Over the last several years of President George W. Bush's term in office, some Democrats were arguing that a bill of impeachment should be drawn up by the House of Representatives. Now that Bush is out of office, impeachment is, of course, no longer applicable. However, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy wants to begin an investigation to see of any criminal offenses were committed by President Bush or any of his administration. Leahy calls his investigation a "truth commission" and he says the purpose of the investigation will be to learn the truth of what happened so that mistakes can be avoided in the future. I want to say that I think this is a very bad idea.
Now I'm a strong believer that we must learn from history. Therefore, I would support a thorough study of the Bush administration by historians and political scientists. If Bush made errors (which I definitely think he did), historians should tell us about them, so we can avoid them in the future. However, I think Leahy's ides of a criminal investigation is a bad idea, for the following reason.
Over the last several years, American politics has become a series of gotcha events, with members of one party trying to embarrass the other party by accusing its members of some unethical behavior, whether or not there are reasonable facts to support the accusations. This goes back and forth over years with one party scoring a victory, while the embarrassed party waits for its opportunity for revenge, which almost always comes. Let me give you a very brief history of some of these events to illustrate my point. If you want more detail, please read Lanny Davis' book Scandal: How Gotcha Politics is Destroying America. If you don't want to go through the history, just skip to the last paragraph of this post.
It started, according to Davis, with Watergate. Following Nixon's resignation, and Jimmy Carter's election, Republicans took their revenge by starting a whisper campaign against Carter's Budget Director Burt Lance. Dubbed "Lancegate," he was accused, by innuendo, of being involved unethical financial transactions. Lance ended up resigning in disgrace, but not a single piece of real evidence was ever presented in a courtroom.
Democrats then got their payback by hounding President Reagan's Labor Secretary, Raymond Donovan. Two Independent Counsel investigations led to nothing, except Donovan's resignation. Democrats followed up this "victory" by defeating Reagan's top nomination for the Supreme Court, Robert Bork. Bork was defeated primarily by a campaign of innuendo so complete and sophisticated that when future nominees were given similar treatment, they are said to have been "Borked."
Republicans came back when the then little known Republican Congressman, Newt Gingrich, led a two-year campaign that brought down Democrat Speaker of the House, Jim Wright. This was followed by Democrats pushing the Iran Contra affair, which started during the Reagan administration and washed over into the Administration of George H.W. Bush.
Then came the mostly bogus investigation of President Clinton's financial affairs, involvement with Vincent Foster's suicide, the White House travel office, and finally to a really bogus impeachment trial, based on grounds for which there was practically no hard evidence.
Later, Newt Gingrich was brought down when he was fined by the House Ethics Committee for ethical violations. The next Republican Speaker, Robert Livingston, followed Gingrich when he was forced to resign on the eve of the Clinton impeachment trial, due to an extramarital affair. It might be noted that Livingston was one of the loudest voices accusing Clinton in his sex scandals. Finally, we come to Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and Duke Cunningham. It is time we stopped.
Surely, if people have committed a crime, they should be punished in accordance with the law of the land and we are always better off when we know the truth. What I would like to end is the serial scandal campaigns of whispered innuendo and media leaks that ruin reputations and embarrass political parties, but have little or no evidence to back them up. There is little point in congressional investigations of rumors. If there is evidence of a crime, turn it over to the justice department and let those investigators do their thing. So, I hope Senator Leahy drops his idea of a Truth Commission and gets on to helping solve the very real problems this nation will facing in the next couple of years.
i concur almost completely on the minutiae of the the gateisms. but when it comes to the bush-cheney-rove&co situation. I TOTALLY DISAGREE. the present situation and players has this nation in very great peril of collapse financially and as an entity unto itself.
i personally consider what the past administration accomplished as being EQUAL to an attack upon this nation by a hostile force attempting a take over 'WE THE PEOPLES' NATION AND SYSTEM OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT! THEY ALSO PUT THE FUTURE OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN PERIL FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND POLITICAL POWER!
don carter
ANDERSON,INDIANA
The harm caused by pursuing this the way Leahy suggests would far outweigh any 'satisfaction' that could be gained. To think that the previous adminsitration would go quietly without years of slanderous testimony dragging everyone into the muck.....it would be entertaining to watch....but at what cost financially and spiritually to the nation. I think Obama is right to let this one die out as quietly as possible. I don't see the value in dragging the nation into that mess. It is time to move on.
The republican party has likely just cut their own throats with their childish stance against the stimulus bill anyway. Although I agree with most of their comments on the bill and how it was crammed down the legislative branch's throat. Our economy is going to get better sometime within the next 4 years, regardless of the spendulous bill, and the republicans are going to be left looking like idiots either way.
The SNL skit with Akroyd as Boehner was hilarious last night.
i have no thought of person over nation even in retribution. my only thought is fixing the problem. someone has to give answers for the problem. so, the problem can be corrected and allowed never to happen again. ostracism,even mental ostracism. is enough punishment for me. answers are what is important.NOT REVENGE OR POLITICS. THE NATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENS AND WAY OF LIFE WERE ATTACKED AND NEED TO BE ANSWERED FOR PUBLICLY.
THE NATION AND THE WORLD ARE OWED AND HONEST/ERNEST APOLOGY! :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :wink: 8)
don carter
ANDERSON,INDIANA
Quote from: drbob on February 15, 2009, 05:18:15 PM
Then came the mostly bogus investigation of President Clinton's financial affairs, involvement with Vincent Foster's suicide, the White House travel office, and finally to a really bogus impeachment trial, based on grounds for which there was practically no hard evidence.
Later, Newt Gingrich was brought down when he was fined by the House Ethics Committee for ethical violations. The next Republican Speaker, Robert Livingston, followed Gingrich when he was forced to resign on the eve of the Clinton impeachment trial, due to an extramarital affair. It might be noted that Livingston was one of the loudest voices accusing Clinton in his sex scandals.
I agree in principle on your statements about a "truth commission". That's about as Orwellian an idea as I have heard.
A couple of points:
Anyone following the the Clinton investigations at the time would have concluded that the Whitewater debacle did, in fact, occur. It could not be proved that the Clintons were
criminally culpable.
Vince Foster may or may not have committed suicide. There certainly are unanswered questions about that aspect of it. What happened after is what is truly troubling vis-vis the decedent's office, briefcase, and files.
The impeached former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, lied under oath in an effort to deny a US citizen her right to civil justice.
His own recorded testimony is very "practical" evidence. No man is above the law, and Mr. Clinton tried to set himself above the law and was called into account for it. It should happen more often and to many more elected leaders.
Interesting to note that, from the other side of the coin, some of the same people who thought Mr. Gingrich's and Mr. Livingston's moral failings an outrage also clamored to give Mr. Clinton a "pass" on his.
No mention of Sandy "Burglar"?
Mr. Carter, I have many disagreements with the Mr. Bush on policy, but try as I might I cannot find anything to even suggest that he committed any crimes. Ditto Mr. Cheney. There is no "there", there.
;D :wink: 8)
the beautiful thing about AMERICA is FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT. IT'S THE DIFFERENCES IN THOUGHT AND PERCEPTION THAT MAKES THIS GREAT NATION WORK. THAT DIFFERENCE SHOULD OPEN MORE DOORS TO DIALOGUE THAN DIATRIBE. RUEFULLY, THE REVERSE IS MORE PREVALENT TODAY! :wink:
LOVE DIALOGUE 8)
ABHOR THE art of DIATRIBE :yes: :yes: :yes:
OH, AND don WORKS A LOT BETTER. "MR" IS A BIT TOO PRETENTIOUS FOR my taste. 8)?
don carter
Hello folks... Thanks to you all for your thoughtful comments. I would like to say a word to Ghost in reply to that comment. Did Cheney or Bush commit a crime? I don't know! Personally, I think they made serious mistakes but I do not think they were criminal. The way we learn if someone has committed a crime is we bring that person to trial and prove it in court. The point of my post was that the Justice Department is tasked with that job, not a Senate committee. If Bush or Cheney are to be investigated for criminal activity, the Department of Justice should do it.
As far as Clinton goes, that is really ancient history, however, Clinton may have testified in a misleading manner, whether or not that was perjury is a question for a court. That has not happened. So, we really don't know if he lied under oath or not, unless you are one who is willing to find him guilty before the trial. There are very strict rules for perjury. In a court a person may not lie about something that is factual, but an accused person is not obligated to help the court convict him. So, it that person makes a statement that is a bit misleading it may not be perjury as defined by the law. Only a trial can determine that. Clinton has not faced a trial on perjury charges.