Biden rips Bush Admin, says charges are 'On the table'.

[General Zod]

Everyone does realize that there are a fair number of functional democracies out there where the political leaders have complete immunity from prosecution for actions committed during their term in office, yes? This idea isn't unique and has been written into several constitutions.

How many of those countries have access to the same resources and military power that the US does?

[Ender]

The fact that tax cuts increased income is a proven fact. Sorry about that.

And when Clinton raised taxes on the rich, the economy got better. Does that count as proof that raising taxes on the rich is good ? Or does correlation mean causality only when it makes Republicans look good ?

While the effect of across the board tax cuts has been grossly overstated and the broad policies based on that idea discredited by most economists, research and empirical evidence does show that certain taxes, when cut, do trigger growth. Try reading The macroeconomics of fiscal policy by Richard W Kopcke, Geoffrey M B Tootell, and Robert K Triest which covers it. Or keep trying to apply an overly simplistic black-white world-view to a large topic. Whatever.

[Ender]

Everyone does realize that there are a fair number of functional democracies out there where the political leaders have complete immunity from prosecution for actions committed during their term in office, yes? This idea isn't unique and has been written into several constitutions.

How many of those countries have access to the same resources and military power that the US does?

Why exactly would that matter? "You are able to project a great deal of power in foreign policy, therefore we have to be extra careful in ensuring your domestic policy is above the board" does not exactly track.

[General Zod]

Why exactly would that matter? "You are able to project a great deal of power in foreign policy, therefore we have to be extra careful in ensuring your domestic policy is above the board" does not exactly track.

It matters in the sense that having access to a greater array of resources makes their power easier to abuse without sufficient checks in place.

[Stuart]

Who says party politics are being criminalized here? There are specific actions that by a reading of current status are already illegal and they should not be investigated or prosecuted just because they were done by an elite clique within one of the two biggest parties?

You are. You are stating that in your opinion, the actions in question were illegal. The White house lawyers disagree with you. The difference really boils down to one of party politics. Do yous eriously believe that if the same actions had taken place under a Democrat administration, teh Democrat party would be so hot to prosecute? This is simply using a dispute over policy as an excuse for criminal action.

Your own position gives anyone who gets into the executive branch carte blanche to do whatever they want whenever they want and as long as they just keep stonewalling, refusing to answer to Congress and producing memo after memo after memo of whatever tortured semantics-whoring they decide to come up with and nobody can do shit to them. Assuming of course that their own party has enough numbers to keep the government permanently gridlocked and holding ranks together.

What I am actually saying is that letting this matter drop is the lesser of two evils. The cost of running this prsoecution far ouytweighs any nebulous gains that might be made.

That's a far more damaging course of action over the long term. By your own reasoning in this thread, the Watergate investigation should never have happened and Nixon should never have been called to account for his shit.

Red herring. The Nixon affair was an impeachment investigation, during Nixon's term of office and it was bipartisan. Youa re proposing a post-office criminal prosecution staged along party lines to serve party interests

In many other places, there would already be blood on the streets.

Which goes to prove we are much more civilized.

It's because Clinton Lied under Oath. Bush took the noble route and refused to be questioned under oath period. Also, he started a war by lying. But he wasn't under oath, so it's cool.

Once again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Clinton lied under oath as his response to a properly-constituted impeachment proceding. That's perjury and its a felony. The subpoenas from the committee were not part of any constituted official inquiry and were a blatant fishing expedition (Pelosi admitted as much). The White House lawyers gave as their opinion that they were invalid and of no legal force. So, no offense was committed.

The classic case is the "Bush started a war by lying" phrase. If you tried to present that in court as a charge, you would be laughed out of the building. That's the problem, it sounds good here because almost everybody more or less agrees with you and nobody takes that absurdity apart. A thought for you, this is the first thread in a very long time here where anybody has really sat down and challenged the orthodox viewpoint. Like most communities, mine included, this one has a very narrow, self-validating focus where the "Bush lied, people died" meme goes unchallenged. Anywhere it doesn't, your reply is 'wipe that crap from your mind - remember." In fact Bush didn't lie and he didn't start the war. You go and visit communites with a wide variety of viewpoints - as I do - and you'll find out why.

So Clinton was acquitted. . .does that mean that any politician has carte blanche to lie under oath now? Frankly I don't buy the "acquittal means it's okay!1!!!" kneejerking.

You should. Think about this. Clinton was acquitted because it was determined that the specific statement he made was not a lie. Therefore he was innocent If Bush is hauled up in court on a charge that he broke X law and is acquitted, it means that the act was not such that it broke teh law therefore any future acts of the same sort also do not contravene the law.

Your analogy would hold true if you'd stated that Clinton could now make the same statement again under oath since it has already been ruled that the statement was true.

Because they are spineless cowards.

No, because they were intelligent enough to realize they couldn't possibly make it stick and trying and failing would be a political disaster.

If Stuart is so worried about the long term effects of trying to hold the Bush Administration to account, perhaps he should consider the long term effects of turning the President into what amounts to a King by another name. Someone who can order anything, and ignore both the restrictions and punishments of the law.

It's not a question of holding anybody to account, its a question of establishing a principle where disagreeing with the ruling party is a criminal offense. Now, that's a state that makes having a King look good. The basic flaw in your statement is your presumption that Bush is guilty of the offenses you allege - and that such offenses actually exist. I accept you believe that, you probably believe it in good faith, bit to get a conviction you'd have to prove it in a court. And you'd have to convince everybody, including the twelve people on the jury that you were right. It would only need one person not to be convinced and your case is dead. You really think you are going to get that with a jury where statistically four members are likely to believe this is a cheap bit of political pay-back by a group of sore losers who couldn't even win an election against George Bush?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You may hate him for saying it, but Stuart does have one key point--no jury in the United States will ever convict Bush, so the consequence of bringing the case to trial will be either an acquittal or a hung jury. If you're a foreigner, feel free to hate America over it, and if you're a native, feel free to hate your fellow countrymen, but I'll win the powerball and contact space aliens before a President is committed of crimes commissioned while in office.

[Ender]

Why exactly would that matter? "You are able to project a great deal of power in foreign policy, therefore we have to be extra careful in ensuring your domestic policy is above the board" does not exactly track.

It matters in the sense that having access to a greater array of resources makes their power easier to abuse without sufficient checks in place.

So, "Because you can abuse your power abroad, we have to make sure we can recall you if you do anything wrong domestically"? Again, this doesn't track. Abuses of power abroad are prevented by the international community getting fed up and dragging you in front of the world court, or putting enough sanctions into place that the domestic situation decays to the point where the population initiates a recall. Protection from prosecution WRT foreign policy is largely a null issue because bombing the heck out of Thirdworldizastan is generally outside the jurisdiction of anyone inside the country and because there aren't really laws to limit it in the first place. Again, ability to project power abroad and domestic policy are pretty much separate spheres, so while there are many valid arguments about protection from prosecution, this isn't one of them.

[Ender]

Fuck it, Chrome's typing issues are making my posts pretty incomprehensible both while typing and in preview. I'm just saying that the fact that you have 2 bombers or 87 billion bombers really has nothing to do with how you handle bugging the hotel room your opposing party is in.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Notice that a nuclear power, France, is one of the countries where Parliamentarians are completely immune from prosecution (as-is the French President) for acts carried out during their terms in office, precisely to prevent politically motivated trials against them.

[Covenant]

Isn't that beyond what's necessary though?

While it could make sense to say they're immune to prosecution for acts carried out because of their office, I don't see why it would make sense to give them blanket immunity from the law. I assume there's some kind of distinction, right? The French President couldn't drive through a crowded shopping mall with a tank and avoid any legal entanglements at all, could they? I don't see what benefit can there be to that. Despite the fact that political trials are legal and often threatened in the US, we sure don't see many and they don't cause too much distraction, so it's not like you're saving people from a lot of bloat.

Isn't the threat of prosecution as a balance against reckless behavior more useful to the state than avoiding the waste of prosecuting those offenses?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Isn't that beyond what's necessary though?

While it could make sense to say they're immune to prosecution for acts carried out because of their office, I don't see why it would make sense to give them blanket immunity from the law. I assume there's some kind of distinction, right? The French President couldn't drive through a crowded shopping mall with a tank and avoid any legal entanglements at all, could they? I don't see what benefit can there be to that. Despite the fact that political trials are legal and often threatened in the US, we sure don't see many and they don't cause too much distraction, so it's not like you're saving people from a lot of bloat.

Isn't the threat of prosecution as a balance against reckless behavior more useful to the state than avoiding the waste of prosecuting those offenses?

A French Parliamentarian can only be arrested with the permission of his/her assembly's desk, though charges may be brought for personal crimes like that. So if you're a parliamentarian in France you cannot be arrested by the police unless they obtain prior permission from the authorities of your body, even for personal crimes.

[Covenant]

Ahh, that seems reasonable. So long as you assume the entire parliment is not in lockstep (and how could it be) then the business of the day continues.

[Surlethe]

Speaking of economists' opinions, my introductory econ textbook has a short discussion of the Laffer curve which makes the same point I did: US taxes are to the left of the peak, so lowering taxes will not raise revenues. I can transcribe that and give a source if you'd like.

No, I'll take your word for it. You're an honorable guy. But, I'm not an economist so I'll run the information past somebody who is. Noce thing about my job, I can find experts just by picking up the phone.

When they get back to you, I'm curious to know what they say.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Could you transcribe it anyway, or at least a paragraph or two summary of it?

BTW is that Mankiw's introductory economics?

[Guardsman Bass]

What about when an ex-President is facing prosecution from an independent Special Prosecutor, like Nixon after his resignation until Ford pardoned him?

One thing on the Laffer Curve; does it take into account anything from Behavioral Economics? I'm asking because I remember a professor throwing out a bit of information from that area that said that 47% income tax seems to be some kind of informal "threshold"; beyond that, people's willingness to work starts to become more and more noticeably affected by higher taxation (I've been trying to confirm it, and can't; I'll have to ask him).

[Gil Hamilton]

Notice that a nuclear power, France, is one of the countries where Parliamentarians are completely immune from prosecution (as-is the French President) for acts carried out during their terms in office, precisely to prevent politically motivated trials against them.

To use a counter example, Italian politicians are also immune from prosecution while in office. Note that Berlusconi pushed the law through while he was on trial for corruption. As a rule of thumb -- and I'm sure most Italians would agree with me -- any time you take your cues from Italian politicians, it's a bad idea. However, beyond that, it demonstrates that such immunity also is a shield for corrupt government and removes accountability.

[Thanas]

Notice that a nuclear power, France, is one of the countries where Parliamentarians are completely immune from prosecution (as-is the French President) for acts carried out during their terms in office, precisely to prevent politically motivated trials against them.

To use a counter example, Italian politicians are also immune from prosecution while in office. Note that Berlusconi pushed the law through while he was on trial for corruption. As a rule of thumb -- and I'm sure most Italians would agree with me -- any time you take your cues from Italian politicians, it's a bad idea. However, beyond that, it demonstrates that such immunity also is a shield for corrupt government and removes accountability.

To follow up on that - France itself is ruled by a notoriously corrupt elite. In fact, when Sarkozy took office, the biggest story in the news was whether he promised Chirac a pardon for bribes Chirac allegedly took. Also note that Sarkozy himself has been at the heart of many a corruption scandal, like his paid luxury vacations.

[Surlethe]

Could you transcribe it anyway, or at least a paragraph or two summary of it?

Sure.

One day in 1974, economist Arthur Laffer sat in a Washington restaurant with some prominent journalists and politicians. He took out a napkin and drew a figure on it to show how tax rates affect tax revenue. ... Laffer then suggested that the United States was on the downward-sloping side of this curve. Tax rates were so high, he argued, that reducing them would actually raise tax revenue.

Most economists were skeptical of Laffer's suggestion. The idea that a cut in tax rates could raise tax revenue was correct as a matter of economic theory, but there was more doubt about whether it would do so in practice. There was little evidence for Laffer's view that US tax rates had in fact reached such extreme levels.

Nonetheless, the Laffer curve (as it became known) captured the imagination of Ronald Reagan. David Stockman, budget director int he first Reagan administration, offers the following story:

• [Reagan] had once been on the Laffer curve himself. "I came into the Big Money making pictures during Wold War II," he would always say. At that time the wartime income surtax hit 90 percent. "You could only make four pictures and then you were in the top bracket," he would continue. "So we all quit working after four pictures and went off to the country." High tax rates caused less work. Low tax rates caused more. His experience proved it.

When Reagan ran for president in 1980, he made cutting taxes part of his platform. Reagan argued that taxes were so high that they were discouraging hard work. He argued that lower taxes would give people the proper incentive to work, which would raise economic well-being and perhaps even tax revenue. Because the cut in tax rates was intended to encourage people to increase the quantity of labor they supplied, the views of Laffer and Reagan became known as supply-side economics.

Subsequent history failed to confirm Laffer's conjecture that lower tax rates would raise tax revenue. When Reagan cut taxes after he was elected, the result was less tax revenue, not more. Revenue from personal income taxes (per person, adjusted for inflation) fell by 9 percent from 1980 to 1984, even though average income (per person, adjusted for inflation) grew by 4 percent over this period. The tax cut, tovether with policymakers' unwillingness to restrain spending, began a long period during which the government spent more than it collected int axes. Throughout Reagan's two terms in office, and for many years thereafter, the government ran large budget deficits.

Yet Laffer's argument is not completely without merit. Although an overall cut in tax rates normally reduces revenue, some taxpayers at some times may be on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. In the 1980s, tax revenue collected from the richest Americans, who face the highest tax rates, did rise when their taxes were cut. The idea that cutting taxes can raise revenue may be correct if applied to those taxpayers facing the higest tax rates. In addition, Laffer's argument may be more plausible when applied to other countries, where tax rates are much higher than in the US. In Sweden in the early 1980s, for instance, the typical worker faced a marginal tax rate of about 80 percent. Such a high tax rate provides a substantial disincentive to work. Studies have suggested that Sweden would indeed have raised more tax revenue if it had lowered its tax rates.

These ideas arise frequently in public debate. When Bill Clinton moved into the White House in 1993, he increased the federal income tax rates on high-income taxpayers to above 40 percent. Some economists criticized the policy, arguing that the plan would not yield as much revenue as the Clinton administration estimated. They claimed that the administration did not fully take into account how taxes alter behavior. Conversely, when Bob Dole challenged Bill Clinton in the election of 1996, Dole proposed cutting personal income taxes. Although Dole rejected the idea that tax cuts would completely pay for themselves, he did claim that 28 percent of the tax cut would be recouped because lower tax rates would lead to more rapid economic growth. Economists debated whether Dole's 28 percent projection was reasonable, excessively optimistic, or (as Laffer might suggest) excessively pessimistic.

Policymakers disagree about these issues in part because they disagree about the size of the relevant elasticities. The more elastic that supply and demand are in any market, the more taxes in that market distort behavior, and the more likely it is that the tax cut will raise tax revenue. There is no debate, however, about the general lesson: How much revenue the government gains or loses from a tax change cannot be computed just by looking at tax rates. It also depends on how the tax affects people's behavior.

pp 172-4, Principles of Economics, Second Edition, N. Gregory Mankiw

BTW is that Mankiw's introductory economics?

Yes. I find that Mankiw does a reasonable job of presenting the facts of how the economy works (at least on a basic, ideal level) while even-handedly presenting different value systems and the different normative conclusions they reach based on the facts.

[Patrick Degan]

It seems to me that ignoring a summons to testify before Congress without explanation is a pretty clear-cut case of contempt of congress, no matter how good your lawyer is.

The question is, does the House have the jurisdiction to issue that subpoena? That's what the legal kerfuffle is all about. If the House had no authority to issue a subpoena, then ignoring it is perfectly legal. The only way around that is to send it to the senate (sending something from the House to thr Senate is rather like sending it from the animal to the vegetable kingdoms) nad turning it into formal impeachment and the Senators know that won't fly.

The congressional subpoena power has been recognised in U.S. law since 1792. The only "legal kerfuffle" involved is the one being put up by the White House lawyers to attempt to endlessly obsfucate the issues based upon the "making shit up as you go along" principle of law, but they don't really have a legal or constitutional ground to stand upon.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I love how Reagan based his impression on working in a luxury industry during a war economy with 90% taxes, and extrapolated that writ large across the entire economy. I can't believe this shit still gets shoveled. The Economist just ran an editorial saying that Obama would pass "incentive-destroying taxes" on the upper class; right, because I've heard of plenty of rich people who aren't going to try and make any new money at all because their bonus might be 75 million instead of 100 next year.

[Edi]

Who says party politics are being criminalized here? There are specific actions that by a reading of current status are already illegal and they should not be investigated or prosecuted just because they were done by an elite clique within one of the two biggest parties?

You are. You are stating that in your opinion, the actions in question were illegal. The White house lawyers disagree with you. The difference really boils down to one of party politics. Do yous eriously believe that if the same actions had taken place under a Democrat administration, teh Democrat party would be so hot to prosecute? This is simply using a dispute over policy as an excuse for criminal action.

If these actions had been taken under a Democratic administration, I don't think the party as a whole would be as eager to prosecute, but all that I have seen points to the direction that there are people in it who wouldn't have any problem with it. And I know the Republicans would be screaming blue murder. They'd be right in that case too and I'd support their efforts to prosecute. You have also completely ignored the possibility that there might be people in the Republcian party who would have no problem with stringing the Bush administration or some of its lesser members like Mukasey up for what they have done. Though it's granted that from all indications that would be a small number of people.

Your own position gives anyone who gets into the executive branch carte blanche to do whatever they want whenever they want and as long as they just keep stonewalling, refusing to answer to Congress and producing memo after memo after memo of whatever tortured semantics-whoring they decide to come up with and nobody can do shit to them. Assuming of course that their own party has enough numbers to keep the government permanently gridlocked and holding ranks together.

What I am actually saying is that letting this matter drop is the lesser of two evils. The cost of running this prsoecution far ouytweighs any nebulous gains that might be made.

I expect this attitude to last only as long as the Republicans aren't fed any of the same shit they've been dishing out for the past 15 years. Are you seriously suggesting that you would argue these same things if as comparably corrupt Democratic administration had trampled all over the civil liberties so precious to the right (right to bear arms, etc), locked up people without due process and then told the courts and everyone else to go fuck themselves that you would be singing this same tune? I don't believe you. It's as simple as that.

That's a far more damaging course of action over the long term. By your own reasoning in this thread, the Watergate investigation should never have happened and Nixon should never have been called to account for his shit.

Red herring. The Nixon affair was an impeachment investigation, during Nixon's term of office and it was bipartisan. Youa re proposing a post-office criminal prosecution staged along party lines to serve party interests

You're assuming that I think this would only benefit one party. I think that an overview of the Bush administration actions and criminal prosecution of those in it who engaged in criminal behavior would benefit both parties and the nation as a whole. In this, we have a difference of opinion and I don't expect that there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

In many other places, there would already be blood on the streets.

Which goes to prove we are much more civilized.

Are you? If this were positions reversed, with Republicans as the side that had been forced to take all the shit that has been coming down, I flatly do not believe that they would have abided by the law as well as the opponents of the Bush administration have. The Republican rhetoric is inflammatory enough and the agitators who push the hard right fringe seem to enjoy enough popularity that I do not believe there would have been anything close to order in the US society in this hypothetical scenario. At least if right wing rhetoric is to be taken at face value, though that is by no means a given.

I don't think there is much point to us hashing this out any further, because it is abundantly clear that you think this should all be dropped and swept under the carpet until someone does it again, at which poiint your response would no doubt be the exact same. What I find baffling is a refusal of even considering a review of certain actions, such as Mukasey's behavior wrt enforcing Congressional subpoenas of Rove and others. I hope you will hold precisely the same views in the future when it's the conservative side of the spectrum that gets shat and pissed on and told to go fuck itself despite court rulings in its favor (see Supreme Court rulings regarding Guantanamo and due process). Though given how much older than me you are, it is entirely possible that the situation won't arise during your lifetime.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Keep tax cuts permanent! Donate to the RNC! Appears while I read this, ironically. Just goes to show that when you put anyone on the dole...they'll always want more and demand it as an entitlement.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I love how Reagan based his impression on working in a luxury industry during a war economy with 90% taxes, and extrapolated that writ large across the entire economy. I can't believe this shit still gets shoveled. The Economist just ran an editorial saying that Obama would pass "incentive-destroying taxes" on the upper class; right, because I've heard of plenty of rich people who aren't going to try and make any new money at all because their bonus might be 75 million instead of 100 next year.

Eh, we'd probably haul in more revenue with a 50% income tax on the wealthy than we did back in the days of the 90% income tax, if we just eliminated every single exemption in the tax code. Call it a Graduated Flat Tax--no exemptions of any kind with levels of taxation going from 0% -- 45% with 46 levels in all. It'd make filing a lot easier, too. That leaves some room for the current state income and sales taxes and etc without being excessive. If you want to actually substantiatively tax the rich, that would be the way to do it. The current tax system is massively stacked in their favour.

[Surlethe]

We could also use deductions to redirect money without actually taking it and reinvest -- e.g., offer income deductions for capital investment into nuclear energy, etc. That would decrease the constrictive effect of higher surtaxes and still accomplish some good. (Alternatively, treat 45% as the "goal" tax, and raise taxes to something higher, so that the effective tax rate will be 45%.)

[Stuart]

If these actions had been taken under a Democratic administration, I don't think the party as a whole would be as eager to prosecute

And in that one line, you have just admitted that this is a party political prosecution intended purely for political ends. In short, you're aiming at a Stalin purges-style show trial. Why does that not surprise me?

but all that I have seen points to the direction that there are people in it who wouldn't have any problem with it.

Then why didn't they prosecute Clinton? All the alleged crimes committed by the Bush administration have their roots in actions carried out by previous administrations, going at least as far back as the First World War. So lets see Biden propsong that Bill Clinton be put on trial as well.

[qyote] And I know the Republicans would be screaming blue murder. They'd be right in that case too and I'd support their efforts to prosecute. [/quote]

Really? I know of no case where an incoming Republican administration has attempted to take legal action against an outgoing Democrat administration - even though the widespread vandalism of the White House in 2000 gave them a perfect opportunity for bringing serious criminal charges against ex-Administration personnel.

You have also completely ignored the possibility that there might be people in the Republcian party who would have no problem with stringing the Bush administration or some of its lesser members like Mukasey up for what they have done. Though it's granted that from all indications that would be a small number of people.

The Republican party is a pretty broad church and includes people with its own agenda, that's true. However, this whole prosecution idea is so blatantly a political game that I doubt if more than a tiny number of Republicans would go along with it.

I expect this attitude to last only as long as the Republicans aren't fed any of the same shit they've been dishing out for the past 15 years.

You know I am sick and tired of hearing this "We're all saints and the Republicans are pounding on us" nonsense. In point of fact, the boots on the other foot, we've been playing the Hill game more or less by the rules while putting up with a lot of crap from the Democrats. Want an example? Look up the voting record on Supreme Court Justices. You'll note that picks by Democrat presidents are approved by bipartisan majorities regardless of their political stance (Ruth Baader Ginsburg being a classic example of a pick that should have been booted out) because Senate precedent is that after all the discussion, if the candidate is put to a vote the Senate votes on a bipartisan basis to approve. Now look at picks proposed by Republican candidates; the final approvals are all split down party lines. So don't give me this crap about how the Democrats are angels and never hit back when the eviiiiillllll Republicans put the boot in. Hill politics is nasty, it always has been and both sides do it. I know its nice and comforting to believe otherwise but anybody who says their side are the saints, is simply betraying utter ignorance of what American politics is like.

Are you seriously suggesting that you would argue these same things if as comparably corrupt Democratic administration had trampled all over the civil liberties so precious to the right (right to bear arms, etc), locked up people without due process and then told the courts and everyone else to go fuck themselves that you would be singing this same tune?

Obviously you haven't been reading this thread. That's exactly what I've been saying. Right from the start; I've made it clear that criminalizing party politics the way you and your clique are demanding will destroy democracy. By the way, the Clinton regime did try and illegal gun ban and it was shot down by the Supreme Court which is the way things should be done.

I don't believe you. It's as simple as that.

That's your privilege. I simply believe your political prejudices make your opinion on this matter worthless.

You're assuming that I think this would only benefit one party. I think that an overview of the Bush administration actions and criminal prosecution of those in it who engaged in criminal behavior would benefit both parties and the nation as a whole. In this, we have a difference of opinion and I don't expect that there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

Of course it will benefit only one party; that's why the extreme left wing Democrats are trying to pull it off. The Republicans and a big block of teh political center will see this for what it is; a blatantly political attempt by the Democrats to get even for losing two Presidnetial elections on the trot. But, as usual, you're completely missing the point. If the Democrats try this and get away with it, come a future election (2012 or 2016) when teh Republicans get back in (and they will) we can hit back and start throwing our own criminal charges around. And that would be the end of democracy because which party is going to peacefully hand over power when they know that by doing so they are going to be prosecuted on a load of trumped-up charges?

Are you? If this were positions reversed, with Republicans as the side that had been forced to take all the shit that has been coming down, I flatly do not believe that they would have abided by the law as well as the opponents of the Bush administration have.

Once again with the "Democrats are saints and Republicans" are monsters nonsense. Just take a look at who has been staging large-scale "peace protests" and "ant-globalism" riots. I know it feels nice and warm and fuzzy to believe your people are all forbearing angels but even a quick glance at the news will tell you otherwise. Say again, American politics are nasty and always have been.

The Republican rhetoric is inflammatory enough and the agitators who push the hard right fringe seem to enjoy enough popularity that I do not believe there would have been anything close to order in the US society in this hypothetical scenario. At least if right wing rhetoric is to be taken at face value, though that is by no means a given.

And left wing rhetoric isn't? Take a read of what gets put on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. If you want inflammatory rhetoric, the garbage that comes out there is far worse than anything the Republican party comes out with.

At this point, I'm pulling out of this discussion; its taken far too much time already and I have better things to do (like earning a living and writing Armageddon). I've made my point very clear and I notice that nobody has actually answered the main argument. The only thing I would add is a general plea to everybody to go out and listen to some opinions from the other side with an open mind. Most internet communities are very narrowly-based and self-validating. This one is no exception; when things like this come up until I started challenging the basic precepts, the whole thread was basically a "me-too, aren't we wonderful" exercise. In fact, the truth is that nobody in politics is a saint and very few people are outright monsters. It's fun to pretend they are but it is neither rational mor reasonable to do so. The truth is that both American parties are pretty similar and both do politics in more or less the same ways. I'm old enough to have seen the balance swing backwards and forwards between the two. Each has its own style and each has its own funny little ways but when it comes to fighting dirty, they both do it and do it rather well. Claiming teh Democrats are the blameless victims is as absurd as claiming the Republicans are. American politics is vicious and dirty and has been for a very long time. If you doubt that, go back and look at some of the politicing in the 19th century.