Indictments And Arrests, Get But Naked!

I can't be sure whether this is big news or not, although it sounds like it is to me, but Laura Rozen is reporting (warning politico link) that the FBI just rounded up a bunch of military contractors in a "Foreign Bribe Sting". I know everybody is focused on Scott Brown beating Martha Coakley and for all intents and purposes scuttling health care reform and possibly the rest of President Obama's agenda for the foreseable future or until somebody in the White House or the Senate Majority Leader's office grows some balls, but I am thinking this story will get some burn in the days and weeks to come.

He Didn't Buy A One Way Ticket

TPM has compiled a report on what has been publicly reported about the attempted terrorist bombing on the Northwest flight Christmas day. There is at least one important correction to what has been reported and repeated erroneously all over the place since this attempted attack took place.

•The AP quoted a Nigerian official, Civil Aviation Authority chief Harold Demuren, saying that Abdulmutallab bought a round-trip ticket with cash at the KLM office in Accra, Ghana on Dec. 16. The $2,831 ticket was from Lagos, Nigeria, to Detroit via Amsterdam, he said. The return date was said to be Jan. 8, the Guardian quotes the same Nigerian agency as saying. A CBS report refers to a "scheduled two-week trip," which would be in keeping with the Jan. 8 return date. And a Dutch government report described by the International Herald Tribune (via Nexis) said that Abdulmutallab "had a round-trip ticket purchased in Ghana."

•However, multiple news outlets and commentators have asserted Abdulmutallab had a one-way ticket. That includes Time, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the Journal news pages, and Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. None of those outlets cite a source for the one-way ticket claim. The New York Times actually ran a Dec. 30 correction saying that an earlier piece "referred incorrectly to the plane ticket used by the suspect. It was a round-trip ticket, not a one-way ticket."

Now people on both sides of the political spectrum have used the notion that Abdulmutallab bought a one way ticket as a sign that the sytem didn't work because that should have been a red flag. And even further to assert that because Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, used a one way ticket, that its an even worse screw up for them to have not noticed Abdulmutallab because the situations seemed so similar.

But the truth is he bought a round trip ticket so that is one thing that was different from Reid. And when you take away the one way ticket meme then there isn't a whole lot that would make you think this was a mirror image of Reid.

There are other things that TPM dug up worth reading about as well. And as I was typing this post the official White House report was declassified. So feel free to click the links and get the truth about this incident. Obviously relying on our mainstream media hasn't worked out so well thus far.

The 45 Minute Lie

If only we were having a public investigation into how George Bush and Dick Cheney lied and their ideological allies in the media lied us into the war the way the British are over Tony Blair.

I wonder what public sentiment would be about those two jackasses then.

The Congressional Asshat Caucus

Several members of the GOP Congressional Anti Terrorism Anti Muslim Caucus decided to hold a big news conference yesterday and accuse the group CAIR with a conspiracy to "infiltrate" the government with Muslims. Their evidence? A book written by wingnut World Net Daily author Dave Gaubatz who made this statement last year.

“a vote for Hussein Obama is a vote for Sharia Law.”

Please for the love God keep giving these people microphones so the rest of the nation can see what the Republican Party has become.

Covering Up A State Sanctioned Murder?

No, this story isn't about our war on terror. Its actually about Texas Governor Rick Perry trying to avoid a probe into whether he signed off on the execution of an innocent man.

Me thinks its time for the feds to take over thta investigation.

Using Cheney Logic

Dick Cheney was his usually morally repugnant self yesterday on FoxNews Sunday, shamelessly advocating torture. And there is a lot in the interview for people to take apart but I want to focus on something he said early on. Its one of the best recent example of Orwellian double speak that I could possibly even imagine. First lets look at the question and answer in its entirety and then we can take it apart a little.

WALLACE: This is your first interview since Attorney General Holder named a prosecutor to investigate possible CIA abuses of terror detainees.

What do you think of that decision?

CHENEY: I think it's a terrible decision. President Obama made the announcement some weeks ago that this would not happen, that his administration would not go back and look at or try to prosecute CIA personnel. And the effort now is based upon the inspector general's report that was sent to the Justice Department five years ago, was completely reviewed by the Justice Department in years past.

They made decisions about whether or not there was any prosecutable offense there. They found one. It did not involve CIA personnel, it involved contract personnel. That individual was sentenced and is doing time. The matter's been dealt with the way you would expect it to be dealt with by professionals.

Now we've got a political appointee coming back, and supposedly without the approval of the president, going to do a complete review, or another complete investigation, possible prosecution of CIA personnel. We could talk the whole program about the negative consequences of that, about the terrible precedent it sets, to have agents involved, CIA personnel involved, in a difficult program that's approved by the Justice Department, approved by the National Security Council, and the Bush administration, and then when a new administration comes in, it becomes political.

They may find themselves dragged up before a grand jury, have to hire attorneys on their own because the Justice Department won't provide them with counsel.

It's a terrible, terrible precedent.

Ok lets work backwards here. Dick Cheney is worried about a special prosecutor looking into whether or not any CIA personnel broke the law by going outside the guidance of the OLC memos. He says the fallout from such a probe woudl be:

We could talk the whole program about the negative consequences of that, about the terrible precedent it sets, to have agents involved, CIA personnel involved, in a difficult program that's approved by the Justice Department, approved by the National Security Council, and the Bush administration, and then when a new administration comes in, it becomes political.

They may find themselves dragged up before a grand jury, have to hire attorneys on their own because the Justice Department won't provide them with counsel.

It's a terrible, terrible precedent

So he says that it will set a "terrible precedent" and that the decision to look into the program is "political" He then goes further shortly after in another answer to describe what he thinks will be the impact of this investigation.

CHENEY: Well, you think, for example, in the intelligence arena. We ask those people to do some very difficult things. Sometimes, that put their own lives at risk. They do so at the direction of the president, and they do so with the -- in this case, we had specific legal authority from the Justice Department. And if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody's going to sign up for those kinds of missions.

It's a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community. If they assume that they're going to have to be dealing with the political consequences -- and it's clearly a political move. I mean, there's no other rationale for why they're doing this -- then they'll be very reluctant in the future to do that.

So this investigation is going to lead to nobody wanting to "sign up for those kinds of missions" and its going to have a "very, very devastating...effect...on morale inside the intelligence community".

Well my goodness who knew that just investigating to see if any wrongdoing occured should have such adverse effects on the intelligence community? But wait, there is one thing that isn't really adding up to me here. If investigating the CIA for wrong doing creates so many problems, why did the Bush administration do just that?

Lets go back to the Cheney's answer again.

And the effort now is based upon the inspector general's report that was sent to the Justice Department five years ago, was completely reviewed by the Justice Department in years past.

They made decisions about whether or not there was any prosecutable offense there. They found one. It did not involve CIA personnel, it involved contract personnel. That individual was sentenced and is doing time. The matter's been dealt with the way you would expect it to be dealt with by professionals.

So wait, Dick Cheney himself admits that the Justice Department while he was still Vice President did in fact investigate and prosecute at least one bad actor in this whole situation. He makes the distinction that it was a CIA contractor but the truth is the two men who actually orchestrated the torture program were ALSO CIA contractors too so its a distinction but not much of one. Now using his own logic shouldn't this have devastated the CIA?! Shouldn't they have all been pulling out their fainting couches and refusing to protect the nation after that prosecution? Shouldn't we have been attacked by bin Ladin many times over due to the fact that DOJ even looked into the allegations put forth by the CIA's Inspector general? And wasn't Alberto Gonzales who led that inquiry ALSO a political appointee?

Oh wait, I keep forgetting, Its Okay If You're A Republican.

What would be great would be if some journalist points out this contradiction in the man's logic, but I won't hold my breath.

President McCain

Imagine my fellow Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives, that the unthinkable happened and John McCain won the election last year. At this point he is putting together plans to bomb Iran, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and taxing our health care. In the middle of all this he gives this explanation for why he will never allow anyone to look into torture committed by contractors and sanctioned by the Bush Administration over the previous 8 years.



Now, would you accept President McCain telling you that we have to look forward and not back lest we "damage" the CIA? Would you hold your tongue when he says he won't investigate because its distracting from his policy agenda?

Then why are you accepting those same arguments from President Obama?

Food for thought.

Another Trial Balloon?

If Eric Holder is going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture allegations I wish he would do it already and get it out of the way, rather than constantly having these trial balloons leaked to the media.

From The LA Times:

Reporting from Washington -- U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. is poised to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA abuses committed during the interrogation of terrorism suspects, current and former U.S. government officials said.

A senior Justice Department official said that Holder envisioned an inquiry that would be narrow in scope, focusing on "whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized" in Bush administration memos that liberally interpreted anti-torture laws.

Current and former CIA and Justice Department officials who have firsthand knowledge of the interrogation files contend that criminal convictions will be difficult to obtain because the quality of evidence is poor and the legal underpinnings have never been tested.

Some cases have not previously been disclosed, including an instance in which a CIA operative brought a gun into an interrogation booth to force a detainee to talk, officials said.

Other potentially criminal abuses have already come to light, including the waterboarding of prisoners in excess of Justice Department guidelines, and the deaths of detainees in CIA custody in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003.


Opening a criminal investigation is something Holder "has come reluctantly to consider," the Justice Department official said, emphasizing that Holder had not reached a final decision but noting that, "as attorney general, he has the obligation to follow the law."

Others familiar with Holder's thinking say that such an investigation seems all but certain, and that a prosecutor will probably be selected from a short list that Holder asked subordinates to assemble.

There is a lot to pick through here. Obviously it will be chickenshit if they just go after the CIA agents who carried out the torture and not the people who ordered it. But more disturbing to me is this sense of cowardice that I get from reading all of these trial balloons. I don't for the media to keep portraying Attorney General Holder as some kind of tortured soul or something. He is SUPPOSED to make tough decisions and he shouldn't be factoring in potential political cost. That is not why people supported him to be Attorney General and its not what his job is supposed to be all about. I keep hearing all this talk about "rule of law" from this administration and about how no man is above it. Well its time for them to put their money where their mouth is and investigate the whole thing from top to bottom.

Ill try to take it apart a little more later today or just link to Glenzilla or Marcy Wheeler should they offer their insights and opinions on it.

Frog March Alert!!!

Will we finally get to see this scene play out?

From the Washington Post:

Political adviser Karl Rove and other high-ranking figures in the Bush White House played a greater role than previously understood in the firing of federal prosecutors almost three years ago, according to e-mails obtained by The Washington Post, in a scandal that led to mass Justice Department resignations and an ongoing criminal probe.

The e-mails and new interviews with key participants reflect contacts among Rove, aides in the Bush political affairs office and White House lawyers about the dismissal of three of the nine U.S. attorneys fired in 2006: New Mexico's David C. Iglesias, the focus of ire from GOP lawmakers; Missouri's Todd Graves, who had clashed with one of Rove's former clients; and Arkansas's Bud Cummins, who was pushed out to make way for a Rove protege.

The documents and interviews provide new information about efforts by political aides in the Bush White House, for example, to push a former colleague as a favored candidate for one of the U.S. attorney posts. They also reflect the intensity of efforts by lawmakers and party officials in New Mexico to unseat the top prosecutor there. Rove described himself as merely passing along complaints by senators and state party officials to White House lawyers.

The e-mails emerged as Rove finished his second day of closed-door-testimony Thursday about the firings to the House Judiciary Committee. For years, Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers had rejected efforts by lawmakers to obtain their testimony and their correspondence about the issue, citing executive privilege. The House of Representatives sued, igniting a court fight that was resolved this year after discussions among lawyers for former president George W. Bush and President Obama.

Man oh man if they can throw that asshole in jail I think that in and of itself will make my vote worth it last fall.

Show Me Whatcha Workin Wit

Ladies and Gentlemen, there shall be an investigation!

This release just out from House Intel committee chair Silvestre Reyes, which says that House Dems have decided to probe the secret CIA program that had been concealed from Congress and was revealed the other day by CIA director Leon Panetta, is a big deal:

“After careful consideration and consultation with the Ranking Minority Member and other members of the Committee, I am announcing an official Committee investigation into possible violations of federal law, including the National Security Act of 1974.

“This investigation will focus on the core issues of how the congressional intelligence committees and Congress are kept fully and currently informed. To this end, the investigation will examine several issues, including the program discussed during [CIA] Director [Leon] Panetta’s June 24th notification and whether there was any official decision or direction to withold information from the Committee.”

Now the funny thing about investigations is that when you start pulling back the covers sometimes you find something you weren't even looking for.

Oh I don't know, like some skeletons that Dick Cheney is trying to keep buried.

Bipartisan Support For A Truth Commission

Poor Michael Steele. He won't be RNC chairman for much longer if he keep bucking his party like this on national Tee Vee.

Deep Thought

If Republicans are truly convinced that Speaker Pelosi is lying, why don't they support a Truth Commission? Wouldn't it help them politically if the Democratic Speaker of the House was found to have been lying to the public? What are they afraid of?

Details Details

Here is the link to Ali Soufan's prepared testimony he submitted to the Senate committee today for the hearing. A few important excerpts:

Immediately after Abu Zubaydah was captured, a fellow FBI agent and I were flown to meet him at an undisclosed location. We were both very familiar with Abu Zubaydah and have successfully interrogated al-Qaeda terrorists. We started interrogating him, supported by CIA officials who were stationed at the location, and within the first hour of the interrogation, using the Informed Interrogation Approach, we gained important actionable intelligence.

The information was so important that, as I later learned from open sources, it went to CIA Director George Tennet who was so impressed that he initially ordered us to be congratulated. That was apparently quickly withdrawn as soon as Mr. Tennet was told that it was FBI agents, who were responsible. He then immediately ordered a CIA CTC interrogation team to leave DC and head to the location to take over from us.

Sounds like a case of penis envy on the part of George Tennet.

We were once again very successful and elicited information regarding the role of KSM as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and lots of other information that remains classified. (It is important to remember that before this we had no idea of KSM's role in 9/11 or his importance in the al Qaeda leadership structure.) All this happened before the CTC team arrived.

This was already known from Soufan's op-ed but you have to reiterate that it destroyed the lie put forward, and referenced again today by Senator Lindsey Graham, that torture gave us the information on KSM.

We then returned to using the Informed Interrogation Approach. Within a few hours, Abu Zubaydah again started talking and gave us important actionable intelligence.

This included the details of Jose Padilla, the so-called "dirty bomber." To remind you of how important this information was viewed at the time, the then-Attorney General, John Ashcroft, held a press conference from Moscow to discuss the news. Other important actionable intelligence was also gained that remains classified.

That destroys the lie that torture gave us Jose Padilla.

Throughout this time, my fellow FBI agent and I, along with a top CIA interrogator who was working with us, protested, but we were overruled. I should also note that another colleague, an operational psychologist for the CIA, had left the location because he objected to what was being done.

This is HUGE. If that operational psychologist can be found and will talk on the record it might do a great deal toward pushing for an investigation. Up until now the right wing pro-torturists talking point was that it was just the "soft" FBI that didn't want to get their hands dirty. If members of the CIA were also upset about the torture going on that is going to be a blockbuster story.

As you can see from this timeline, many of the claims made in the memos about the success of the enhanced techniques are inaccurate. For example, it is untrue to claim Abu Zubaydah wasn't cooperating before August 1, 2002. The truth is that we got actionable intelligence from him in the first hour of interrogating him.

In addition, simply by putting together dates cited in the memos with claims made, falsehoods are obvious. For example, it has been claimed that waterboarding got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Jose Padilla. But that doesn't add up: Waterboarding wasn't approved until 1August 2002 (verbally it was authorized around mid July 2002), and Padilla was arrested in May 2002.

The same goes for KSM's involvement in 9/11: That was discovered in April 2002, while waterboarding was not introduced until almost three months later. It speaks volumes that the quoted instances of harsh interrogation methods being a success are false.

Nor can it be said that the harsh techniques were effective, which is why we had to be called back in repeatedly. As we know from the memos, the techniques that were apparently introduced after I left did not appear to work either, which is why the memos granted authorization for harsher techniques. That continued for several months right till waterboarding was introduced, which had to be used 83 times – an indication that Abu Zubaydah had called the interrogator's bluff knowing the glass ceiling that existed.

The whole Conventional Wisdom about the fruits of torture is now effectively up in flames.

The mistake was so costly precisely because the situation was, and remains, too risky to allow someone to experiment with amateurish, Hollywood style interrogation methods- that in reality- taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world. It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda.

Thats what you call "Keeping It Real".

At first blush earlier today I wasn't sure that Soufan's testimony could be described as game changing. But on review of his written testimony its clear that if the mainstream media actually reports on what he said it will take away most if not all of the talking points the right wing has used to try to justify torture. Of course that leads to the biggest question again. Will the media actually do their job and inform the population? I hope so but I don't have much confidence in them anymore.

Torture Investigation Petition

If you want the Bush administration investigated Amnesty International has an online petition for you to sign.

Torture Torture Torture

First go here and watch Glenzilla eviscerate Richard Cohen and the rest of the Village for advocating not investigating Bush Co. Then go here and watch United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak talk to Rick Sanchez about why Bush Co should be investigated and in the case specifically of Don Rumsfield prosecuted for war crimes. Good stuff!

UN Calls On The U.S. To Prosecute Bush Co.

I don't know how President Obama and his administration can overlook a call from the United Nations to investigate and prosecute members of the Bush Administration for torture. Kinda makes that whole "we just want to look forward" look moot at this point. What will happen if this pronouncements keep coming from around the globe? Will we ever get our reputation back as a morally upstanding country if we do not prosecute wrong doing by those in power? I don't see how we can. If we are supposed to believe that no one is above the law, its time for us to start proving it.

From RawStory:

The UN's special torture rapporteur called on the US Tuesday to pursue former president George W. Bush and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.

"Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks to be broadcast on Germany's ZDF television Tuesday evening.

He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required "all means, particularly penal law" to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.

"We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," against detainees at the US prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nowak said.

"But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this," added Nowak, who authored a UN investigation report on the Guantanamo prison.

That last line is particularly damning. It pretty much casts a cloud over the leadership in Congress in that it is saying because they knew and know what happened, there shouldn't be any question that an investigation SHOULD be forthcoming. If it isn't the spotlight won't be just on Bush Co, it will also shift to the people who enabled them. Dangerous ground if you ask me.

Independent Investigation?

This certainly gives me hope.

What The People Want

As you know I have put up my own straw poll over there ---> to try to gauge in a totally unscientific way what the mood of the country is in relation to the prospect of investigating and potentially prosecuting Bush & Co. for abuses while in office. The Ruth Marcusean Villagers of course have tried to convince all of us that the American people don't want to see them investigated and just want to move on. Of course up until now we haven't actually had any data to either disprove or back up those kinds of statements and my frustration with this is what led me to put up my own poll. Welp it seems the Washington Post/ABC News folk finally decided to pull their heads out of their arses and do a scientific nationwide poll on the issue. Glenzilla has all the ins and outs of this topic and others included in the poll but I am just going to excerpt the parts where he expounds on what the polls say about this issue.

Even more surprisingly for spouters of conventional wisdom, a majority of Americans (50-47%) believe that the Obama administration should investigate whether the Bush administration's treatment of detainees was illegal.

Thats right, a MAJORITY of Americans want to see investigations into torture. And thats not all...

Relatedly, Americans would have opposed (52-42%) the issuance of pardons by Bush to those "who carried out his administration's policy on the treatment of terrorism suspects." The poll confined itself in these questions to investigations into detainee abuse, and did not ask about investigations into other Bush crimes, such as illegal spying, obstruction of justice and various DOJ crimes.

Yes you read that right, the MAJORITY of Americans also wouldn't have wanted Bush shielding his cohorts from investigation and prosecution.

What's most remarkable about the fact that a majority of Americans favor investigations is that one has to struggle to find even a single politician of national significance or a prominent media figure who argue that position. The notion that Bush officials shouldn't be criminally investigated is about as close to a lockstep consensus among political and media elites as it gets, and yet, still, a majority of Americans favor such investigations.

Just another example of the Village and our elected officials being tone deaf to what the country wants.

UPDATE: In the last week alone, The Washington Post's David Ignatius twice said that those who advocate investigations into Bush crimes are nothing more than "liberal score-settlers." Newsweek's Jon Barry angrily accused those who advocate investigations of lying about their belief in the rule of law because (he can divine) that they are instead motivated by "vengeance, pure and simple." And yesterday, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham claimed that it is those on what he called "the hard left" who believe in investigations.

Apparently, it is the case -- yet again -- that majorities of Americans are hard-left, score-settling, vengeance-driven liberals, who embrace views that are claimed by the Beltway to be nothing but "fringe leftist ideological rantings" (a synonym for: "those who do not believe in prevailing Beltway pieties").

Yeah, imagine that. Now its true that we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on just one poll. For all I or anybody else knows tomorrow Gallup might come out with a similar poll that has the numbers flipped. Of course the numbers could also be skewed even more in favor of investigations. But I am just happy that finally somebody had the courage to go out and get this question asked and answered by the people of this nation. At least now we have some impirical evidence of what we really think instead of having to rely on Villagers to make that call for us. And that is always a beautiful thing!

Yeah, What Keith Said

Keith Olbermann special comment on prosecuting Bush Co.

Those Who Forget History Are Doomed To Repeat It

Update: Read Glenzilla on the topic also...


In the NYTimes today Paul Krugman makes a very strong case as for why the Bush Administration needs to be investigated and where warrented prosecuted for the abuses they perpetrated while in office. As you can tell from some of my recent postings I totally agree with Krugman on this. He makes some very salient points in his article and I will exerpt just a few:

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Can anybody credibly argue against him on this point? Krugman addresses two of the going memes put forth by mostly conservative talking heads about why we shouldn't investigate.

Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government?

Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?

Amen and Amen. History tells us that in the past when we have chosen to look forward and not back all it has led to is more abuses by our Commander in Chief and really who could blame them? Why WOULDN'T you abuse your office if there is historical precedent that you will never be held to account if you do so? Witness exhibit A.

In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.

And now people are wondering how we ended up in these messes we are in 8 years later. Its because 16 years prior we were hearing the same advice from the same jackasses being handed out now about letting bygones be bygones and not offending anyone's delicate sensibilities. Well its about time somebody stood up and said FUCK THAT! How many times do you have to see the same episode before you decide its time to change the channel. We have done the "just let it go" dance before and now we see to disasterous effect. If we as Americans REALLY believe in the rule of law and the Constitution how does that jibe with letting people off the hook simply because "its too divisive". If we don't have the courage to stand up for the justice then what does that say about us as a country?

Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.

When was the last time you heard that we should let a killer get away with murder becuase it might divide the country? When was the last time you heard someone say we should let a crook get away with robbing people because we just need to focus on making sure nobody gets robbed again? Never. Never would you hear such talk of leniency for some random nobody who commits a crime. And if we aren't pushing for them to get away with their crimes then we for damn sure shouldn't be pushing for our leaders to get away with theirs.

One thing that bothers me is that in my own personal life I haven't encountered anyone, even any conservatives who have said they don't want the Bush Administration investigated. So why is it that every pundit is trying to make it seem like the world would come to an end? Are we really supposed to believe that because it might be hard thats a good enough reason not to do it? Is that what America is about now adays?

Its also very curious to me that you will see poll after poll released these days about approval ratings on different issues, but I have yet to see a national poll about how the populous feels about whether Bush and his cronines should be investigated. I wonder why that is. I imagine because if those poll numbers came in and the will of the majority of people fell on the side of investigating the Bush administration then there would be no way to justify the lack of doing so. And of course the pundits wouldn't want that, would they?

Please vote in my unscientific and thoroughly useless straw poll over there --->