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

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-09-03 03:02pm

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports: While Republicans congregate in the Twin Cities striving to keep their hold on the White House, Barack Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., sharply criticized the Bush administration Tuesday while delineating the changes Democrats would demand if they rise to power.

"In an Obama-Biden administration, we will not have an attorney general who blatantly breaks the law," Biden said at a town-hall meeting in West Palm Beach, Florida, his voice at times drowned out by applause. "We will not have a president who doesn't understand the Constitution. And I will not be a vice-president who thinks he's not part of any of the three branches of government."

Biden ripped the Bush administration for wasting a chance to unite the nation in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"George Bush and his administration are going to be judged harshly by history," said the Delaware lawmaker. "Not for the mistakes they made, but for the opportunities to unite America and the world they squandered."

Now, Biden said, he and Obama are determined to take control of the West Wing, noting that he would not have agreed to share the Democratic ticket had he not known Obama's commitment to sticking to his values.

"Have you figured out what is worth losing over?" he said. "Because if you have not, it's just raw ambition. Barack understands what is worth losing over."

Earlier Monday, addressing a crowd in Deerfield Beach, Florida, Biden preached the importance of this election in terms of the Supreme Court, noting that the next administration might appoint as many as three new justices.

"The single most important domestic decision that a president gets to make on his own or her own is the Supreme Court," he said.

Looking to the future but with one eye on the past, Biden also promised that an Obama-Biden government would go through Bush administration data with "a fine-toothed comb" and pursue criminal charges if necessary.

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation," he said, "they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution - out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law."

On Tuesday, the vice presidential nominee continued his 48-hour swing through the Sunshine State with stops in Ft. Myers and Sarasota.

Pelosi might not be brave enough to, but apparently, the Dem VP pick is.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2008-09-03 03:19pm

On the one hand, it's absolutely right and proper, and it's good that he had the balls to say it. It's good he won't be keeping Cheney's 4th Branch powers either. I was skeptical of Biden for a while until his debating prowess came to light and now finding out that he has balls of steel to pursue what's right.

On the other hand, he has to get to the White House. I hope saying stuff like this doesn't hurt chances anywhere.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2008-09-03 03:25pm

MRDOD wrote:On the one hand, it's absolutely right and proper, and it's good that he had the balls to say it. It's good he won't be keeping Cheney's 4th Branch powers either. I was skeptical of Biden for a while until his debating prowess came to light and now finding out that he has balls of steel to pursue what's right.

On the other hand, he has to get to the White House. I hope saying stuff like this doesn't hurt chances anywhere.

Given the prevailing climate in the country, it's hard to imagine a situation where calling a spade a spade (RE: Bushco) wouldn't be anything but helpful. As far as the righteous indignation is concerned (much as I support the Obama campaign) it's all bluster until I see some action.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-09-03 03:28pm

Chardok wrote: Given the prevailing climate in the country, it's hard to imagine a situation where calling a spade a spade (RE: Bushco) wouldn't be anything but helpful. As far as the righteous indignation is concerned (much as I support the Obama campaign) it's all bluster until I see some action.

Don't forget, according to Republitards if you call a spade a spade, you're engaging in hurtful slander.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-09-03 06:04pm

This is one of those great moments for Biden to put this out:

a) The Rs aren't looking for quotes from Ds (other than those relating to Palin) so their typical smear machine isn't going to be able to try and warp this.

b) The traditional media is so focused on the R Convention that they aren't available to fall for the typical smear machine.

c) The folks who are paying attention are the folks who want to hear this, moderate to liberal democrats that aren't watching the convention to feed the hate.

Basically this could easily have been the policy from the start but there was never a good time to elucidate it to the audience you want while keeping your opponents form having the chance to respond.

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2008-09-04 12:12am

They do this, and they had better be ready to win every single election forever, if they prosecute the current administration, then the republicans will be looking for payback, and then it will get ugly. Stuart made a good point about this on HPCA.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2008-09-04 12:18am

Good on Biden. Now I want to send money to their campaign.

MariusRoi wrote:They do this, and they had better be ready to win every single election forever, if they prosecute the current administration, then the republicans will be looking for payback, and then it will get ugly. Stuart made a good point about this on HPCA.

Your link's dodgy.

Could we please get a quote?

thejester · Post by **thejester** » 2008-09-04 12:26am

The basic argument is that the GOP will go tit for tat when it next comes into power in either Congress or the White House, and indite Obama for treason or somesuch garbage because he's going to withdraw from Iraq.

I would have thought the more realistic prospect is that it would badly undercut Obama's bipartisanship if, the moment he got into office, he started prosecuting Republicans.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2008-09-04 12:31am

Well, lets play the game. Lets assume thats correct, and each party will get increasingly vicious, until there are no joke treason charges on the table, and people get executed.

If our response to that hypothetical is no impeachment whatsoever, what oversight does the Congress have over the Executive branch? IE, what could the executive do if there was no possibility of charges being filed?

Cecelia5578 · Post by **Cecelia5578** » 2008-09-04 12:56am

Gandalf wrote:Good on Biden. Now I want to send money to their campaign.

MariusRoi wrote:They do this, and they had better be ready to win every single election forever, if they prosecute the current administration, then the republicans will be looking for payback, and then it will get ugly. Stuart made a good point about this on HPCA.
Your link's dodgy.

Could we please get a quote?

Ah, good old HPCA, where I could have sworn Stuart was telling us back in 2003 to expect to find WMDs any day now in Iraq...HPCA is a bit dodgy in the reliability department, I'm afraid.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2008-09-04 01:06am

MariusRoi wrote:They do this, and they had better be ready to win every single election forever, if they prosecute the current administration, then the republicans will be looking for payback, and then it will get ugly.

It's already ugly and has been for a long time. The Republicans keep playing hardball while the Democrats keep playing softball. All that playing nice has gotten the Democrats is constantly beaten up. The Republicans are ruthless, and they will continue to act ruthlessly, regardless of whether the Democrats actually try to punish Bush and friends for what they've done.

And in the big picture, I don't think it's healthy for the country to let Bush and friends skate on what they've done. If you are so worried about how the Republicans will respond, consider how they'll respond to confirmation that they can do all the things Bush has done, and suffer no punishment.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2008-09-04 01:22am

MariusRoi wrote:They do this, and they had better be ready to win every single election forever, if they prosecute the current administration, then the republicans will be looking for payback, and then it will get ugly. Stuart made a good point about this on HPCA.

The fixed link

Here's the actual quote so one doesn't have to wade through a long post.

Let's be clear about this; I do not regard any action taken by the Bush government as being illegal or even beginning to approach the level of a "civil crime". At most, we have differing opinions over what constituted legality - which is a matter for the government in question at the time and why we have elections. If people don't like the interpretations used by one Government you vote them out of power. That's it, its called democracy. Your own quote actually reveals what is going on here; Democrats are looking for revenge and for any excuse to get their revenge for the Clinton impeachment and are willing to create any issue to achieve that - that's right, create issues. By the way, Clinton was impeached for a serious offense, perjury. He was accused of lying under oath. That's not a trivial thing. And if you want to see the disaster that lies ahead if we go down the road you want remember this. One day teh Republicans will win an election and get back into power - lets say that's 2012. So, they look at the Democrat leadership and government of 2008-2012 and say. "They pulled out of Iraq when we had won and thus aided and abetted the enemy at a time of war resulting in our defeat. What does the Constitution say about that? Ah yes. Treason - and it stipulates the death penalty for treason. So we'll arrest them all on capital charges and execute the whole damned lot. Now, that won't happen of course, not immediately anyway, but its there at the end of the road. And another effect governments that believe they will be so unjustly charged will be reluctant to hand over power peacefully - so we have a Mugabe situation arising. Your comment here is about the worst damnation of the Democrat Party it is possible to make - you completely fail to see what it is that you are demanding and what its consequences will be. I couldn't damn B Hussein Obama any more thoroughly than you have just done with this comment. This arrest-and-try philosophy (which is deeply embedded in the Obama campaign staff) is a direct attack on the basic principles of democratic government - and they know it. I've shown the arrest-and-try quotes to a few people and the result has been waverers brought back to the side of goodness and light (ie Republicans).

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2008-09-04 01:25am

Gandalf wrote:Your link's dodgy.

Could we please get a quote?

Try this one.

Enforcer Talen wrote:Well, lets play the game. Lets assume thats correct, and each party will get increasingly vicious, until there are no joke treason charges on the table, and people get executed.

If our response to that hypothetical is no impeachment whatsoever, what oversight does the Congress have over the Executive branch? IE, what could the executive do if there was no possibility of charges being filed?

Congress still has the power to impeach. No one has taken that away. Biden is saying is to prosecute the current administration for the actions taken in the pursuance of the duties of their offices.

Lord of the Abyss wrote:It's already ugly and has been for a long time. The Republicans keep playing hardball while the Democrats keep playing softball.

No, you don't get ugly. The GOP hasn't prosecuted someone for the pursuance of the duties of the office that they held.

All that playing nice has gotten the Democrats is constantly beaten up. The Republicans are ruthless, and they will continue to act ruthlessly, regardless of whether the Democrats actually try to punish Bush and friends for what they've done.

Then why hasn't the current congress impeached the current administration?

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2008-09-04 01:25am

So if there is supposed to be a 'tit' for 'tat', pray tell WHERE was the 'tat' for all the stupidity over the Republicans impeaching Clinton?

Oh thats right, there was none.

So let the dogs loose on Bush, THAT can be the scale balance. Frankly, the Republicans would have NO restraint IMO for impeaching or attacking or doing whatever would gain them political advantage, because they know the Democrats are so pussy whipped that they won't come back at them.

This is the time to come out swinging and lay the absurd corruption and treason of Bush and his cronnies out for everyone to see.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-09-04 01:27am

MariusRoi wrote:Then why hasn't the current congress impeached the current administration?

Because the Democrats don't want to be portrayed as weak on the war on terror? And they'd descend to bickering, while the Republicans will side with Bush regardless because if they don't, they are all fucked?

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2008-09-04 01:36am

Chris OFarrell wrote:So if there is supposed to be a 'tit' for 'tat', pray tell WHERE was the 'tat' for all the stupidity over the Republicans impeaching Clinton?

Oh thats right, there was none.

The threat of prosecuting the current administration would be the 'tat' of which you speak.

As for the democratic leadership, they bitched, and bitched, and bitched, about the President, but once they got into power, they have done NOTHING. What does that say about them?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-09-04 02:05am

There's a goddamn difference between prosecuting former Executive branch officials for violation of existing laws, and going after them in retaliation for policy differences.

Biden explicitly ruled out going after them for policy differences.
Shit, after Reagan won in 1980, did the Repubs start going after the Democrats in retaliation for Watergate?

As long as the public at large is convinced that the prosecutions involve genuine criminality, either side won't dare retaliate out of fear of punishment at the ballot box or because the genuinely principled among them will realize that the ones under indictment are there because the evidence put them there.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2008-09-04 08:37am

RE: Seer Stuart Did he seriously call him B Hussein Obama? The only thing that would have made that post even more worthless is if he bolded that. That's where you stop, erase everything you just read from your mind and pay no attention to further postings because that person is so rabidly and vehemently against THEM DAMN BROWN PEEPLEZ that it doesn't matter how compelling your argument is, you're wrong cause you likes them niggers.

Also he uses the words "Democrat Party", which just makes me physically ill. (commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be – a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat.'")

A-hyuck.

(unrelated reply)

Glocksman wrote:There's a goddamn difference between prosecuting former Executive branch officials for violation of existing laws, and going after them in retaliation for policy differences.

Are you saying this in the context of the Clinton impeachment vs. going after Bush for Iraq/WMD/DEMOCRACY RAR! Or am I completely off-base?

Post by **Edi** » 2008-09-04 09:28am

No you aren't. That forum is complete tinfoil territory of the worst sort.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-09-04 09:34am

Chardok wrote:RE: Seer Stuart Did he seriously call him B Hussein Obama? The only thing that would have made that post even more worthless is if he bolded that. That's where you stop, erase everything you just read from your mind and pay no attention to further postings because that person is so rabidly and vehemently against THEM DAMN BROWN PEEPLEZ that it doesn't matter how compelling your argument is, you're wrong cause you likes them niggers.

Also he uses the words "Democrat Party", which just makes me physically ill. (commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be – a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat.'")

A-hyuck.

(unrelated reply)

Glocksman wrote:There's a goddamn difference between prosecuting former Executive branch officials for violation of existing laws, and going after them in retaliation for policy differences.
Are you saying this in the context of the Clinton impeachment vs. going after Bush for Iraq/WMD/DEMOCRACY RAR! Or am I completely off-base?

I'm sure you'll notice that the Senate, despite being in Republican hands, declined to convict Clinton on both charges.

Though I'm the first to admit that despite McCain's bullshit 'Country First' slogan, partisanship is more alive than ever in DC.

My trust is that President Obama would be honorable enough to not permit the criminalization of policy differences.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2008-09-04 10:33am

MariusRoi wrote:They do this, and they had better be ready to win every single election forever, if they prosecute the current administration, then the republicans will be looking for payback, and then it will get ugly. Stuart made a good point about this on HPCA.

That's only a good point in RepublicanWorld, which is well-known for existing at right-angles to reality. In the real world, with it's infamous liberal bias, it's about as silly as the rest of the things mentioned in that link, like the notion that Bush's tax cuts increased government revenue (utter hilarity,) and that the American health care system is OMG AWESUM!!111 because rich white dudes with rich white dude health insurance get high-quality care and the rest are taking bets on what will kill them first: A horrible, lingering death from sundry illnesses, or starving to death on the account of medical debt-induced bankruptcy.

Somehow, I doubt building a criminal case and attempting to use it to prosecute Saint Shrub after he leaves the protection of the White House will be the end of the Republic. Nor will it result in an ever escalating game of tit-for-tat (although I can imagine that the tinfoil-hat wearing lefty forums have no doubt that when a Republican becomes President again, Republican jack-booted thugs will be waiting to whisk former President Obama onto the Waterboard Express to Gitmo.) The United States, for better or for worse, has soldiered on through some legendarily corrupt and asshole-filled administrations.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-09-04 10:46am

MariusRoi wrote:They do this, and they had better be ready to win every single election forever, if they prosecute the current administration, then the republicans will be looking for payback, and then it will get ugly. Stuart made a good point about this on HPCA.

Stuart's a right-winger? Really??? As if this is news. This is stupid. While I agree that seeking legal consequences for Bush is probably politically unrealistic and off the table, there should be a consistent sweep of the Administration for those who lied to the American people, authorized torture and extrajudicial detainment, and unwarranted wiretapping.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2008-09-04 10:52am

If you could be executed for treason for leaving a country that a previous administration invaded, one wonders how Nixon avoided the chair.

The Iraqi president has had some success in convincing Bush that US troops could be gone by 2011 or 2012. Let's execute him!

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2008-09-04 10:53am

I'm sorry, but 'okay, it's not your turn to man the clubhouse anymore, shoo' is NOT a valid punishment for crimes of that magnitude, not even close.

Stuart · Post by **Stuart** » 2008-09-04 01:03pm

Chardok wrote:RE: Seer Stuart Did he seriously call him B Hussein Obama? The only thing that would have made that post even more worthless is if he bolded that. That's where you stop, erase everything you just read from your mind and pay no attention to further postings because that person is so rabidly and vehemently against THEM DAMN BROWN PEEPLEZ that it doesn't matter how compelling your argument is, you're wrong cause you likes them niggers.

Also he uses the words "Democrat Party", which just makes me physically ill. (commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be – a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat.'")

Oh spare me your hypocritical bleating.

I made one fairly mild gibe at Obama and you go into a tizzy. Might I remind you that John McCain is habitually referred to here as "McSame" or "The Gimp".

And you don't like reference to the "Democrat Party". might I suggest that your use of terms like "Rethuglican Party" be reconsidered.

The truth is like every other bullying thuggish oaf, you're very keen to hand out insults but hyper-sensitive to even a couple of mild jabs in response.

Your comments about erasing everything from your mind is also typical. I raise some perfectly valid constitutional points about the dangers inherent in criminalizing party politics. You can't argue them so you stick your fingers in your ears and go na-na-na-na.

As for your accusation of racism, just another example of your basic dishonesty. You're trying to use a baseless accusation to bully somebody into silence because you are too stupid and ignorant to think of a rational answer.

I'm perfectly receptive to listening to a counter argument that's based on fact and reason. I can't be bothered to listen to silly little boys like you who believe that oafish insults are an argument.

So, if you've got a reasoned counter-argument, make it. Otherwise grow up.

Glocksman wrote:There's a goddamn difference between prosecuting former Executive branch officials for violation of existing laws, and going after them in retaliation for policy differences. Biden explicitly ruled out going after them for policy differences. Shit, after Reagan won in 1980, did the Repubs start going after the Democrats in retaliation for Watergate? As long as the public at large is convinced that the prosecutions involve genuine criminality, either side won't dare retaliate out of fear of punishment at the ballot box or because the genuinely principled among them will realize that the ones under indictment are there because the evidence put them there.

Except that the validity of the charge of violating existing laws is tenuous; there is a good body of law to suggest that the Bush administration was stretching the law but not breaking it. However, be that as it may, the point is irrelevent. The real problem is that the democratic system is based around the concept of a peaceful handover of power. If one party loses the election, then it hands over power to teh party that won and the world carries on. That's a good system. The problem comes where if personal survival becomes dependent on winning the election (because in the event of them losing, they will be tried by the winners for disagreeing with said winners) then the peaceful transfer of power principle will cease to exist. We'll have situations like Mugabe in Zimbabwe where parties will cling to power regardless of election results or popular feeling. The sad fact is that no matter how deeply we feel that one party has been misguided in its actions, the penalties resulting from attempting legal remedies after an election are far worse than accepting that things happened and moving on. Its one of the compromises built into a democratic system; we may not like it (there's aquite a few things I would like to see teh Carter administration up on charges for but I still think that would be a bad idea).

The Watergate comparison is not valid. Remember, I lived through Wtaregate - Nixon was under fire from both sides of the Congress - everybody wanted him gone and agreed on it. It's quite a different situation from where the division is straight down party lines and is based around policy differences.

I agree with your last comment but that's not the situation that applies here. If it had been, the correct course of action was impeachment and its notable that the Democrat Senators and Congresscritters backed off doing that - because in the final analysis you can't impeach over differences of opinion.

edi wrote:That forum is complete tinfoil territory of the worst sort.

Most of our people think the same about SDN. The difference is that I'm prepared to listen to what you have to say and weigh your arguments carefully. I come here because this sight has different opinions from my own and I'm interested to hear other people's opinions and how they came to hold them. You're not; you dismiss anybody who disagrees with you without ever wondering why they disagree with you. This takes us back to Chardock's hypocritical little outburst. Its all sizzle and no steak.

It might surprise you to know that people who disagree with you are also, in the main, good and honorable people who are acting according to their beliefs and principles. You may disagree with those beliefs and principles but you won't convince them by just screaming insults. Since they are, in the main, good and honorable people (that applies to both sides of the argument and party divide) they just assume that the other side has nothing to say worth listening to - and that's not good.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:like the notion that Bush's tax cuts increased government revenue (utter hilarity,) and that the American health care system is OMG AWESUM!!111 because rich white dudes with rich white dude health insurance get high-quality care and the rest are taking bets on what will kill them first: A horrible, lingering death from sundry illnesses, or starving to death on the account of medical debt-induced bankruptcy. Somehow, I doubt building a criminal case and attempting to use it to prosecute Saint Shrub after he leaves the protection of the White House will be the end of the Republic. Nor will it result in an ever escalating game of tit-for-tat (although I can imagine that the tinfoil-hat wearing lefty forums have no doubt that when a Republican becomes President again, Republican jack-booted thugs will be waiting to whisk former President Obama onto the Waterboard Express to Gitmo.) The United States, for better or for worse, has soldiered on through some legendarily corrupt and asshole-filled administrations.

The fact that tax cuts increased income is a proven fact. Sorry about that. My point about health services is that none of them work in the long term. The sad fact is that somewhere along the line, health care has to be rationed. It can be done by cost (as in teh US), it can be done by quality (as in the UK - believe me on that, I've lived under both systems), it can be done by availability (great if you live in a city, lousy if you don't - lived under that system as well) it can be done by politics (support the local party you get treated, don;t support the party and you're made to need treatment). None of them work, none of them are fair. I don;t have an answer to that problem and I'd love it if somebody could find one. At the moment, the US system suits me because I'm a rich rotund republican. That's all I can say; it suits me. It doesn;t suit an awful lot of other people and their opinion is just as valid as mine.

You may doubt that persecuting presidnet Bush (another case - why don't I scream foul when people call President Bush 'The Shrub'; its no more or less offensive than calling Barry Obama, B Hussein Obama - after all, I called H Norman Schwartkopf that to his face and he's a lot bigger than me) would end the republic. I doubt it as well - but its likely to establish a growing trend that would be the end of teh republic. We're back to the peaceful handover of power principle. If that is endangered, then the republic is in severe danger. our system of government uis based on teh fact that political parties disagree with each other and can still hand over power to each other. If they can't, then democracy is as dead as it is in Zimbabwe.

Your last bit about the singularly corrupt administrations, I heartily agree with. But, having the sitting government going after its predecessor through the courts is likely to end that. We can survive corrupt, even criminal, governments. We have before (Grant and Harding come to mind); we;'ve even had good corrupt administrations (Truman for example). We're unlucky in that we've just had a rather inept and ethically questionable administration. We can ignore them without worrying too much; but the criminal prosecution route is fraught with hazards.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: While I agree that seeking legal consequences for Bush is probably politically unrealistic and off the table, there should be a consistent sweep of the Administration for those who lied to the American people, authorized torture and extrajudicial detainment, and unwarranted wiretapping.

We agree completely. A systematic clean-out of the administration - not just the elected bits but the career civil service - is long overdue and should be a high priority of whichever party gets into power. The shortcoming and malgfeasances you point to go much further back than just the latest administration, they go back generations and they have never been properly addressed. Just cleaning out the stables and replacing the inmates (yes, that is a hint I think that most of them - regardless or party - are jackasses) with anotehr set of teh same won;t get us anywhere. Its the adminidtrative system that's fouled up; the policies etc its producing are symptoms, not causes. That's the great reservation I have about Barry Obama; he's a product of the Chicago political machine and he's never done anything except use one position to prepare for the next. He's a part of the problem for all of his comments that he's the solution, he isn't.

Until we can start firing civil servants for incomptenance (try it, good luck) we're never going to get the system fixed.

OK, how's that for a rant