Will Bush ever be accountable about Iraq, either holding himself accountable or being held accountable by an entity outside of himself? If so, when, and how?


IMO, Bush will never hold himself accountable and will never be held accountable for Iraq. No matter what happens in Iraq, he will serve out the rest of his term and go into retirement unaccountable. "Admit no wrong or mistakes" will be his motto for the rest of his term and for the rest of his life. And the Democrats will certainly make no attempt to impeach him should they take at least 1 house of Congress. We progressives who so want Bush held accountable will be left with nothing except for the grim satisfaction of seeing him and his war continue to go down in the polls, until finally Bush is out of office, and the US is out of Iraq. Perhaps, in the end, the failure of Bush's Iraq war will be the only form of accountability we will ever get.

I agree. Even if the House did impeach him, there's no way they'd get two-thirds of the Senate to vote for conviction, so why go through the exercise?

I would have to agree, and it is really sad. America is too apathetic to be really active, no matter what happens.
The MSM have shown us over and over again that their corporate interests are all that matter, Justice and Democracy be damned. Anti-War Protests are not important. Journalistic integrety be damned, always report with a right wing slant. Never ever question authority figures, no matter how heinous or awful the crimes of those in power.
Something is seriously wrong with this country.

I believe impeachment alone would be plenty.
The Impeachment investigation would seek truth and answers, and from these, hopefully, we would learn a few lessons and create legislation in an affort to prevent these mistakes in the future.

I doubt that putting them on trial, no matter how good retirbution here would feel, I don't believe this would serve the best interests of the people or the country. The prospect of trial though, could be held out as one very big stick, and if Bushco for what ever reason in what ever way should obvuscate the Impeachment Investigation, could be brought out to beat on them with.

I also doubt anyone in the Bush whitehouse really wants to go through trial, and would do nearly anything to avoid that.


So will Bush be help accountable? This depends on how you define being held accountable.
Go to prison? Highly, even extremely doubtful.
Have the hidden truths of his administration revealed to the world and history? At least in part, very likely.

People far smarter than I would have to weigh the effect that prosecuting Bush would have on the country. I doubt it will come to that. Tell you what does rankles my ass tho that should be prosecuted; we have a sitting vice-president blatently becoming obscenely wealthy by war profiteering. This was a serious crime in WW II, Harry Truman became famous prosecuting war profiteering. To make Cheney's crime even more obscene is that he actually started the war.

Once again I have to agree with Sooner.
Though I might offer him and his interests a deal.
One that would cost most of that illegal profit vs being very publicly prosecuted.

You have a rotting tooth in the mouthpiece for Democracy.

Do you anesthetize it and try to pretend that it does't exist ?

Do you try expensive micro-surgery to pinhole the problem and remove it without causing further damage, but knowing that maybe the rot is still there, and may come back harder and bigger and more vehement than before ?

Or do you grit your fists, bridle your gums, and rip the fucker out, steaming corrupt roots and all, then stem the flow of cleansing blood and dry your eyes. Let Human nature heal the gaping wound, and reflect on the merits of taking proper care and attention of the Mouthpiece of Democracy, and quit those "Beer and Pretzel" mindless distractions from the REAL issues of sanity and stability.

Hang the rotting tooth and its perverted roots up for all to see and reflect on the wisdom and integrity that lets rot like this take hold so deeply in what should be the clean, mint-fresh smell of a bountiful Democratic Mouthpiece.
The pain will be hard, but the long term benefits of tearing that sucker out will be worth it. Before the rest of the teeth rot and the solution is a hammer.


But make sure you get all the roots, because thats where the evil cancer lies. The tooth is just the visual avatar of the rot that is within.

Is competent dental care an option?

It isn't neccessary if its democratic...'cos its automatic !

I don't mind the shiny fascists squeaking around in their oiled jackboots on the clinic floor, because at least I can see them and keep an eye on them, and they balance nicely the far-left guerillas lurking behind the curtains, but what I don't like is being strapped into the chair by a Congress and a Justice system that I trusted by the moral strength of the Constitution, and then realising to my dismay that the fascists have corrupted the souls of the leaders and guiders and eaten the Justice systems balls for brunch, and doctor "Slippery" Dick is now peering down my throat with his rusty scalpel ready to do some dire deeds.....

Visual imagery, anyone ?

Jubal, you say you are a Constitutional Lawer, what do you REALLY think about the prosecution and pursuit of the Neo-Cons ? Looking at it from my end, I see only silver 44 Magnum bullets, garlic and wooden stakes as viable solutions, (or maybe anti-tank rockets JUST to make REALLY sure...) but I would like to think that there is some less-violent and more dignified legal way that these turkeys can be made to spend quality time with Bubba. Because lets be honest here, though they may have only lightly broken every law in the book, they are STILL as guilty as Hell....even if being a lying, twisted, manipulating, malicious son of a decadent bitch isn't yet a crime...
Please restore my faith that at least one Judge, and a handful of lawers in America haven't yet sold their souls to the Cheney, er, sorry, Devil...um, same thing, actually !

Here's lookin' atcha, kid !

Hmmm,

Last post posted 4 times, weird shit going on in the bowels of my computer...oh no !!

A complot !!

Karl Rove's comin' to get me !!!

Is it me (computer illiterate monkey..), is it a powerful NSA virus that crashed my computer a few weeks back, is it outer-space influence on my computer......



Actually, I hope it's just me. Paranoia is only nice when its being suffered by a Neo-Con....

Boss, the problem is there's no law against lying, twisting, manipulting or being a malicious son of a bitch (except in limited circumstances). The simple fact is that the administration has broken very few laws. I've said before the best case for getting at them is the warrantless wiretapping. There actually is a law against that.

But I think people don't understand an important point. There's no law against violating the Constitution. There's no law against corrupting the Geneva Conventions. There's no law against locking people up without Constitutional protections or habeas corpus. There's a world of difference between what the government may not do and what is a crime. In the first case, the only recourse is for the courts to declare the government action invalid. Nobody ever went to jail for segregated schools, or for coerced confessions, or for unConstitutional searches. Those things were just declared invalid and ordered stopped.

And that's the way it should be. I'm no more interested in living under a left-wing dictatorship than I am in living under a right-wing dictatorship. The law is (usually) not a tool to carry out private vengeance. And I like it that way. Even impeachment doesn't imprison the convicted President, it just removes him from office.

I would think that people who lived through the sham impeachment of President Clinton would be wary of using impeachment and criminal prosecution as a means of forwarding their political goals. Unfortunately, if this board is representative, I'd be wrong in thinking that.

but..but.. I know it's probably naive to think that Cheney hasn't immunized himself from any direct liability, but what about Halliburton generally? A quick search turned up the False Claims Act. Nothing there?
Is subjecting federal contracts to competitive bidding not the law? Not to mention that when he took office he claimed to have no ties to Halliburton when it's been shown that he receives millions from them each year.

Most of those claims have been resolved, and Halliburton has been "cleared" by DoD investigators. In some cases it gave back some money. Other companies, like Custer Battles, hav had to repay some money and lost their contracts.

Usually, the law is a poor instrument for private vengeance. If you want everyone to be held strictly to account for their actions, does that include convicting Bill Clinton of obstruction of justice? He clearly lied under oath to a Congressional investigation.

Its true, what you say, Jubal. Unfortunately.
But I just have this thing stuck in my throat over the PNAC pillaging the country and then slithering off on their carpet of gold and greenbacks to merrily pillage (with that unique Cheney-style smirk) elsewhere if the GOP and its pet shrub gets flushed down the Toilet of Power.

The attempted impeaching of Clinton for receiving a blowjob and unusual practices in the smoking of cigars, compared with the "Cry havoc and loose the dogs of war...!!" and subsequent Bushevik take-over of the USA and rape and pillage of The Constitution and the destruction of thousands of years of evolution towards Democracy, is a fart in the face of a hurricane. And a particularily small and insignificant forced fart, at that, that only left the faintest of stains.

The stain that Bushco and his Merry PNACers is leaving on the face of our Planet will be visible from light years away and will change the face of every living persons reality for the next thousand years or so (assuming we last that long with these fuckwits in power...) and I truly have some deeply angry feelings about these sly foxes slinking out of the coop carrying the hens, the eggs, and getting patted on the back by the farmer as they trot past....

I agree that impeachment is a negligible thing, but there HAS to be seen to be some sort of accountability for the acts committed, because, regardless of your own personal view points, what has happened to the USA in the last six years, and its knock-on "Shocking and Awful" effects on the World is the most appalling thing since Hitler seized power in 1934. The flags are different, but the beast is the same, only wearing three-pieces instead of storm-trooper black, and fronted by a chump (chimp?) instead of being led from the front by a nut....

Not to split hairs, but just for the record, Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a blow job. Four articles of impeachment were ultimately presented. And it wasn't a attempt to impeach, he was impeached, he just didn't leave office.

1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

House: Passed 228-206

2. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition.

House: Failed 229-205

3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case.

House: Passed 221-212

4. The president misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress.

House: Failed 285-148

I live in the great North West. An area most well known for it's trees, and logging.

Years ago environmentalist knew that destrustion of the forest eco-systems was wide spread and a serious concern to the quality of life in the Northwest, as well as the natural ordewr of things on the planet.

These very smart environmental lawyers knew they couldn't sue the Logging companies for destroying the eco-system. It was just to large a canvas to repaint with one brush. So, instead the picked what is called an indicator species, and the spotted owl became famous.

Would the loss of one species of owl mean death and destruction to us all? Clearly not. But, if the eco-system in which this bid lives is such that it cannot survive, then we are all in trouble.


Now, if the law in this case is applied in the same way. We might not indict the Bush Cabal for every nasty naughty thing they ever did, but if we picked a single aspect that had the strongest likelyhood of succeeding, with it we could smash the neo-cons forever.

Thanks for the clarifications, Captain. That'll help keep my facts in line.

But it was still about a blowjob. And in all seriousness, it was a fart in a storm. The global impression was one of disbelief at how stupid and prudish Americans could be, over a ridiculously insignificant affair, and how much money and effort they could waste over trivia, although the deeper connotations WERE clearly understood by all. The President and shining beacon of all that is America SHOULD be a better man than all, freed of the weakness and corruption that affects lesser men. Like JFK was.

And a President SHOULD NOT LIE UNDER OATH.
He shouldn't lie full stop.

I mean, imagine if Bill lied and started a war which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, destroyed countries and placed the World on the brink of a nuclear holocaust, then tore up the constitution, destroyed the American justice system and swaggered all over the Stars 'n Bars as he led his country into a fascist dictatorship.......

It was a good thing that he got nipped in the bud by Ken Starr before he could unleash Armaggedon.

Amazing how dangerous lying about a blowjob can be..........

Thank you, Jubal, for stating something very plainly and true that is often either not known or, if it is known, ignored with all the frenzied talk of impeaching or even criminally indicting Bush and other members of his administration. This should be posted in big, bold letters on every anti-Bush board. Everyone here needs to read this and understand it and accept it. It is that significant.

There are laws against public corruption, lying to congress, and violating civil rights. And once the investigations begin, criminal wrongdoing by the metric assload will turn up. It's true that many of these laws carry no penalties, but many of them do.

CSPAN won't have time to cover all the hearings even if they ignore the petty corruption and weak cases.

The biggest problem is with the public not holding the bastards accountable. I can't believe that anyone voted for a Bush after Iran-Contra, but go figure. If the public doesn't punish unconstitutional behavior at the polls, they really do get the government they deserve.

I agree that impeachment (and the law generally) should not be political tools. This is not about politics. This is about preventing future crimes.

The government should be held to high standards. And not just in relation to their sex lives. I think if Congress shows the world that the Bush Crime Family is corrupt from the ground up, it would help everyone including sane conservatives who want to take their party back.

I don't see a downside to investigations and public exposure of actual, substantial crimes and other misbehavior. Of course, Democrats always fuck things up and will likely shoot themselves in the foot. But I'm for justice always.

no





yes

Again, it depends on what YOU consider his being held accountable, is? ("you" being no one in perticular)

Some of us may consider that anything short of the rest of his life in Prison, is not being held fully accountable.
While others would consider simply having the man and his madness exposed to the world is enough.




Backing up a dozen posts.
Yes, Clinton was impeached for lying, not the Blowjob. We generally use the blow job in our conversations because it's accurately descriptive because in fact, that's what he lied about!

It is quite possible to impeach a President for lying. But as you will recall, Clinton was NOT prosecuted for lying!
Believe me, if they could have, they would have, no matter how much, or what it cost.

It really pissed me off at the time about Clinton and his nasty ways , but of course I now see how irrelevant his lies were to the nation. If Clinton can lie about a blow-job and get impeached, and Bush can lie about the road to Iraq War and NOT be impeached, then which lies matter and which do not matter (in matters of impeachment, that is)?

As far as perjury goes, correct me if I am mistaken Jubal, but a lie, is a lie, period.
Perjury doesn't come in degrees.

Though I do absolutely agree with the morality of your statement.
And though I didn't like that Clinton lied about his extra-martial excersizes,
I did like the idea that my president HAD a sexual life.
I assumed then that the man with his finger on one thing, is less likely to have a jittery thumb on the button.

I mean I don't know about you, but after sex, I don't really feel like fightin!

Hmmmm, interesting concept... I wonder if you'll give President Hillary that much latitude, but that's neither here nor there right now

The perjury issue is dubious when you wonder if the questions should have been asked of Clinton in the first place. I mean , at what point do we stop impeaching a president for non-Constitutional matters... when he steals cookies from the White House kitchen or what? Sex with an intern isn't the wisest of decisions on his part, but she was consentual , so the act itself was not criminal. And yet Bush/Cheney still walk free after lying to Congress about the intel to war, and can even carry and shoot a rifle, AT A MAN !

And those millions would not have been spent if Clinton had the courage to act like a man and admit up front that yep, he was horny, and I think we all would have moved on much sooner than we did had he done so.

As long as I can get the same latitude for lying to a courtroom, I have no problem with a president doing it. But somehow, I don't think thats the case. And besides, I don't really want that.

Investigations anyone? Sure, I'm down. I don't care what party that any scum sucking politician belongs to. Our government should be held to higher standards, just like the military. It isn't impossible to live up to those standards, I should know, I did it myself.

It's a sickening game they play on Capital Hill. They all think they are above the law, ALL OF THEM! Examples abound. I encourage everyone to go one step further in demanding accountability from the government. Instead of focusing on just the Republicans, lets focus on the entire government and let the chips fall where the may.

Would you even be ASKED the question in the first place, in a courtroom, like they asked Clinton? I doubt it.
Then every man in the United States would be asked in a non-divorce courtroom if he had an affair, and of course the majority of men are gonna commit perjury. So in that scenario, the only males in the United States who would NOT be in jail would be infants, children, and the disabled (and I'm not too sure about the latter ones! )

Yank, If you has said "People" instead of the sexist comment, I'd have been 100% behind your reply.
Women mess around just as much as men. Difference is they generally do it for different reasons.

You're absolutely right. By definition, a lie is a lie.


Of course, that has nothing to do with perjury. And it's only one of the ways you can get charged with obstruction of justice, which is what President Clinton was impeached for.

Yeah... doesn't it take 2?

True , it takes two to tango, BUT I was thinking more of MARRIED men as opposed to married women... c'mon sky, you gonna tell me wives mess around as much as husbands? I've got my flood-waders on now , so you can shovel as much as you want with the 'sexist' remarks (tee-hee )

But back to the original topic (how do we always end up talking about Clinton and sex? )

Do I want him to be held accountable > yes. Will the Dems do it > no. Will the grassroots push them to do it > yes. I think there will be such a noise that the Congress eventually will have to do it just to stop the noise.

Absolutely, and I challenge you to provide evidence otherwise.

Both mess around equally, though both do so for very different reasons.

Floodwaders (and now raingear with shower cap on)> will find links I wish there was some way to tie this in with Bush's accountability (if only Laura would write her tell-all book now)

Here's one link :

http://www.dearpeggy.com/statistics.html

"Most experts do consider the 'educated guess' that at the present time some 50 to 65 percent of husbands and 45 to 55 percent of wives become extramaritally involved by the age of 40 to be a relatively sound and reasonable one."

50 to 65 percent of husbands and 45 to 55 percent of Wives.

That's a statistical dead heat.
It's also possible that when asked, men might be more inclined to reveal this truth.
It might be more socially acceptable, or at least expected of them.

sky, if that was the Congress, it would be red right now And do you really want me to dig out links on who lies more? male politicians comes to mind