Originally Posted By Mr X Okay, so I'm watching this guy, more and more and more with my mouth agape at what he's going on camera and admitting to. He is practically daring the DOJ to come after him. He even implicated Bush directly yesterday! And I just don't get it. He's a shrewd, probably brilliant guy who knows how to protect himself and he's simply not bothering to do it. After watching his EXTREMELY labored breathing on a recent interview, however, it suddenly hit me. He is doing it ON PURPOSE, not as a "partisan" thing or anything of the sort. Quite the opposite. He's out to screw Bush over in revenge for? (perhaps the lack of a full pardon for Scooter? hardly seems enough) And the reason he couldn't care less about the implications against himself is because he must only have a short time left to live. Just a theory. Thoughts?
Originally Posted By Mr X I certainly don't disagree with that, but still..I would think he weasel like nature would demand self-preservation first and foremost. When all he has to do is shut up and sit on his pile of money for the rest of his life, why risk prison? Or does he consider that unthinkable? IS it unthinkable? (automatic Presidential pardon or something? revolution?) I guess my point is, what does he hope to gain from this?
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo He isn't going to prison, neither is Bush, neither anyone else. Take Rove, he basically told a Senate Hearing committee to "buzz off" when he simply no-showed a hearing. He didn't even give advance notice nor a reason for not coming other than, "screw them." Keep the fires lit, these guys are above reproach. They have armies of lawyers and any case would take so long to pan out that it's pretty much just boils down to a bunch of dirty laundry being aired. If we all ignore it, it will go away. If it keeps getting press, it will just go on not unlike a food fight at your local YMCA summer camp for youth. IMHO, who cares.
Originally Posted By Mr X So, accountability isn't an important thing for ya DVC? If Cheney states next week that Bush KILLED a guy, with his bare hands, right in the oval office, you'd say "oh well. above reproach.". I don't get that.
Originally Posted By Labuda Chris, Some of us still care about how screwed over the country was during the last administration and would like to see them pay for it, though they likely never will.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo We can look back or look forward. I'll let the powers that be, people who can do something about the past 8 years handle that. I'm looking forward. So far, I've been impressed with a lot, and disappointed with a lot.
Originally Posted By Labuda Chris, I totally get why you want to look forward, but let's not forget that famous statement "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
Originally Posted By Mr X Anyone notice that former Nazi prison guard JUST got extradited back to Germany to face trial? I suppose those Germans ought just have looked forward, and not worry about the criminal activities of their leaders or those who carried out nefarious orders. <--shrugs
Originally Posted By Labuda Yep, saw that yesterday, Mr X. And that made me quites happy. I'm also DARNED glad that the Supreme Court decided NOT to intervene and stop that man from being deported. 89 years old or not - a war criminal is a war criminal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You know, I argued that really we should look forward, and move on from all of this stuff. But with Cheney out there now saying that President Bush signed off on this stuff, and questions on who knew what and when, I'm starting to see why so many people argued against what I was saying. I may have been 100% wrong. These are fundamental questions of security, ethics, national character that we really need to understand and be clear about, one way or another. If, as Cheney says, waterboarding and "enhanced" techniques truly saved lives and was of some value, we need to know that. And it can't be from off-the-record anecdotes or wishful thinking. So perhaps hearings and a full investigation is the way to go. And if we are going to allow these techniques, we the people have to have a say in that. It can't be on the whim of whatever administration is in charge at any given time, there can't be "wiggle room." And there has to be clear lines drawn so that we al know how far we will, or will not go, in the name of national security. Further, if members of congress knew about these techniques yet want to pretend to be outraged about it now as the political winds have shifted, we need to know that as well.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo It is all a "you can't handle the truth" mentality I suppose. What can I personally do about it? Nada.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not quite nada. If you think there ought to be congressional hearings, you can write or call your congressman and tell him/her so. If you think Congress ought to stay out of it and leave it to DOJ, you can tell him/her that. If you think there should be no investigation whatsoever, you can even tell him/her that. Congressmen do respond to constituent pressure, at least sometimes.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It is all a "you can't handle the truth" mentality I suppose.<< Perhaps. But I think I can handle the truth, if only we could ever get down to it. If the only way to ensure that the US can survive is through "enhanced" interrogation techniques, that is a philosophical question that we need to truly consider and take a stand on, so that we can stop with believing we are some higher minded, more evolved civilization. If the rule of the jungle is still the rule, why pretend it isn't? And without knowing if these techniques truly yield solid, actionable intelligence or if it's just a way to get back at those who want to harm us, it's a critical distinction we cannot make.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo I agree with post 15 100%. Well said K2man. So how do we get to what is the real "truth?" I don't think we can. The press certainly isn't going to get us there, which used to be at one time a great way to get to the bottom of things. But somewhere along the way, the media went to heck in a hand basket. They are so busy shouting "hooray for our side" that we are almost unable to get to the truth, which always lies somewhere in between.
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo Of course that doesn't mean we should give up. Maybe I WILL write my congress.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They are so busy shouting "hooray for our side" that we are almost unable to get to the truth, which always lies somewhere in between.<< Sadly, that's true. I have always been afraid that congressional hearings would include a great deal of showboating and grandstanding rather than zeroing in on the actual facts of the matter. It's part of the reason I wasn't in favor of them. But I don't know how in the world to get at the real truth of the matter any other way. At a minimum, it would let us know who in fact approved all of this stuff, or who at least knew it was going on. If someone is now pretending they didn't know a thing about it, or want to say "Well, I approved it but I didn't think we'd actually use it" that's something voters can react to. I know this is a total about-face for me. But I'm a confused moderate, so it's to be expected.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< But I don't know how in the world to get at the real truth of the matter any other way. At a minimum, it would let us know who in fact approved all of this stuff, or who at least knew it was going on. If someone is now pretending they didn't know a thing about it, or want to say "Well, I approved it but I didn't think we'd actually use it" that's something voters can react to. >>> If you really wanted to get at the truth, you'd do something similar to what South Africa did after the fall of apartheid: they had a Truth & Reconciliation Commission. Anyone involved in atrocities or other wrongdoing was offered blanket immunity from prosecution, but only if they came forward and made truthful declarations to the commission, including during a hearing if applicable. Those that lied about what they did or had substantial omissions in their declarations where liable for prosecution, and with everyone else being offered immunity for simply telling what happened it was almost certain that anyone lying would be caught. This was all done in the spirit of "let's look forward and not back" in that nobody was prosecuted (unless they lied or failed to disclose). But, it was important at the time that what happened was accurately recorded in the historical record so that it didn't happen again.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Truth is nebulous, but facts are immutable. Appoint a special prosecutor, take it out of the partisan hothouse, and give this prosecutor subpeoana power over official documents and individuals. And most of the facts are known already. Conservatives don't want to proceed because they fear - rightly - that the resulting report will be damaging to the republican party. Oh well, that's called accountability. And cheney's motives - despite what rush says - are an attempt to protect himself from criminal investigation and/or prosecution. And just look at the arguments he's making in his own behalf - that it was necessary, it was justified, it worked, and it was not possible to acheive these desired results any other way. Still think we didn't torture? But if we never convict anybody, we still need to know exactly what happened and who's responsible. Who could possibly argue anything different?
