Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House


www.philly.com

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Is Obama jumping on another bandwagon, or is he actually serious about this?

Visit the link for his full statement.

The outcry over torture in iraq and other places continues to grow, and it seems the voices are being heard.

Another question is this; Will the bush camp actually let him do this?
We've heard various commentators talking about their fears of assasination - could this be the statement that brings about an attempt?

www.philly.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   
And McCain said that he would not investigate any corruption in the Bush administration. Going on to say that we should thank him for us not being attacked again.

So, if it comes down to choosing between McCain and Obama, this could be the deciding factor to me. Currently, this is the biggest difference between the two. I have to assume that he is just paying lip service, but at least he isn't taking McCain's stance on the subject.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
This is lip service. He as a polititian running for the WH

is saying this to endear us to him. 'Justice. Finally"

Its BS and just that, BS.

They all work together.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Is Obama jumping on another bandwagon, or is he actually serious about this?


He lies alot. And as we have seen, he panders to whatever audience he is speaking to at the time. (telling elitists that yokels cling to guns and religion??? :shk: )

I don't trust him at all.

Is he serious? Naaaaaaah. He's just a politician telling the people what they want to hear. He's CFR. They wont' go after Bush.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
it seems the voices are being heard.


Budski .. wanna' bet that Obama will get in and then say 'I wasn't present when those things were in the news' ... just like he said about Jeremiah Wright and just like he's said about REZKO ...

I didn't know ...
I didn't hear ....
I wasn't there ....

This guy has a thing for either not paying attention to what's going on around him or being totally out of touch.

Yes ... the CFR will strike again! I agree with DG.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Dgtempe and FlyersFan:

Exactly to both of you. It has already been shown that he is CFR (though he doesn't carry a card
) and that is really the end of it there. They are not going to go after their own unless going after their own is for their "greater good."

They've all been goofing on so much this electoral season that I believe they are starting to lose their grip of reality on what is actually going on with the American People. They are too busy playing the game to remember that they should be acting serious for an upcoming election.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe there is any person here who would say I don't believe this should happen (different from want, because I wish it wasn't so) but if we really wanted to clean house unfortunately it would not just be the Bush cabal that would need to be brought to justice. The other dark side of this crew left office in 2000 and still must be held for their actions.

Just my $.02, declining daily.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


At least McCain has a stance. Agree with it or not, it's refreshing to see someone finally put their foot down on an issue.

I think if Obama was really serious about investigating Bush Administration crimes, he would be pushing for it now. Why wait until he's president? Last time I checked, the Democrats hold the majority in congress... why doesn't he spearhead an inquiry there?

Right now, he's empty rhetoric. I want to see a person of action in the White House. Grand ideas are for daydreamers... We need someone who will paint the canvas.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by blackbox
 


Well, I am less than thrilled about our current crop of candidates. But I just don't think I can back someone that has a stance completely different than my own on this issue. To me, the damage that the Bush administration has done to the country may never even be repaired and I feel they should be investigated and held accountable. I can't bring myself to vote for a man that thinks we should thank them for what they have done.

Obama may be paying lip service, but I prefer that to McCain thinking we owe Bush a debt of gratitude. At least with Obama, there is the off chance that he is telling the truth.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Very true and I feel the same way about these "candidates". I just wanted to point out that you don't see too often a politician who is firm on an issue.

Again, I just don't see why Obama isn't taking actions now if he's so upset about Bush White House crimes. It makes no sense to wait. The only advantage to waiting is by holding a carrot in front of the voters as "incentive" which immediately points me back to the empty rhetoric theory.

It would change my mind considerably, and possibly my vote, if he took action on the matter immediately. I can dream well enough on my own, I don't need a president who will have a drink and nod his head with me... I need one who will act. When did these people come to the conclusion that the American people need a friend? We don't. We need a leader.

[edit on 04/03/2008 by blackbox]

[edit on 04/03/2008 by blackbox]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I respect all of you as a matter of principle; but I have to focus on the fact that this article is a demonstrates the same political 'noise' and 'posturing' that we see EVERY DAMN ELECTION!

What do you think that he 'actually means' to carry out?

I ask you to simply examine the statement: .. "he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted"

Why so carefully crafted?

... to review the information that's already there... What information? Already where? What does 'review' mean? Spell check?

... and determine if an inquiry is warranted" ....

WARRANTED!!!!???? Where has he been? I'd say an investigation into potential treason and violation of oath of office as well as crimes against humanity aren't exactly 'iffy' priorities in terms of our national standing.

It would have been far more meaningful to have stated that trite notions of partisan 'fellowship' are going to have to take a back seat to the will of our nation. Nonsensical 'sensitivities' to those partisan relics who will send out the rally cry to call for 'partisan' anything will only be identifying their position in the business of politics - NOT their dedication to the nation they claim to serve and protect.

Poor republicans and democrats ... their cooperation is oh so important! We are beyond that illusion now, haven't any of them heard? If America is to regain some of her strength she will have to shrug off this dysfunctional Republican/Democrat freak show and mandate that the next 'party' system be free of corporate and international influences.

And don't get me started on McCaine - the more i research the more I see this man probably can't even 'define' the alleged crimes his predecessor and his cabinet are guilty of, let alone conceive of how he might actually be compelled to 'look into it.'



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackbox
At least McCain has a stance. Agree with it or not, it's refreshing to see someone finally put their foot down on an issue.


What does it matter if someone takes a firm stance if it's the wrong one? This President (says he) is firm on a lot of issues, and what good has come from that?

So you like McCain's position that he won't investigate any wrongdoings of the Bush administration because it's refreshing to see someone finally take a stance?

That doesn't make any sense to me...



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I'd rather they not waste the time and the millions in tax money that any "investigation" would cost. Petty revenge for the sake of spite is not a worthwhile expense of my money.

If he doesn't like waterboarding get a bill passed banning its use and sign it. He doesn't need to drag on some OJ-esque / 911 Commission spectacle for months and millions $$$. What a waste.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I'd rather they not waste the time and the millions in tax money that any "investigation" would cost.


So you don't care if the President (or anyone else) has violated the Constitution and International Law?



If he doesn't like waterboarding get a bill passed banning its use and sign it.


Torture is illegal, it's already banned.



He doesn't need to drag on some OJ-esque / 911 Commission spectacle for months and millions $$$. What a waste.


You mean like the sort of spectacle the Republicans made with the Lewinsky case?

And I'm sorry, the 9/11 Commission was a waste of time and money? I hope you're referring to it as a waste in terms of the integrity of the investigation. You can't possibly be saying that investigating the worst terrorist attack in American soil is a waste of money and time, right?



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by blackbox
At least McCain has a stance. Agree with it or not, it's refreshing to see someone finally put their foot down on an issue.


What does it matter if someone takes a firm stance if it's the wrong one? This President (says he) is firm on a lot of issues, and what good has come from that?

So you like McCain's position that he won't investigate any wrongdoings of the Bush administration because it's refreshing to see someone finally take a stance?

That doesn't make any sense to me...


Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I liked his position that he won't investigate any wrong-doings of the Bush Administration.
I said that it was refreshing that he has a stance at all. Respecting someone for having a firm position on a subject does not mean you have to agree with them.

Obama has no firm position on the matter. Judging from past performances, I doubt Clinton would either.

[edit on 04/03/2008 by blackbox]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by danx

So you don't care if the President (or anyone else) has violated the Constitution and International Law?


Does it even matter? Anyone who could hold any of the offenders "accountable" is in on the same scheme.



You mean like the sort of spectacle the Republicans made with the Lewinsky case?


Of course I do. If Clinton didn't purger himself in the first place it would have all been over with much sooner. He wouldn't have been impeached and everyone could have just gotten on with their lives. He should have just admitted it, let Ken Star have his little laugh and save us all alot of time and money.



And I'm sorry, the 9/11 Commission was a waste of time and money? I hope you're referring to it as a waste in terms of the integrity of the investigation. You can't possibly be saying that investigating the worst terrorist attack in American soil is a waste of money and time, right?


Yeah, it was a waste of time. Everyone involved was a crook and a liar.

Any investigation of anyone in Washington by anyone in Washington is a complete waste. It's like having one mob family investigate another mob family. Until D.C. is burned to the ground and every politician is drawn and quartered any and all attempts to "reform" have preemptively failed because any and all "reformers" are corrupt. Even sacred Mr. Obama is a globalist anti-liberty criminal.

This whole thing is a really expensive joke and I don't appreciate getting the bill every week.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Do you guuys really think he will do this. What did jesus say

"let those without sin, cast the first stone".

If he did that, he would not be able to do anything in the white house, americans should be realistic, about this guy. I always say people who voted for him, are what green day call american idiots, and any here voting for him, should listen to that song.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackbox
I said that it was refreshing that he has a stance at all. Respecting someone for having a firm position on a subject does not mean you have to agree with them.


Saying you respect someone for having a firm position even though you know their position is wrong, is not taking a stance


Someone shouldn't deserve respect simply because they have a firm position. They should deserve respect for the kind of positions they take, and not just because they are firm.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Danx-

Your opinion is noted. I have my own.

I think it's awesome that McCain doesn't beat around the bush (no pun intended). He's dead wrong, but he's not telling people what they want to hear just to get their votes.

[edit on 04/03/2008 by blackbox]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I think if he came out and started saying he would go after Bush for war crimes he would have to dicount ever winning any superdeleagates. And Nancy Pelosi ruled impeachment off the table and has blocked anybody from moving forward.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join