A Good Reason Why Obama Won't Want To Go After Bush

[Solomon]

It sets a bad precedent. Let someone else do it, but not a sitting President.

Once he sets a precedent like that, when it's his turn to leave office they'll be vultures trying to convict him of something and they will use him as the excuse.

I don't think this would be the first time in American history in which an incoming President had grounds to attack an outgoing one. I think they were all smart enough to know that it would open a door that would weaken the Presidency.

[Clio the Leo]

1. Exactly. He wont go after Bush.......

.... to do so would be the exact OPPOSITE of his political philosophy. It's divisive and partisaned.

[Peregrine Took]

5. And God forbid we would ever do anything that is partisan! It wouldn't

be nice to our good right wing friends who have always acted with honor and treated us with the utmost respect.

[Clio the Leo]

11. I'm glad you get it. ;-)

I'm afraid to break it to you, but we've elected someone who's more concerned about getting things done than getting even.

You might want to get used to it. ;-)

[awoke_in_2003]

13. So, investigating...

torture allegations and other Geneva convention breaches and reckless disregard of the Constitution is getting even? I guess that is why Weaker of the House Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

[Clio the Leo]

21. Would you be happy with JUST investigations?

And if so, what's the point?

Barack's got too many other problems to worry about of much greater importance.

History will have the final say on Bush. That's ultimately what matters most anyway.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. Investigations lead to action...

history will also have the final say on how we reacted, as a nation, to possible war crimes (you know, kinda like they did with Nazi Germany)

[Clio the Leo]

27. And if Guantanamo was remotely similar to Auschwitz....

.... you might have a point. ;-)

Gitmo is wrong, it violates the basic human rights entitled to all people, and it needs to be closed. It's MY wish that Barack will do that as his first act of office but to compare it the murders of millions of people?

No.

[awoke_in_2003]

40. So, it is alright...

as long as only a couple hundred are being tortured? And what of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died as a result of this illegal war, either through collateral damage, poor sanitation, etc?

[Clio the Leo]

42. Hyperbole..........

.... the grande tool of the internet message board.

What would we do without it. :)

[awoke_in_2003]

44. What is an exaggerations?

That 100's of people are in detention (both publicly and privately), and that "enhanced interrogation techniques" (like waterboarding- which we hung japanese people for doing to our troops)? Or is it an exaggeration that 100+k people have died in iraq, whether from collateral damage or unsanitary conditions caused by our inability to rebuild what we blew up? No exaggeration on either of them. War crimes and crimes against humanity are not nonexistent just because we haven't slaughtered as many people as the Germans did.

[Phx_Dem]

14. I agree.

[Maru Kitteh]

54. +1 n/t

[meow2u3]

23. OBAMA won't go after Bush

Bush will get his from the Hague. Obama will simply have the United States join the International Criminal Court and they will take care of Bushco.

[Llewlladdwr]

48. "Obama will simply have the United States join the International Criminal Court "

Really? I think Congress gets a say in this too.

[martymar64]

26. I disagree.

Under that line of reasoning,the Nuremburg trials would've been considered partisan and divisive.

[Clio the Leo]

28. Partisan is not a word that ..........

.... can be applied to international matters. ;)

[martymar64]

32. Then divisive is the operative word, let me elaborate a little

Had the Allies not prosecuted the Axis perps, it would've implied to the rest of the world that war crimes are an acceptable method to achieve one's aims. I read somewhere that Hitler used the lack of punishment for the perps of the Armenian Genocide as justification to use the same methods against the Jews and Gypsies during his regime.
We owe this to the world to prove that america will live up to its own ideals. This act would do more to restore relations with much of the world than any other action we can take in the realm of foreign policy and relations.
Sadly, I don't think we'll do it. Our government as a whole, especially Congress, is breathtakingly spineless when it comes to punishing malefactors in our midst.

Let's hope they prove me wrong this year! :hi:

[avaistheone1]

47. Well said, martymar.

I would like to see Congress start the investigations, and Obama show his support for Congress' efforts to do so.

[Turbineguy]

2. He's got more immediate concerns.

[yy4me]

3. Why does it have to be Obama? Can the World Court go after

these crooks for crimes against humanity? Does it all have to start with the sitting president?

[Grateful for Hope]

4. But, if there are civil lawsuits

I am sure that Obama's administration will not impede justice by refusing to release pertinent info.

[debbierlus]

6. It would be a horrendous precedent NOT to go after Bush

This post is absolutely surreal.

The Bush administration committed murder, treason, violated our civil liberties, shredded the Constitution.

If the administration is NOT held to account, our country will no longer be a nation of law. Obama needs to investigate and prosecute in open hearings for the world to see. Nothing else will be acceptable.

[polichick]

7. Exactly! If we had prosecuted Nixon, Bush might have thought twice.

[JuniperLea]

12. Bingo

Obama doesn't have to go after him all by himself, in fact, all he would have to do is let it happen.

Not prosecuting criminals only leads to bigger, badder, and more dangerous criminals.

[Solomon]

9. You guys don't understand politics at all.

Somebody else has to do it, not Obama. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you. Every presidency after would suffer paralysis if a sitting president set a precedent on going after an outgoing president.

If Congress or the Attorney General needs to do it, fine, but it's still a dangerous thing to do.

Why do you all insist on putting this on Obama's back after the fact, when nobody did a damned thing while the guy was in office committing the crimes? It's ridiculous.

I want Bush to fry as much as anybody, but I'm not about doing it in a way that causes every sitting president to worry about his political opponents coming after him when he's out of office.

[polichick]

10. It isn't about politics - it's about the Constitution and the law...

It's the president's job to uphold the Constitution ~ that's the vow he takes.

[totodeinhere]

37. The Constitution also give the president the power to issue pardons.

Ford's pardon of Nixon was legal and constitutional. If Obama were to pardon Bush or Cheney or anyone else, that would also be legal and constitutional.

So when people invoke the constitution they have to be careful, because that can be a two way street.

[polichick]

45. How ironic if Obama Constitutionally pardons someone who has trashed the Constitution itself.

[totodeinhere]

51. Yes, that would be ironic. n/t

[martymar64]

34. You're right that Obama cannot do it himself.

But there are thousands upon thousands of people that suffered damages due to the actions of the Bush Junta. A good lawyer needs to take up the case with one or more of these victims and get it started.
With sufficient pressure from below, our new government might be persuaded to follow our lead. However, I won't hold my breath on that.
Another good start would for the US to join the ICC and allow foreign victims to be able to seek justice. If any situation screamed for enforcement of the Nuremburg precedent and the Geneva Convention, this is the one.

[Vattel]

39. you don't understand politics

The attorney general will do it if and only if Obama authorizes him to do so. The President is the chief executive: he is in charge of executing federal law, including federal criminal investigations.

[wundermaus]

8. No one is above the law...

Obama will be bound by his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. If he abides by the law, then he does not have the option of ignoring the law. Criminal acts have been committed and they must be punished. If there is no justice, then there will be no peace. The rule of law must be applied or the tyranny of men will destroy our nation.

[stillcool]

35. That is not the way justice works..

in this country. We have 'investigations', and then either someone falls on their sword, or the whole thing is white washed. Why would Bush be any different? The world may have something to say, but our government will be silent. I imagine Rummy will have the same fate as Kissinger.

[Forkboy]

15. Bush will never be prosecuted for anything.

He should be, naturally, but it isn't going to happen. And it wouldn't have mattered who the hell became President.

[WI_DEM]

16. And what democrat other than maybe DK who ran in 2008 was going to go after Bush?

None (oh maybe Gravel, too). I should have said Any democrat with an actual chance of being the nominee.

[12string]

17. Prosecuting Bush

I don't give a rat's ass who prosecutes these fuckers so long as someone gets the job done.

[gravity]

18. Obama doesn't want to fight past battles

He is smart enough not to touch this because it will just tear the nation apart and prevent him from pursuing his agenda.

[blm]

33. Bull - He won BECAUSE most of the nation was UNITED AGAINST what Bush and Cheney have done.

Just as the nation was united AGAINST what Nixon had done, and just as the nation was united against Bush1 - and then their successors let them off the hook and protected them, especially throughout the 90s, allowing BushInc to STRENGTHEN without the scrutiny and oversight as they prepared to return to the WH with Bush2.

That worked out GREAT for the country and the world....didn't it?

[Thrill]

19. Look at his approval ratings. Why waste that political capital fucking with Bush?

Use it to pass Health Care Reform

[gravity]

20. And actually fix the mess Bush made

Instead of just punishing people for it.

[blm]

31. Yeah, like Clinton fixed the mess Bush1 made? BushInc became STRONGER in the 90s with Clinton's

protection. They should all have been jailed not allowed to grow stronger for their return to the WH with Bush2.

[rasputin1952]

24. Perhaps I am a little radical...

but there are times when precedents must be set.

If I were being inaugurated on 20Jan, immediately following my swearing in, I would declare that US Marshals were to arrest bush and cheney on the spot. I would already have made sure the new Atty Gen's Office had charges in place, and would follow through w/a trial(s).

My point is that even though I have respect for many traditions of this nation, bush/cheney have, IMO, did precisely the opposite of what they were sworn to do, protect and defend the Constitution. This is a serious crime, some call it treason, and I am among them.

By charging, arresting and having them led away in cuffs would show the world that we take our Constitution seriously, we are all under it's influence, and we are a nation that truly respects it's laws, (if you don't like a law, work to change it, but don't usurp it!). bush has been, far and away, the worst president this nation has ever seen. the message sent would be that anyone who holds high office in this nation will not be immune from prosecution for crimes against this nation.

Needless to say, I will not be taking the Oath of Office on 20Jan, but I can dream...;)

[DFW]

25. That's not his job, anyway

However, I'd say the incoming Attorney General, with any luck, will have his hands full.

It IS his job.

[spanone]

29. he should direct his justice department to investigate crimes by bu$hco...crimes are crimes

[blm]

30. Baloney - Clinton didn't HAVE to go after Bush1, just cooperate with the ONGOING work that was

exposing BushInc's criminal operations.

Clinton SIDEDWITH BUSH and his powerful cronies on those operations and he made sure they were PROTECTED throughout the 90s on all the matters that would come up on IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning.

BAD PRECEDENT? How did Clinton siding with the secrecy and privilege of the powerful elite turn out for our party, our country and the world?

Had Clinton done the RIGHT THING and sided with open government and accountability there would never have been a Bush2, there would never have been a 9-11 event, and there'd never have been an invasion of Iraq.

[stillcool]

36. I don't think it's about any one person

and in our case, any one country. I've been reading this book "The Art of Political Murder", and it is revealing in that things are never simple, and often nothing like what they seem. There are consequences to everything, and no one has that much power. Even a dictator has his army, and he too needs to watch his back.

[MadMaddie]

38. And this is exactly why we are in the mess we are in today!

When Nixon left office he and others should have been prosecuted for crimes they committed.

But no, it was said that for the best of the country we need to move on.
Well who did we move on with? Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and more....these men served or were connected with Nixon. And these men and others who felt that Nixon should have been able to do whatever he wanted to do otherwise known as a "Dictatorship". These men shaped our politics for the last 30 day's to present and they have severely damaged this country, I would call them Treasonous acts.

No I disagree, we have to prosecute the crimes against the constitution and crimes against humanity.

If America cannot prosecute political criminals how do we expect to go around the world and claim that other countries must prosecute their political criminals?

No if you or me or anyone broke these same laws we would be in jail. Don't fool yourself they must be prosecuted.

That's all......

[Az_lefty]

41. Oh God forbid a setting President insist that the law's of this country be enforced...

Obama has to do this to set the precedent that a President isn't above the law.

[unapatriciated]

43. there are no good reasons

[bigwillq]

46. Obama (and other senators)

had the chance to go after Bush, and most didn't. Shame on them all.

[Solomon]

49. This is my point. They didn't do it when the asshole was

in office committing the crimes. Now everybody's putting it on Obama's back. It would be a foolish precedent. I don't think it's fair to Obama to insist that he get involved in something like this with all the other shit he has to deal with.

[bigwillq]

53. Democrats, as a whole,

and this includes Obama when he was a Senate, should have done something to hold Bush and Co. accountable, and they DIDN'T!!!! :mad:

[Madison knows]

50. The important thing is that Bush will be gone. End of story.

[blm]

55. What happened when Bush1 was 'gone' and we were told to move on? Bush2, 9-11, Iraq war...that's all

Ever hear of open government accountable to the people? Or do you believe you don't deserve it?

[flvegan]

52. Complicitness IS all the rage these days.

Why should Obama break from the will of Congress anyway?

The thousands of our dead soldiers, the (God only knows how many) thousands of dead in Iraq, the families that have lost so much due to this economy...fuck 'em. They deserve no justice.