Obama's AG Would 'Immediately Review' Bush Crimes »
Posted by: Neophile 4 months, 1 week ago808 Comments Report this Story
Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted.
Read Full Story at philly.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 808
-
0%
Will13134 months, 1 week ago
that's why Cheney will head to Dubai... and Bush to South America..
still not out of reach of a Predator and a Hellfire..
Reply-
0%
ETproductions4 months, 1 week ago
Maybe Obama should leave their brainchild, extraordinary rendition, on the books till the whole lot are rounded up and brought to justice.
Reason enough for me to vite for Obama. My only concern is will the DOJ have any time left to do anything else?
Reply-
0%
Locky124 months, 1 week ago
Keep dreaming. Obama will NEVER be elected president.
You may say Hillary lies.
Obama IS a lie.
Reply-
0%
NoWayMan4 months, 1 week ago
...said the bushbot.
really, a bushbot should not be accusing others of lying. its just too ridiculous.
Reply-
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
"really, a bushbot should not be accusing others of lying."
--ICAM. Furthermore, given the horrific train wreck our country has become over the last 8 years, it's beyond me why conjobs would still think their political judgement was sound. But clearly con arrogance knows no bounds.
Reply-
0%
Lurch4 months, 1 week ago
He`s gotta be getting paid to post that carp. Nobody is that much of a tool.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
I notice you continue to dodge my original point above (why are you convinced your political judgement is sound considering the hellhole con choices have led our country into?) while you take weak swipes at the Democratic Party. I'll take that as an admission that your position is 100% indefensible. ;-P
Reply
-
-
0%
donald514 months, 1 week ago
yes, declare the RNC a terrorist organization for torture, preemptive war and eavesdropping without a warrant. Look at their track record from Watergate to Iran Contra and Plamegate... and the fact that only a repug congress has ever tried to impeach a president! 4,000 good Americans and 40,000 maimed for life... for what under the repugs?
Reply -
0%
ETproductions4 months, 1 week ago
I used to be a Republican, and would love to see the Republican party of Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower brought back to life. It is possible if we can purge all the ConMen from it and bring back people who know that Conservative Values do not include:
10 trillion dollar deficits.
Huge increases in the size of government.
Activist judges finding a Unitary Executive (dictator) somewhere in the Constitution, intruding into family decisions about removing life support from a loved one, trashing states rights and ignoring the Florida State Constitution to appoint Bush President in 2000, etc. etc.
Working to break down the 230 year wall of separation between church and state.
Altering tax law to establish a banana republic with a tiny handful of ultra wealthy and everyone else trapped permanently in serfdom.
Preemptive wars and permanent occupation of foreign lands.
The end of habeas corpus, established in 1305.
Failing that, the party should be disbanded.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Locky124 months, 1 week ago
Donald51 and plenty of other posters here will defend ANYTHING this racist marxist says and does because they hate this country.
It's the only logical conclusion as to why anybody would back this loser WHO WILL NOT, CANNOT NOT NOW OR EVER BECOME PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES.
Get used to it.
Wake up! Obama can't even carry NY!
Reply-
0%
donald514 months, 1 week ago
Yah, I hate it... that is why I'm retired military trying to get fools like you to find some actual scrupples/values... that I was willing to defend in combat!
Reply -
-
0%
PapaWolf4 months, 1 week ago
>>will defend ANYTHING this racist marxist says
This is rich. You back an admin & party that has demonized gays, blacks, muslims, arabs, persians, anyone who LOOKS arab or persian (not that you'd know the difference), latinos & women who want equal rights (ever hear of "feminazis"?), and you have the GALL to call a man who has fought racism & spoken truth to the racism problems in this country, a racist.
You've got balls.
I've always found it interesting watching the Republican Conventions over the years - more-so in recent years - where there always seemed to be more minorities on stage than in the audience. You trot out a few prominent minority figures for show but have the most monochrome base around. And accuse others of being racist.
Did you wear a bandaide with a purple heart on it while you supported your AWOL, service-dodging candidate in '04?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Locky124 months, 1 week ago
He says he has the ability to unite this country. He says he's an agent of change. He's silent on specifics.
So we go to his senate record. We learn he's just an old time, run of the mill ultra lib.
We learn of his friends: the racist Rev Wright who he won't separate himself from is a raving, ranting racist.
Bill Ayres who tried to blow up the Pentagon and to this day wishes he did more damage. But he's Obama's family friend.
Rezco: Who Obama went to to get a sweetheart deal on a multi million dollar house and yard.
And of course her militant, racist wife, Michelle who though took advantage of the best this country has to offer in terms of education was never proud of this country until Barack was a serious contender for the presidency.
Now we have Obama's true thoughts on what he believes about people who go to church and own guns and want secure borders.
Hillary will clean his clock in Pennsylavania.
Barack will win the nomination but has NO CHANCE of becoming president.
Reply-
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
"He says he has the ability to unite this country. "
--Even if you had a basis for your ridiculous claims about Obama, Chimper promised to be a uniter and not a divider and what did knob-gobblin' cons do when he clearly wasn't living up to his word? You rewarded him with four more years in office! LOL Just like you were trying to draft that filthy hypocrite adulterer Newt Gingrich to run for President. In a nutshell, wingjobs engage in serial hypocrisy and cannot be trusted, period.
Reply-
0%
Locky124 months, 1 week ago
Whatever.
At least Bush got elected not once but twice.
Obama's just a train wreck bound for nowhere.
Reply-
-
-
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
"Every investigation by Kerry/Edwards proved negative."
--So then this means you also think all the fruitless investigations Republicans manufactured out of pure horsecrap in their never ending quest to torpedo Clinton were baseless as well--because they ultimately "proved negative"? Right, lockster? ;-P
Reply-
-
0%
Will13134 months, 1 week ago
NOT REALLY .. IMPEACHED YES.. and can't try cases in the Supreme Court.. so what.. the POS was a mistake..
Reply -
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
"Um Clinton was found guilty as charged,,, Impeached and disbarred."
--which is why I clearly specified the investigations that ultimately proved to be FRUITLESS, slater. Not a big fan of reading comprehension, are you? Try to resist your reflexive urge to deflect criticism of your savior and READ once in a while. You just might learn something.
Reply-
0%
slate4 months, 1 week ago
Messo, did you say something? I quit listening after all the childishness that comes out of you imature mind.
I really love to be one of the few cons in a thread laoded down with the ultimate left wingers on this site such as you, Dawgs and Da Messo feller. Especially watching your excitment when one of your politicians get syou excited by lying to you about I Gonna Impeach Le Shrub. ALmost as much fun as watching kids waiting for Mickey Mouse to show up at an event.
Reply
-
-
0%
donald514 months, 1 week ago
impeached by a repug led congress that we now know was far more corrupt than Clinton... Delay and Newt... what a pair of liars! Even last year the three greatest earmark spenders in both the House and the senate are still repugs! Yes, there is a terrorist party in American... and it is the Republican party!
Anyone still suporting the RNC has to be without a conscience and lives with a defective moral compass! Or, just plain values money over all else!
Reply -
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 1 week ago
Found guilty? Impeachment is not a conviction. Sorry, but the Senate did not convict him. So technically his guilt of lying to a grand jury was not established.
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
Lurch4 months, 1 week ago
>Every investigation by Kerry/Edwards proved negative.
Yeah, that would explain the Republicans in jail for rigging the election, the books by Republican hacks about how they rigged the election, and all the investigations that have shown beyond any statistical margin of error that the voting was rigged and that all the rigged areas went to Bush.
Gee, yeah, none of that happened.
Reply-
0%
injest4 months, 1 week ago
"and all the investigations that have shown beyond any statistical margin of error that the voting was rigged and that all the rigged areas went to Bush."
Can you give a source for this claim?
Now lets follow this line of logic K
"beyond any statistical margin"
BLAHHHHAHH
If we want to go with statistics why even have elections
ROFLMAO
Reply-
0%
Lurch4 months, 1 week ago
Your homework is my command. lol.
Every single idiosyncratic, unexplained "glitch" that happened in the election was in one direction: benefiting G. W. Bush. If these immense number of flaws, problems, etc. were truly random, you would expect a 50-50 split in the effects of the "glitch". Instead, what you have is that EVERY SINGLE "GLITCH" that happened WAS IN THE DIRECTION OF BENEFITTING G. W. BUSH!
So, when they try to say it was just a glitch, remember that. When they say it's "just a minor glitch, and it didn't affect the election," remember that 100% of the "glitches" were in one direction, for Bush. As a statistician, it is pretty hard to swallow that purely random events went 100% in one direction.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ProtestStolen...
Reply -
0%
Lurch4 months, 1 week ago
cont`ed
Now, according to the media, the polling data is all of a sudden wrong. But the polls are only wrong here in the USA. And, for the first time in decades.
Not only that, but exactly where the polls went wrong is very telling.
The exit polls were correct for any non swing state presidential race, and all the swing state Senate races.
The "wrong" exit poll results occurred only in swing states, and there the polls were wrong only for the presidential race.
That's right. The only places where the exit polls were wrong were in the swing states. And here it gets real good. The only two areas where the exit polls in the state went for one candidate and the official vote differed were:
You guessed it, Florida and Ohio.
Losing either of these states tosses the race to Kerry, so the voter fraud is absolutely necessary to succeed in these two states in order to steal the presidency.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Lurch4 months, 1 week ago
The only two states that were outside of any statistical margin of error were FLA and OHIO which both went for Bush and both only were outside statistical margin of error in the presidential race. All areas where there was a great deal of fluctuation went for Bush. In a natural, random world, errors would go 50% for Bush, 50% for Kerry.
In places like Ukraine, Columbia, Africa, the people would riot and demand a new election because of the obvious vote rigging.
In America, our right-wing mass media claims the statistics are suddenly wrong even though they worked in all other states and all other races across the country just fine. They worked for decades in America and across the globe just fine.
The Republicans are brain-dead lemmings and the Dems are whipped. Meanwhile, our Founding Fathers are tossing their cookies in their graves at what the Bush Admin has done to their hard work and sacrifices.
Reply
-
0%
Lurch4 months, 1 week ago
After 194 votes it was found that if the Bushies had not filed suit and the Gore campaign had not capitulated, in other words, if the letter of the law in Florida at the time had been followed to the letter, Gore would have won.
That is before adding the votes for the thousands the scum-bag Republicans illegally removed from the voting rolls. And that is before the Right-wing activists on the Supreme Court overstepped any and all bounds of responsibility to `intervene` where they had no authority, in order to select Bush.
Face the facts.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
PapaWolf4 months, 1 week ago
That all depends on how he loses or wins.
If, like Bush, he wins by losing the popular vote, losing the exit polls, & in spite of allegations of irregularities too numerous to conveniently count, then I'd have as big a problem w/his presidency as Bush's.
If he loses, and loses the exit polls, and loses w/a minimal amount of irregularity allegations, then so be it.
One of my favorites from the 2k Supreme Court was that it stopped the recount for a week, then said that since the recount couldn't be completed in time so it refused to allow the recount.
My favorite, that is, other than the fact that the REPUBLICAN, States' Rights Party's candidate sued to have the FEDERAL gov't stop a STATE from exercising its laws on election recounts. He started his presidency as a hypocrite and went down hill from there.
Reply-
-
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 1 week ago
Hillary won the popular vote because of cross-over votes from ditto-heads. The same ditto heads did not return for the caucuses.
Reply -
0%
PapaWolf4 months, 1 week ago
>>Hmm hillary won the popular vote in Tx but lost the delegate vote,,, did Obama do a little theiving on the side?
That procedure was fair, according to TX election law. Yes, she won the popular vote, but he won the caucus vote. There were no allegations of voter fraud, as in the 2000 AND 2004 presidential elections - other than Rush Limbaugh telling Republicans to vote for Clinton in Democratic primaries where they're allowed.
So, are you getting that sinking feeling? Ground's not to firm under you, either. Is it?
Reply -
-
0%
mesodude4 months ago
"Slate, the dems will run the country like they run their primaries."
--The fact that Democrats are independent thinkers who try to make careful, thoughtful decisions about who runs their country (rather than voting based on whatever direction the wind is blowing that particular moment-- as cons do) really gets under your skin, doesn't it tangy? ;-)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
"At least Bush got elected not once but twice."
--But, Locky, one of many facts you cons with your tiny, unbelievably low-voltage battery-powered brains fail to process is that, like the vast majority of Americans, you should be thoroughly embarrassed, humiliated, and ashamed that Bush and Barney (with a combined IQ of perhaps 60) were even once allowed to set foot in the White House, much less twice.
Reply-
-
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
"Tin Foil Hat Al Gore?"
--Locky, only in your fantasies could the creature responsible for Chimpstock in the Persian Gulf be as, intelligent, as successful and have as positive an impact on the planet as Al Gore has.
"John "I Disgraced My Fellow Soldiers With Lies" Kerry?
--Yes, it's always amused me how conjobbers quickly relax their BS "we support the troops at any cost" mentality when the people in question who have served their country happen to disagree with the wingers' position on the debacle of the century in Iraq.
Reply -
0%
Lurch4 months, 1 week ago
Locky,
You just keep on showing your hate for our military and Vets. You make a great supporter for the vet-hating vet McCain.
You attack a decorated war hero, he attacks the entire military by cutting military funding five times during a time of war at the VA.
Nobody disgraces our military like McCain and his followers. Nobody ******es off our military and disgraces our country like Bush and his followers.
Reply
-
-
0%
slate4 months, 1 week ago
LOL that says alot for your Democrat party. You can't beat a combined IQ of 60,,,,, Makes ya proud huh?
Reply-
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
Actually, what it says, slater, is that cons are dimwitted sheep who need to be told what to do and will always choose party over country. That's why you're now gleefully bending over and compromising your so-called principles and voting for McLib (when back in '04 you deceitful, opportunistic, hypocrites swore up and down you couldn't trust a "flip flopper" to run your country? So it turns out wingjobs are the biggest flipfloppers of them all. Vote with the wind (cause you sure as hell don't have a brain in your heads). ROTFLMAO
Reply-
0%
Lurch4 months, 1 week ago
They also said they couldn`t vote for a guy with no personality but they nominating McLame.
They also said they couldn`t vote for a gold-digger, but here they are defending McMoney-Marriage.
They also said they could only vote for a president of character, and here they are attacking Obama while supporting McLaws-for-lays
Reply-
0%
slate4 months, 1 week ago
LO atlease the cons get along well enugh to have elected someone, even if I'm not thrilled with McCain. Hell your party only knows how to hate and fight,,,,, I ask anyone that doubte that to look at the last 7 long weeks as proof.
Besides,,,,, your party has a A KKk member in a prominent place and with things said by both the Clinton and Obama camp I'd say your Party as a whole is full to the rim with them. SAD,,, what would JFK think? I'm so glad I left that party when it was still great.
Reply-
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
"atlease the cons get along well enugh to have elected someone, even if I'm not thrilled with McCain."
--You can't be serious, slater. As far as the rest of Americans (including most of the GOP) are concerned, you 28 percenters are like the creepy, touchy feely Uncle in the family (the one who likes to hug the kids just a little bit too long for our comfort). You're like icky scabs. Embarrassing, ugly and disgraceful. I can't believe you're giving yourself a pat on the back for uniting around a candidate most of you despise. What a world. ROTFLMAO
Hell your party only knows how to hate and fight,,,,, I ask anyone that doubte that to look at the last 7 long weeks as proof."
Reply-
0%
PapaWolf4 months, 1 week ago
>>I can't believe you're giving yourself a pat on the back for uniting around a candidate most of you despise.
Hey. It's kind of like "Give Me Party Loyalty Or Give Me Death!"
Reply -
0%
slate4 months ago
Messo are you some kind of weirdo? All your analogies are sex based and incest based in nature or talking about penises,,,, you are one sick PUP and you are blocked until you mature a little in your approach.
Reply
-
-
0%
PapaWolf4 months, 1 week ago
>>your party has a A KKk member
If all you know about Senator Byrd is that he WAS a member of the KKK for a few years in his youth, from the mid '40s to early 50's, while completely ignoring the more than 50 years of public service in complete contrast to the KKK & those years, then you really have no clue.
From an interview: He "was sorely afflicted with tunnel visionâ;;a jejune and immature outlookâ;;seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions." And, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
Now we know how you can completely ignore the incompetence, corruption & outright lies of the Bush admin, not to mention he's still AWOL, because he CLAIMS to be a Christian, & he's someone you'd like to have a beer with.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ProudBlueTexan4 months, 1 week ago
I'll say it yet again: No problem, we'll do this without you.
Reply
-
-
0%
slate4 months, 1 week ago
Chimper?
knob-gobblin' cons?
LOL the maturity of the left. Yeah we need you guys to be in charge.
Ahem, if you have eveidence of proof of 'crimes', tell your esteemed 'cough' leaders' to place them on the table.
Reply-
-
0%
Will13134 months, 1 week ago
Are Bush, Rove or Rush posting here... I know the get all worked up just thinking about those nights in the Lincoln Bed Room with Jeff Gannon...
Reply -
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
"Did a gay man just call someone else a "knob-gobbler"?
You take that BACK! Just because I think cons are duplicitous, knob-gobblin' hypocrites doesn't mean I'm a di... er, I mean, deck swabber myself. Not that there'd be anything wrong with it but I am NOT gay and I never HAVE been gay. You believe me, don'tcha, Tangy? ;-P
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Lurch4 months, 1 week ago
Anything is better than Bush/McCain - even no president would be better than McCain.
In fact, if working Americans had all the evidence, lies, flip-flops, adulterous acts, etc on the table and you took away party labels, I have no doubt 90% of Americans would vote for no president over McCain.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Georgia504 months, 1 week ago
"filthy hypocrite adulterer"
Interesting how in the mind of Dems this comes across as a pejorative phrase...but only when discussing Republicans. For the Clintons, Hillary's head-over-heels rush to address--not Monica--but the political consequences of Monica--can be nothing but admirable and honorable.
Reply-
0%
mesodude4 months, 1 week ago
"Interesting how in the mind of Dems this comes across as a pejorative phrase...but only when discussing Republicans. "
--You're blind. You don't see the difference between being an adulterer and being an adulterer who stalks other adulterers like prey and lives to destroy their lives. Clinton is the former, the GOP lizard the latter.
"For the Clintons, Hillary's head-over-heels rush to address--not Monica--but the political consequences of Monica--can be nothing but admirable and honorable."
--Translation: you hate Hillary Clinton because (instead of melting down on national television a la Tammy Faye Bakker, and publicly airing her dirty laundry) she chose to rise above her husband's human failings. You couldn't be more transparent and your attitude is a sad commentary on con lemming values.
Reply-
0%
Georgia504 months ago
Then by all means allow me to put a finer point on the hypocrisy you appear oblivious to:
"You had to know that the media would do its best to make sure that Giuliani's affair with Nathan would be seen as more than just a private matter, so it's no surprise that an attention-grabbing story has surfaced about the security costs that taxpayers incurred as a result of it. This from the same media that largely ignored the unjust use of government resources in Bill Clinton's affair with Gennifer Flowers, a story with an actual victim, a black woman, normally an ace in the deck of victim cards."
(cont'd)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
