Thanks, Scarecrow. I was responding to the Broder column at the same time you were. He is so disgusting today that I decided to put my post up, too.

This one really made my blood boil.

Broder would call us “bitter.”

Dang, I was aiming for “shrill”.

Obama should use all the influence of his office to stop authorize the retroactive search for scapegoats. Bush/Cheney criminals who devised and authorized criminal policy.

There, fixed it.

Scarecrow & Jim- thank you for your lucid and powerful posts.

Broder is a poster boy for what is wrong in our country.

As Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his first inaugural address in 1932, when Americans were also being terrorized by the enormity of events surrounding them:
“This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

The best way to insure the survival of individual liberty in the United States is to adhere to the rule of law. We must not shrink from our responsibility to enforce the law by which we are supposed to be governed, no matter how compelling the reasoning may sound. It is time for us to turn away from the Neocon’s politics of torture, terror and fear.

It is imperative that we once again embrace the great vision of this nation, fought for, died for, and held by her greatest men and women from 1776 to today. Indeed, they are still among us. Both we and they deserve the respect and justice for which the rule of law has been established in our country.

We must redouble our efforts. We must create a ceaseless, unwavering clamor to return America to a country where the laws by which we are governed are enforced without regard to status, position, wealth, political office held, or military rank attained.

In a word ”NO”. Broder and all the rest are just trying to cover up the crimes of the Bush/Cheney cabal! Our Country Must prosecute any all that had anything to do with Torture, from the very first discussions to the actual field personnel who did the torturing!! No exceptions, we did not give anyone at Nuremberg any cover for these crimes!

In the words of Saint Ronnie..prosecute or extradite.
**********
” From his signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984:

“The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.” “

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7098

Broder wants to be a propagandist for torture.

The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places — the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department — by the proper officials.

He should be shamed about this wherever he goes. He should be anathema at all social, professional gatherings.

Broder writes as if Cheney has something on him. Who, after all, stands to benefit most if Broder’s opinions here influence the debate towards “moving on?”

In reality, Cheney probably doesn’t actually have anything on Broder, but that doesn’t mean that Broder isn’t projecting some misplaced empathy for Cheney. That also accounts for his (very weak) argument and, I say, projection that these potential torture investigations are driven by vengeance. Broder sweems a real milquetoast when it comes to most spirited, partisan debate, conveniently forgetting, or simply not grasping, that most issues and resultant policy that has mattered over time in the US has been partisan.

Start with Social Security, and move forward…

Sadly for Broder, prosecution for violating the law on the part of highly-placed Republican officials skews his beloved bi-partisanship, and he can’t seem to bring himself to admit that.

Maybe he fears being denied access if conservatives get in power again. In his world, we’d evidently have to switch political parties in the White House every four years to keep him happy.

David Broder. Ah, the blind arrogance of an inherently weak, failing mind unfettered by reason or imagination, much less any sense of compassion or justice.

I don’t know how you dear FirePups can read that stuff. But I admire you for summoning the fortitude to do so, and wisdom to call him out for his transparent nonsense.

Whenever you have to ask that question about someone, the answer is unfortunately, and invariably: yes.

Thank you, tx49holdem. So many here at the lake, like you, have demanding outside jobs in addition to a family to attend to. I appreciate your posting as often as you can.

Folks, tx49holdem is no stranger to me. I am one of the older generation that has been enlightened by her. There are none finer.

Broder on prosecuting Republican torturers and war criminals:

It is a plausible-sounding rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance.

Broder on trying to hound a Democratic president out of office because he had an affair with a staffer:

My view, for whatever it is worth long after the dust has settled on Monica, was that when President Clinton admitted he had lied to his Cabinet and his closest assoc, to say nothing of the public, that the honorable thing was for him to have resigned and turned over the office to Vice President Gore. I think history would have been very different had he done that. . . .

What bothered me greatly about his actions was not what he said to his lawyers but what he told the Cabinet, his White House staff — You can go out and defend me because this did not happen. And he told the same lie to the American people. When a president loses his credibility, he loses an important tool for governing — and that is why I thought he should step down.

“cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance”

Still can’t figure out at what moment during the last eight years did the Republicans and the Dems turn justice and accountability into “vengeance, retribution, witch hunts, blame games”

Come on what hapenned to plain old justice and accountability.

I guess they need a blow job to investigate to get their justice juices flowing

I hope everyone here has hopped on over to the WaPoo page containing Broder’s column and registered his/her disgust.

Do so quickly; they’ll undoubtedly shut down the comments as they realize the avalanche of criticism Broder’s drivel has generated.

What would the aftermath if Cheney was tried and during the trial he proudly declared he kept America safe from attack for seven years though rough interrogation techniques. I and you don’t think this is true but many Americans watch the TV drama “24″ actually believing that Jack Bauer saved the country every week by torturing the bad guys, and some jurors might not vote to convict Cheney of a crime.

Don’t count on the trial system to educate Americans to what they once believed to be right. See,

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/4983
RichardKanePA

I think papers like the WaPo keep the Broders and Brooks around for their entertainment value. Idiotic as they are, they raise the profile of their respective papers and in the view of the corporations that own them they sell newspapers. The only insight that either of these clowns had in their lives was the realization that they could make far more money shilling for the Right than they could as honest analysts. The rest as they say is history.

Quite late, I do want to speak to the idea of retroactive….Has anyone ever been prosecuted for a crime of the future? Or contemporaneous? I think not. Not to be “cute” (impossible!) but all prosecution is connected to the past, that is, retroactive. Find a different word, say what you mean: Let it Go, Scott free is what you mean. Maybe crime does pay, get over it. But please do not lament “retroactive”…

David Broder: Isolated, Dishonest, or Morally Bankrupt?

Yes!

These last couple of paragraphs are pretty incoherent…

Suppose that Obama backs down and Holder or someone else starts hauling Bush administration lawyers and operatives into hearings and courtrooms.

Suppose the investigators decide that the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.

I vote: all three.

I will forward him a link to this thread…

davidbroder@washpost.com

I knew there would be some ugly contrasts hiding somewhere in his prior screeds. Thank you for taking the time to go fish one out.

How do these people live with themselves?

Talk about a false choice: it CAN be all three!

Scarecrow and Jim White –

reach for the stars! today’s word is Juvenile

The definitive Broder column came in December of 1986, a month after the Iran/contra scandal broke, when he was already mounting Ronald Reagan’s defense against impeachment.

“The continuing crisis in the Reagan Administration is having one beneficial side-effect,” he wrote.“It is sorting out the grownups from the juveniles in the nation’s capital. The juveniles are jubilant; they haven’t had so much fun in years; they’d like it to go on forever, or at least until they’ve settled all their old scores. The grownups recognize this disaster as the calamity it is, and would do anything in their power to put it in the past.”

more hacktacular goodness here

This is traitors VS Patriots.

To sum it up david hates our constitutional Democracy and would rather serve a Dictatorial boy king.

Another nice scum bag and do you really wonder why print media is bankrupt in money and morals

This is the line that caused my jaw to drop to the floor:

“But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.”

George w. Bush, a man of honor?! Fuck you, David, who the fuck do you think you’re kidding?

And for those who would characterize an investigation as payback for the Clinton impeachment. He was investigated for a blowjob in the Oval office, Bush authorized torture from the Oval office.

Let’s just call it even, whaddya say?

David Broder: Isolated, Dishonest, or Morally Bankrupt?

In California, it’s called the Three Strikes Law — that’s life without the possibility of parole. As an enhancement for betraying the Fourth Estate, Broder would serve his sentence in the same cell with Peggy Noonan.

Jury of 12 or a commission?

Broder would serve his sentence in the same cell with as a personal attendant to Peggy Noonan.

Fixed it.

Scott Horton has a great Post on Mr Broder: Broder for the Defense

Dang, holdem! Standing on a chair clappin g!

Puravida, the flipside of reading that is ”I, David Broder, worship President George W. Bush, and if he doesn’t say there’s a problem here then I don’t believe there can be a problem here.” According to Broder, until Bush has himself arrested, there’s no way Bush could have committed a crime.

What was more telling was the wall of sound from the comment section. At
least 500 sensible, cohearant, people commented with informed passion as to how compleatly wrong that column was. I’m sure he whinced, and gave up reading, the trolls in the thread were useless.

Been thinking about you, are you are the one w/ the LIST ?
Wrote a 1 page letter to the NYT yesterday, recounting as many crimes as i could come up w/ in a minute going from 2000 to the present. I called for TREASON trials (that kinda talk upset their tummies on Sunday) and a war crimes tribunal.
They didn’t get back to me yet. I guess they are looking for an investigative reporter.

Could you slip ‘um a couple of leads to get ‘um started?

Pardon the o/t but y’all might want to check out tweety today.

Bless his heart (meant in its positive version), he is making the connection that the bush administration was using torture to try to produce justification for going to war with Iraq.

Additionally, they’d have to serve their sentences in Friedman Units.

Prosecution for torture…vapors!…to the fainting couch!

But torture itself…la la la…stuff happens!

Sure, it’s fine to scapegoat a few lowly grunts, but heaven forbid, not El Presidente! Elitist mindset, anyone? It’s the barrel, not the apples, and it’s time to scrape it clean.

Maybe we should ask Broder if he would prefer the waterboard or teh blow job? Lying about all criminal behavior being equal, of course.

Very scathing!

Loved his closing paragraph…

If the Bush torture team do have an appointment with the criminal justice system, then I have just one prayer. It’s that David S. Broder will personally manage their criminal defense. It would be an express ride to conviction. Ask Scooter Libby.

Wonder how Broder and company would respond if the matter of media complicity in war crimes, and related culpability became common topics of discussion on blogs, etc.?! Would they stop the cheerleading…spill the beans on the GOP pressures they’ve been under…try to cop a plea??

In fact prosecuting a future crime would be an illegal “preemptive prosecution”.

Broder might have something here if the Obama administration was creating new laws to prosecute legal acts in the past. That’s ex post facto.

But the laws have been on the books for decades. When you take, or fabricate, a flawed legal justification for an act, you are taking the risk that a court (not the Obama Administration) may see the law in a much clearer and less convoluted manner.

RE: “the implications of failing to hold senior officials accountable for committing serious crimes”

Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis elaborated in Olmstead v. United States (1928): “In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

“But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.”

And IF he were a man of honor, he would also release his Presidential records PROVING the chain of policy acts and authorizations that emerged from his office. He would also, if he were a man of honor, reveal who else was involved…because his sworn oath was to “Protect and Honor the Laws and Constitution of these United States…” Concealing the involvement of others is not the honorable act, any more than taking a bullet by a mobster in order to hide a wider conspiracy would be.

“Misprision of felony” is an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 4:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

If Bush claimed full legal and criminal responsibility for a felony in order to conceal the involvement of other guilty parties he would be participating in an additional crime.

So Broder doesn’t think American torture should be mysterious just ignored. Writing memos explaining how to do torture is “well-debated policy” making?

I’d settle for Bush saying: “Didn’t know anything about it, you see, I was just the front man. It was all Cheney.”
We could understand that false-tto whine fine.

Does anyone think for a moment that McCain or the Clintons would have released the torture memos, except with a SCOTUS decision, if they had been elected. So why did Obama release short of the final appeal to the SCOTUS? Simple, he believed the appeal was frivolous and he was not ging to back it up any which way. So now we have Broder defining breaking the law as policy formulation. A “policy” or decision to break the law or commit criminal conduct is unworthy of criminal prosecution if it involves the wrong people(or as Broder would see it, the right people.) Obama is taking them on.

Oakland, CA has been having a very public debate about hiring private security forces to patrol areas where the level of crime is high. Oh guess what the economic composition of those communities might be?

There is no clear idea as to whether and how people would be arrested, detained or treated by these private security forces, but it is accepted that it costs less to hire them than to train police officers.

Maybe it would resonate more with the American masses if they could imagine that the private contractors who were hired to do the dirty work of the Bush Crime Cartel might be working the streets in their towns. Would they like this sort of treatment? I mean, there are American citizens who have been rounded up and tortured by these folks in the name of terrorism.

What’ll it be?

David Broder is an elderly gentleman who is easily influenced by his surroundings. He must be close to 90.

I am so sick of this sh*t. “Is torture necessary or not?”

One question is necessary: Do you approve of torture if Russia, or China, or Iran does it to Americans? If you say no, you are a hypocrite, if you approve of Americans torturing others. I am sick to death of these children. I raised 3 of my own — they are adults now. I don’t need to hear children on TV. I would LIKE to be able to watch TV news again — but now it is too much like a pre-school class — or a school for the mentally challenged.

I go back and forth — on whether the Republicans (and some Democrats) are really THIS stupid, or just pandering for votes. It must be the former, since polls show torture is not condoned by voters.

A much overlooked caveat to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention reads as follows: “provided, however, that should David Broder determine that an otherwise prosecutable war crime is cloaked with an unworthy desire for vengeance, which presumption may never be rebutted whenever a different political party forms the executive administration subsequent to the administration which would otherwise be charged with war crimes, except as the interests of justice may otherwise dictate in the sole opinion of David Broder, which opinion shall not be reviewable in any court of law as it shall be deemed to constitute the highest moral authority in any land at any time.”

What’s the fuss? David Broder is a modern day Solomon whose word should be final whenever there is irrefutable evidence of war crimes committed by the US government, and if you disagree with him he will have you waterboarded. Not out of a desire for vengeance, of course, but out of respect for the rule of law.

“It is a plausible-sounding rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance.”

No actually it reinforces a desire/belief that no one is above the law the, corner stone of our Democracy.

So David why have the laws if they only apply to the lower classes and schmucks who don’t have the connections that folks like Rove and Bush and Rumsfeld et al have? I am sure you could go around this country and find people who are in jail right now for comitting torture against a human being. By your rational these people shouldn’t be in jail?

If that is the case “FREE CHUCKIE TAYLOR”

Chuckie Taylor sentenced to 97 years
Fri, 01/09/2009 – 5:55pm
Chuckie Taylor, the son of former Liberian warlord-turned-president Charles Taylor, was sentenced to 97 years in prison today for convictions of conspiracy, TORTURE, and firearm possession by a federal judge in Miami. He was “lucky” to get just 97 — prosecutors were seeking 147 years.

Oh and one more thing if Bush ever were convicted perhaps it would go a long way to keep another putz like Bush from even dreaming that he could be president one day!

Reading this op ed was torture…Someone arrest Broder NOW!