Must Read: Krugman Explains Why Inquest Into Bush Abuses Is Vital
Paul Krugman has a brilliant piece in today's NYT where he lays out the arguments for an inquest into the abuses of the Bush administration. His believe and I personally agree with him, it that while an investigation-and prosecutions-may be divisive, it is essential to do it to avoid having the same mistakes made in the future. And he gives solid, historical evidence to illustrate how it has happened before. Here's a short excerpt:
Why, then, shouldn't we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?
One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn't there be some penalty for the Bush administration's politicization of every aspect of government?
Alternatively, we're told that we don't have to dwell on past abuses, because we won't repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration's political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won't do it all over again, given the chance?
In fact, we've already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it's giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off -- which isn't too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.
Now, it's true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we'll guarantee that they will happen again.
and here's a link to the full essay:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Advertisement
Krugman writes: "Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient."
I couldn't agree more. We must investigate, and prosecute those who broke the law. Otherwise, what good is the law?
January 16, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's more on that obligation:
> http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/we-the-people-and-olc---why-et.php
January 16, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should stick to economics.
January 16, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution is the bedrock of our economics/contract law.
Prosecute/jail the malfeasers!!
January 16, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Krugman always articulate and frequently a moral compass?
Prosecution is always a possibility but truth and reconciliation are far more important. Unfortunately, the truth remains buried in the federal government. Obama seems reluctant to take the position that truth is too important to conceal and ultimately the property of the people. Yesterday, Eric Holder frequently assured the Senate Judiciary committeee that he would look into certain matters, but pointedly failed to commit to making the results of his review public.
I hope that Obama will come around to the position that we must have full disclosure of the misdeeds of the Bush administarations misdeeds. The public deserves to know the truth in all its nauseating detail.
If Obama fails to at least bring the facts into the light of day, he and the Democratic Party will find out that Obama may suffer the fate of Gerald Ford.
January 16, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could this clarity and outspokenness be the reason that the cautious (strike "bold") Obama adminitsration does not employ Krugman as a high-level adviser (instead Geithner!!!!!).
January 16, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
VLaszlo: PK admitted to informally advising them a month or so ago... I can't imagine that they're on good terms anymore though, b/c they're ignoring everything he's saying so far.
You're right: They're cautious. Not bold. We need bold. Now. I'm not afraid of offending Republicans expecially when the future of our country is literally on the line...
January 16, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is cautious by nature, but he also understands something about audacity, aka boldness. You might be looking for the wrong kind of "bold" here, just sayin'... anyway I hope so!
January 17, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ain't that the truth.
January 16, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know. I voted to have a chance to find out. Don't disappoint me.
January 16, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good find, good post. Krugman has really begun on a different road as far as I can tell. I love reading the guy lately.
And the right hates him. That is how I first became interested in him.
January 16, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is that different road? Did Krugman oppose prosecutions before?
January 17, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he merely supported Hillary before. ;-)
January 17, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have read Mr. Krugman's column for years now and I own (I believe) all of his books. In hard cover.
He has been the voice of reason throughout these 8 years. He talked about the housing bubble months and months before anybody else would even acknoledge it.
I cannot agree more that we must use every effort to find out exactly what this malevolent administration has done in our name. I mean find every note, e-mail, scrap of paper, order, etc etc to see how far they have taken us. Whether we prosecute the crimes is secondary to the discovery portion of this. Only by finding out all of the illegalities can we begin to restore our standing in the world.
January 16, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same with Dean Baker.
January 17, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman nailed it again. Every reconsideration of the incompetence and lawlessness of the Bush years exacerbates the fury that, for me, endured throughout it all, on the most neuralgic issue - his illegitimacy. People sometimes dismiss that in the same superficial way they default to a "let's move on" mentality on the issue at hand in Krugman's piece. I always thought that people's willingness to countenance this junta was a form of moral/intellectual laziness, or collective madness, or both. One construction that I never spoke or wrote except in quotation marks typed with my middle fingers was "President Bush." How did this obvious affront to the mechanisms of presidential succession not produce an inextinguishable firestorm? Especially since it wasn't just anybody who got installed in the White House as a result of the criminal determination of the Supreme Court. It was THIS fucking idiot. He has been a disgrace to the stature of the office of the presidency since day one, and departs unimproved, to put it mildly.
I will always believe that we just spent eight years in a peculiar state - we really didn't have a legitimately elected president. (and don't even start on the subject of 2004; I'm completely persuaded that Ohio was stolen.) That someone in that status would then proceed to abuse the powers of the office in every conceivable way only substantiated the reasons why American voters never elected him in the first instance.
But, on top of everything else, letting them slip away without accountability? Fuck that; rip their veins out. I do believe we need to do this. The notion that this little motherfucker would have let criminal ooze like Poindexter, for example, re-emerge in the role (of all things) of the Orwellian sponsor of an initiative to get citizens to spy on each other demonstrates a point that Krugman articulates well. Without a thorough airing of all this, it just boomerangs back. And sets the bar in the wrong place...sorry, this has been inexcusable, and even without a rendering of justice, at the very least there needs to be an airing of the facts.
January 16, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I share your sentiments, SOS, and would include (along with Pond Scum Poindexter) John Negroponte and Elliott Abrams, both of whom went on to Iraq War fame.
January 17, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this reader response explains it best:
"Paul Krugman is absolutely correct. However, avoiding having attention directed toward their own largely useless and collaborative behavior during the worst moments of the last 8 years is perhaps why the Democrats are now so anxious to move on."
January 16, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama should reimagine the postpartisan meme so that instead of being a slogan designed to appease Republicans, it's a call to return to principles more fundamental and significant than either party.
January 16, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see Obama's post partisan philosophy as meaning that republicans have to weld that trailer to their truck. Prosecute the wieners.
If their are no more of those kind of republicans left, what post partisan problem is there? If I were a republican, I would feel royally screwed and used leaving me wanting those assholes to pay for how they used and abused my trust and support.
Then again, I'm a democrat so I can't really vouch for the things sputtering around inside a republicans narrow head. So, it's just speculation on my part.
January 16, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's up to us to make this happen. Deluge DoJ and OLC with emails, faxes, snailmail.
January 16, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind that Cheney has been sulking and planning revenge since Watergate--this was his version of payback! These are people who are NOT learning! They poured massive amounts of hatred into the culture when Clinton was president and did grave harm to the country.
Nixon should not have been pardoned (Ford's fatal mistake), Reagan, Bush 1&2 should have been/should be prosecuted.
January 16, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink