Obama on Investigating Bush Crimes: "Need to Look Forward"

Barack Obama on This Week, January 11, 2009
Farhad2000says...

I'll take that as a No.

Anyone surprised? It's like Nixon and the Gerald Ford pardon all over again.

I hope the American don't let this just slide.

I know Obama just wants to get rid of this as an issue because it would mean retroactive analysis of policy by any administration down the line.

Fuck ups wouldn't be tolerated.

That's not acceptable to most politicians, you know being accountable for their actions in office.

thinker247says...

He didn't say there wouldn't be prosecutions. I think he just doesn't want the Bush administration to be the central focus of his presidency.

I think he's speaking of the immediate future, and not further down the road. Maybe Bush and his crew will be prosecuted, but right now we need to think more about the economy so we have a country left when it comes time to order inquiries.

Be patient.

If he pardons Bush, or refuses to investigate wrong-doing, then you can go nuts. And I'll be right there with you. With pitchforks and torches.

14163says...

I don't know. The way I see it, is that we need to get out of the hole first before we start figuring everything out. I have to agree with the idea of doing it that way if that's what he's ultimately saying.

NetRunnersays...

Color me an optimist. Here's what I heard:

My general view when it comes to my Attorney General is: he is the people's lawyer -- Eric Holder has been nominated -- his job is to uphold the Constitution, and look out for the interests of the American people; not to be swayed my day to day politics. So ultimately he's going to be making some calls.

We'll see what happens, but I don't see this as Obama ruling out trials, just distancing himself from them politically.

My paraphrase of this clip would be "I'm ending the illegal programs, and moving on. My Attorney General on the other hand, has a different role to fill, and he's free to take those motherfuckers to the Hague, if it's warranted."

Don't forget that people like Pat Leahy want blood for what was done, and at a minimum, we can expect an Obama AG to enforce congressional subpoenas, and that's the pathway to prison time for Bush and Cheney, and the rest of those war criminals.

Doesn't mean I won't heap a whole bushel of rotten tomatoes on Obama if he stops an investigation from moving forward, but I don't think that's what this is a signal of at all.

LeadingZerosays...

If U.S. voters truly wanted an administration that would seek to vigorously investigate members of the Bush administration for their roles in authorizing torture, then they should have paid more attention and supported Rep. Dennis Kucinich during the Democratic primaries and in his efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney. But let's face it, the reality is that's not the electorate that exists.

As much as it frustrates me personally that the Bush administration is not (and likely will not be) held accountable for its misdeeds, I feel that Obama is simply being pragmatic.

Farhad2000says...

They said the same thing >> ^NetRunner:
Color me an optimist. Here's what I heard:

My general view when it comes to my Attorney General is: he is the people's lawyer -- Eric Holder has been nominated -- his job is to uphold the Constitution, and look out for the interests of the American people;


Color me unconvinced since this is the same thing said about Michael Mukasey when he got the USAG position after Alberto Gonzales.

His nomination was a circus of trying to figure out whether or not he thought water boarding constituted torture.

Introduced policies are far harder to over turn, politically even Obama's charisma couldn't cover a possible situation where someone says that Bush policies could have prevented a future attack. Thus there is a reluctance to dismantle them and accuse anyone retroactively of crimes.

Which only continues the myth of American naive innocence.

NetRunnersays...

^ Yes, Mukasey's nomination was a circus, mostly because Mukasey first tried to refuse to answer the question, then ultimately gave the answer that it was not (though he refused to ever give a direct statement on the topic).

The real circus aspect was that Democrats had said they would not approve of anyone who thought waterboarding was not torture, then approved Mukasey quickly, despite him failing that litmus test.

I don't think we're stuck with an America that openly tortures, and I think it's amazingly premature to discount everything Obama's ever said about torture before he's even been sworn in, and given at least 15 minutes to enact what he's promised.

I do think prosecutions for Bush & Cheney for war crimes (or any other kind of crime) do seem unlikely at this time.

That's not to say that Obama won't dismantle the policy, and put in place safeguards against cretins like Bush & Cheney taking it upon themselves to violate the Geneva conventions so casually in the future.

Personally, I think the only real safeguard would be war crimes tribunals for Bush and Cheney for violating existing law. I'm certainly going to keep calling for it, and I guarantee Obama and AG Holder will be more likely to listen to me than McCain and whatever AG he put in place would have.

Eventually there will be a reckoning for them for what they've done, or there will be a reckoning for our country that will not be pretty. I'd rather the former than the latter.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More