« Sober Words from the UK | Main | Pat Condell on Dutch Dhimmitude »

These people wanting trials are doing this because, after ranting idiotic nonsense for 7 years with no result, they need something that appears to validate their idiocy wasn't just that.. completely fabricated evils due to their ideological poisoning resulting in screams of uncontrolled rage.

chris needs to have a prostate exam - could explain the tingly legs?

I look forward to the day when Matthews discovers the tingle running up his leg is actually urine running down. If they open up this can of worms, then the can of worms that is Herod Obama can be opened. Also, unless Kind Herod The Baby Killer is in for life a future administration can go after him for real and imagined crimes. That will be something to watch--every four years a new administration comes in and tries the previous administration for crimes.

The fact that a statement like this did NOT immediately and permanently destroy this man's career bodes ill for our nation.

No cool. The peaceful and orderly transition of power is very important to the republic. If these fools start "show trials" there is no loger that transition. It then becomes political retribution which has in history grown to all out civil war. Next we'll have the Louis & Antonette beheadings for political rivals.

Dangerous road to go down, Chris, since it'll be Obama's turn next.

Go ahead with your Stalinist show trials, Dhimmis -- just remember: Payback's a bitch! Hope either GWB or V-P Cheney will have the sense to retain Mark R. Levin, Esq., to defend them -- that promises to be a really good show; I'd take off from work to watch those fireworks!

"Why would a show trial or witchhunt be bad?"

Because they are show trials and witchhunts! They make a mockery of the justice system.

What a POS Matthews is.

Witch Hunts would be fine with me as long as they were Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno.

Well, Name, they shouldn't. As Henry said, they make a mockery of the justice system. Doesn't matter who the target is.

Besides, with Pelosi, Clinton, Reno, Reid, etc., we don't need witch hunts or show trials. We could have real ones if the Justice Department did it's job.

Funny - when I thought of "witch hunts", I immediately thought of "Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno" too...

But then I thought:

"How would you get dogs to follow that scent?"

...also gives a distrubing new aspect to 'bag-limit'...

- MuscleDaddy

Yeah, I may disagree with the former administration on a lot of things, but this is just really clearly a bad idea.

"Anonymous at January 26, 2009 3:22 PM"

Thank you.

>>Why should the innocent fear?

The battle cry of the lynch mob.

Mathews tingling? Maybe he should have worn a Condom

Lynch mobs are why John Moses Browning (PBUH) made belt fed machine guns.

I'm no fan of the Obamessia, but I think he's too smart to let this happen. He knows political winds shift and his head could be next on the chopping block.

Besides, this is like suing someone for giving you bruises during the Heimlich maneuver. Prosecute a president for making tough choices, and none of them will make any tough choices anymore. We'll all be bystanders watching everyone choke to death.

Good call, Tweety.

Maybe that's a gerbal running up his leg that gives him his tingles.

Why would a show trial or witchhunt be bad? … Why should the innocent fear?

Because in a witch hunt or a show trial, the accused is already presumed guilty, therefore by definition there are no "innocent". A "show trial" is to a trial what a professional wrestling match is to a sporting event. The outcome is preordained; the event is merely for the entertainment of the masses (and of course, propaganda, in the case of the trial). Merely being targeted in such an endeavor paints the accused as guilty, not unlike the way people accused of sexual harassment may be found not guilty at trial, only to find their reputations ruined anyway. This is completely contrary to the way our justice system works, and our Constitution works (what's left of it), and it is that way for a reason. We complain about guilty parties going free on technicalities, and reasonably so, but the alternative is to presume that anyone accused is guilty. Presumption of innocence is key in curbing the potentially tyrannical power of the state, since if the state can't prove that the accused is guilty then they must be set free, rather than requiring the accused to move heaven and earth to prove that they are innocent.

I'd also like to ask Tweety how he would feel if Obama was subjected to the same treatment when he leaves office, as one day he must - the left seems to forget this point. Or if Republicans had done the same to Bill Clinton, would he have characterized it as a baseless, petty, politically-motivated attack? He'd be right then, and we'd be right now, in painting this travesty as just that.

That tingle he feels in his leg is the last of his dignity and credibility sliding down it, desperately trying to make a break for it while it still can.

As far as I can tell the media are still sore over Clinton's impeachment. So are the democrats as a whole, to a lesser degree. Remember they spent a great deal of time at least making noise about an attempt to impeach Bush though I do notice that, whilst the media were incredibly keen on the idea, Pelosi and Reid managed to stretch out the yammering and talking until it was too late to actually begin impeachment proceedings. They knew the consequences.

The media folk don't. They don't live in even the rarified relaity of politics. Theirs is entirely a world of fantasy, where you can solve all the worlds problems with "truth and reconciliation committees" (and look how well they did in South Africa, after all.../sarc) and where there's no consequences to your decisions at all. They'd love the chance to carry on raking Bush over the coals for another two or three years. They have no idea what the inevitable consequences of that would be, nor do they even care.

Personally, I wouldn't want to see anything of the sort but, on the other hand, if we did it would only turn out badly for the Democrats.

Everyday folks get turned off by that sort of crap in this country. Note how people reacted to the whole Clinton mess.

If they go through with it or just work themselves up into a froth talking about it, it will backfire on them all in the end.

If there is a trial, as Bush's lawyer I would call to the stand Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Kennedy, President Clinton and every other democrat who for the last 15 years has talked about Saddam and WMDs. I would also call all the democrats who voted for the war.

If they put Bush on trial it will put the country into a civil war I think

Why not bring back the guillotine? That's what many of the left would like to see - a complete purging, as bloody as possible to make "examples", just as the French revoltionaries did, not to mention Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao; all heroes of the American left. Peace, love, and tolerance? In your dreams.

>Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao; all heroes of the American left.

Uh... no. Castro is a hero to some leftist idiots, but Pol Pot and Stalin are pretty universally reviled in American leftist thinking.

Mao is looking pretty good; he was a liar, a betrayer, a murderer, and a tyrant, but his country is poised to rule the world right now. If we judge him by the standards here (insuring safety and prosperity for your own people at any cost) you should at least admire him as an enemy after your own principles.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2009 10:24 PM

LOL - that made a lot of sense. Been drinking tonight?

@ Anon

I usually try and approach every subject (or person who brings up that subject) I disagree with tactfully. I can't do that with you.

Stalin and Pol Pot are not universally reviled. I have had heated arguments with leftists who still persist in defending them. You are horrifically misinformed.

China deserves credit for nothing. Go back to the 5th grade. Mao murdered scores of his own people. That is not "insuring safety and prosperity for your own people at any cost", it's the opposite.

Don't take my word for it, though. Go into any Chinese restaurant and tell them how much you admire Chairman Mao and see what they think of you, dipshit.

Agreed, The Him. Anonymous, if you come back, can we revisit in a little more detail your quote:

"insuring safety and prosperity for your own people at any cost"

OK, you say this in what I perceive to be a snarky way. If you are taking a potshot at conservative thinking, can you provide details on what you mean? Any cost...have you experienced an egregious or even burdensome cost for the sake of your own security or ability to support yourself/make a buck?

I agree with The Him, just one small correction for ya though...

Mao murdered scores of millions of his own people.

;)

Chris Matheews is a blabbering liberal left-wing propeganda maker why else dose he work from these left-wing news media vultures

Keep in mind, I don't like or agree with Mao. I'm just saying he got results.

By killing those millions of people Mao was able to crush nearly all internal dissent and set up the system where the central party was supreme and unquestioned authority. This is the system which he created which is so very effective now that the revolutionary is dead and more moderate people are in charge of it.

"Any cost...have you experienced an egregious or even burdensome cost for the sake of your own security or ability to support yourself/make a buck?"

As I've said before, my principles. They're important to me. I might kill someone in self-defense or defense of others, but I wouldn't kill a person preemptively because they might try to kill me. I certainly wouldn't kill innocent people in order to try to kill the person who might kill me. Most definitely I wouldn't kill them to insure money was spent on making me the bullets to do so.