I received an e-mail today from Sen. Leahy's office thanking me for my signature on the petition to establish a Truth Commission to reveal as much as possible about Bush and Bush Administration activities. This is coming about because of how much he/they did that has such a strong odor of legal and/or moral malfeasance and turpitude. Along with the thanks was a further plea to assist collecting additional signatures (he makes it sound like for some reason the magic number is 50,000 of which he now has 35,000).
My thought was simply post here with a general request and directing others to the web site. This immediately raised the usual assertion that such issues or problems were water over the dam (hmmm...or is it water under the bridge? lol) and isn't it therefore time to "move on?"
My thought on that: This "move on" insistence has passed from the realm of the occasional need to review common sense to a tactic too quickly and too often invoked by people looking to escape scrutiny, revelation and ultimately and most importantly, accountability. In more cases than not these days this "move on" business seems not like a healing process but a guarantee of trouble to down the line. Lessons not learned, responsibility not taken, problems swept under the rug. An avoidance to judge. A license to allow bad behavior and grievances to go unattended and unresolved.
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they may say.
Healing or Increasing Toxicity?
Authored by: annikee on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 04:05 PM GMT+4
The "get over it' crowd is mostly comprised of the anti-impeachment crowd. I say expose it to the light, if there's not a vampire lurking, it won't hurt them. It's too important, and has been from the start, as an example. No questionable crap should be "gotten over".
---
"I have words in here & I'm not afraid to use them!"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 07:57 PM GMT+4
Interesting how Leahey was all in favor of not looking into any of Clinton's "Crap", (Most notably his pardons of Mark Rich and Susan McDougal) but he's now got pitchforks at the ready with many on the left screaming "Get Bush!, Get Bush"!!!
It’s comical if it were not so sad. I know you folks on the left need to keep that old Bush ghost alive, keep the fear happening, keep people scared and off guard so they can rip this country apart with the kind of nonsense Leahey and the whole screaming leftist nut cases seem to thrive on.
Where is Susan McDougal? She spent almost four years in jail for contempt of court protecting the Clinton's from prosecution after getting full immunity from a senate investigative committee.
I know the left lives by a double standard as does the right. It's a real shame there is no real desire to come together under the purpose of making this nation great. It does not take a rocket scientist to see Barry O-Pimpa is just destroying this country every day. I guess it's all about what one calls great.
I guess Leahey just wants to rip this nation apart. too as does all on the left. It’s a real shame.
I'm glad I didn't vote for Barry or Leahey. He is a real embarrassment to VT and Barry head Pimp in charge is a real pox on this nation.
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 09:41 PM GMT+4
***keep the fear happening***
Come on! The conservative right tried to create a new American Reich using fear, keeping people scared and off guard. It was all they had.
But I don't think you've been paying attention. Leahy isn't getting out the pitchforks, unfortunately. In fact he's looking for truth and reconciliatino. He's talking about giving people immunity just so we can finally get some truth out of this administration of violent criminals.
I'm for the pitchforks, though. I'd like to see those thugs thrown in jail. Maybe Guantanamo. They can even have a trial in, oh, a decade or so.
***I guess Leahey just wants to rip this nation apart.***
Are you saying Americans can't handle the truth? You have little faith in us.
***I'm glad I didn't vote for Barry or Leahey.***
Anachronisms vote? ;-)
Authored by: vtstream on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 11:11 PM GMT+4
Once again Righteo you are so very right!
"you folks on the left need to keep that old Bush ghost alive, keep the fear happening, keep people scared and off guard so they can rip this country apart"
That is exactly what Bush did.
And that is EXACTLY why Leahy is doing the right thing.
Authored by: annikee on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 11:36 PM GMT+4
And I find it funny- rehashing our original statements about Bush that were true, and substituting Obama's name/"you lefties" in place. It reminds me of when kids are being brats in the schoolyard and run out of what to use as insults. And end up with, "Well, so are you and your whole family!" stuff. Very funny, not very impressive.
---
"I have words in here & I'm not afraid to use them!"
Authored by: SJD on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 12:28 AM GMT+4
Perhaps with this reasoning, based on wishful conclusions of many classified unknowns; the financial welfare bailout of folks who didn't pay their bills, read a contract or mishandled money should be included in the "lessons not learned category"!
Since BO is carrying on many former security polices including wiretapping, this could be rather awkward. Nobody has any evidence that any wiretaps took place under Bush other than for reasons of monitoring terrorists to disrupt their plans. The far left wants to believe otherwise just because they WANT to believe otherwise. Any investigation will also lead back into the Clinton days. Bush said Saddam had WMD. Clinton said Saddam had WMD. Bush used the CIA rendition program. Clinton started the CIA rendition program. Bush went to war in Iraq. Clinton launched attacks against Iraq, and also made the policy of the USA toward Iraq one of regime change with the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Otherwise it's not cut and dry like some think it should be. I very much doubt this will gain much more then a cursory 9/11 type commission rehash if it happens at all. We are not a Latin America style banana republic that takes up (arms) against prior administrations, where would it end?
On another thought, remember In 1987, Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Moammar Gaddhafi. Leaky Leahy's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy of the time. Otherwise I'm not all that comfortable with this fellow becoming rather arrogant about intelligent matters for he should have spent some jail time for his mistake.
---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 12:46 AM GMT+4
***The far left wants to believe otherwise just because they WANT to believe otherwise.***
I don't think you know a thing about the left. Almost everyone, right or left, except the Neocons knows that it doesn't matter who they were spying on - the government shouldn't be in the business of spying on its citizens without any kind of oversight. Perhaps you "WANT" to believe the government would never abuse its unchecked power, but don't expect the rest of us to be so gullible.
Authored by: SJD on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 09:55 AM GMT+4
I could care less if anyone is monitoring calls or e-mail traffic from profiled elements that want to harm us. One of the government and the President's duty is to protect all US citizens, -whatever it takes. Ask this hypothetical; if a conversation from a foreign operative about a biological release in NYC was not monitored because of privacy rights and that biological release killed 100,000. Would then feel proud to have privacy rights. No one is saying that anyone is monitoring normal Americans doing normal things here, it's always been foreign originated activity to and from here, otherwise international.. Maybe you should be thankful that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 because folks have done what it takes to keep you and I safe.
---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
Authored by: Maus Anon E on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 11:29 AM GMT+4
***I could care less if anyone is monitoring calls or e-mail traffic from profiled elements that want to harm us.***
I think this is the problem - you miss the point completely. Nobody cares if the government monitors people who intend to harm us. But the one or two people in the government shouldn't be defining the limits of "harm" in secret. To put it in terms you can understand, do you want Obama to have the power to spy on people who intend to harm us by opposing his policies if it suits his priorities? Because that's what "warrantless wiretapping" could lead to. When there's no oversight, you can't be confident of what it is they're doing, or why.
I might trust Obama (but I bet you don't) not to spy on Americans, but trust isn't enough. "Trust but verify," as a infamous person once said. Then we can all be confident.
You can't put that kind of power in the hands of one man - or even on branch of government, as far as I'm concerned.
If the administration can't justify their spying, after the fact, and in a secret courth, then obviously they're just doing something they shouldn't be.
The rest of your post is a good argument for surveilance with a warrant, to which virtually no one objects.
Authored by: imhennessy on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 07:15 PM GMT+4
Iran-Contra leak?
Where I come from ( that would be Vermont) giving the public the heads up about criminal activity is a good thing. A quick search shows has the New York Times (you may now scream about the Liberal Mainstream Media) reporting the he leaked an unclassified draft of a report on the Iran-Contra scandal.
And a lot of second hand reports, could not track down a primary source, that he let the cat out of the bag on a plan to stage a coup in , or institute regime change in , or just plain over throw the government of, Libya.
I'm not really a big fan of those sort of things. In theory, they are great. I'm all for killing a dozen of their people instead of a couple hundred thousand of theirs and a several thousand of ours, The only problem is that we consistently pick total bastards to take over from the bastards.
So, on that one, eh, it seems like the right call to try to keep the US from swaggering around the world knocking over everyone's furniture and kicking sand in people's faces.
---
"I have words in here & I'm not afraid to use them!"