Weak tea indeed. No, make that snake oil.
The problems of the present were caused by actions in the past. Focusing only on the problems (results) is like the current health care system that puts too much emphasis on solving problems rather than preventing them.
Looking back at what the previous administration has done is CRUCIAL to preventing problems in the future. Otherwise we set the pattern for any administration to stonewall until the end of their term, knowing they will get out without any reprecussions.
You basically give in to the idea that we will never catch the criminals so we shouldn't even try.
There will never be Democrats who stand up to Republicans if we all think like you do. There has never been a better time to expose the corruption of most Republican ideas. If not now, when?
Posted by SeaMBA at January 28, 2009 07:39 AMYou're probably right that nothing will happen to the Bush goon squad. I hope not, though, because if they aren't dealt with this time then 20 years from now it will happen again, only worse.
Consider that Nixon's crimes were bad, Reagan's worse and more widespread, and Bush II topped them both by an order of magnitude. In each case members of the previous Republican administration played major roles in the crimes of the next Republican administration. (Dumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz all worked for Nixon, for example.)
My only hope -- and I admit it is hope and not based on any factual data -- is that Obama played Bush during the transition to discourage Bush from providing any pardons at all, sending false signals that he's not interested in pursuing criminal complaints.
Three other things to consider, related to this point:
1) Bush had a strong personal reason for not issuing pardon's for crimes that he was involved with. Once he pardons someone that person would be free to talk about Bush's involvement with immunity, and in fact that would prevent them from invoking the 5th amendment under oath.
2) Democratic leadership in Congress may not be interested in criminal prosecutions because investigations may show that they were fully aware of what was going on, including the falifying of Iraq WMD data, and chose not to act. This may be one reason that Obama would focus on the looking-forward agenda up front - because once the Bush prosecutions begin some Democrats may stonewall him on other issues.
3) There is an open Constitutional question on whether blanket, pre-conviction pardons are valid. The Ford-Nixon pardon was never challenged, so most lay people think that blanket pardons are established law, but they aren't. Traditionally a pardon must be for specific crime(s), post-conviction.
What this means is that *if* Bush had issued a series of blanket pardons he would have given a strong signal that there had been crimes committed. If later those blanket pardons were declared unconstitutional then the net result would be the same as if Bush painted a prosecutorial target on all those people.
Posted by anonny at January 28, 2009 07:46 AMParadox, you have to look at the longer term political implications...Nixon never received justice and yet the taint of his crimes have stuck to the GOP to this day. Why? Because his crimes were aired in the most public way possible. Ever since, his name has been an easy chip shot for the Democratic party on the subject of 'who do you trust?'. After that, criminal charges were almost an afterthought (politically, that is). Whether or not Cheney, Rumsfeld, et cetera are guilty of criminal charges they are certainly responsible for spilling reservoirs of blood due to the habits of grasping secrecy, incompetence and infatuation with a fantasist's world view. That needs to be aired out as much as possible....both as a kick in the nuts to the GOP and hopefully as a warning to others. That they may not be guilty in a narrow criminal sense is almost besides the point. They are guilty of civic dereliction, political chicanery and lies that cost our nation billions of dollars and thousands of lives. For that alone let Congress air out the full facts and make the GOP pay the political price for as long as possible.
Posted by bboyle at January 28, 2009 09:06 AMIf we are indeed (as Eric Holder and President Obama have both stated) a country where "no one is above the law", yet there is a refusal to investigate crimes that were committed, then obviously we are a country where some are above the law. What is to deter future Administrations and elected officials from law-breaking if there is not an enforceable system in place to punish those who break the law? After all, the excuse of "what's in the past is in the past" could be used each time lawbreaking happens.
We cannot constructively "move on" with correcting the last eight years without a recommittement to the rule of law, which includes accountability for past crimes committed.
Posted by Chris at January 28, 2009 10:06 AMThey knew they wouldn't be prosecuted.
How sad that we have decided to give a green light to those who would destroy this Country. Next time around, we will pay an even bigger price.
Posted by Judith at January 28, 2009 11:11 AMSorry, but I hold Obama to the same standard I held Bush.
One of the fundamental roles of law is to DETER future would-be criminals. The failure to prosecute Nixon thus led to the failure to deter future criminals in the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations.
Posted by Gay Veteran at January 28, 2009 11:33 AMMy only hope -- and I admit it is hope and not based on any factual data -- is that Obama played Bush during the transition to discourage Bush from providing any pardons at all, sending false signals that he's not interested in pursuing criminal complaints.
I'm right there wit' ya on that, anonny. As a Hillary supporter in the primary (who jumped on the BO bandwagon once he was the nominee), I've gotta say BO's political gamesmanship has impressed me so far. I would love to be impressed even more!
Not to mention that it would quite interesting to see Democrats' weakness used as a potent weapon.
Posted by bartcopfan at January 28, 2009 11:41 AMMy only hope -- and I admit it is hope and not based on any factual data -- is that Obama played Bush during the transition to discourage Bush from providing any pardons at all, sending false signals that he's not interested in pursuing criminal complaints.
Hope is not a plan, suckas! But it sure comes in handy during elections, eh? So, uh, is that check and mate? Or a touchdown?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 28, 2009 01:20 PMConsider yer source, IAC. The Mooney Times exists to propagate Republican't glurge.
Hope ain't dead quite yet.
Posted by bartcopfan at January 28, 2009 02:25 PMCan we please stop conflating folks? We need to divide the BushCo crimes into two categories:
I. Torture & Illegal Wiretapping
II. US Attorney, Siegelman, Abramoff, Plame, Energy Meetings, etc.
Jack Bauer cannot help them on Category II and if Rove, Gonzales and many more don't go down for those crimes, then the Obama Administration cannot be forgiven.
Please remind them every few days at whitehouse.gov. Don't let the ticking nuke scenario cloud the waters on the politicization of the Justice Dept.
Posted by obsessed at January 28, 2009 02:49 PMDo these wealthy republicans make the list?
"Federal prosecutors are accusing the mayor of Gulfport, Miss. and his wife of trying to enrich themselves at the public's expense in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Gulfport, Miss. Mayor Brent Warr and his wife, Laura, give a brief statement to the media as they leave the federal courthouse in Gulfport. The Warrs have been charged in a 16-count federal indictment related to an allegedly false claim for Hurricane Katrina-related disaster assistance.
A 16-count indictment accuses Gulfport Mayor Gregory Brent Warr and his wife, Laura Jean Warr, of bilking FEMA, federal housing officials and an insurance company of $222,798.10.
The funds allegedly were sought in connection with damages to a family residence that took place during the massive hurricane.
"It was part of the conspiracy that the defendants would by deceit, craft, trick and dishonest means, submit false information and statements regarding the place of residence of themselves and their family at the time of Hurricane Katrina," the indictment states.
The government alleges that the couple said they were requesting funds for repairs to a home that was their primary residence, when, in fact, it was not. If convicted, the Warrs face a maximum 210 years in prison and fines up to $4 million."
...ABC News
Posted by TIKI AL at January 28, 2009 07:37 PM
This guy was appointed in 2001, was he a bushie? And he was sent home before the election in October. Anyone bother to tell the voters? TODAY:
"Report: CIA chief in Algeria accused of raping 2 Muslim women
ABC News is reporting that the CIA's station chief in Algeria is being investigated for allegations he raped two Muslim women after lacing their drinks with drugs.
Andrew Warren, 41, is named in an affidavit for a search warrant filed by the U.S. Justice Department State Department's Diplomatic Security Service. Warren, a convert to Islam, was ordered home in October by U.S. Ambassador David Pearce, ABC says."
Date rape drugs were found along with sex videos of him with the girls in the complaint and a dozen others.
They WILL be prosecuted.
Posted by John Forde at January 28, 2009 08:30 PM