I have not personally been in favor of going after a previous administration for what could be construed as just poor decision making or bad politics but this guy lays it out in a pretty harsh way what went down over the past 8 years: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/19/cafferty.bush.administration/index.html
I'm all for it, maybe in doing so we'll find out that the democrats esp ms pelosi knew exactly what was going on and approved it and it will distract the congress from passing socialist legislation or taking over anymore of the economy.
Terry....most of the time you refrain from brash/rash generalizations so I am going to ask you what you think of this article. It encapsulates just about every criticism of the Bush administration's doings probably like no other diatribe I have read by any journalist. Is this article all unsubstantiated bluster in your opinion? If you answer please be a little specific and only make statements you know to be true. Also....how does Cafferty usually stand on issues? Moderate....far left....far right....etc...?
Ah yes, the minute that a top Democrat starts catching heat it's time to distract attention to the Bush administration. Clinton replaced US attorneys, they are at will appointees. All presidents have raised executive privilege. It's the best way to shut down politically motivated witch hunts by a hostile congress. Then there's the "attempted to get his personal atty. appointed to the Supreme Court." Just like LBJ did. As far as I'm concerned if he felt his appointee was the best qualified it's far better than appointing someone because they are a woman, hispanic, or any other reason other than "best qualified." Cafferty is a complete a hole.
I love it. Cafferty is a whack job from way back. I remember when he used to chase Curtis Sliwa and the Guardian Angels around New York streets when they were running their citizen patrols. At that time Cafferty was a beat reporter for a local news station and he was trying to make the case that that the GAs were being mean to muggers and thieves. The Libs like to pretend that the president is responsible for everything and that Congress ( which they almost always control ) sits by helplessly. Usually it is the other way around. Now Happy Jack wants to try and imprison Bush and Co. Great. If I was their defense attorney I would ask why Obama and Co. are waffling on their promised reversal of Bush's policies overseas if they are totally without merit and illegal.
Cafferty is a buffoon.....he is and has been an anti-Bush shrieker in the same camp as Begala and Olberman - all of whom have a national media stage and I suspect are all butt-buddies..... Reading the litany of "crimes" for which he believes prosecution of a past-president is justified, I shudder at the thought of his recommendation for Lincoln - for abolishing Habeas Corpus, Roosevelt - in direct and willful violation of the Neutrality Acts early in the war and how about for taking captive tens of thousands of US citizens of Japanese descent without due process or incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the firebombing raids over Germany and while we're at it saying a prayer and speaking the dreaded words Our Lord Jesus Christ during his fireside chats......wouldn't the lefties just go ape-sh!t if a sitting President actually spoke in those terms today? How about Truman for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese innocents during the firebombing campaigns over Japan and the atomic destruction of virtually the entire civilizations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?! This is absolute nut-house crazy thinking......this is what banana republics do after a change in power....they jail or murder or otherwise intimidate the opposition. This is what they do in Somalia or Nicaraugua or other similarly uncivilized societies, not the United States. One of the great things that has characterized this great society of ours is the peaceful transition of power for over 200 years - or until Al Gore decided to pi$$ all over the flag in his vain and foolish effort to gain power - a transition process that has set the standard for the world. Now this buffoon and others similarly mentally challenged want to destroy a great heritage and begin a slippery slope to an end that could quite possibly be unimaginably horrifying......THINK PEOPLE! Just because somebody says something that you might agree with does not mean it's a good f^^^ing idea!
Like I said....because of the reasons you list BT I personally don't agree with pursuing prosecution of past regimes any more than I agree with the litany of questionable actions taken by the Bush administration. I think the list put forth by Cafferty has merit but the best remedy is for the American voters to remember and not be misled by the "new GOP".
Merit for what? I defy you to name one administration in the history of this great country that the following administration of opposite party - could not develop a list of acts that they could argue - based upon their own inherent biases or philosophical differences in policy - justified criticism/rebuke/prosecution or whatever. One....just name one!?
BT, Add Bill Clinton for his bombing of the Chinese embassy in Bosnia(?), his bombing of the aspirin facory in the mid east or his abandinement of the troops in Mogadishu.
Krebsie, I would also add treason for his "sales" of nuclear secrets to the Chinese.....as we look back on history for the significant power shifts in geopolitics and their causes, I would submit that Clinton's compliance or at best incompetence in addressing Chinese treachery and the pilfering of our nuclear secrets will be one of the greatest debacles in history of world affairs.......in so doing, he stepped on our collective crank with thermo-nuclear boots! The free world may never recover......and anything that the lefties argue that the Bush administration may have done absolutely PALES in comparison to the lasting damage done by giving the Chi-coms the keys to our nuclear secrets.....it ain't even close.
The merit of the list for me gets down to the trust factor. I have never trusted the actions of the Bush administration were always above board and able to withstand closer scrutiny. I realize there is some executive privilege rolled into some of those decisions but still....I have always suspected right or wrong that Cheney had more to do with the goings on than he should have......and that is probably evidenced by his unwillingness it seems to step out of the limelight now.
BT, Let's not forget Clinton's active dismantling of our intelligence community. He and Hillary( the co-president ) often spoke of their desire to do away with the CIA. I have often thought that their total disdain for the intelligence community played a large part in 9.11.
So Dave.... You say it is about a 'trust' factor... so are you saying that the list of 'great' US Presidents put forth by others do not gain your trust as well? Their 'crimes' (as defined by this writer) are at least as great, if not moreso, than those Bush is blamed for. Maybe, just maybe, you're wrong. You refused to see the Gore grab for power for what it really was... and we have seen that now play out in MN and other attempts before that. Yet somehow, that was all Bush's fault as well. The Democrats have shown an amazing ability to be vengeful and petty. They are always the ones screaming fire, but never held accountable when the truth is revealed that it was but a match... I say give them what they want. Full disclosure. Who knew what and when.. We've seen how that is playing out for Pelosi. She has officially burned the bridge between the CIA and Congress in an attempt to cover her own ass due to political posturing. Her handlers effed that up big time. The sad reality is... people still won't read the truth or hear it.. They are too busy listening to the person screaming FIRE the loudest. We've seen it play out countless times prior to, and after, the election.
This was a highly questionable turn of events in that election down in Florida with some unusual circumstances electing a President who did not win the popular vote and who needed a Sec. of State decision by Graham to tip the final Florida vote in his corner. I just don't see those events as a personal "power grab" by Gore. He had many....many supporters and media who questioned what happened in Florida.
What goes around comes around.....eventually. This smug, fascist approach by the liberal Dems someday will come back to bite them big time. I don't know when but it will come back around. Count on it. That's one of the coolest features of a democracy IMO.
You are right...supporters galore. One of the biggest mysteries to me in recent years is the inability (or interest) of the left to see exactly what that was. What Gore attempted to do just screamed "WRONG"...should have been obvious to anyone. I don't wish to rehash those old debates again...just to say that it absolutely boggles my mind that folks still perceive that incident the way you apparently do. Oh, well...different strokes for different folks. :wink:
....if I'm not mistaken, every state in the country has to have their state election results certified by the responsible elected authority in that respective state. In Florida's case, that individual in whom Florida voters gave the authority to was the Secretary of State. She did as she was asked, obligated and authorized to do by the citizens of Florida and legally certified the election results. Final....by law. The dark days in our nation's history that followed were precipitated entirely by the Gore camp and, imho, are responsible for much of the destructive partisanship we see evidenced today......
I'm pretty sure a couple of newspapers and/or other organizations got ahold of the ballots and they confirmed that Bush won in Fla. Fair and Square.
I don't know how you define 'unusual' but I just don't see that as true. John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes and Grover Cleveland didn't win the popular vote but won the Presidency. The Adams/Jackson election wasn't even decided by the Electoral College. It was decided by the House of Representatives. This isn't secret, or hidden, information. The fact that most Americans didn't know this is a damned shame. I am sure some of those reporters and journalists who clearly supported Gore knew the history. They ignored it to further their own agenda. Yet you still don't hold them accountable. You still point to W not having a majority of American voters. He lost the inconsequential popular vote 50,456,002 to 50,999,897. That 400k difference could be attributed to things such as organized labor voter fraud, ACORN etc.. but why bother? In the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter...or at least it shouldn't. Bill Clinton never received more than 50% of the popular vote and he received 44 and 47million votes in his two elections. While you may dismiss the importance of that, you should know that Clinton became the first US President to not receive more than 50% of the popular vote since Richard Nixon in 1968 (the Nixon-Humphry-Wallace election). If you want to talk about close elections... look no further than the election of JFK. He beat Richard Nixon in the popular vote 34,220,984 to 34,108,157 in 1960. So please don't try to tell me these close elections have never taken place before. It's also worthy to note that without Texas (LBJ's home state) 24 electoral college votes and Illinois (Richard Daley's machine) 27 votes, JFK doesn't win the 1960 election. That election was FAR more fishy than anything that had taken place since and while Nixon made private overtures and inquiries into an appeal, he didn't destroy the nation the way Al Gore did.
I think it has become fairly well accepted that the Daley machine and JFK's deep pocketed and well-connected Daddy - Joe Sr - bought the election and with LBJ's help in "inflating" the voter rolls in Texas communities. Also, that the Nixon camp was aware of the shenanigans but decided in the interest of the nation to take the noble route and not tear apart the country.......Gore did not.