Policy Differences and War Crimes

Followed the pseudo "debate" between Cheney and Obama a bit more today and a number of things come to mind; interesting is, first and foremost, how much they might even agree with one another, with the "hype" man saying that policy differences shouldn't be criminalised and Dick "the war criminal" saying that the administration should not treat political opponents as criminals. Don't worry Dick, they won't! Of course, one has to wonder what Obama means when he says policy differences should not be criminalised when what we are talking about are "policy differences" that are in fact criminal; wasn't torture always illegal? Or at least hasn't it been illegal for a long time? Oh and then there are the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which are based on lies! However, as I have stated in a couple of recent posts, with or "hype" fellow agreeing to continue the illegal wars, he cannot exactly set a precedent and charge the former administration for war crimes, can he? After all, who knows what it might lead to and with the man in the White House taking prosecution of the table, although that was, of course, never a consideration, he will just have to listen to the rantings and ravings of Dick, at least, until the neo-conservative media decide that he is no longer an asset! After all there really aren't any policy differences and what our "hype" man has already joined the band of rogues, but did we really expect anything else.