Pardon Bush And Cheney?
It seems counter-intuitive in the wake of the release of the torture report, but no less than the executive director of the ACLU suggests it.
I have come to think that President Obama should issue pardons, after all — because it may be the only way to establish, once and for all, that torture is illegal. . .An explicit pardon would lay down a marker, signaling to those considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted.
Mr. Obama could pardon George J. Tenet for authorizing torture at the C.I.A.’s black sites overseas, Donald H. Rumsfeld for authorizing the use of torture at the Guantánamo Bay prison, David S. Addington, John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee for crafting the legal cover for torture, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for overseeing it all.
The basic idea is that if we are not going to prosecute these folks, pardoning them is the best way to establish that what they did is illegal.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
Budda December 9th, 2014 at 13:37
No, we should prosecute them.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 13:47
Guantanamo awaits…their own special engraved water board. Too
Budda December 9th, 2014 at 14:37
No, we should prosecute them.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 14:47
Guantanamo awaits…their own special engraved water board. Too
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 13:38
“The basic idea is that if we are not going to prosecute these folks, pardoning them is the best way to establish that what they did is illegal.” The basic idea is flawed. If Obama, or any future President, won’t bring these war criminals to trial, what use is the admission that they committed illegal acts in office?
Stuart Shapiro December 9th, 2014 at 13:44
I am sympathetic to this view but in the longer run, a pardon could be used as a precedent in later cases, or in cases before international tribunals. And if future executives know that, it could affect their decision-making.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 13:47
Milhouse
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 13:59
So, if Obama won’t entertain an indictment, knowing what he knows, and now is made public in this report, why would he even pardon them? If a pardon is a tacit admission of acknowledging their guilt, why use a half measure?
Stuart Shapiro December 9th, 2014 at 14:01
Good question. But sometimes half steps are easier to take than full ones.
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 14:32
True, but it seems our President has no stomach for even that.
Stuart Shapiro December 9th, 2014 at 14:03
To be honest, the biggest problem I have with this approach is the message it would send. Even if the intent is a good one, it would be interpeted by many as official condoning of torture, even more so than doing nothing has been.
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 14:35
Yes, that could be. I don’t suppose that the other half measure of “Reconciliation”, similar to South Africa’s official process of the recognition of apartheid, hearings would get anywhere, either.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 13:46
Wait for them to step foot off US soil and execute arrest warrants from The Hague
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 13:57
They are already avoiding that by not leaving the U.S.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 14:21
You noticed too?
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 14:06
You sound like the antithesis of Ted Cruz! “Let’s impeach Obama! Benghazi! Benghazi!”
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 14:38
“The basic idea is that if we are not going to prosecute these folks, pardoning them is the best way to establish that what they did is illegal.” The basic idea is flawed. If Obama, or any future President, won’t bring these war criminals to trial, what use is the admission that they committed illegal acts in office?
Stuart Shapiro December 9th, 2014 at 14:44
I am sympathetic to this view but in the longer run, a pardon could be used as a precedent in later cases, or in cases before international tribunals. And if future executives know that, it could affect their decision-making.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 14:47
Milhouse
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 14:59
So, if Obama won’t entertain an indictment, knowing what he knows, and now is made public in this report, why would he even pardon them? If a pardon is a tacit admission of acknowledging their guilt, why use a half measure?
Stuart Shapiro December 9th, 2014 at 15:01
Good question. But sometimes half steps are easier to take than full ones.
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 15:32
True, but it seems our President has no stomach for even that.
Stuart Shapiro December 9th, 2014 at 15:03
To be honest, the biggest problem I have with this approach is the message it would send. Even if the intent is a good one, it would be interpeted by many as official condoning of torture, even more so than doing nothing has been.
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 15:35
Yes, that could be. I don’t suppose that the other half measure of “Reconciliation”, similar to South Africa’s official process of the recognition of apartheid, hearings would get anywhere, either.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 14:46
Wait for them to step foot off US soil and execute arrest warrants from The Hague
tiredoftea December 9th, 2014 at 14:57
They are already avoiding that by not leaving the U.S.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 15:21
You noticed too?
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 15:06
You sound like the antithesis of Ted Cruz! “Let’s impeach Obama! Benghazi! Benghazi!”
jstsmlbrlcnsrvtvguy December 9th, 2014 at 13:45
pardon ’em just for torture?…9-11?…Iraq?…other/all? They seemingly have gotten away with things so far… but pardons?? …don’t think so.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 13:45
How about 3 one way tickets for Moe Larry and Curley to the Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity.
jstsmlbrlcnsrvtvguy December 9th, 2014 at 14:45
pardon ’em just for torture?…9-11?…Iraq?…other/all? They seemingly have gotten away with things so far… but pardons?? …don’t think so.
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 14:45
How about 3 one way tickets for Moe Larry and Curley to the Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 13:58
Poor Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. All that water. He must have been so afraid. Maybe even more afraid than those that met their deaths in the 9/11 attacks that he masterminded.
Bunya December 9th, 2014 at 14:19
You don’t know that. All you know is what Dubya and the Dickster wanted you to know. The 9/11 attack was their springboard to unending wealth by starting an unnecessary, costly war. A war that war benefitted no one but George Bush and Dick Cheney.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 14:35
Lol! Oh the lovely conspiracy theories are alive and well at both radical ends of the political spectrum.
Carla Akins December 9th, 2014 at 14:38
No, a conspiracy theory would be that Bush & Cheney planned the 911 attack, not that they took advantage of it for personal gain.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 14:41
That’s what I thought was being referenced. My mistake if that was not the case.
crc3 December 9th, 2014 at 14:57
Add Rice…Rove and Rumsfeld to that list…
Anomaly 100 December 9th, 2014 at 14:31
It’s more than that.
https://twitter.com/mcurryfelidae07/status/542387511184465920
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 14:38
You all are so ungrateful for the many, many American lives that the CIA has saved over the many years. Maybe they got a little rough, but not even close to ramming planes into buildings and killing thousands.
Anomaly 100 December 9th, 2014 at 14:53
I don’t lick the CIA’s nasty boots. I can’t stand that murderous organization.
raincheck December 9th, 2014 at 16:25
STFU
Carla Akins December 9th, 2014 at 14:37
It’s not about him, it’s about us. We are better than this, we were built on the higher road principal – and we need to find our way back. Part of that is owning our bad behavior, being accountable and held responsible.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 14:40
We were built on nothing higher than the times: hence slavery. We are only as good as what the majority can stomach. And if at the time that meant using hardcore tactics to stop another terrorist attack, so be it.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 15:11
why didn’t they stop the first attack…they wanted an attack and a reason for war
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 15:45
yes, and President Obama and Hillary Clinton told troops to stand down in Benghazi, right? See? You sound like them.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 15:48
such fucking nonsense from you. I am done with ttrolls like you. Biush even destroyed evidence in 2006
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 15:58
I am no troll. I frequent this site daily and post often. I despise teabaggers and am a huge fan of President Obama. But I must say that I am in quite disagreement with you guys when it comes to this topic and Ferguson. Maybe I believe in consequences for your actions… you mastermind a terrorist attack, don’t expect me to defend you. You attack a cop, don’t expect me to defend you.
Tommy6860 December 9th, 2014 at 17:58
The easiest way to justify these heinous acts is through sheer simplistic nationalism, which goes against anything remotely like your namesake here. Torturing foreigners is not who we are and it isn’t as simple as teaching a lesson or protecting American lives. We are not the world unto ourselves. If I have to expound on that farther, you are not worth the time.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 14:58
Poor Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. All that water. He must have been so afraid. Maybe even more afraid than those that met their deaths in the 9/11 attacks that he masterminded.
Bunya December 9th, 2014 at 15:19
You don’t know that. All you know is what Dubya and the Dickster wanted you to know. The 9/11 attack was their springboard to unending wealth by starting an unnecessary, costly war. A war that war benefitted no one but George Bush and Dick Cheney.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 15:35
Lol! Oh the lovely conspiracy theories are alive and well at both radical ends of the political spectrum.
Carla Akins December 9th, 2014 at 15:38
No, a conspiracy theory would be that Bush & Cheney planned the 911 attack, not that they took advantage of it for personal gain.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 15:41
That’s what I thought was being referenced. My mistake if that was not the case.
crc3 December 9th, 2014 at 15:57
Add Rice…Rove and Rumsfeld to that list…
Anomaly 100 December 9th, 2014 at 15:31
It’s more than that.
https://twitter.com/mcurryfelidae07/status/542387511184465920
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 15:38
You all are so ungrateful for the many, many American lives that the CIA has saved over the many years. Maybe they got a little rough, but not even close to ramming planes into buildings and killing thousands.
Anomaly 100 December 9th, 2014 at 15:53
I don’t lick the CIA’s nasty boots. I can’t stand that murderous organization.
raincheck December 9th, 2014 at 17:25
STFU
Carla Akins December 9th, 2014 at 15:37
It’s not about him, it’s about us. We are better than this, we were built on the higher road principal – and we need to find our way back. Part of that is owning our bad behavior, being accountable and held responsible.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 15:40
We were built on nothing higher than the times: hence slavery. We are only as good as what the majority can stomach. And if at the time that meant using hardcore tactics to stop another terrorist attack, so be it.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 16:11
why didn’t they stop the first attack…they wanted an attack and a reason for war
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 16:45
yes, and President Obama and Hillary Clinton told troops to stand down in Benghazi, right? See? You sound like them.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 16:48
such fucking nonsense from you. I am done with ttrolls like you. Biush even destroyed evidence in 2006
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 16:58
I am no troll. I frequent this site daily and post often. I despise teabaggers and am a huge fan of President Obama. But I must say that I am in quite disagreement with you guys when it comes to this topic and Ferguson. Maybe I believe in consequences for your actions… you mastermind a terrorist attack, don’t expect me to defend you. You attack a cop, don’t expect me to defend you.
Tommy6860 December 9th, 2014 at 18:58
The easiest way to justify these heinous acts is through sheer simplistic nationalism, which goes against anything remotely like your namesake here. Torturing foreigners is not who we are and it isn’t as simple as teaching a lesson or protecting American lives. We are not the world unto ourselves. If I have to expound on that farther, you are not worth the time.
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 14:22
Plus, Obama issuing a pardon to Bush and Cheney sets the precedent for the next President to issue a pardon for him — or don’t the papers include the procedures for him using drones to kill American citizens overseas without due process?
Bunya December 9th, 2014 at 14:26
Hah! The GOP won’t go after him for drone strikes. They love that sort of stuff. No, they’ll have to wait until he does something really, REALLY, impeachment worthy, like leaving the toilet seat up in the oval office.
Carla Akins December 9th, 2014 at 14:35
You’re not wrong.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 15:10
terrorists who killed Americans
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 15:57
Yes. But still citizens, with rights afforded them under the Constitution.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 15:59
terrorists who declared war against America and killed Americans. They could not be captured so they were killed, period.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 16:00
So you’d rather Guantanamo be drone struck, then? Just no torture, right?
edmeyer_able December 10th, 2014 at 08:14
You still don’t get it do you, once the combatant is captured the level of violence used against them is suppose to decrease.
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 16:15
And, oh, how much that sounds like white police officers saying they couldn’t subdue and arrest the black suspect, so they used deadly force.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 16:27
nonsense and you know it
edmeyer_able December 10th, 2014 at 07:54
Sorry RJ you really jumped the shark w/that one.
edmeyer_able December 9th, 2014 at 16:04
Not when they take up arms against us in a foreign country. Not accusing you of this but it’s laughable listening to some rail against the use of drones against Americans yet defend the lack of indictments handed down by some of the grand juries.
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 16:14
Yes, even then. Even when committing treason, you get a trial.
arc99 December 9th, 2014 at 16:46
The Constitution does not restrict the right of trial to citizens and I sure do not remember conservatives demanding that surviving 9/11 conspirators be provided a trial in public courts.
Note the words “all crimes”. It does not say “all crimes if committed by a citizen”
Article 3 Section 2
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 16:58
It doesn’t have to say that. The constitution itself applies only to US citizens.
Tommy6860 December 9th, 2014 at 17:11
That’s not true. The Constitution is only specific to US citizens in the cases of voting or holding federal offices, otherwise they have Constitutional rights. There’s nothing else other than the two I listed, that is spelled out specifically limiting rights to US citizens only.
arc99 December 9th, 2014 at 19:44
Precisely.
It is rather sobering that otherwise reasonable conservatives are as clueless about the Constitution as their more extreme ideological bretheren.
Tommy6860 December 9th, 2014 at 19:54
Yea true, but R.J. is a good guy and I like him here. I know a few libs who are off the rails as well and I challenge them too. But yes, being informed and making statements should be done with at least some certainty. Having said that, I fail in that from time to time. In any case, here’s an easily read explanation in PDF form, and page six puts it succinctly, countering R.J.’s claim.
arc99 December 9th, 2014 at 19:43
You are completely wrong. The US Constitution applies to all people unless the article or amendment as written explicitly says otherwise.
By your rationale, legal immigrants have no first amendment rights, or second amendment rights, or eighth amendment rights. That is absurd.
Read the 14th amendment. It clearly distinguishes between those protections reserved for citizens and those protections available to all persons.
Or read American case law such as Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973). That case was filed by a Mexican citizen who contested a drug conviction based on 4th amendment protections. He won.
My goodness, conservatives have a great deal to learn when it comes to the US Constitution.
Jack E Raynbeau December 12th, 2014 at 20:07
The right to a fair trial. They didn’t seem to want that.
Cosmic_Surfer December 16th, 2014 at 09:31
Al-Awiki’s son was no terrorist. He didn’t even know his father – he last say him about age 5. He wanted to meet him once before his father died. The kid, 14 yrs old was slaughtered in an Ice Cream shop with 3 friends. He did nothing. The Obama administration’s response when asked why they killed a 14 yr old kid who posed no threat, was in no way radical, and was in no way acting illegally by any stretch of the imagination…”he should have had a better father.” (Charlie Gibbs for Barack Obama)
tracey marie December 16th, 2014 at 11:36
og please, you are now pretending an innocent was never killed during wartime and Obama is correct, the terrorist father should have been a better parent.
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 15:22
Plus, Obama issuing a pardon to Bush and Cheney sets the precedent for the next President to issue a pardon for him — or don’t the papers include the procedures for him using drones to kill American citizens overseas without due process?
Bunya December 9th, 2014 at 15:26
Hah! The GOP won’t go after him for drone strikes. They love that sort of stuff. No, they’ll have to wait until he does something really, REALLY, impeachment worthy, like leaving the toilet seat up in the oval office.
Carla Akins December 9th, 2014 at 15:35
You’re not wrong.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 16:10
terrorists who killed Americans
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 16:57
Yes. But still citizens, with rights afforded them under the Constitution.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 16:59
terrorists who declared war against America and killed Americans. They could not be captured so they were killed, period.
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 17:00
So you’d rather Guantanamo be drone struck, then? Just no torture, right?
edmeyer_able December 10th, 2014 at 09:14
You still don’t get it do you, once the combatant is captured the level of violence used against them is suppose to decrease.
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 17:15
And, oh, how much that sounds like white police officers saying they couldn’t subdue and arrest the black suspect, so they used deadly force.
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 17:27
nonsense and you know it
edmeyer_able December 10th, 2014 at 08:54
Sorry RJ you really jumped the shark w/that one.
edmeyer_able December 9th, 2014 at 17:04
Not when they take up arms against us in a foreign country. Not accusing you of this but it’s laughable listening to some rail against the use of drones against Americans yet defend the lack of indictments handed down by some of the grand juries.
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 17:14
Yes, even then. Even when committing treason, you get a trial.
arc99 December 9th, 2014 at 17:46
The Constitution does not restrict the right of trial to citizens and I sure do not remember conservatives demanding that surviving 9/11 conspirators be provided a trial in public courts.
Note the words “all crimes”. It does not say “all crimes if committed by a citizen”
Article 3 Section 2
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
R.J. Carter December 9th, 2014 at 17:58
It doesn’t have to say that. The constitution itself applies only to US citizens.
Tommy6860 December 9th, 2014 at 18:11
That’s not true. The Constitution is only specific to US citizens in the cases of voting or holding federal offices, otherwise they have Constitutional rights. There’s nothing else other than the two I listed, that is spelled out specifically limiting rights to US citizens only.
arc99 December 9th, 2014 at 20:44
Precisely.
It is rather sobering that otherwise reasonable conservatives are as clueless about the Constitution as their more extreme ideological bretheren.
Tommy6860 December 9th, 2014 at 20:54
Yea true, but R.J. is a good guy and I like him here. I know a few libs who are off the rails as well and I challenge them too. But yes, being informed and making statements should be done with at least some certainty. Having said that, I fail in that from time to time. In any case, here’s an easily read explanation in PDF form, and page six puts it succinctly, countering R.J.’s claim.
arc99 December 9th, 2014 at 20:43
You are completely wrong. The US Constitution applies to all people unless the article or amendment as written explicitly says otherwise.
By your rationale, legal immigrants have no first amendment rights, or second amendment rights, or eighth amendment rights. That is absurd.
Read the 14th amendment. It clearly distinguishes between those protections reserved for citizens and those protections available to all persons.
Or read American case law such as Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973). That case was filed by a Mexican citizen who contested a drug conviction based on 4th amendment protections. He won.
My goodness, conservatives have a great deal to learn when it comes to the US Constitution.
Jack E Raynbeau December 12th, 2014 at 21:07
The right to a fair trial. They didn’t seem to want that.
Cosmic_Surfer December 16th, 2014 at 10:31
Al-Awiki’s son was no terrorist. He didn’t even know his father – he last say him about age 5. He wanted to meet him once before his father died. The kid, 14 yrs old was slaughtered in an Ice Cream shop with 3 friends. He did nothing. The Obama administration’s response when asked why they killed a 14 yr old kid who posed no threat, was in no way radical, and was in no way acting illegally by any stretch of the imagination…”he should have had a better father.” (Charlie Gibbs for Barack Obama)
tracey marie December 16th, 2014 at 12:36
og please, you are now pretending an innocent was never killed during wartime and Obama is correct, the terrorist father should have been a better parent.
Bunya December 9th, 2014 at 14:25
Imagine this. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ, and the Bush Administration is “pardoned” for their involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, warrantless wiretapping, and a whole host of other illegal activity. Unfortunately, I see this happening. Is it any wonder the U.S. is the laughingstock of the whole world?
Bunya December 9th, 2014 at 15:25
Imagine this. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ, and the Bush Administration is “pardoned” for their involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, warrantless wiretapping, and a whole host of other illegal activity. Unfortunately, I see this happening. Is it any wonder the U.S. is the laughingstock of the whole world?
mea_mark December 9th, 2014 at 14:27
I would like to see a public admittance that what they did was wrong in exchange for a pardon. If they don’t admit they were wrong then hold a trial and they can take their chances.
crc3 December 9th, 2014 at 14:53
They will never admit they did anything wrong because they are a bunch of cowards…
Dwendt44 December 9th, 2014 at 18:36
And dishonest as can be.
mea_mark December 9th, 2014 at 15:27
I would like to see a public admittance that what they did was wrong in exchange for a pardon. If they don’t admit they were wrong then hold a trial and they can take their chances.
crc3 December 9th, 2014 at 15:53
They will never admit they did anything wrong because they are a bunch of cowards…
Dwendt44 December 9th, 2014 at 19:36
And dishonest as can be.
edmeyer_able December 9th, 2014 at 14:32
Why the F is it that cons are pardoned and progressives impeached or threatened with it?
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 14:35
Like Nixon, huh?!
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 15:09
nixon quit and WAS a theif
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 15:12
He was facing conviction upon impeachment ….that is a big difference..he could have done jail time and the conazis know that
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 15:13
I know, he was a theiof and was allowed to slink away. Reagan should have been thrown in jail for Iran contra
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 15:16
His alzheimers was already setting in
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 15:17
so what, he should be held accountable, even now
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 15:22
He should have been
burqa December 9th, 2014 at 17:07
That’s the price we paid for electing Bush Sr., who was up to his eyeballs in it all. But then he went and pardoned all the honchos and crashed the economy.
That worked out nicely for them because Superstar Bill Clinton had a narrow majority in the House and a tie in the Senate and was so occupied with yet another Republican economic mess, the country couldn’t handle a couple years of hearings and increased partisan rancor.
Same thing happened to President Obama when he took office.
burqa December 9th, 2014 at 17:03
Yeah, Nixon quit like Roberto Duran vs. Sugar Ray Leonard. He left a slug-like slime trail behind him the last time he boarded Marine One……
whatthe46 December 9th, 2014 at 18:00
uh… wrong.
edmeyer_able December 9th, 2014 at 15:32
Why the F is it that cons are pardoned and progressives impeached or threatened with it?
rational_thinking_one December 9th, 2014 at 15:35
Like Nixon, huh?!
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 16:09
nixon quit and WAS a theif
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 16:12
He was facing conviction upon impeachment ….that is a big difference..he could have done jail time and the conazis know that
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 16:13
I know, he was a theiof and was allowed to slink away. Reagan should have been thrown in jail for Iran contra
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 16:16
His alzheimers was already setting in
tracey marie December 9th, 2014 at 16:17
so what, he should be held accountable, even now
rg9rts December 9th, 2014 at 16:22
He should have been
burqa December 9th, 2014 at 18:07
That’s the price we paid for electing Bush Sr., who was up to his eyeballs in it all. But then he went and pardoned all the honchos and crashed the economy.
That worked out nicely for them because Superstar Bill Clinton had a narrow majority in the House and a tie in the Senate and was so occupied with yet another Republican economic mess, the country couldn’t handle a couple years of hearings and increased partisan rancor.
Same thing happened to President Obama when he took office.
burqa December 9th, 2014 at 18:03
Yeah, Nixon quit like Roberto Duran vs. Sugar Ray Leonard. He left a slug-like slime trail behind him the last time he boarded Marine One……
whatthe46 December 9th, 2014 at 19:00
uh… wrong.
crc3 December 9th, 2014 at 14:51
No way…no how should they be pardoned. First of all they took us to war in Iraq and Afghanistan (Iraq based on lies). They basically stopped looking for OBL then they pulled thousands of troops out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. They ordered illegal torture of prisoners Then W gave tax cuts to the rich. The deficit exploded. The housing market imploded. The stock market crashed. Unemployment soared upwards as manufacturing companies went belly up by the thousands. Anyone else want to add to this?
crc3 December 9th, 2014 at 15:51
No way…no how should they be pardoned. First of all they took us to war in Iraq and Afghanistan (Iraq based on lies). They basically stopped looking for OBL then they pulled thousands of troops out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. They ordered illegal torture of prisoners. Then W gave tax cuts to the rich. The deficit exploded. The housing market imploded. The stock market crashed. Unemployment soared upwards as manufacturing companies went belly up by the thousands. Anyone else want to add to this?