In a similar vein, I think the passage of time has led many of us to believe that President Nixon's August 1974 resignation for the Watergate scandal was somehow an inevitable and foregone conclusion by that point, when in fact it was anything but that at the time of its occurrence.

Had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against federal prosecutors a few weeks prior and allowed Nixon to keep his White House tapes, which contained the key evidence of his criminal wrongdoing that triggered the sudden collapse of his public support across party lines once it became public knowledge, he would have likely survived the scandal and finished his term in office.

The forced removal or dislodging of a head of state, whether achieved by legal means or otherwise, is a traumatic political experience for any nation and its people, from which it takes no small amount of time to recover. It's certainly not a step which should be taken so lightly and cavalierly, as was apparently the case in Washington back in 1998-99. We should never unsheathe such a sword from our legal arsenal for something so monumentally trivial as political payback upon the opposition.

For those reasons, I agreed with Nancy Pelosi's analysis of the politics as it existed in the fall of 2006 and winter of 2007, which led to her decision as Speaker to not seek President Bush's impeachment.

We certainly deserved congressional public hearings into the matter of the Iraq War and its origins, and for that I believe that Pelosi can rightly be criticized. But for her to have publicly announced or even imply in December 2006 that she would seek Bush's and Cheney's impeachment and removal for Iraq, that would have created a firestorm and likely sparked a serious public backlash.

That said, I very much disagreed with President Obama's subsequent decision upon taking office on January 2009 to drop any and all inquiries into the matter of the cooked intelligence on Iraq, and its direct impact upon public opinion and congressional decision making. It will probably stand as the most shortsighted decision of his presidency.

Bush and Cheney still need to be held to account for all that they did relative to the Iraq War, from their patently false claims to Congress to their institution of a regimen of torture for political and military prisoners in our hands. And fortunately, they still can be. Hopefully, should she be fortunate enough to be elected president, Hillary Clinton will not repeated the mistake of her immediate predecessor in the Oval Office.

 In determining what course should have/should be followed, I'm reminded that the electorate votes every four years for the executive ... we have wisely or luckily avoided coups or the appearance of coups by pouncing on whoever held the post earlier.  We've avoided the specter of Egypt's Morsi ... and, by so doing, we don't get trapped in the grudges that we witnessed in Bosnia or the outcomes common to the Kings, Queens, Tsars of yore.  Look ... I came of real political age during the Nixon Watergate drama and, as a federal employee who spent time travelling to DC and awaiting the early morning WashPo advancement of the story in those days and wanting to see him imprisoned with the key thrown away and bemoaning President Ford's pardon, etc., I understand fully the need for justice to be served.  Dare I say, the cry for blood lust in each of us probably lurks not too far beneath the surface.  "A pound of flesh" was my mantra ... in the name of justice, in my mind.

So, I'm older. Maybe wiser, but definitely older.  For some time, my retrospective is that Gerry Ford did the right thing (says I grudgingly) BECAUSE it freed the country--all of us--to move beyond that political and governmental devastation.  That was more important, in the long run, than my need for political blood justice.  Today, I think the same about Pelosi's demurral; and, about Obama's moving forward on Iraq.

There is every reason why my personal need for comeuppance and more for Bush/Cheney/et al should have dominated my conclusion in a fashion that I would not rest until they were convicted for a war crime.  The night of April 29, 2004, I watched in horror and sadness at the first pictures from Abu Ghraib ... and, called my sister Rita who lived in the same building (and had not felt well that day) to tell her not to watch because it would be hurtful.  I'll never know it she watched; because my dearest friend & only sister I found on the floor the next morning, and she died en route by ambulance to the hospital.  Yep ... I have lots of personal, political and legal reasons to see those Bush a@*)oles behind bars; but the reality is that getting steeped in the past wrongs and retribution in a democratic society cannot do anything other than detract from the present/future challenge and reality of governing today.  

"You can't still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to do," Ingraham said on her radio show.

"If you do, there has to be something wrong with you," she added.
...
"You have to have someone who says, look, I'm a Republican but I'm not an idiot! I'm not stupid!" she said. "I learn from the past and I improve myself."

link

This.Was.A.Gotcha.Question.  Understand, now? Let's see Jeb throw his brother under the bus.  

I think more relevant foreign policy questions should be asked - not about what happened 13 years ago. I mean, why not ask about the fall of the Soviet Union, Iran-Contra, and Vietnam?? (And if you feel it's fair to ask about what he would do instead of his brother, then let's ask Hillary Clinton what her policy on hiring and managing interns will be. I mean, her husband's inability to keep it in his pants and lack of candor cost taxpayers lots of money - money that could have been used for more productive things. And while the whole Lewinsky episode was stupid, let's not forget that, but for Bill Clinton's idiocy, none of the impeachment nonsense, hearings, depositions, etc. would have happened because Ken Starr had nothing on the land deals, but Billy gave them lots of ammunition to keep coming for him.)  And since the meme is already coming down in liberal circles that Hillary shouldn't necessarily be held to every decision he made (because she's her own person in a different time, doncha know?), then I don't know how it's fair to hold Jeb to account for GWB.  But maybe in your happy world, that's ok.

But hey, if we're gonna play the, "Let's travel back in time," game I absolutely think the Dems should absolutely he held to defend every position Clinton, Carter and Johnson made. Actually, it would be nice if Hillary Clinton actually answered ANY questions.  I mean - why even announce at this point unless you're willing to answer some questions? And Bernie Sanders?? Haven't heard any real tough questions directed his way yet.

Personally, I would find it more instructive and productive to ask what a candidate plans to do then engaging in parlor games where no answer would be satisfying to the masses.  Let's face it:  whatever Jeb Bush said people like you weren't going to like it and would criticize it. He was stupid for agreeing to the question and then not having an answer for it. That's what we get for having presidential elections for 18 months.  But calling out stupid is also fair game.  This was stupid.

Foremost among those reasons is that people want to know how much Jeb Bush is like and/or would follow the policies & approach of George W Bush

There's an easy way-

Given that Jeb has tried mightily to distance himself from his brother, whose administration used false assertions to launch the still highly unpopular Iraq War, this touting of W.--even at a behind-closed-doors session of Republican donors--seemed odd. But perhaps more noteworthy is that Jeb Bush has embraced much of his brother's White House foreign policy team. In February, his campaign released a list of 21 foreign policy advisers; 17 of them served in the George W. Bush administration. And one name stood out: Paul Wolfowitz, a top policy architect of the Iraq War--for the prospect of Wolfowitz whispering into Jeb's ear ought to scare the bejeezus out of anyone who yearns for a rational national security policy.

Hillary Clinton:  What would you change?

Pray tell, did you ever begrudge the six figures that Ronald Reagan used to pull down per speech, including $2 million for two speeches in Japan? Did you criticize him for accepting the fancy digs in Bel Aire, CA from wealthy benefactors, who purchased the property and gifted it to him and wife Nancy?

How about George W. Bush's $15 million payday from the 2011 sale of the Texas Rangers baseball club, which represented a 1,500% return on his original investment -- while the city of Arlington, TX picked up the tab for the eminent domain claims invoked during the construction of the Rangers ballpark, which occurred on Dubya's watch as team president?

Did we hear any criticism from you regarding Dick Cheney's decision to stay on Halliburton's payroll per "deferred compensation" from his time as that company's CEO, while simultaneously serving as vice president?

No, we did not, on all counts -- which is yet another reason why your IOKIYAR-prompted hypocrisy deserves our scorn and attracts our ridicule.

No one cares about the stupid emails. Even the republicans are demoralized over that one.

And if she was a republican you would be lauding her as a "job creator" for making all that money.

In "Hard Choices," Clinton, a former secretary of state and former U.S. senator who is exploring a 2016 presidential campaign, writes: "[M]any Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake become (sic) more painful."

Clinton continues, "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

Clinton Foundation-palooza Hurtles Toward Its Vince Foster Moment
..............
But as Brian Beutler noted here, all of these claims of pay-for-play deals are merely claims based on circumstantial evidence and are in their nature unfalsifiable.Unless Clinton acted against the interests of every individual, corporation or country that ever gave any money to the Clinton Foundation, then her acts are under a cloud. In none of these cases is there any proof or frankly even any strong suggestion that Clinton took any action whatsoever to further the interests of her husband's Foundation's donors.

None.

But of course we've already moved on to the stage where the Foundation hasn't just been compromised by donors desire to give in return for proximity or favors. Indeed, the entire Foundation is a corrupt enterprise. And by this logic, everyone who contributed money to the Foundation was contributing to a corrupt enterprise even if they didn't have any pecuniary interests that could be served by doing so. Thus, George Stephanopoulos has to apologize for contributing to the Clinton Foundation since ... since in doing so he would be compromised and give more favorable coverage to the Clintons?

Here's my take on the Clintons. They've used their fame and power to enrich themselves, which is of course an outrage since it makes them always indistinguishable from the Bush family. (In other words, we need Jeb to bring honor and dignity back to the Oval Office.) On the Foundation, Bill Clinton has dedicated years of his life both to charitable activities and to perpetuating his most presidential of post-presidencies. They play close to the line. And part of the exhaustion of observing them is their refusal to play by rules tighter than those applied to anyone else, fully knowing the scrutiny that will later be applied to them -- and all of this entangled with the freak show conspiracy theories that inevitably bubble up around them, a symbiotic embrace of grievance, aggression and derp. It's painful to admit, but the two sides feed on each other. I start out thinking, I'm happy to let them deal with this on their own. And yet the charges become so overblown and nonsensical, the conventional wisdom in the press marches us so wildly in advance of any actual facts, it just becomes too much for me to take. Seeing them again at the center of these wild and carnivalesque conspiracy theories, grand overstatements and or simply evidence-free accusations puts me in the mind of Michael Corleone's infamous line: "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me in!"

And I don't remember you being so gung-ho when Romney wouldn't even let the public know how much money he actually made because his returns, for some reason, were never made public.

I would be interested to see who were

.. marginalized or punished by the Bush administration.

and what was done.

I have explained to Donald what the Downing Street memo doesn't say.

There is no way that "nuclear engineers" knew anything that was reliable enough to bet the farm on. (Yes, intelligence is a dicey game and if you're wrong NYC may become an ash heap.)

And Wilson confirmed what Bush said. That Iraq had tried to purchase yellow cake.

....Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

SOTU 03

....Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    redacted) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations"to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

snip

U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations."The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.

snip

The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, (                    ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective.                      SENTENCE DELETED                      The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

Open the page you want to link to - copy the link.

Then close all browser pages - then the browser.

Then open some other app, like weather - close it.

Reopen the browser with ONLY ONE PAGE-talk left, open.

NOW try opening the linking box and try the linking process.  You will still have the link you copied.

Then if you want to quote text you have to reopen the linked page to grab the text.