Lots of caveats and reservations, not a “Nail the bastards!” message. Still, I haven’t heard anything of the kind from HRC yet. Anyway:
Would such investigations of the previous other-party administration be wise for a new POTUS? Would they be dismissed as a “partisan witch-hunt” no matter how cautiously the AG proceeded or how strong the case for prosecution? Is it better to forget the past and move on? (That seems to be what most new administrations have done.)
Should such investigations proceed, what, exactly, might they find that would be actual indictable crimes rather than bad policy decisions?
I think that kind of “sewing up the old trash” is commendable. I’m not sure how much the public would get to watch, meaning I doubt we’d see a public spectacle of the whole thing but you never know. Obama seems to be eluding to cleaning up the wreckage of the past and at the same time forging a path for thr future. I’ll say it again, if he does 30% of what he purports during his first term I’ll be very happy.
I think Obama knows that public prosecutions of his political rivals would NOT be a good way to unite America. It would be the most divisive thing he could possibly do as POTUS, which is why he’s so reserved in the wording in your quote. Lots of us (and understandably so) want Republican blood right now, but Obama seems to have a level head about it. Good for him.
If he’s really going to change the nature of American politics like he claims he can, this wouldn’t be a good way to start the process. The irrational rancor between the parties and our tendency to divide ourselves into polar camps defined by catchphrases is as big a problem with our political system as corruption and incompetence. The best way for him to lead us away from that is to set an example of how a president can and should should conduct himself.
On the contrary, I’d say finally having some accountability would certainly change the nature of American politics.
He could do this and pursue accountability, I think. He’d face a lot of hysterical opposition from the other side and from the media, but if elected he’s going to face that anyway.
See this thread. W is still in office and there’s still time to impeach between now and January '09, and Obama, as a senator, would be part of (the trial end of) that process if it happened.
In my opinion; no, yes, and yes. I think it would be a terrible idea to establish a precedent of an incoming President having the Justice Department launch an investigation of the outgoing administration.
You realize, by this argument, that you are surrendering to the real problem, which is that it should be “routine and expected” for an administration to police itself.
That’s like saying each individual should let his/her conscience be his/her guide. Unobjectionable on its face, but not sufficient; you need a third party watching you. Our whole system is predicated on that assumption.
:rolleyes: Obama, very, very clearly and obviously, was saying that as a senator he will not push for impeaching W during the remainder of his term; but if he becomes POTUS he will order his AG to look into the possibility of prosecuting Bush Admin officials for crimes committed while in office.
And this debate, as I stated clearly enough in the OP, is about the wisdom of the latter.
Really, Shodan, is this the best you can do? This kind of nitpick/hijack is pathetic and embarrassing and ignorant even by your forensic standards.