Rove Decides "War Crimes" are "Policy Disagreements."

You've got to love the Republicans and their euphemisms. First they turned torture into "enhanced interrogation techniques", and now they have decided that "war crimes" are "policy disagreements".

Rove: Sure, as long as they've released the limits to which America will go to extract this information, let's share the information that was extracted, and saved America from further attacks. We know, for example -- it's already a part of the public record -- that the interrogation of these high-value targets kept them from being able to attack Los Angeles by flying airplanes into the Liberty tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles, which was one of their plans.

But look, let's step back for a minute. What the Obama administration has done in the last several days is very dangerous. What they've essentially said is, If we have policy disagreements with our predecessors, what we're going to do is we're going to turn ourselves into the moral equivalent of a Latin American country run colonels in mirrored sunglasses. And what we're going to do is prosecute, systematically, the previous administration, or threaten prosecutions against the previous administration, based on policy differences.

Is that what we've come to in this country? That if we have a change in administration from one party to another, that we then use the tools of the government to go systematically after the policy disagreements that we have with the previous administration? Now that may be fine in some little Latin American country that's run by, you know, the latest junta. It may be the way that they do things in Chicago. But that's not the way we do things here in America.

First of all, Chicago is in America, moron.

And secondly, could Rove get it any more wrong? It is actually in Latin American country's run by colonels in mirrored sunglasses that administrations are able to torture without fear of prosecution. In democratic country's, such things are recognised as war crimes and investigations and prosecutions are launched.

And there is nothing partisan about the law. So, if Rove and the others didn't break it, then they have nothing to fear.

But you can't break the laws to which the US has agreed to be bound by - under binding international treaties - and then write the crime off as "policy disagreements".

But it's clear that Rove is getting riled here. He knows what they did. And he knows that if they were prosecuted that many of them would go down.

For years, as they listened in on Americans illegally, they would dismiss civil rights objections with the phrase, "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear".

Same rule applies here, Karl.

The big difference is that Rove and his cronies have much to fear.

Tags: Karl Rove, Hannity, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, Obama