Skip to main content

View Diary: Leahy Calls for Truth Commission...Why? (313 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because so far (7+ / 0-)

    Not a single investigative committee created since 9/11/01 has produced even 1 incident of accountability. The surest way to kill, put to sleep, push out of the way is to form a committee to investigate. That's political speak for "we don't intend to do a fucking thing"! That's the reason why I don't expect a fucking thing will be accomplished by Leahy's proposal.

    •  It did okay in South Africa. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Colorado Billy

      I know "accountability" is a big buzz word around here, but while it's a great thing, I'm more concerned with getting the knowledge out there and preventing this shit from repeating than I am in punishing the guilty.

      Which would you rather do...prevent 1000 crimes or punish 100 criminals?

      Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

      by LABobsterofAnaheim on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 04:47:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Punishing 100 criminals (2+ / 0-)

        will send a clear message to 1000 people considering committing acriminal act. When there are no consequences for committing crimes there is no deterrent other than one's personal morals or values. Unfortunately, many have no morals or have corrupted values so personally I don't like to depend on my safety, rights, etc. being dependent on the goodness of others. We have tortured, waged unnecessary wars based on lies, spied on our citizens, etc. etc. How much more is needed to be learned about how we fucked up?

        •  One problem is.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          scotths

          Deterance doesn't seem to work that with that actual criminals (otherwise, I might actually be for the death penalty).

          Not to say you should let people get off scott free, but just as I'm more concerned with making sure we as a society produce fewer street criminals than I am with pursuing every thug and prosecuting him or her to the full extent of the law, I am also somewhat less concerned with prosecuting the criminals of the Bush Administration than I am with making sure that have the kind of government going forward that doesn't nurture similar thugs. This, however, doesn't mean I'm not in favor of prosecuting Bush Admin lawbreakers when a good court case can actually be made.

          Of course, that will never be a good enough for a lot of people here.

          Forward to Yesterday -- Reactionary aesthetics and liberal politics (in that order)

          by LABobsterofAnaheim on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 06:45:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  seconded.. (0+ / 0-)

            I am also somewhat less concerned with prosecuting the criminals of the Bush Administration than I am with making sure that have the kind of government going forward that doesn't nurture similar thugs

            I believe that a substantial number of people are wiling to believe that the Bush administration was incompetent, we may lose the support of many of these people if we assert that they are/were criminals.

            I also believe that we have seen a political shift in which the problem people won't  be back for quite some time..

            I think the goal going forward should be to fix the problems that currently exist and draw clear boundaries for the future. I think people will recognize this as a new beginning and thus take the guidelines seriously regardless of prosecutions.

            •  I don't expect that there (0+ / 0-)

              will be any prosecutions of Bush et al no matter what misdeeds might yet be discovered, nor for anything already known about. I think that the arguement of not alienating people that would be turned off is (in all due respect) a copout for not doing anything. For every one person that might be turned off by indicting or prosecuting them, there is at least one person, and possibly more, who are pissed off that they have/are being allowed to piss on our laws. As for Bush, many of those you refer to that would take offense didn't, and regardless, never will be persuaded to vote in future races any differently than they have in the past. An arguement could be made that losing the enthusiastic support of the ones "that brung you to the dance" for ignoring there legitimate concerns, like expecting no one be allowed to thumb there nose at the law, could be just as damaging to "the cause" as alienating the former.
              I likewise don't believe that the Death penalty is an effective deterrent. But I'm all for life in prison, meaning "life in prison".  

            •  What makes you think so... (0+ / 0-)

              I also believe that we have seen a political shift in which the problem people won't  be back for quite some time..

               If is slides under American citizens radar we could be in the same scenario in four years. You need only look to the past to see this.

              Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. Mark Twain

              by Klick2con10ue on Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 07:53:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  larger forces... (0+ / 0-)

                This isn't a short term swing to the Democratic party, this is a significant shift in our politics that has been building beneath the surface for some time...

                Exit polls by age...

                      Obama/McCain
                18-29   66/33  <--- Most of Obama's margin of victory! <br>30-44   52/46
                45-64   50/49
                65+      45/53

                A generation has not shown that large a margin since those who were the youth of world war 2. Surveys have shown that this generation has values strongly consistent with the democratic party and at odds with the Republicans. This is just going to get worse for the Republicans as more and more of this generation come of age..

                In addition, the country became increasingly polarized. The democrats in the house could lose every seat they won by less than 15 points and still have a majority! The democrats are firmly entrenched in a set of seats that should make their majority extremely difficult to overturn. There is no large set of conservative democrats representing districts that tend to vote Republican (ie in the south) as there were in 1992. (See this diary for more on this)

                The situation is quite dire for the Republicans. Their new push to be more conservative will  make it even worse for them as they are decreasing further their chances of winning relatively moderate districts thus isolating themselves further. Even if they manage to win back some support among middle ages and in more moderate areas it will likely be over shadowed by the long term trend.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site