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.

 

Obama Not Hot on Bush Era Truth Panel

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

February 10, 2009
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's proposal to launch a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's anti-terror programs and other matters got a lukewarm response from President Barack Obama, who said he would rather "get it right moving forward."


Senator Patrick Leahy would like a committee to start investigating a wide range of issues that took place under the Bush Administration to ascertain how certain things like warrantless wiretapping and torture at Guantanamo Bay were able to happen.

Leahy wants to investigate in a fact finding committee with the power to subpoena but not indict similar to the post Apartheid investigations in South Africa.

His concern is trying to uncover the mechanisms triggered and used that allowed to constitutional abuses.

President Obama’s response to Leahy was dismissive and to the point. “I would rather just move forward and get it right this time”

What if he doesn’t get it right this time? What if any numbers of the millions of bureaucrats employed long term by the government who took part in some way in these events don’t know what right is?

Does President Obama truly represent change or just blind hope?

Source Article




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

President Obama’s response to Leahy was dismissive and to the point. “I would rather just move forward and get it right this time”


Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because he knows its a witch hunt based on nothing but political theater. He doesn't want to have to be in the same position after 4 years of having to repeat Bush policies.

The fact is, this is nothing more than a bunch of ultra partisan people who want to imprison those who they disagree with. There isn't a prominent right wing voice who isn't dealing with the same sort of discrimination.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88
[Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because he knows its a witch hunt based on nothing but political theater. He doesn't want to have to be in the same position after 4 years of having to repeat Bush policies.

The fact is, this is nothing more than a bunch of ultra partisan people who want to imprison those who they disagree with. There isn't a prominent right wing voice who isn't dealing with the same sort of discrimination.


Got that right. Obama doesn't want to be sitting in front of that same panel 4 or 8 years from now, trying to explain things that happened while he had the reins of command.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   


The fact is, this is nothing more than a bunch of ultra partisan people who want to imprison those who they disagree with. There isn't a prominent right wing voice who isn't dealing with the same sort of discrimination.


I sure will not disagree with you there. Though I am a bit suspicious about the Savings and Loan Melt Down under Bush I, being followed by the Bank Melt Down under Bush II. Me thinks the banksters are hoping Jeb makes it into the Senate and the White House not long after.

It would be nice if we could reign government back under control without all the usual controversies and finger pointing.

Great observation.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 



Got that right. Obama doesn't want to be sitting in front of that same panel 4 or 8 years from now, trying to explain things that happened while he had the reins of command.


I wouldn't blame in for dismissing it on those grounds. Of course that would be suggestive that he might not actually get it right moving forward!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This is a poor decision on Obama's part. This is a plethora of evidence to indicate a full investigation is warranted. If the results of a real investigation indicate charges should be brought, then charges should be brought, without regard to who the accused happens to be.

"Because the President does it, it is not illegal" is a bankrupt legal philosophy, and is beneath the dignity of the United States. It is reminiscent of your basic third-world dictatorship.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I basically agree with the reasons stated as to why he likely wasn't for it.

(1). If things don't work out he doesn't want to find himself sitting in front of one in 4 to 8 years.

(2). He (and all of the admin & congress) really need to focus their energies to fixing the mess at hand and not be distracted. Doing it at the present time would be a distraction to fixing the current mess. Its possible he may be more open to it when things smooth out a little provided he doesn't worry about (1) above.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler



The fact is, this is nothing more than a bunch of ultra partisan people who want to imprison those who they disagree with. There isn't a prominent right wing voice who isn't dealing with the same sort of discrimination.


I sure will not disagree with you there. Though I am a bit suspicious about the Savings and Loan Melt Down under Bush I, being followed by the Bank Melt Down under Bush II. Me thinks the banksters are hoping Jeb makes it into the Senate and the White House not long after.

It would be nice if we could reign government back under control without all the usual controversies and finger pointing.

Great observation.


You may want to look at Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc.... and how Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were forced to make bad loans to high risk customers, and the role this played. You can't throw this mess in Bush's lap. Even Clinton was concerned about it.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 



This is a poor decision on Obama's part. This is a plethora of evidence to indicate a full investigation is warranted.


The underlying reality is that the only way the people will ever determine if Barrack Obama is not 4 more years of George W. Bush is to accurately define the Bush Presidency both good and bad to use as that yardstick.




"Because the President does it, it is not illegal" is a bankrupt legal philosophy, and is beneath the dignity of the United States. It is reminiscent of your basic third-world dictatorship.


The amazing thing is in this statement is that the people don't much care when the economy is good enough for it to be a first-world dictatorship. When the economy gets bad enough for it to be a third-world dictatorship people do suddenly care!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



You may want to look at Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc.... and how Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were forced to make bad loans to high risk customers, and the role this played. You can't throw this mess in Bush's lap. Even Clinton was concerned about it.


Honestly I don't believe their are two independent parties and Bush and McCain back in the early 1990's were very concerned about the Fannie and Freddie and the Sub Prime Markets that were basically extensions of Clinton economic policy adopted by the Bush team.

Clearly some notable Republicans had concerns yet despite a Republican Congress and White House were unable to get the job done.

Who really runs the country? The Banksters? The Politicians? Or the Citizens?

Ultimately the only way you are going to expose the Banksters control is by peeling away the protective layers of politicians that hide their machinations.

Whether high enough ranking politicians would risk the Banksters wrath to divulge fully is something that remains to be seen, but I can't imagine a politician coming clean without threat of loosing something significant and tangible if he doesn't come clean.

My question really is, is Obama protecting Bush, himself or the Banksters or all three?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The amazing thing is in this statement is that the people don't much care when the economy is good enough for it to be a first-world dictatorship. When the economy gets bad enough for it to be a third-world dictatorship people do suddenly care!


"people" might not much care. I, however, do. My stance on this has not varied based on the whims of the economy or who the current criminal happens to be.

If there is evidence to indicate the commision of criminal acts, that evidence should be pursued. The nature of an individual crime may argue against the cost of actual prosecution, a fact with which I do not agree, but of which I understand the reality.

War Crimes, as is the case here, are worth pursuing. Always.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
If he's not hot on it, then he is complicit. As are we all. End of story.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 



"people" might not much care. I, however, do. My stance on this has not varied based on the whims of the economy or who the current criminal happens to be.


It's why I took the time to post the article for people that do care. Clearly not a whole lot of people do including the media and including the new President who in many ways came to office pointing fingers but hardly has a disparaging thing to say once there.




If there is evidence to indicate the commision of criminal acts, that evidence should be pursued. The nature of an individual crime may argue against the cost of actual prosecution, a fact with which I do not agree, but of which I understand the reality.


I agree it should be and the only way you are ever going to rein big government in and make it honest is be inspecting what you expect and making it replete with rewards and punishments.

Why we ignore the first rule of business, to inspect what you expect when it comes to the business of government seems a bit suspect in my humble oppinion.




War Crimes, as is the case here, are worth pursuing. Always.


I suspect some of these crimes border on treason and sedition too.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



If he's not hot on it, then he is complicit. As are we all. End of story.


I am trying not to be complicit. It's why I post articles like this and write my Senators and Congress People.

It's not much but if people passed it forward...



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Right now it's a question of priorities. We need to be focusing our time and resources on much more important issues than what Bush did while he was in office, like the current economic crisis. And I daresay if you ask a growing population of folks who have just been laid off their jobs as to which one they think is more important, they would agree that the economy needs to be the main focus right now.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   


We need to be focusing our time and resources on much more important issues than what Bush did while he was in office, like the current economic crisis.


Fiar enough sos37 but here is an interesting question for you. What if there exists within the government thanks to Bush or previous President's but none the less utilized by Bush a mechanism that defeats any effort on the current Administrations part to solve the economic crisis.

What if the only way to ferret out and correct this problem within the system is by investigating the system and who ran it and how.

What if because that same mechanism is still entrenched a little lower down the ranks within government makes what ever effort Obama makes to kick start and save the economy just throwing good money after bad.

If that were the case would it not make sense to see what in fact was broken before you proclaim you are and can fix it?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88

President Obama’s response to Leahy was dismissive and to the point. “I would rather just move forward and get it right this time”


Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because he knows its a witch hunt based on nothing but political theater. He doesn't want to have to be in the same position after 4 years of having to repeat Bush policies.

The fact is, this is nothing more than a bunch of ultra partisan people who want to imprison those who they disagree with. There isn't a prominent right wing voice who isn't dealing with the same sort of discrimination.


His policy was dreadful - if BUSH or DICK were regular men they would be in the slammer.

RIGHT WING voices earned it - calling me and my people UNAMERICAN - they are lucky I don't come across some of them, if I didn't have more self control I would be for bagging them and clubbing them onto feeding tubes.

You reap what you sow - thats why I couldn't sow what I would like 2.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 



His policy was dreadful - if BUSH or DICK were regular men they would be in the slammer.


I tend to agree though it would likely be the first if not one of the first times UNICORE stock holders actually personally added to the bottom line!

Where does it leave regular men though, when their are no exceptional men to champion our interests?

Perplexing and disturbing events. Thanks for the post.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
A lot of good points in this thread for and against.

The thing is., I don't think Congress needs Obama's permission or support to go ahead with this truth commission. If they need to make a law, they may need him, but do they need Obama to form a commission and start an investigation?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



If they need to make a law, they may need him, but do they need Obama to form a commission and start an investigation?


I don't think they need him to start an investigation but the White House could certainly hamstring an investigation where documents from the White House or under the current President's control need to be looked at or on matters were National Security or Executive Privelage might come in to play.

I am just basing this on assumption though, but it seems to me like a lot of what they might need to do and need to look at has just as much to do with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the former one.

Thanks for the post.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join