[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
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.
[/QUOTE]
How much of what has gone was the result of their assumption of a permanent Republican majority where they would never be investigated? Even if a third party is not watching you now, the knowledge that one will be later should help.
This seems to be a special case because of how covered up they kept everything. I think an investigation, confidential, to find out what really was going on would help. It’s not like the Bushies haven’t been caught in lies again and again - witness the current torture flap.
But for those who think this is a bad idea - can’t you conceive of an administration with a majority in Congress doing things so bad that criminal penalties are required? How about secret rendition of citizens? Widespread domestic wiretapping without court orders. Plumbers who weren’t stupid enough to get caught?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
At the moment, such rancor is not irrational.
[/QUOTE]
Seems irrational to me. We’re all on the same team. The Republicans and the Democrats aren’t warring superpowers. We all want peace and prosperity and unlimited access to cake and whatever else it is that people band together into nations to create. We may disagree about methods, but viewing each other as enemies to be ground into the dirt at every opportunity is self destructive.
We want our president to negotiate with Iran and China (at least some of us do), but we don’t want him to negotiate with Wyoming?
[QUOTE=Dumbguy]
Seems irrational to me. We’re all on the same team. The Republicans and the Democrats aren’t warring superpowers. We all want peace and prosperity and unlimited access to cake and whatever else it is that people band together into nations to create. We may disagree about methods, but viewing each other as enemies to be ground into the dirt at every opportunity is self destructive.
[/QUOTE]
Umm, none of this should give any administration a free pass to commit all sorts of heinous crimes with eternal impunity.
Obama’s statements actually sound pretty measured to me. I don’t see him as expressing any intent to go on a crusade, only that he won’t rule out possible prosecutions if it can be shown that something indisputably criminal happened. I actually see this statement as kind of telegraphing to the left that he is not going to spend a lot of energy and capital pursuing a political vendetta. As he says, really stupid policies aren’t going to be enough. He’s saying he would need provable crimes to really be aggressive. I think that’s a position he has to take. He can’t say he would ignore real crimes, but he’s saying isn’t going to try to contrive anything just to please people like me either. I see his comments as perfectly reasonable, but do not read them as a declaration that the current aministration has anything to fear either.
I think the idea that the Administration ISN’T accountable to its successors is one that is relatively new. If one knows he is accountable and cannot rely on a pardon, he is more apt to not break the law.
What would it accomplish? If an Obama admistration locks up Bush, Cheney, and a hundred other members of this administration in 2010, it won’t do anything towards undoing their mistakes. It’s just retribution after the fact. If Senator Obama thinks government officials are breaking the law now, he should address it now. And President Obama should address the problems that occur during his administration not look back to the past.
And if President Obama launchs a sweeping investigation of the Republican administration that preceded him, count on the next Republican president to do the same on the Obama administration. We’ll have added a new way in which legitimate tools of the government can be misused for partisan point-scoring.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
And if President Obama launchs a sweeping investigation of the Republican administration that preceded him, count on the next Republican president to do the same on the Obama administration. We’ll have added a new way in which legitimate tools of the government can be misused for partisan point-scoring.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
: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.
[/quote]
And your title, very clearly and obviously, referred to what Obama might do as President. And there was some chat about how Obama was being rational by putting impeachment off the table. Unfortunately, it was never on the table, since by definition Bush would not be in office when Obama has the opportunity to use his Justice department.
So Obama is not being “rational” by ruling out impeachment after Obama is POTUS.
Then the very first line of your OP is irrelevant and stupid.
No, you said something stupid, and I called you on it. I know you don’t like it, but that doesn’t matter. Saying Obama is ruling out impeachment as an option when and if he becomes President is like saying he is is a great guy because he won’t take Bush out behind the barn and have him shot. He can’t do that either.
OK, now Obama claims he might want to have a witch hunt. That’s pretty low-class. Even Bush and the Republicans didn’t stage investigations after Billary stole furniture from the White House and sold pardons for money.
Look, you lost the fucking elections. Both times, fair and square. You aren’t going to be able to get Bush. Somehow or other, you are going to have to deal with that. Maybe Obama isn’t motivated with the kind of petty spitefulness that that many of y’all seem to rejoice in - perhaps we’ll see.
Just keep in mind that it is not guaranteed that Obama will be the next POTUS. You want to play the game that way? Then I expect y’all to keep your yaps shut if McCain decides to launch an investigation of whatever he might find out about Hilary - or Obama.
Diogenes summed it up exactly. I can’t imagine that the incoming administration, whether it’s Obama, Clinton, or McCain, wouldn’t examine the material that the previous administration covered up. If there’s something clearly illegal in that material, then not prosecuting would frankly be unethical. But it would have to be something that’s undeniably illegal or treasonous; I wouldn’t want to see Bush hounded over irrelevancies or bad but legal actions in the hope of nailing him on something.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Cite? Please quote single thing Obama said that would indicate any such thing.
[/QUOTE]
POTUS = Witch.
Accountability = Hunt.
And if President Obama launchs a sweeping investigation of the Republican administration that preceded him, count on the next Republican president to do the same on the Obama administration. We’ll have added a new way in which legitimate tools of the government can be misused for partisan point-scoring.
[/QUOTE]
He never mentioned anything about a sweeping investigation. They’re your words not his.
If President Obama broke the law while president and that was brought to light by the next admin I don’t really see where the problem is. It will go in front of the court and if there was illegal activity he/they should be punished.
Do you think former Administrations(no matter what party) should be immune from scrutiny? That hardly seems like the actions of a mature democracy IMO.
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?
[/QUOTE]
To some people, like Shodan, there is no circumstance in which a democrat president could proceed with a criminal investigation into the Bush administration that would be anything other than a partisan witch-hunt.
I don’t share his opinion, but plenty of other people do. Obama could not possibly order a criminal investigation of this nature without deeply dividing the country along partisan lines.
To Shodan: stop with the hijack already. Obama himself compared the appropriateness of impeachment vs. future investigation without anyone jumping down his throat and calling him stupid, and you should give the same courtesy to Brainglutton. The post makes perfect sense without your belligerent insistence on fighting over semantics.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
. . . after Billary stole furniture from the White House and sold pardons for money.
[/quote]
Hmmm?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Look, you lost the fucking elections. Both times . . .
[/quote]
Yes.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
. . . fair and square.
[/quote]
No.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
You aren’t going to be able to get Bush.
[/quote]
This isn’t limited to him, it’s about the whole Admin. But an ex-POTUS has no immunity.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Just keep in mind that it is not guaranteed that Obama will be the next POTUS.
[/quote]
Certainly not. It’s not even guaranteed he’ll be the nominee. The OP – like Obama’s comments quoted – is based on a hypothetical.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
You want to play the game that way? Then I expect y’all to keep your yaps shut if McCain decides to launch an investigation of whatever he might find out about Hilary - or Obama.
[/quote]
I’ll oppose or support such an investigation depending on the predicate for it. Investigating the loser after a presidential election has never been done before, AFAIK, but that’s no reason not to investigate if they have done anything to warrant it.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
Obama could not possibly order a criminal investigation of this nature without deeply dividing the country along partisan lines.
[/QUOTE]
This is a bad thing? The Dems in Congress have been accommodating the Pubs long enough. What we need in the coming four years is a Dem POTUS who is not so ready or eager to reach arou-- across the aisle.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
This is a bad thing? The Dems in Congress have been accommodating the Pubs long enough. What we need in the coming four years is a Dem POTUS who is not so ready or eager to reach arou-- across the aisle.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t agree with this. I would much rather people woke the hell up and got together on the straight and narrow, whether it be with a Democrat president or Republican. There’s been more than enough nastiness to go around on both sides, and I just want to see people acting with some integrity.
Obama’s been a strong advocate of transparency in government. It’s not really surprising he’s keen to know what, if anything, has been held back by the current administration.
“What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued.”
Look over everything and see if anything’s illegal. That sounds like a sweeping investigation to me.