for joining 4 days ago to vomit your ignorant, DKos, Huffington talking points.
That is all I am going to comment, I am surprised your diary has lasted this long. No one on here wants to any longer discuss the ridiculous idea that the President who has kept us safe for 7 years should be investigated for what; throwing some water in a terrorist’s face?

Go back to dKos. RedState makes it very clear we are a site for an exchange of ideas. Any intelligent thoughts you have are probably welcome here…but this crap just won’t cut it.

(For the record, I generally cannot stand most of what goes up on DailyKos, but fortunately we all know that the left wing is all pretty much the same).

“the ridiculous idea that the President who has kept us safe for 7 years should be investigated for what; throwing some water in a terrorist’s face?”

If you mean, “caused a simulation of drowning that is generally considered to be torture under US law and therefore completely illegal”, then yeah,

So Mel, do you consider waterboarding to be legal, or do you just think it does not matter?

I know the rule here is “Be respectful, or be banned.” You seem to be implying that my diary should be deleted (and probably, by implication, my account banned, or maybe I am misinterpreting.) I’m willing to have a reasonable exchange about prosecutions–perhaps Redstate is not the appropriate platform for that.

There are a number of legitimate reservations to a post-office prosecution and investigation.

First, there are sufficient means for this to occur during the President’s term of office through the Constitutional powers granted to Congress. Congress has had lengthy hearings on virtually every ‘offense’ alleged of the President, and they have taken no action. Congress was consulted twice about the conduct of the war before it began, and its members supervised the war during its conduct and had their opportunity to require fundamental changes. Should they also be charged for the result?

Second, other than “Bush Lied”, subsequently refuted by the Rockefeller Commission, there is little that stands the basis for prosecution in the courts. What exactly are the charges? Who has jurisdiction? Please don’t assert that an international court should be placed in charge–they have been woefully inadequate in virtually every case they’ve tried, such as the multi-year trial for Milosivic after the Bosnia conflict.

Third, the process would become an absolutely insane circus of political theater, not justice. There is little assurance any court proceedings of an ex-President could be conducted fairly and objectively. People of both political parties would be dissatisfied with any result, leading to antagonism and additional hyper-partisan bickering, something already in long supply.

Fourth, if every President felt that politically motivated (be honest here–it’s all about Bush; no mention is made of President Clinton’s approval of rendition or his stated goal of ‘regime change’ in Iraq, or his attack on military targets in 1998) trials would be convened on various pretexts after the term of office expired, this would mostly lead to over-cautious decisions or non-decisions–or even greater examples of secrecy and intrigue. Neither of these serves the nation. Would the nation and the world been better off if Roosevelt was prosecuted for misleading the nation (as many alleged) about World War II?

Lastly, there’s the notion of credibility. For Congress to claim that the President should be held accountable for politically unpopular decisions when its own members are under investigation and indictment for actual crimes, and at the same time fully responsible for the economic crisis at hand, is pretty hypocritical. There’s a grain of truth to the idea that they want to pursue this avenue with President Bush as a way of deflecting criticism and investigation of their own performance. After all, who has the lower approval ratings?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.