What a curious expression for Obama to make during his State of the Union speech: "Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. And we can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past." When was it litigated, much less re-litigated?
Surely he doesn't mean definition One in my dictionary of "Litigate": To make the subject of a lawsuit, contest at law. Possibly he meant definition Two: To dispute.
When it comes to the crimes of the Bush Administration, they've never been litigated, as per definition One, and those of us who have taken the time to dispute, definition Two, feel confident that any reasonable reader of the evidence, testimony and law would come to the conclusion that this myriad of offences deserves investigation which would result in trials and probably convictions.
What I believe I remember Obama saying when asked about the crimes of the Bush Gang was, "I'll look into it." Is he revoking his promise of transparency and hiding behind some secret Secrecy clause in not admitting to the public why he won't investigate these crimes? The U.S. never investigates the crimes carried out by our government to any just conclusion: Guatemala, Iran, Cuba Chile, Honduras, Iran again, Nicaragua, Iraq and God knows where and what else when lips and files are kept shut.
We're the new Nazi's, or "mad dog idiots," as Alexandre Exquemelin wrote at the Hattiesburg American online.
There will be no significant change with this administration. Imperialism and the corporate oligarchy will be saved at the perpetual threat and cost to the rest of us.
Scott Tyner
Hattiesburg, MS
1
1
1
