited a disaster, Obama should have taken a principled stand on these matters, because without principle, we are nothing as a nation. So, this is an argument based upon short term expediency. History will judge Obama on his own missteps, such as furthering rendition, which I think is a big legal mistake, just as I did when Bush did so, but understand the notion of expediency when you have troops in harm's way, which brings us full circle to Cheney, as he made sure they were there, and is part of the reason American is pursuing policies which are in their essence anti-American.

 

[maxcok]

Even though he inherited a disaster, Obama should have taken a principled stand on these matters, because without principle, we are nothing as a nation. So, this is an argument based upon short term expediency. History will judge Obama on his own missteps, such as furthering rendition, which I think is a big legal mistake, just as I did when Bush did so, but understand the notion of expediency when you have troops in harm's way, which brings us full circle to Cheney, as he made sure they were there, and is part of the reason American is pursuing policies which are in their essence anti-American.

I think both sides of this argument are equally valid, and I find myself somewhere in the middle. As I've said, I think those in the previous administration who are guilty of ethical and criminal violations should be investigated and prosecuted - not only as a matter of principle and in the pursuit of justice; but also to make clear to the public the crimes and Constitutional violations that occurred, and hopefully dissuade others from repeating them in the future. On the other hand, I understand that the new administration had emergency priorities to deal with, and investigations and prosecutions would not only have been distractive, but would have created a firestorm of controversy and far more entrenched divisions than we have now, and would probably have paralyzed the government.

It's a big "what if" had Obama allowed investigations to move forward. Where would that have led? Where would we be now? No one can say, but as I said, I do understand his pragmatism, if I do not wholeheartedly support it. I am a person who tends to stand on principle sometimes to my my own detriment, and recognizing that I have kept an open mind on these matters. I find myself uncharateristically undecided on this issue.

 

[houtx48]

"But wait. There's more! I'm certain we'll hear from him again, because his disbarment and suspension from participating in the vast world of juris prudence expires just in time for the 2012 election cycle. Coincidence? You decide (dum dum dum, dum!)" He was disbarred in Washington D. C. but was also licensed in Pennsylvania so could have he still worked there?

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

It's a big "what if" had Obama allowed investigations to move forward. Where would that have led? Where would we be now? No one can say, but as I said, I do understand his pragmatism, if I do not wholeheartedly support it.

Pragmatism has it's merits for sure, but principle still could have been honored in this matter, without becoming a total distraction for the Administration. That's what special prosecutors are for.

Unfortunately without a trial, we are left with the distinct possibility someone in the next Administration could march into the CIA's offices and manipulate or conjure data to suit their policy aims. Or that a covert CIA op is "outed" by the VP, so he/she can discredit any statement they disagree with. These types of transgressions make a mockery of our Foreign Policy, Defense Dept. and the sacrifice of those who lay their lives on the line, without questions, or answers. It's very distressing to me. If Watergate was the triumph of the Judiciary over the Executive; Iraq is the opposite.

 

[maxcok]

Pragmatism has it's merits for sure, but principle still could have been honored in this matter, without becoming a total distraction for the Administration. That's what special prosecutors are for.

Unfortunately without a trial, we are left with the distinct possibility someone in the next Administration could march into the CIA's offices and manipulate or conjure data to suit their policy aims. Or that a covert CIA op is "outed" by the VP, so he/she can discredit any statement they disagree with. These types of transgressions make a mockery of our Foreign Policy, Defense Dept. and the sacrifice of those who lay their lives on the line, without questions, or answers. It's very distressing to me. If Watergate was the triumph of the Judiciary over the Executive; Iraq is the opposite.

I completely agree with everything you said, with the exception of the bolded statements. Even more troubling to me than what you mentioned, was the usurping of power by the Executive branch from the Legislative, and open defiance of the Judiciary, unprecedented as far as I know in modern times. The Cheney/Bush administration was clearly unconcerned with the Constitutional separation of powers, if they were even aware of it. Once those precedents have been established and gone unchallenged, what is to stop future presidents from doing the same?

As to the bolded statement, Watergate and Monicagate had special prosecutors, and the events didn't take place quietly over to the side. They completely disrupted the business of government, and in the case of Watergate in particular, tore the country apart. The Lewinski fallout adversely affected Clinton's agenda from that point forward, and prevented him from accomplishing much of what he otherwise would have.

I still contend that pursuing investigations in the current divisive political climate, with emergency priorities demanding immediate attention even before Obama took office, and the core Constitutional issues that would have been thrown up for grabs, it would have been a much bigger mess, much more divisive, much more paralyzing even than those crises. It would have been politicized beyond probably anything we've seen, and could even have made Cheney/Bush et al martyrs in the eyes of many.

Was it right not to investigate? To my mind, no. Was it the right thing to do? I just don't know.

 

[arkfarmbear]

I think it is tragic that the worthless old piece of shit has lived this long. If he had died before the Bush/Cheney Regime was handed a stolen election think of the thousands of American lives that would have been spared.
We will suffer, for years, for that Regime's financial decisions.
And, we have no idea of how many other innocent people's lives around the world would be spared. I've heard estimates as high as 500,000.
The Iraqi citizens were just as innocent as were our victims of 9/11. The only "wrong" they had comitted was living in a country that was on the Bush/Cheney Regime's hit list.
Our victims of 9/11 were in a similar boat. They died because Al Queda hated our leaders, that we didn't elect! How much more "innocent victim" than that can a person be?

 

[B_TonyK8483]

Dick Cheney isn't going to die anytime soon, sure I wish he'd just kick over and die, but only the good die young the evil last forever it seems.

 

[dreamer20]

Pragmatism has it's merits for sure, but principle still could have been honored in this matter, without becoming a total distraction for the Administration. That's what special prosecutors are for...It's very distressing to me. If Watergate was the triumph of the Judiciary over the Executive; Iraq is the opposite.

I completely agree with everything you said, with the exception of the bolded statements. Even more troubling to me than what you mentioned, was the usurping of power by the Executive branch from the Legislative, and open defiance of the Judiciary, unprecedented as far as I know in modern times. The Cheney/Bush administration was clearly unconcerned with the Constitutional separation of powers, if they were even aware of it. Once those precedents have been established and gone unchallenged, what is to stop future presidents from doing the same?

As to the bolded statement, Watergate and Monicagate had special prosecutors, and the events didn't take place quietly over to the side. They completely disrupted the business of government, and in the case of Watergate in particular, tore the country apart. The Lewinski fallout adversely affected Clinton's agenda from that point forward, and prevented him from accomplishing much of what he otherwise would have.

I still contend that pursuing investigations in the current divisive political climate, with emergency priorities demanding immediate attention even before Obama took office, and the core Constitutional issues that would have been thrown up for grabs, it would have been a much bigger mess, much more divisive, much more paralyzing even than those crises. It would have been politicized beyond probably anything we've seen, and could even have made Cheney/Bush et al martyrs in the eyes of many.

Was it right not to investigate? To my mind, no. Was it the right thing to do? I just don't know.

I agree with maxcok. duc10023, have you had a change of heart currently? Note the post below, dated May 23,2009, showed you also didn't want Obama to go after Bush, Cheney & Co. , but instead wanted history be the judge of them:

Something is indeed wrong with government if the previous administration can make the CIA lie and create the "intell" results they want to hear, which is exactly what Cheney did... The Administration policy which created the term "enemy combatant" (vs POW), and the legalese to make water boarding, etc. ok was set by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, Woo and Gonzales... BTW I am not in favor of going after Bush & Co. on this point, as history will deliver a better coup de grace on the lack of wisdom in their approach...