- ‹ previous
- 2206 of 2807
- next ›
Disappointment Watch
DISAPPOINTMENT WATCH... If you're looking for an indication of what the first schism between the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress will be, consider the question of investigations.
Congressional Democrats are gearing up for a season of post-Bush inquiries (at least that's what they're saying — remember this?), but Obama has indicated in the past that he isn't excited about the possibility. Earlier this year, he told the press that there needs to be a distinction between "really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity." The latter should be investigated, Obama said, but "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
I side with Congress on this. There is enough evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration may have broken the law and violated the Constitution — investigations, with subpoena power, are the only way to know for sure. No one is suggesting that Congress grill Department of Education bureaucrats about the implementation of No Child Left Behind. Democrats on the Hill aim to examine our torture and detention policies, the wiretapping of American citizens, and the improper firing of US Attorneys — areas where legal experts have already suggested the Bush Administration crossed lines.
Don't get your hopes up, though. Presidents in the past have gone easy on their predecessors. President Bush, for example, blocked a 2001 subpoena by Congressional Republicans seeking to investigate the Clinton administration. I fully expect Obama to embrace the amity that exists between presidents and ex-presidents. And even if Obama gives Pelosi and Co. the green light, history suggests that ex-presidents take with them certain lingering powers that allow them to block investigations. The precedent, established by Truman and outlined by the always excellent Charlie Savage, is flimsy. But if there is one president and vice-president who can be counted upon to stretch executive privilege using dubious legal reasoning, it's our departing duo.
"There is enough evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration may have broken the law and violated the Constitution ? investigations, with subpoena power, are the only way to know for sure."
Can you point to a specific example or are you just relying on the "usual suspects" of crimes that the Left believes the Bush Administration is guilty of?
"There is enough evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration may have broken the law and violated the Constitution ? investigations, with subpoena power, are the only way to know for sure."
Can you point to a specific example or are you just relying on the "usual suspects" of crimes that the Left believes the Bush Administration is guilty of?
There is another venue, besides grilling the top dogs. Come January 21, there will be a long line of whistle blowers who will be happy to come to congress and make their statements for the record. If sufficient evidence of criminal activity is proffered and publicized, then prosecutions can easily follow. Maybe, the press instead of the administration will conduct "witchhunts".
This didn't sound like Kevin!
I completely agree.
I would suggest a select few high profile investigations, where there is clear evidence of criminality, or at least serious ethical breaches, proceed from there.
My nominations for the first couple of serious investigations would be the Plame affair and the US Attorney firings. The US Attorney firings could also include some serious looks at the hiring policies of the DOJ as a whole.
Depending on how those turn out, more, or less, investigations would be called for. If the Republicans close ranks and dig in their heels, I would suggest that the Democrats get real serious. If the Republicans give at least tacit cooperation (really just being less than overtly obstructionist), keep it to a minimum. I just want the public to get the message that spending 70 million dollars of taxpayer money to catch an old goat lying about a blow job is really a Republican thing, not a Democratic thing.
Kevin: Yes, but. Obama's point is a little more trenchant than you're giving him credit for. He's taking what you say about NCLB and applying it to some even graver policy missteps and finding it to apply. I think that might be the wiser course. The broader point is, do we oppose those things because we oppose them, or because they're illegal? I think once you get to the point of asking that question, then Obama's line seems easier to swallow.
"There is enough evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration may have broken the law and violated the Constitution investigations, with subpoena power, are the only way to know for sure."
Can you point to a specific example or are you just relying on the "usual suspects" of crimes that the Left believes the Bush Administration is guilty of?
I meant, Jonathan: Yes, but.
Congress does not have to toe every line a President puts forth. Remember, one of the things we fight against is excessive Executive power, *now* and in the past.
How's about a truth and reconciliation committee. The purpose of which would be to expose those individuals within the Bush administration for the partisan hacks and shills that they are in an attempt to make them so toxic they won't be able to get a job again for a very long time.
Won't carry a criminal conviction except for the egregious violations.
I am unimpressed by GWB's magnaminity in blocking a subpoena to investigate the Clinton administration. I mean, what part of that administration hadn't been scorched-earth investigated WHILE the Big Dog was still in office.
Take a look at this:
http://torturingdemocracy.org/
I think we need to investigate the most egregious violations of the Bush administration and the ones that have the best traction. I agree with Obama, however, that this is not as important a priority as the economy, the environment, etc. My business dropped 49% this year from last year. I'll be furious if Congress spends all its energy and time playing party vengeance vs. fixing what ails us.
Why is this a 'schism'? It sounds like a win/win for Obama. He gets to sound like he's above it all, while Congress goes ahead and investigates the crap out of the Bush Administration.
I hardly expect Congress to cave on this just because Obama expressed some mild doubts for show.
if the international criminal court filed a warrant for bush and company. oh wait, how convenient for bush that justice-wielding america is not a member state...
Chicounsel,
Can you point to a specific example or are you just relying on the "usual suspects" of crimes that the Left believes the Bush Administration is guilty of?No, just the "usual suspects". Warrantless eavesdropping against US citizens, high-level approval of torture in interrogations, the firing of US attorneys for party political reasons, little items like that.
If you need any evidence as to why there must be investigations and punishment of wrongdoing, look at the Bush administration and its enablers. How many of the people involved in the crimes of the past eight years were indicted/un-indicted co-conspirators in the Nixon and/or Bush I and/or Reagan administrations.
Letting these people get away with all of this is an invitation for them to come back in another ten, fifteen or twenty years and repeat their history in a slightly different iteration.
I really don't want to have to be saying "told you so" when I'm that old.
You "hardly expect Congress to cave" ?? Why?? They caved for the Bush Administration , every chance they got--both parties.
With all the excitement about PE Obama, I have no doubt that, for at least the first term,. they wil do whatever he wishes--and will probably do nothing he has doubts about.
It the Democratic Party, people..
That could be good or bad. I submit that it does not look good for exploring the criminality of the Bush Administration. I have to further submit, that, I think we will have great difficulty with "change", if we do not have justice. I am not an attorney. Bugliosi is--c'mon, attornies--help me out here--or is there room in the post for all the crimes (including war crimes)...
Maybe we could ask courts in EU, who have already held hearings for Rummy.But, they seem to be always ahead of us when it comse to criminal, as well as social, justice.