A Second Look Rotating Header Image

Change.gov

A Second Look: Obama Leaves Door Open To Investigating Bush, But Wants To “Look Forward”

Jan 11th, 2009
by Tom.
No comments yet

via Obama Leaves Door Open To Investigating Bush, But Wants To “Look Forward”.

by:  Sam Stein, stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting From DC, January 11, 2009

This is from an interview today on This Week With George Stephanopoulos. The President-elect was asked the question from Change.gov that has bubbled to be the most popular question on the “Open for Questions” segment of the website.

President Obama:

President-elect Obama

“We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth,” said Obama. “And obviously we’re going to look at past practices. And I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up.”

You know what? This is the same thing that happened with Nixon and Reagan. People were screaming for justice, then phhhht, it fizzles out. We as a country have a very bad record on justice at high levels.

There was political will to impeach Clinton (for lying about a crime that wasn’t a crime) from the right-wing nut-jobs, but it was the right-wing only and they screamed loud enough to be heard in all seven corners of hell. Now, there is political will from the left to see that Bush is jailed, after all, he confessed to committing crimes but I have to ask the same question that Gingrich and other propaganda spreaders asked during the Clinton impeachment; where’s the outrage?

I’ve been torn on this old question ever since I, and millions of other people, thought of it right after the 2006 elections, mulled it over and blogged incessantly about it to the point of staleness, and after all that the question I have is this: are Americans ready to stomach the months of all-Bush-crime-all-the-time coverage from the MSM?

Yes you say? Really? Then if that’s the case you’d better get prepared for more controversy and argument and round-the-clock news pressure on Obama than any new President deserves. To choose this path is to put CHANGE on the back burner.

This is a unique moment in history. We have a chance to have a 21st century government that spreads even wider the tent called “American Values” to include all Americans, red or blue, who choose to be a part of something better.  American values like equal pay for equal work, civil equality for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, a new set of workers rights to enable them to rise from the dung heap of poverty to a life that we all dream of attaining,  all this and more is within our grasp right now, the urgent now. We can have this or we can plunge ourselves into a vat of melting hope called “justice is served” all for the little tickle of gratification we get when we think of Bush behind bars. Is it worth it?

Share

A Second Look at “Advocates of a Special Prosecutor for Bush Seek an Answer From Obama”

Jan 8th, 2009
by Tom.
No comments yet

via Advocates of a Special Prosecutor for Bush Seek an Answer From Obama – The Caucus Blog – NYTimes.com.

January 7, 2009, 6:59 pm

Advocates of a Special Prosecutor for Bush Seek an Answer From Obama

By Michael Falcone

With few exceptions the transition period has been a model of presidential goodwill and cooperation. Apparently, the curious users who have been submitting questions on President-elect Barack Obama’s Web site, Change.gov, didn’t get the memo.

In fact, the number one submission on the popular “Open for Questions” portion of the site might seem more than a little impolitic to the current, and soon to be former, occupant of the White House.

“Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor — ideally Patrick Fitzgerald — to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping,” wrote Bob Fertik of New York, who runs the Web site, Democrats.com

No. He will not.

I remember the question as I took my turn asking and judging on Change.gov. Everybody should have, progressive or conservative.

It is true that during the very few times that Obama has mentioned this subject he has left himself some wiggle room, but I cannot think that Mr. Obama will waste time on this.

“What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued,” Mr. Obama told a Philadelphia journalist last April. But he went on to emphasize the difference between what he called “really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.”

I remember thinking, when reviewing the question, that a witch hunt would only add a ton of drama onto a fledgling administration that has been loathe to drama and quick to stamp out what small amount there has been. Obama’s campaign was all about control and no drama. “No drama Obama”, that’s what we called him.

The article goes on to say that there had been over 22,000 votes for this question.

But a clue to their potential response might come from the mouth of Vice President-elect Joe Biden who told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos recently that he would not rule in or rule out a Justice Department inquiry into the role of top Bush administration officials in cases of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and other facilities.

“The questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed or a very, very, very bad judgment has been engaged in is something the Justice Department decides,” Mr. Biden said.

Barack Obama has pushed hard to begin the change that he promised in the campaign. He will not get side-tracked in this endeavor. It is not his nature.

Share
You are protected by wp-dephorm: