It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leahy Talks to White House About Investigating Bush Administration

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

www.huffingtonpost.com...




Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and White House Chief Counsel Greg Craig discussed on Tuesday the Senator's proposal to set up a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate potential crimes of the Bush administration.

"I went over some of the parameters of it and they were well aware at the White House of what I'm talking about," Leahy told the Huffington Post. "And we just agreed to talk further."

The dialogue between the Vermont Democrat and the president's office is a new phase in a delicate process concerning how best to handle potential crimes in the previous White House. Leahy proposed an investigatory commission on Monday, after which the president -- speaking at his first news conference -- said he did not currently have an opinion on the plan. Obama went on to say that he would rather look forward than backward, but he promised to prosecute any crime -- whether committed was a former White House official or everyday citizen.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 11-2-2009 by grover]




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
If the bush minor administration is not investigated then it will set a very bad precedent basically saying that... in the words of Nixxon... "When the president does it, its not illegal".

And with that, there goes the rule of law when it comes to acts of government because after all that is one of the hallmarks of our system, our leaders are (supposed to be) held accountable.


(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11-2-2009 by grover]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
whether committed was a former White House official or everyday citizen.

Might odd wording for investigating the government for war crimes and those of torture one would think. Since when did an everyday citizen get the permission from our armed forces to go around torturing people. PAY attention to the wording..... Somebody slipped up yet again under pressure....



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Was there ever any former Presidents administration investigated for possible crimes?

Seems wierd to start now. This will just turn into investigating every administration once they leave office.

If they had done this while he was in office, I would have been for it. To go after him now just tells me they are doing it because there is a Democrat controlled Congress and White House. They had their chance when they took over Congress in 2006 and chose not to do so. In fact in many of the crimes they accuse Bush of, Congress gave immunity. Why give immunity if you felt a crime was committed.

I also believe Ron Paul tried to pass a bill to reclaim powers from the President that really belonged to Congress, and Congress basically ignored him. Shows how serious Congress is about stopping the President from abusing his powers.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
If they had done this while he was in office, I would have been for it. To go after him now just tells me they are doing it because there is a Democrat controlled Congress and White House. They had their chance when they took over Congress in 2006 and chose not to do so. In fact in many of the crimes they accuse Bush of, Congress gave immunity. Why give immunity if you felt a crime was committed.


Had they done this while Bush was in office it would have had little effect. Not only did Bush have a strangle hold on the Judiciary, he would have just pardoned anyone convicted of wrongdoing. I am all for holding the Bush administration accountable for all of the crimes it perpetrated. Failing to do so would only guarantee that these offenses occur in the future. If we can not learn from our past, how can we expect to move forward in the future?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Leahy was on Rachel Maddow last night, talking about this.

I am all for Bush Co being prosecuted, BUT, with the country in the shape it's in, I'm not sure it's the best way to spend our time and money. I like Leahy's idea. Especially if they don't testify, they relinquish their immunity to prosecution.

jam - The Republicans spend 6 years investigating Clinton after he was out. As Leahy said, "If I was a cynic, I would say it was hypocritical. But being a kind, benevolent person, I'd say it's just being forgetful."



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
It still astounds me that people won't let go of Bush. Even the fact that he had made some tough decisions, people still hate him. These are the true winds of HATE.

Obama has already done a few crimes and will commit more and get away with them.

Taking the Countries LIFE savings and giving it to crooks.
Stealing an election through ACRON
Using the media to do his bidding.
Indoctrinating our youth to be souless Obamabots.

This list will keep growing ...

I am sure Obama will NOT answer for these crimes .. I guess it is okay for him to do this stuff as long as it fits THEIR agenda.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
There are crimes, and there are War Crimes, and there is a difference between the two.

I'm for investigating and prosecuting all crimes committed by any administration, period. A few rounds of that, with the perps spending time in jail would tend to clean politics up a bit.

However, as somewhat of a realist, I recognize that some level of crimes most likely won't be so prosecuted.

However, War Crimes are a whole other level. War Crimes are international crimes, and have direct impact on the standing and interests of a country throughout the world. Countries that have 'leaders' who commit war crimes tend to end up labelled "Rogue", and get isolated, deservedly so.

So if there are reasonable grounds to investigate alleged war crimes, which there certainly seems to be in this case, then those crimes should be investigated in a real fashion.

And if the objective, measurable evidence indicates crimes were committed, then people, whoever they are should be prosecuted and dealt with.

And destruction or concealment of any evidence related to such alleged crimes is called Obstruction of Justice, and should also be prosecuted.

If this means Bush and Cheney and Co go to jail, too damn bad for them and their worshippers. If a real investigation determines no crimes have been committed, then it's over.

I have very high standards of expected conduct for my government employees. They are most of the time not met.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88
It still astounds me that people won't let go of Bush. Even the fact that he had made some tough decisions, people still hate him. These are the true winds of HATE.


The difficulty of a decision means nothing if it is the wrong one! You don't get points for botching up something but excusing yourself that the decision was tough.

You think tough decisions began in Bush's presidency? Every head of state is faced with difficult and tough decisions, that comes with the territory.

Bush was a terrible President, not because of the adversities he faced, but because of his wrong decisions in face of those adversities. And no excuses will ever erase that.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Look, this is nothing more than political theater for the people who wish to lock up political opponents. Bush didn't do anything illegal and if he did, many in congress would be implicated too. This is just another step in a plan to make the US a one party system.


Bush was a terrible President, not because of the adversities he faced, but because of his wrong decisions in face of those adversities. And no excuses will ever erase that.


Oh please. We lost 3,000 innocent people, because we were at war and never knew it thanks to Clinton's horrible foreign policy. We have a nuclear armed N.Korea, thanks to Clinton's horrible foreign policy. Yet, we were all supposed to "move on" when it came to Clinton.

You people hold republicans to a standard you would never hold your own democrats to.


[edit on 11-2-2009 by Cio88]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88
It still astounds me that people won't let go of Bush. Even the fact that he had made some tough decisions, people still hate him. These are the true winds of HATE.

Obama has already done a few crimes and will commit more and get away with them.

Taking the Countries LIFE savings and giving it to crooks.
Stealing an election through ACRON
Using the media to do his bidding.
Indoctrinating our youth to be souless Obamabots.

This list will keep growing ...

I am sure Obama will NOT answer for these crimes .. I guess it is okay for him to do this stuff as long as it fits THEIR agenda.


Wow, where to start. First, I for one do not "hate" Bush. In fact, I have often said he would be a cool person to have a beer with but I just did not want him running my country.

Second, Bush did not make "tough" decisions, he made bad/completely corrupt ones. Just to list a few;
-Decision to ignore alarming warnings from most domestic and international intelligence agencies in the months prior to 9/11.

-Decision to knowingly cite false information to the public in order to garner support an unnecessary war in Iraq.

-Decision to allow the outting of an undercover CIA agent (Valarie Plame) in order to take revenge on a man who called him on the false information he was spouting.

-Decision to appoint a completely incompetent man (Michael Brown) as the head of FEMA.

Again, this is only a very, very short list of the many BAD decision made by former president Bush. If need be, I could create a list 5 times as long.

Thirdly, Obama has yet to commit any crimes.
-Bush is the one pushed the bank bailout.
-Acorn committed voter registration fraud, this in no way represents the "stealing" of the election. If you would like to see what the theft of an election looks like, please refer to the elections of 2000 and 2004.
-Just because the media was sick of the crimes perpetrated by the Republicans over the last 8 years and thus decided to back Obama, it does not mean that they were "doing his bidding."
-Obama has yet to indoctrinate any youths. Though this may happen in the future, you could at least wait until it does before you accuse him of it. By the way, had Bush proposed the idea of a civilian security force, I am sure you would have been first in line to support such an idea.

Lastly, I would not expect the people of the world to "let go" of the absolute disgrace of a presidency that was known as the Bush administration any time soon. Especially since the vast majority of living historians are already calling his presidency the worst in history.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 




-Decision to ignore alarming warnings from most domestic and international intelligence agencies in the months prior to 9/11.


See what I'm saying? 8 years of failed Clinton policy led to 9/11, but its Bush fault. Its ALWAYS the Republicans fault, thanks to a propaganda, left wing media that always spins in favor of the Democrat. Bush didn't ignore anything, it was on the backburrner under Clinton and remained that way.


-Decision to knowingly cite false information to the public in order to garner support an unnecessary war in Iraq.


More revisionist bull. Bush didn't say anything different than what was said by Clinton, gore or any number of other democrats from the previous 8 years. It not as if Bush had to try hard to garner support for Iraq, since we had been prepared for it in the previous administration. MOST Americans expected it.


-Decision to allow the outting of an undercover CIA agent (Valarie Plame) in order to take revenge on a man who called him on the false information he was spouting.


This is just pure fantasy. Please, show us all your evidence for this charge. Tell me BlueGrass, where was the outrage when the NYT outed an actual undercover operative, against his and the agencies wishes? Nobody gave a damn about that and he was actually put in danger because of it. Plame was out doing photo shoots with Rolling Stone, dressed up as a secret agent.

Once again, a mostly fabricated scandal perpetrated by the media and their buddies the Democrats.


-Decision to appoint a completely incompetent man (Michael Brown) as the head of FEMA.


Yeah, because Obama's appointments are all great choices...



Again, this is only a very, very short list of the many BAD decision made by former president Bush. If need be, I could create a list 5 times as long.


Sure you could... You do know Bush has working under a democrats controlled congress for 2 of those years, right? You know, when things REALLY started going south?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Had they done this while Bush was in office it would have had little effect. Not only did Bush have a strangle hold on the Judiciary, he would have just pardoned anyone convicted of wrongdoing.


You might have a good point there. However, how is this any different than Congress giving retroactive immunity?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Cio88
 


Man, I sit here reading your replies and begin to see "blah blah blahh, blah bla, blaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh, blah." You are making statements against arguments that have been OUTED IN OUR COURT SYSTEMS. The court systems of this country. What was Scooter Libby about? Oh, that's right, he didn't do what he was convicted of doing. Just a HUGE coincidence that he was the chief of staff for the VP.

All of your other comebacks are seriously flawed. The facts are out there. The administration lied and lied and lied and was caught finally in forging the documents themselves. IT CAME OUT. It's been revealed. Why then did they change their tune?

I just don't get the blind following. I like to still consider myself a republican but it is this type of furor and blind passion that makes me wonder if I am picking the right ideals.

Don't blindly follow.

Me, I'm all for investigating this past administration. The one that I voted into office twice. The one I sincerely regret voting in after doing my own due diligence. They are lying scheming criminals. The facts are out there. Their buddies made out like bandits and continued to do so.

What? Did Clinton set in motion this financial collapse?

As for the 911 reference. THAT HAS COME OUT TOO! They were briefed fully on the severity of the situation and it was IGNORED. But you will never see that even if the head of the CIA comes forth and tells you like he told Bush.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 



What was Scooter Libby about? Oh, that's right, he didn't do what he was convicted of doing. Just a HUGE coincidence that he was the chief of staff for the VP.


Scooter Libby didn't release her name, Richard Armitage did. Which is funny, because they knew that before the investigation. I'm actually very well educated on all of these subject. I get tired of having to correct people who get all their information from the Huffington Post and Keith Olberman.

I notice you completely ignored the example of the NYT actually doing what you are accusing the bush admin of doing.


The administration lied and lied and lied and was caught finally in forging the documents themselves.


What forged documents? Tell me one thing that Bush or congress claimed that hadn't been claimed by the Clinton administration, right up until the invasion? People like you always talking about the facts, yet wen you are called out you have nothing to back it up. Why aren't you calling for all of congress to be investigated?



I just don't get the blind following. I like to still consider myself a republican but it is this type of furor and blind passion that makes me wonder if I am picking the right ideals.


You're the perfect example of blind following and group think. You keep telling us all how you're a Republican, which plays a part in it. You think that by claiming you're a Republican, it gives you more credibility. No matter how you look at it, you're ignoring all the facts that don't fit in to the democrat narrative. You know all the talking points, but I seriously doubt you can back any of it up.


They are lying scheming criminals. The facts are out there.


Right, so post them.


What? Did Clinton set in motion this financial collapse?


1. NAFTA
2. Housing bubble
3. Internet bubble

He certainly didn't help.


As for the 911 reference. THAT HAS COME OUT TOO! They were briefed fully on the severity of the situation and it was IGNORED. But you will never see that even if the head of the CIA comes forth and tells you like he told Bush.


Clinton didn't know that we were even at war! He dealt with attacks after attack like it was a legal issue! Meaning, when they did brief the white house it wasn't a very pressing issue. Who the # was talking about it in the media, or government? Tell me when Clinton was making a big issue of terrorism, or Bin Laden? He WASN'T!

For a Republican you sure do apologize for democrat failures a lot, while making zero attempts to get to the actual truth when it comes to Republicans.

Dont blindly follow little guy. Try reading up on Clinton and Iraq, Somalia and Al'Qaeda. You might learn something. I'd start at the UNSCOM website. Lots of good facts there.



[edit on 11-2-2009 by Cio88]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 




-Decision to ignore alarming warnings from most domestic and international intelligence agencies in the months prior to 9/11.


See what I'm saying? 8 years of failed Clinton policy led to 9/11, but its Bush fault. Its ALWAYS the Republicans fault, thanks to a propaganda, left wing media that always spins in favor of the Democrat. Bush didn't ignore anything, it was on the backburrner under Clinton and remained that way.


Actually, it was Clinton's policies that enabled our domestic and foreign intelligence agencies with the ability to warn Bush of the impending attacks on 9/11. Had Bush only headed the warnings, like any responsible president would do, who knows, 9/11 could have easily been averted. And how can you say Bush did not ignore anything? Here is a list of warnings he chose to ignore;

1. August 6, 2001 a CIA anyalyst briefs Bush on vacation with a memo entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." Bush takes NO ACTION and instead tells the analyst "all right, you've covered your ass now."

2. Minnesota FBI Special Agent Harry Samit, the one who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, stated that he wrote at least 70 pages of memos during the 3 weeks prior to 9/11 expressing concerns of an impeding attack on US soil. Those warning were ignored.

3. A Phoenix based FBI agent sent a memo to George Tenet warning that radical Islamists were taking flight training there. Tenet said he did not read the memo until after 9/11. If you believe that I have some ocean front land here in Kentucky to sell you. Never the less, this warning too was ignored.

4. Intelligence agencies from around the world including France, Brittan, and, of all places Iran, warned the CIA that Al Qaeda was plotting an attack on the US. Once again, those warnings were ignored.

5. In early September Richard Clarke requested using predator drones to kill Bin Laden, the Pentagon and CIA said NO.



Originally posted by Cio88

-Decision to knowingly cite false information to the public in order to garner support an unnecessary war in Iraq.


More revisionist bull. Bush didn't say anything different than what was said by Clinton, gore or any number of other democrats from the previous 8 years. It not as if Bush had to try hard to garner support for Iraq, since we had been prepared for it in the previous administration. MOST Americans expected it.


Really?

Somehow I do not remember Clinton claiming Iraq was an immediate threat to the US and had ties to terrorist organizations. Nor do I remember Gore falsely claiming that Iraq was seeking yellow cake nuclear materials from Niger. I also don't remember Clinton or Gore claiming that Iraq had reconstituted a WMD program.

And by the way, MOST Americans thought we won the first Gulf war and would not be crossing that bridge for a long time.



Originally posted by Cio88

-Decision to allow the outting of an undercover CIA agent (Valarie Plame) in order to take revenge on a man who called him on the false information he was spouting.


This is just pure fantasy. Please, show us all your evidence for this charge. Tell me BlueGrass, where was the outrage when the NYT outed an actual undercover operative, against his and the agencies wishes? Nobody gave a damn about that and he was actually put in danger because of it. Plame was out doing photo shoots with Rolling Stone, dressed up as a secret agent.

Once again, a mostly fabricated scandal perpetrated by the media and their buddies the Democrats.


Well, my evidence would be the conviction of Scooter Libby the Chief of Staff to Dick Cheney. I guess you just missed that.

I really do not remember the case to which you are speaking (NYT outed an actual undercover operative) so I can not comment.

However, I must assume your Rolling Stone accusation and your insinuation that Plame was not an real undercover operative are something you got from Rush or O'Reilly given that I heard these claims for the first time today. Man, you really need to stop listening to those guys, they are filling your mind with misinformation. You must be in bliss.


Originally posted by Cio88

-Decision to appoint a completely incompetent man (Michael Brown) as the head of FEMA.


Yeah, because Obama's appointments are all great choices...


So, instead of owning up to the fact that the appointment of Brown to head FEMA was a monumental mistake that led to a national embarrassment, you choose to say "Yeah, Yeah, but Obama has made some bad choices too." Real mature and it certainly adds to this discussion. When one of Obama's appointment leads to one of our nation's worst international embarrassment, you let me know.


Originally posted by Cio88

Again, this is only a very, very short list of the many BAD decision made by former president Bush. If need be, I could create a list 5 times as long.


Sure you could... You do know Bush has working under a democrats controlled congress for 2 of those years, right? You know, when things REALLY started going south?


You mean the two years where Bush vetoed every significant piece of legislation passed by congress. Yeah, I caught those.

By the way, had the Republicans been in control for the last two years, God only knows the quagmire we would currently be in.

However, I will agree that this Democratic congress and its leaders have been quite ineffective. They were elected to do two things, impeach Bush and prosecute the criminals in his administration both of which were utter failures. But, then again, there is still time for the later.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
i want to know. i want to know it all. i hope the watershed of information is so complete and damning that all of us, including CIO88, will be left gaping-mouthed and incapable of uttering even one word word in Bush's defense.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
i want to know. i want to know it all. i hope the watershed of information is so complete and damning that all of us, including CIO88, will be left gaping-mouthed and incapable of uttering even one word word in Bush's defense.


I am in the same boat as you. However, I think it is wishful thinking. First, we will never know it all, at least not for a very longtime. Second, there will always be those people who will never relent in their support for America's worst president. I can remember hearing very intelligent people state seriously that they thought Bush should be put on Mt. Rushmore. I mean, how do you argue with disillusionment like that?

On a side note, did you know that the president who is often regarded as America's 2nd worst president is actually Bush's great, great, great grandfather Franklin Pierce (Barbara Bush's maiden name is Pierce). Isn't that funny, Bush's greatest accomplishment was edging his great, great, great grandfather out as the worst president in history.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Where is the list of alleged crimes he committed, and under what court would he be prosecuted? We are not a signing member of the ICC, and the War Commissions Act made everything President Bush has done regarding the Iraq war legal.

I just don't see where all this hatred is coming from. Obama would never allow a trial of President Bush or VP Cheney to occur. This would divide the country beyond repair.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join