Advice For Conservatives
Tweet
If you don’t want your conservative friends to go to jail for crimes – any kind of crimes, including war crimes – don’t engage in them or support politicians who do. Hyperventilating after the deed is done does you no good. Considering the criminal activity sanctioned by the White House over the last 7 years, I would think Obama would be negligent if one of his first activities as president wasn’t to do a top to bottom review of what crimes were committed by the Bushies. Surely as they reveled in the creation of Karl Rove’s “permanent majority” they never thought that an unfriendly administration would be on the way so soon. But the voters have a way of derailing the best laid plans.
What cons don’t understand, but liberals, moderates, and others do is that when an election is over, the role of government is not to ensure your party wins more elections but to actually govern. By their standards work like the Truman Committee – which uncovered graft by contractors in wartime – would be “aiding the terrorists”. Normal people see it as “running the country” in an appropriate manner.
46 Responses to “Advice For Conservatives”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I would certainly like to see a real investigation into the criminal activities in the executive branch. But I don’t think it would really happen.
Bush will issue enough pardons to make the whole thing moot. And if he doesn’t the right will raise such a ruckus about actually being held accountable (take a drink every time someone says “Partisan witch hunt”) that no progress will be made on anything else. It just isn’t politically feasible for Obama to actually do a real investigation and act on it.
Did you read the comments on that site? With not even the remotest sense of irony do those retards start talking about fear of too much presidential power, freedom, and criminalization of dissent.
Apparently, conservatives are not only bankrupt of principles or integrity, but also self-awareness.
Yeah, conservatvies have been cracking down on dissent.
I forgot to add an eye roll.
And what liberals don’t understand is that we conservatives already know what it is to have liberals “govern”. We saw it in 1993 and 1994, and then the liberals were tossed out of Congress; and we, in Illinois, see what it is like to have liberals govern this state. Which is why it has gotten much worse since they became the majority, and a liberal crook infested the governor’s mansion (at least when he shows up to do work).
Doubt Obama will spearhead any investigation of the previous administration–he would probably see it as inhibiting the unity and healing he wants. Fortunately we have Conyers, Wexler, and others. THAT’S where I’ll be looking for action.
It will be a simple process for Bush to get off: just admit what he did, and Obama will probably issue a pardon on the spot. But instead, Bush will pardon everyone below him, they’ll lose the ability to plead the 5th (no prosecution possible means no possibility of self-incrimination,) but they’ll still stonewall, and Bush’s image will be sullied further down the sewer pipe. It will be drawn out, eventually some witnesses will get sick of being detained (contempt of court can lead to long times sitting around in a cell) and talk, and all will be revealed. And it will all be avoidable if Bush just fesses up and admits that yes, he authorized torture of Muslims. That’s his legacy, like it or not. If he owns up to it, then all his other fuckups can be looked at. If he doesn’t, he’s probably getting locked up.
And of course, the commenters on that site are promising riots in the street. Sounds like fun. Thanks, Bush. You aren’t only a fucking idiot, but you are their god.
If Oliver had noticed, the Truman Committee did nothing with regard to military conduct during the war.
This is Obama saying he’ll investigate the Bush administration for war crimes which is outrageous. Anybody who wanted one of those ‘radical’ Obama proposals, this would be exhibit A.
“By their standards work like the Truman Committee – which uncovered graft by contractors in wartime – would be “aiding the terrorists”.”
Pure supposition and completely dishonest. As Jay said, the Truman Commitee was to uncover corruption and profiteering. War Crimes are a completely different question.
If you win, however, prosecute away. I would love to see what happens.
Respectfully,
The Squid
“It will be a simple process for Bush to get off: just admit what he did, and Obama will probably issue a pardon on the spot.”
Yes the all forgiving Lightworker Obama will bestow his pardon upon even the most horricif creatures.
Jon you are willfully ingoring the clamor on the Left for Bush’s head if you think that the Moonbat wing will let Bush off the hook if he just “admitted it”.
Poo Poo Jay. The Bush administration has been hands in and instrumental in covering a whole slew of activity from torture to contractor fraud. Not to mention the politization of nearly every bureau and department of the federal government. Which covers ground from propaganda to politically motivated prosecutions.
If you think a democratic administration should be allowed to behave as the Bush administration has speak up for it now. You can advocate the position that the president and anyone he gives the nod to can refuse to cooperate with congress on any investigation. They can refuse to answer supeonas, they can refuse to hand over evidence, they can refuse to keep records, they can freely destroy evidence, and if, somehow, someone is prosecuted, they can be pardoned. ANd above all, they can be allowed to circumvent all laws and the constitution whenever they feel like by claiming “national security”. They can tap your phone, read your mail and e-mail, and do it without any kind of check or supervision. Good luck with that.
To me investigating the Bush administration isn’t about revenge or prosecutions, its about restoring faith in the system, it’s about shining a flashlight onto eight years of unchecked authority. It’s about open government. It’s about letting future administrations know that the shredder should not be the first office tool of the US government. We know they have had secret unauthorized programs, they’ve been caught a few times. It would be naive to think there might not be others. Just what have they been doing, in our name, for the last 8 years?
“And of course, the commenters on that site are promising riots in the street. Sounds like fun. Thanks, Bush. You aren’t only a fucking idiot, but you are their god.”
Bush is far from a “god” to most of us. There would be displeasure because a war crimes trial would be the worst kind of regime change-style idiocy.
Oliver wrote:
Are you kidding me? Is this even a serious statement? How friggin’ naive are you, anyway?
“Yeah, conservatvies have been cracking down on dissent.”
Well, us “horricif” moonbats are not so sure about “conservatvies” when it comes to dissent but;
Kerry Supporters Arrested at Bush Rally Sue Law Enforcement
Kansas lawyer sues Bush after anti-war rally arrest
7 protesters arrested; ticketholders kept out
Apparently, wingnuts really are against all forms of tax. Even syntax.
“Not to mention the politization of nearly every bureau and department of the federal government.”
Come on, we are still prying out Clintonians from govt positions in every part of the govt. That is what happens when different branches change hands, lots folks get fired, new ones get hired.
Respectfully,
The Squid
This is Obama saying he’ll investigate the Bush administration for war crimes
Umm, no, dearie, that’s you saying this is Obama saying that. See, what Obama said was what he actually said. What you said is whiny bullshit. See? Big difference there.
But really, we know fraternity stunts war crimes were committed in Iraq. We know now that at least partially, key figures in the Bush admin lied about them and tried to cover them up. Why does it bother you so much that a future administration would want to punish people who broke the law? Because they’re Republicans? That’s really sad, but not exactly surprising from you.
Finally, it’s really a moot point anyway. The strategy here is is to start whining NOW that poor, poor criminal Bush admin is being persecuted by the mean ‘ol Democrats just because they, you know, broke loads of laws and committed atrocities against innocent people. Using the same rhetoric Jay is now, Bush will claim a “partisan attack” as an excuse to blanket-pardon his entire cabinet on January 19, and he’ll be regarded as a god by the same people who think Oliver North and Ronald Reagan are American heroes.
In addition to examination of possible war crimes, there are 2 things I want to see the Obama admin do upon accession to office:
1. Make a grand public show of taking out all the spying records garnered on Americans illegally and burning them. Or some other equally grand gesture letting people know that this crap is over and done with, and you citizens can feel secure in your persons again (to use a bit of Constitutional lingo).
2. Examine with a powerful microscope each and every civil service appointee put in place by the Bush admin everywhere, and the ones that view their oath of office as a fealty to the person of George Bush and the Republican party (which is, I expect, most of them) get pulled out root and branch. Bush and Rove have placed people all over the federal bureaucracy like little sabotage device, working feverishly to demonstrate that tautological belief that “government doesn’t work”, because they plan to make damn sure that’s the case. People who believe it is their job to use whatever resources of whatever agency they’re in to advance republican causes. People like:
– Lurita Doan, head of GSA, who used its resources to “help their candidates”
– George Deutsch, 23 yr old college dropout, put in charge of PR at NASA, who thought his job was not to promote space or science education but to “make the president look good”
– Monica Goodling, who said in Congress she thought her oath of office was to the president, not to the Constitution
… etc. etc. etc. No president, not even Andrew Jackson, has reached down as far into the permanent bureucracy as this one has. And the rot Bush has tried to introduce in this despicable manner must be expunged.
“Umm, no, dearie, that’s you saying this is Obama saying that. See, what Obama said was what he actually said. What you said is whiny bullshit. See? Big difference there.”
So investigating torture of prisoners is not a war crimes investigation. Sounds like nuance to me.
“… etc. etc. etc. No president, not even Andrew Jackson, has reached down as far into the permanent bureucracy as this one has. And the rot Bush has tried to introduce in this despicable manner must be expunged.”
This seems to be a misreading of history. Civil service “penetration” has been an issue for the entire scope of this nations existence. It was so bad the civil service reform was a major campaign issue for the entire period between the end of Reconstruction and the Spanish American War.
Respectfully,
The Squid
So investigating torture of prisoners is not a war crimes investigation.
Do you think it is? Then why do you object to it? Or think it would be a bad thing to do?
“liberals, moderates, and others [understand] that when an election is over, the role of government is not to ensure your party wins more elections but to actually govern.”
Yes, let’s see just how well those liberals, moderates, and others have done since the last election:
Gas: January ’07: $2.29
Today: $3.97
Unemployment: January ’07: 4.6%
Today: 5.5%
DOW: January ’07: 12,474
Today: 12,263
Man, those liberals and moderates sure know how to govern!!!
I like the part where you pretend that Bush hasn’t been president for 7 years or that Republicans have run the congress from 1994-2006.
“I like the part where you pretend that Bush hasn’t been president for 7 years or that Republicans have run the congress from 1994-2006.”
How about the government really has no effective power over the econoomy, except when it tries to (which leads to poor results generally).
“Do you think it is? Then why do you object to it? Or think it would be a bad thing to do?”
I think waterboarding is torture in principle, but there is nothing actually illegal. It is not a war crime. The Geneva Conventions provide no such protections for irregular, non uniformed forces. Is it wrong? Yes. Is GTMO wrong? Probably. War crime? Nope.
Respectfully,
The Squid
The Geneva Conventions provide no such protections for irregular, non uniformed forces.
The Geneva Convention covers EVERYONE, no exceptions, captured during wartime. If you believe that some categories of prisoners are not covered, quote the appropriate passage from the Convention to me in your response, which will not happen because you are wrong.
Only the Bush Administration (and some of its Kool-Ade drinking supporters) thinks that there are prisoners not covered under the Convention, even though we are a signatory to the Convention and had agreed with its provisions until Bush took office.
I like the part where you pretend that Bush still holds all the cards and calls all the shots.
Where on Earth could I have gotten such an idea? Hmmmmmm…...
The Geneva Convention covers EVERYONE, no exceptions, captured during wartime. If you believe that some categories of prisoners are not covered, quote the appropriate passage from the Convention to me in your response, which will not happen because you are wrong.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to Al Qaida and its members. There was a federal appeals court ruling about this in regard to the military tribunals the Bush administration established for Gitmo detainees.
Sorry, but I am mistaken. The Supreme Court overturned that decision. The Military Commissions Act is what came from that ruling.
And yet, Bush still called the shots for the vast majority of the last 7 years and we live with his policies today.
“How about the government really has no effective power over the econoomy,”
Really?
The government has no control over its budget? Over spending? Over our trade imbalance? Interest rates?
If you think that, then you must also believe that none of these things have an effect on the exchange value of the dollar against world currencies. Or that the value of the dollar has any relation to the state of the economy.
Fascinating.
Hey Farris,
Way back when gas was a buck and a half a gallon, your boy Bush said he would go “jawbone” the Saudis to open up the spigots.
How’d that work out?
He shoulda been “jawbone”-ing Kennedy, Clinton, Durbin, and all the other Democratics who are holding up domestic drilling.
The problem that Jay has is if you accept his evaluation at face value, it falls down flat because there is no independent process to challenge the unilateral decision of the US to categorize this prisoner or that prisoner as exempt from Geneva protections. That means that any signatory can declare anyone at any time to be exempt from protections simply by slapping a label on them and declaring them to be so.
For instance:
The US pays bounties for prisoners turned over as terrorists. The US in no way verifies or establishes the prisoner as a terrorist itself, but instead relies on the word of the bounty hunter. This has led to prisoners mistreated that turn out to be innocent and turned in simply for the money or personal motives of the bounty hunter.
There is no appeals process and no way to challenge the arbitrary classification. Without it, accepting Jay’s interpretation, the US faces the potential of (and reality of) breaking the conventions by torturing or mistreating civilians and other prisoners of war.
“The Geneva Convention covers EVERYONE, no exceptions, captured during wartime. If you believe that some categories of prisoners are not covered, quote the appropriate passage from the Convention to me in your response, which will not happen because you are wrong.”
The persons at GTMO are not considered prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention. The also nullify their status as civilians under the 4th Geneva Convention.
The commentary on the existence of an intemediate status is a little contradictory but this seems very telling:
“If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered “unlawful” or “unprivileged” combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.”
For the record, I support closing GTMO.
Respectfully,
The Squid
Why would anyone object to that? Doesn’t say anything about war crimes. Any of that would be up to the Hague, anyway. We’re talking about criminality at the White House. If there is shown to be willful criminal acts, those responsible need to be held to account, regardless of party.
Tell me what is wrong with that?
“This seems to be a misreading of history. Civil service “penetration” has been an issue for the entire scope of this nations existence. It was so bad the civil service reform was a major campaign issue for the entire period between the end of Reconstruction and the Spanish American War.”
Squid – let us restrict ourselves to stuff within at least my grandparents’ lifetimes, shall we? A misreading of history? How so? Because you say so? Please point out where any president in the last half-century at least has done more than Bush to insure that the civil services are staffed with incompetents who place loyalty to party over loyalty to country.
Congrats, Reinhard. Comment #10,000.
“How so? Because you say so? Please point out where any president in the last half-century at least has done more than Bush to insure that the civil services are staffed with incompetents who place loyalty to party over loyalty to country.”
You still have yet to prove that this is the case. I can not discount something not verified by anything but your own opinion. Are you able to divine the compitency of those who fill civil service positions in each area of government?
You must bo prolific.
Your argument about the age of my reference is as shallow as Oliver criticising McCain for referenceing Carter. My point was that this problem has been ongoing since the begining of the Republic.
Respectfully,
The Squid
Suid,
Interesting that you would quote the International Committee of the Red Cross. Let me quote them a little more, since you seem to value that source.
“Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.”
My emphasis.
Repack,
Exactly, that was this part.
“The commentary on the existence of an intemediate status is a little contradictory”
I believe that they are from two different opinions, but I cant be sure right now.
As I said before, from a moral standpoint, I support ending waterboarding and closing GTMO, however, I am of the opinion that it is legal.
Respectfully,
The Squid
Why does everyone keep feeding the trolls?
I wonder how opening up ANWR and other places to drilling will result in a magical increase in our production capacity, which is currently working its ass off to make all the gas and diesel it can. I also wonder why the ability to go into the area and get the right to drill would immediately make oil companies want to drill right away as soon as they find any oil. What we’d be doing is allowing companies to explore and make claims on oil fields, not giving them a mandate to start drilling. If I owned an oil company and had that deal, sure I’d be glad to be able to go in and make claims. But I sure as hell wouldn’t see much value in immediate drilling. Oil’s going to get more valuable, not less. Having a future supply, especially if tankers will soon be able to travel throughout the Arctic since all the ice is melting and getting to it will be easier in the future anyhow, would be enough incentive to not start immediate drilling.
In the meantime, the oil in the ground belongs to the American people. If we really think that right now is a good time to let it belong to oil companies to sell to us later, then go ahead and open up ANWR. But if you understand basic math, economics, future needs, our dependence on oil, and the fact that Alaska will still be there in the coming decades, I can strongly advocate doing nothing with our oil.
Squid – I already listed three specific examples in my initial post in this thread. Let me know how many more you require for you deem the matter statistically significant.
Reenhard,
I would imagine more than 3 individuals would be required to make a statistic trend. But I will do some more digging and let you know what I find, deal? Initial response still holds however.
Respectfully,
The Squid
SaveFarris: “He shoulda been “jawbone”-ing Kennedy, Clinton, Durbin, and all the other Democratics who are holding up domestic drilling.”
There’s not enough oil in all of American to change the supply / demand chart. The only way to drop oil prices at this point is to reduce demand. This means finding alternate energy sources or reducing demand. Simple as that.
Farris, in English: “So what if Bush went begging to the Saudis and they made him their punk. Ted Kennedy!!”