« End Era Of Big Government: Are You Sure You Want To? | coonsey's Blog | Prediction for 2011 »

Will Obama's Admin Investigate the Bush Admin?


Barack Obama on This Week:

"I think my general view when it comes to my attorney general is that he's the people's lawyer. Eric Holder's been nominated," said Obama. "His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people, not be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So ultimately, he's going to be making some calls. But my general belief is that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."

I asked Fertik to share his thoughts on the president-elect's answer. This is what he had to say:

It's absurd to talk about "upholding the Constitution" and say "no one is above the law" if you refuse to look "back" at those who have subverted the Constitution and broken the law. And you can't have one set of rules for "national security" and a different set of rules for everything else.


So if there's any hope for prosecution in Obama's answer, it is that Attorney General Eric Holder will truly be "the people's lawyer" and fully represent us by prosecuting torturers, wiretappers, and other criminals who committed their crimes from secret undisclosed locations hidden within the Bush-Cheney administration.

One more thing that is worth noting. As pointed out by Think Progress, Dawn Johnsen, Obama's choice to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, has said that the next president should avoid "any temptation to simply move on." Here is the relevant quote:

We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.

I have to admit, I agree with Fertick and Johnsen, unless we look at our past in depth, we'll never know the truth.  Were there crimes committed or were the stories just made up to hurt the Bush administration.

I don't think our attorney general should spend his every waking moment investigating the past eight years but I do think he should at least touch base with everything that's been questioned over the years.  If something comes up that sounds a bit fishy then and only then dig deeper.

Obama is correct however, it will be Holder's job to, "uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people, not be swayed by my (Obama's) day-to-day politics".

I would suggest however that Obama allow Attorney General Holder the option to hire more help to do the digging.  The past 8 years have resulted in a great deal of harm to Americans and their allies -  in money, privacy, jobs, trust and last but not least, many treasured lives.

The past 8 years did not resemble a 'normal' two term presidency.  They were not just about one family's marriage and any infidelity involved.  And they were not about one political party sneaking into another political party's office.  All Americans suffered for what happen over the past eight years.  Did they need to?



22 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

"Will Obama's Admin Investigate the Bush Admin?"
No.

user-pic

Yes there will be investigations.

By a truth commission with subpoena powers.

By three or four House Committees. Maybe more.

By three or four Senate Committees. Maybe more.

By independent Federal DA's all over the country.

By the new Attorney General's Office.

user-pic

I agree with VLaszlo - there will be very little if any investigation.

user-pic

You're last paragraph was spot on!

user-pic

Obama will investigate and make sure, going forward, that his administration does not commit the same wrong doings/war crimes as Bush. He will aim to respect and follow the Constitution. When he says we shouldn't be focused on the past he means (in my opinion) don't look for him to prosecute Bush or Cheyney. That's what a lot of you are asking for, no? Seriously, do you think that's going to happen?

user-pic

No. Because Obama apparently respects Bush and Cheney.

I sure would feel a lot better if I knew that in private he refers to them as the assholes and criminals that they are.

user-pic

I think he respects them as human beings not for what they have done in the past eight years. That's just who Obama is - rarely, if ever, a nasty word about someone else. In private (like in his head where no one can secretly tape him) I'm sure it's a different story.

user-pic

Next time I get pulled over I will be sure to tell the cop that we should not focus on the past.

user-pic

Or you can look forward and prevent any future traffic violations.

user-pic

It is obligatory for the US to investigate War Crimes. So that at the very least we can expect. Once that is investigated, it may lead elsewhere. See:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/memorize-dawn-johnson-weep-wit.php

and:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/12/blown-away---by-a-letter-to-th.php

Thank you for staying on this, coonsey!

user-pic

Well, yes, we must prevent the King's subjects from getting away with any minor infractions. The rules do not apply to the King. Silly of us to think so. How quaintly 11th century. What were those silly Brits thinking of with all that rule of law stuff. So much kinder, gentler, and comforting to defer to the King in all things.

user-pic

No, there will be no investigation:

a) It ties up resources. The public is not going to be happy when they ask their elected officials what they did about creating jobs and the answer will be: "hey! we investigated Bush!"

b) It sets a dangerous precedent that will be used as a political football.

c) The country can ill afford more gloom on top of everything else at this point. The Democrats especially, if they want to claim to be different than the GOP, has to look different than the GOP.

War crimes are always a political not moral issue. Otherwise the victor would be sitting on trial just as the loser. The repair to the US actions will be that of time passage, not punitive measures.

To those who are upset with this answer, I say: Forget it, it's Chinatown.

user-pic

.

Wow . . .

If someone down at the bar ever gets pissed off at ya' and shoves a cue stick up your asteroid-orifice make sure you tell them that you fully understand it's just a political issue, and not a moral one.

~OGD~

user-pic

As thepeoplechoose pointed out below, and in your metaphor, the time to strike back is during the fight itself. Because Senior members of Congress were there for the initial votes, much of this will be spun from the other side as they were asleep at the wheel. That's the last thing that Senior members want to here going into 2010.

No ex-President will ever be investigated after the fact. So you will first and foremost have to cordon off Bush. And when that happens, everyone's excuse will be that the orders came from the White House.

Had not Nixon had physical evidence (a tape) of his conversation with Dean, he wouldn't have had to resign the presidency. You'll note that after Nixon, no president tapes himself which under JFK and LBJ was a very common thing to preserve the record.

This isn't a Dem or a GOP issue, but rather a political one.

If you want to go after Bush, go after today's issue: the wholesale destruction of records and emails. That might make sense, but not yesterday's issue. As the old song said: yesterday's gone.

user-pic

.

Hey ratchet jaw . . .

There's another old song that says...

"Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide the chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin'."

~Bob~

~OGD~

user-pic

In fact, the exact opposite is true: failure to pursue and hold accountable individuals who committed crimes and/or abused their official power creates a concrete incentive for more crime and abuse.

Do you really think the perpetrators will simply go away? (many were scofflaws from the Reagan administration)

Identifying and holding accountable the person who forged those Niger letters, or the individual who covered-up Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death, would have the exact opposite effect of causing "more gloom."

It would restore public confidence and trust in government to know that people guilty of misdeeds aren't exempt from consequences simply because they are rich or politically-connected.

And there is no clearer way for Democrats to demonstrate they are different than the GOP, no way to look more different than the GOP, than by actually holding officials accountable for their misdeeds and abuse of power in a very public forum.

Yes, there are limited resources, but that's no excuse to do nothing. The answer is to prioritize which cases to pursue, and indeed it would be fruitless to bring charges against, say, Cheney or Rice.

There are, however, plenty of lower-level perp's who were involved in the US Attorney firings, war profiteering, the Niger forgery, the Pat Tillman cover-up, etc.

They must be held accountable or at least forced to live the remainder of their lives in court or on the run.

user-pic

I think that when Obama is soon faced with a national security issue and he's told that we've captured a terrorist who potentially has information that could help us prevent another 9/11, Obama will say "do whatever it takes".

Let's try to put ourselves in his shoes.

user-pic

.

Well . . .

I always thought the moon was made of cheese. But the Apollo program blew that speculation all to hell.

~OGD~

user-pic

You know OGD, there are some people that I do not wish to imagine in the New Pres' shoes.

user-pic

.

Oh and . . .

Here Bill... Here are the shoes that Obama is wearing.

January 09, 2009

QUESTION: Mr. President-elect, do you believe that your choices for your national security team should signal to the international community any softening of the U.S. stance on Iran? And does it also signal either a reassessment or a crackdown on policies involving harsh interrogation techniques and detention?

OBAMA: OK. Well, let me start with the second part of the question.

I was clear throughout this campaign and have been clear throughout this transition that under my administration, the state does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions that we will uphold our highest values and ideals.

And that is a clear charge that I've given to Admiral Blair and to Leon Panetta. And I think it is important for us to do that not only because that's who we are, but also, ultimately, it will make us safer and will help in changing hearts and minds in our struggle against extremists.

link

~OGD~

user-pic

Not a thing will be done. Congress had the power to prevent all that has happened and they did nothing. They want no part of digging into the last eight years for fear they'll get their hands dirty. Some in congress would like to but most have no stomach for it.

user-pic

So, after Obama and the majority of Democratic officials, including virtually the entire House and Senate leadership, were briefed on and nonetheless voted to fund the Administration's activities, they're going to turn around and engage in partisan recriminations that will destroy their mandate and Obama's political capital?

Not bloody likely.

And a good thing, too. I'm far from sure what "war crimes" are, but I'm sure that accusing your country's leaders of them is rarely good for your reputation.

Leave a comment

coonsey

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 24

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location Illinois
  • Politics Independent

Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address