The media would accuse Obama of "dwelling on the past," in the midst of ongoing crises.

The President needs to be able to do more than one thing at a time. I realize the media doesn't get that. If there is a tornado or a plane crash somewhere, all other news is ignored. But the President doesn't have that luxury.

But that's just it. For a lot of people in this country, remaining steadfast is all that matters. They interpret rigidity as integrity. And the negative view of Bush gives them the opportunity to view him as a martyr, suffering for his beliefs. As long as those beliefs are "correct," the outcome doesn't matter in the least.

Oops - that last post was written for the thread below...

We had Bush II because Nixon was pardoned.

What will round 3 look like?

The public has PLENTY of appetite, our Corporate Masters? Not so much.

I'm about half of the opinion that Obama should pardon Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang for their crimes.

This would mean he wouldn't be prosecuting them, of course, but he's apparently not planning to do that anyway. On the other hand, it would be a very public acknowledgment that he considers what they did to be criminal.

This would require, of course, that he name the crimes he's pardoning them for, such as torture and unauthorized wiretapping, and not just issue a blanket pardon.

The opportunity to apply the law was while Bush was president. Congress, including many in the opposition party, and the courts failed to do it. Bush had many accomplices and enablers. You gonna go after all of them? And is Congress going to investigate itself? It ain't just Bush. It is the entire system in DC that keeps all of these crony elites in positions of power. Many in the top echelons of the Obama administration could be counted among this group.

This is what disciplined special prosecutors are for, or presidential commissions. They take the evidence, mostly out of the public eye, and then they issue indictments or hold show-trial hearings. Once set in motion it doesn't need a lot of attention.

We have a moral obligation to prosecute those who violated the law, on both domestic and foreign policy fronts. We cannot claim to stand for justice if we overlook or whitewash the crimes committed by our leaders. I understand that it would be a great relief just to shut the door on the past eight years, but to do so would shirk our responsibility to both history and the world.

http://bleakonomy.blogspot.com/2009/01/of-two-minds.html

Is it really entirely up to the President to make this decision to go forward with prosecutions? He has a number of people in his cabinet who have expressed their outrage at the Bush administrations evil ways. Can't Obama just work on what he needs to get done, and let the new Attorney General and other apointees, as well as Congress press ahead with the necessary investigations and possible hearings and trials? He could keep his hands free: "They're doing their jobs. I'm doing mine. It wasn't my idea."

I think Obama wants to get his hands on the levers of government to let his people look over all of the documents. Once his people have seen what it was that actually happened (which is probably far worse than we have been lead to believe) Obama will probably start the prosecutions.

Plus it is always best to start these things quietly before the other side knows that they are being investigated.

"The US Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper. .."

To me, that is an impeachable offense, to have desecrated the Constitution.

But we will go on and just let Cheney and his side-kick, George, ride off into the sunsets of Wyoming and Texas.

I want a language trial.

We totally misunderestimated what George and Dick were all about.

We can't get 'em breaking the law, but we can sure as hell get 'em on grammar. You betcha!

I'm one of those that believes that setting the record straight on what happened in the last 8 years is at least as important as anything else Obama has to worry about. This is about the soul of the country and if a new President can't at least try to do something about it then we might as well start accepting the reality that those in power can break the law with impunity. Paraphrasing Leona Helmsley, "laws are for the little people".

It's largely because of his apparent skating around this issue that I remain unexcited by Obama's ascension.

To me, Obama is a politician in the same class as Bill Clinton - and Bill Clinton always reminded me of a used car salesman.

When Bush took the oath of office, he thought he said to protect and defend America (not the constitution).

Of course he failed miserably at protecting Americans, what he and his administration did to the constitution is unforgivable.

Should members of the Bush presidency be investigated regarding high crimes and misdemeanors, charged if such crimes have been committed and convicted if found guilty of such crimes? - YES! But does soon to be President Obama need to act decisively to get such things done? - NO!

With so much facing us in these times of uncertainty, I do not want to see my current president get bogged down in the past and the Bush wrong-doings, I want to see him lead us toward the solutions we need to find to get us out of the fine mess Bush/Cheney dumped on us.

We have proper means to prosecute transgressors of the past, and all I wish to see is Obama endorsing such existing means - Congressional investigation/oversight and the new DoJ are the proper venues upon which Mr. Bush's crimes against humanity need their proper airings!

I'm quite frankly tired by all the talking heads trying to ring Obama's neck with this tire-necklace of the Bush years! Let's move on to getting Mr. Holder to lead on this one in conjunction with the two judiciary committees in Congress! -Kevo

We have proper means to prosecute transgressors of the past, and all I wish to see is Obama endorsing such existing means - Congressional investigation/oversight and the new DoJ are the proper venues upon which Mr. Bush's crimes against humanity need their proper airings!

I'm quite frankly tired by all the talking heads trying to ring Obama's neck with this tire-necklace of the Bush years! Let's move on to getting Mr. Holder to lead on this one in conjunction with the two judiciary committees in Congress! -Kevo

I totally agree with you. Obama doesn't need to be, and probably shouldn't be, too involved in any investigations. Congress can conduct investigations with or without the president's approval, and an independent DOJ should follow the evidence wherever it leads.
In fact, I think there's kind of a conflict of interest, regardless of who holds the office, when a president is the one leading an investigation of any administration.
Although Obama certainly didn't run on a platform of prosecuting Bush's war crimes, his AG nominee has stated that no one is above the law--I intend to hold him to his word.

I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing. What Obama said is that he doesn't want to start a witch hunt, and my reading of that is that he does not want to start giving the impression that all the Democrats want is revenge. On the other hand, when he'll be president, in a few days, his administration will prosecute any law infringement they will discover. No need for a wide net, but go for specific cases, and punish the responsible. This way the Justice dept will prosecute individuals and groups, but won't give the impression of attacking the Republican party. Only those who strayed, and committed crimes, whatever their names may be, George Walker B, Dick etc

"the Bush administration appears to have broken some laws"

NO... NO... NO...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Bush has obliterated his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States! For that he should have been impeached.

The Bush Criminal Enterprise has not just 'appeared to have broken some laws'! They have shown total disregard for the laws of our country. For that he should have been impeached.

Are we going to have a new president following the gonad-free example of the Congress and the Senate who have not followed their Constitutional obligations to hold the Bush admin to the Constitutions and our laws?

If Obama's administration does NOT take actions that show that presidents are not above the Constitution and our laws, then he will be in violation of his oath of office.

It is only minimally acceptable to have an independent commission investigate the criminality of the Bush admin. What is truly required is a full scale investigation by the DOJ! Prosecutions for violations of our laws need to be done. Referrals to International Courts for torture should not be ruled out. Referrals to Internations Courts for 'Crimes Against Humanity' should not be ruled out.

Anything less is an abrogation of the responsibilites of our Constitution and our laws!

The media would accuse Obama of "dwelling on the past," in the midst of ongoing crises.

Much of the media, of course, are among those Krugman is taking about when he says "those who acted as their enablers or apologists."

We had Bush II because Nixon was pardoned.

Not to mention the Iran-Contra criminals.

Fortunately, the solution is simple: Obama should empower a special prosecutor, and let the chips fall where they may.

There's a lot of reasons, while each individual one doesn't make sense, the totality is a pretty compelling case.
1) Just get the Bush administration over with - Remember "Clinton Fatigue" what do you think the country is dealing with after 8 years of Bush? The country would be running to Dr. Howard Mierzwiak on 1/21/09
2) We've got too many problems that we need bi-partisan support for, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, US Automakers, the Recession, tax reform, Wall Street re-regulation.
3) It will result in a ferocious retaliation. And the Dixie-cans will lie, cheat and abandon all sense of western morality to defend their "honor." And this isn't one of the things that's worth the fight.
4) If Bush & Co. really thought they would be punished for their crimes, they would pardon everybody and destroy the evidence.

The best course of action would be for the Obama White House to find what they can and start releasing the most sensational stuff to the press and make the Dixie-cans defend the beating of an innocent father of three.

I have always wondered if they aren't keeping mum for now so as to hope that those who have broken the law don't take the opportunity to destroy any record of doing so before they leave. Perhaps he is bluffing and hoping some tracks will be left to follow once he is in office.

The world will never really respect us again if we don't investigate, prosecute, and punish those in power who just shit on our Constitution and our laws and also the international laws which they chose to ignore. If we don't they will know and say that-- "America just talks a good game. It just mouths words that blow in the wind and mean nothing"

Bush could get us out of this situation by spending his last week in office issuing preemptive pardons. He could resign an hour before Obama takes office an have Cheney pardon him. Many in the media would praise these efforts to heal the nation in a time of crisis.

"I'm about half of the opinion that Obama should pardon Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang for their crimes." - Brock

That's what Ford did. It cost him some serious political capital and his re-election.

Taking up Obama's Time and Energy

The prosecution would be done by the Justice Department, right? I see little reason - and lots of reasons why NOT - for the President to be personally involved.

What other more critical things does the US Department of Justice in Washington have to do?

Silly blogger. Only poor people get prosecuted for their crimes in this country.

>

Hmm, not only unproven, but irrelevant - Nixon was NOT whitewashed, and yet we got Bush Jr

Beside all that, you're missing something bigger. Obama has come into office aiming to reduce partisan fervour, and try to be inclusive. You -cant- do that without an initial willingness to forgive and forget.

To prosecute (and convict, lets face it) the Bush criminal factions would take a lot of time, and during all that time the right wing will be proclaiming it a witch hunt, manufacturing 'heroes' and 'martyrs', and generally pumping up factionalism. This would destroy Obama's aims straight off the bat.

Whether he -can- reduce partisan destructiveness in the Beltway is another matter (and I haven't made up my mind on that), but clearly he must eschew anything that looks like retribution, however obviously deserved.

And, may I remind you, a crime is a crime is a crime ... just because noone gets prosecuted this year or next year, doesn't mean they can't be prosecuted later (especially if the Republicans stick to their fanaticism and don't cooperate....)

"We had Bush II because Nixon was pardoned."

shortstop at 8:53 AM

And there you have it. Krugman is correct because the cancer was never rooted out. The cesspool we acknowledge as Shruby's blueprint and legacy has been festering away because it was never dealt with. And it will continue to fester because the underlying bad actors and corrupt agendas will just become covert once again until they perceive an opportunity to reemerge.

There are toxins in the system. We are immersed in their crippling grip. The only way to avoid having this reoccur is to cleanse the system. The only way to do that is to confront the disease. It ain't going away by itself.

And unfortunately, there are few among those who would be needed to clean the system that aren't infected themselves.

Obama (blessed be his name) will hesitate to pursue this because he knows that he, like every president at least since Lincoln, will make constitutionally questionable decisions.

And what goes around comes around.

I'm not sure using the legal system to fix a collapsed political system is a great idea. Forget about the practical matters that prosecuting the Bush Administration could involve hundreds of defendents and outlast Obama's 1st term (and probably a 2nd). The first limitation on Bush and company should have been political. Our political elites and the public in general should have been the ones to put a stop to all this nonsense. And while some individuals tried, the collective "we" failed.

It's very tempting to absolve ourselves of that failure by throwing it in the lap of the courts, but I don't that would ultimately be any healthier for our country.

Mike

President Obama and his incoming administration hopes the next president will not look backwards, also. It is a political machine corruption courtesy.

Does anyone here have a list of the offenses that this outgoing administration should be charged with? Having that list and sending to our representatives should save a great deal of time!

It's very tempting to absolve ourselves of that failure by throwing it in the lap of the courts

Tempting, yes, because that's what courts are for. Would you also say that we should refrain from using the courts to prosecute rapists, muggers or thieves because the collective we have failed to eradicate the negative social behaviors and environments that are often a factor in people committing these crimes?

Forget about the practical matters that prosecuting the Bush Administration could involve hundreds of defendents and outlast Obama's 1st term

More like thousands. However, I really doubt anyone is seriously arguing that we can or should go all the way down the line in prosecuting every agency drone that participated in illegal acts under orders (although a few people in the intelligence field in particular seem to believe, a bit paranoically in my view, that that's the actual argument). I think most of us are more realistically suggesting that prosecution of some key players is appropriate. Where the lines are drawn becomes the question, and that will have as much to do with available evidence as it does with prosecutorial discretion.

Obama (blessed be his name) will hesitate to pursue this because he knows that he, like every president at least since Lincoln, will make constitutionally questionable decisions.

"Constitutionally questionable" is one thing; in violation of existing legal statue is another. We call the latter thing "breaking the law," and by his own admission, at least as far as FISA is concern, Bush has done so.

Your veiled threat about partisan witch hunts of Obama doesn't change the fact that, at least so far, Obama isn't admittedly guilty of commiting multiple felonies, and Bush is.

Jackass.

After Holder's comment on torture yesterday, Obama has no excuse, other than the excuse of "presidentialism."

Yet another argument for parliamentary government, for all you doubters.

Fred T, these decisions were NOT "constitutionally questionable." Crawl back under your rock. As Holder said, we've prosecuted both our own soldiers and Japanese generals for waterboarding.

That said, none of this surprises me, and, as much as it pains me to say Uncle Fester is right about anything, he's right that Obama won't be relinquishing all the power that Fester and Shrub gobbled up.

I agree that the Bush administration needs to be held to account. They committed numerous crimes, many of them war crimes of the most heinous description.

What I don't agree with is this constant drumbeat that Obama and his nominees need to state specifically NOW that they're going to hold the Bush administration accountable to the law. What are you folks trying to do - make sure that Bush pardons everyone on the way out the door?

Give Obama some credit. Look at who he's appointing. Google Dawn Johnsen, who's going to OLC. To me, that appointment says a lot more than any cagey answer to an interview question given while Bush is still holding the pardon pen.

That's what Ford did. It cost him some serious political capital and his re-election.

It also set the precedent of non-accountability which encouraged the abuses of, notably, the Reagan Administration (like Iran-Contra) and the Bush II administation (too numerous to list).

President-elect Obama doesn't want to tip his hand, lest we see the West Wing or the Naval Observatory catch fire over the weekend as the co-conspirators torch their evidence.

Instead, go after low-hanging fruit first.

Congress (in its oversight capacity) and/or the OIG can follow the money -- look at how tax dollars were stolen and/or wasted by contractors (let's see the GOP complain about *that!*). Those investigation will run through KBR, to Halliburton, back to the former CEO's deferred compensation.

Hello, former VP Cheney.

It starts the ball rolling that, for some in the administration, Iraq had nothing to do about WMD or democracy. It was about profit.

For me, the biggest crime of this administration was how the government was turned into the Sales department of the military-industrial complex; policy was directly crafted to produce profits for a select group of government contractors.

*That* hits Americans in their pocketbooks. And it's a winning prosecution. Then you go back and nab 'em for shredding the Constitution.

Obama was very strategic during the election and will continue to be so as president. Part of that is not tipping your hand, another part is by staying above the fray and maintaining direction and purpose. If he was loudly shouting about investigating W's administration Holder would have an impossible confirmation, W would pardon anyone in sight and evidence would be destroyed.

I predict we will see prosecutions, but he definitely should not be promising that right now.

I continue to have one major problem with all the calls for Bush's and Cheney's prosecution. (Let me state the obvious, btw, that there is no doubt in my own mind that they have committed crimes and deserve jail time.)

But, almost without exception, people calling for prosecution -- like those who called for impeachment -- seem to be engulfed in the same Bush-like mindset we want to prosecute him for. They all act like all Obama or Holder (or earlier, Pelosi and Reid) has to do is order a prosecution and thirty minutes later we can start measuring them for their orange jumpsuits and start probing Cheney's anal cavity for drugs.

People, please remember one thing. The same 'rule of law' that arguably requires Bush's prosecution requires as strongly that Bush be given every chance to put on the best defence his lawyers can come up with.

That means, these days, trying the case in the media, spinning it like crazy, using every defense including the one arguing that Bush can't be convicted because there's no proof of 'criminal intent' etc. Plus the chance of demanding a jury trial in a country 25% of which still believe Bush was 'doing the right thing.'

For those of you who argue that it would be an awful precedent to let Bush escape -- yes it would, but what kind of precedent would it set if he were acquitted?

When I mentioned this in another blog comment, one person said "I'd never thought of that. I figured since they'd admitted all of these things..." Let me remind all of you that even if someone committed murder on stage at the live broadcast of the AMERICAN IDOL finals, with half or a third of the country watching and it being on video tape, that person still has the presumption of innocence before his trial. And if the prosecutors mess up, he can still be acquitted. The same with Bush and Cheney.

And one final point I've made before. GThe Republican party is currently splintering into total irrelevancy. There are few things I can think of that could unify them, but 'rallying behind a President being politically persecuted' -- as Bush's lawyers would be bound to argue -- might do it.

Again, to quote Rachel, can someone 'talk me down' on this?

Obama (blessed be his name) will not pursue any legal action. He knows that every president since at least Lincoln has engaged in Constitutionally questionable actions, as he undoubtedly will.

And what goes around comes arouns.

fred t: (sorry for the troll-feeding, but the point needs to be made)
The fact that almost all adult Americans have broken some minor law or another during their lives does not mean that they can't be on a jury trying a murderer. Other Presidents might have made questionable decisions, but Bush trashed the Constitution, defied laws, subpoenas, etc. There is no comparison.

On the other hand, going back to my previous point, this is precisely the sort of argument we'd see in the media for a year, or for eight years, totally pushing the important stories from the front pages. And, to respond to the Nixon pardon example -- yes, this hurt the country, but what hurt it even more was Nixon's 'everybody does the same, I was just the unlucky one that got caught' defense, which, sadly, too many people believed.

Given the prominent role that Iran/Contra outlaws such as Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter played in the soon to end current administration, there is a lot to recommend a round of investigations/prosecutions...this time without pardons. Otherwise, if the Republicans can make a comeback anytime in the next 40 years, we might end up with some of these criminals running the country again.

Posted by: fred t on January 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Asked and answered, jackass.

Reposting your irrelevant analogy and your veiled threat isn't any more impressive than it was the first time. Your continued support of a criminal regime, though, indicates that the modern conservative movement and the Republican Party that does its bidding will spend a long, long time in the wilderness, and deservedly so.

Shame on you.

"The Republican party is currently splintering into total irrelevancy. There are few things I can think of that could unify them, but 'rallying behind a President being politically persecuted' -- as Bush's lawyers would be bound to argue -- might do it.

Again, to quote Rachel, can someone 'talk me down' on this?"

Okay. I can't see ANY circumstances under which the Republican Party would 'rally around' Bush and/or Cheney once they're out of office. They already blame Bush and Cheney for poisoning the GOP brand for at least a generation. Once out of office, they have no power and can grant no favors. Out of office, they can't keep the lid on what went on during their tenure, and the career civil service is just itching to tell the media and the new administration everything they know.

The GOP ALREADY wants to forget all about Bush, pretend they never supported him, had no idea what all he was up to. And that's just based on what we already know. When the lid blows off all the other stuff, it'll be that magic transformation from "Kenny Boy" to "Ken WHO?" all over again.

"George Who? Never met the man. I was WAAAAAAY over here on Capitol Hill, busy with the People's Business, had no idea what was going on over there."

Prup, nobody said we were convicting Bush folks in advance. Just investigating and putting them on trial as warranted.

And, re your other point, the future of the GOP as a political entity has NOTHING to do with war crimes, or other crimes.

What, you think Hermann Goering should have told Nuremberg prosecutors, "The Nazi Party is a shattered entity now, why are you putting me on trial?"

There, you're been "talked down."

Idiot.

===

Chris, get off the Obama hagiography pedestal and stop fluffing and fellating. He's Just.Another.Politician.â„¢

Having invested so much emotional energy to the storyline of the "criminal Bush administration," it's almost impossible for many Democrats to let it go.

But don't kid yourselves. Prosecuting prior administrations is HORRIBLE governance - and utterly irresponsible. The only thing it would accomplish is tearing the country apart, when there is more important work to be done.

No matter how "right" you think you are on the issues, the result is turning us more into a banana republic.

US war crimes will resume on January 21, 2009, and certainly Obama would not want himself or any of his administration investigated for the same crimes W. Bush and his administration could be prosecuted for.

Steven,

There is not and never has been an obligation of the Government to prosecute every crime. Prosecutors exercise discretion every day about what alleged crimes to prosecute. They have to weigh the gravity of the crime, the danger presented by the defendant, the cost of the prosecution, and the opportunity cost in using resources that could be used for better purposes. In the instant case, President Obama and his Attorney General also have to weigh the political cost that seeking retribution against the former administration will have on his ability to accomplish his political goals. It is simply false and reflects your lack of understanding of the prosecutor's role to assert that they have any kind of legal or moral obligation to bring the kinds of prosecutions you would like them to bring.

That said, on the day that Obama takes office he will have in his hands the results of dozens of investigations into the conduct of the GWOT. There will be no mysteries for Obama - he will know who did what, where, and when. He will know who authorized the actions taken and who carried them out. If he wants, he can release all that information, if he's prepared to pay the price.

Not talking retribution unless you consider the rule of law retribution. Also, if you look at Obama's words carefully, he didn't rule it out; he says we should look forward, not the same thing. The PEOTUS is one shrewd fellow. I think we need to get some popcorn and sit back and watch. Of course, priming the pump every not and then as Krugman has doesn't hurt.

I don't want to see these criminals ride off into the sunset, so investigations, with possible punitive actions following, sounds about right. I like the idea of serious congressional investigations. This would serve two purposes. First, it would provide a good demonstration of the way things are supposed to work for the American people, who are now on their asses because of the depredations of the Bush Administration.

Importantly, congressional investigations would also provide an opportunity for GOP congressmen to show their asses to a wide audience when they engage in their typical lockstep right-wing, criminal-loving behavior. Maybe some of their constituents will wake up.

Let Obama stay above the fray. Let Congress do a little heavy lifting for a change.

What I really want to know is if Bush can pardon people for unindicted "crimes." How was Nixon ever pardoned by Ford for crimes that never existed as a conviction for an indictment? What will the Supreme Court have to say?

What if the future Obama special prosecutor says that since Bush's (now imminent) wholesale pardons of members of his staff occured without a criminal investigation, nevermind a conviction, then the pardons should be null and void.

Finally, if Obama pardons Bush and Cheney for unindicted crimes or even for convincted crimes, history will condemn him. The crimes are too severe to be overlooked. The Obama administration can overlook some things, such as lack of enforcement of law, or poor enforcement of law. They cannot overlook torture, murder, treason, warrantless spying, or negligent homicide.

I believe that we do have to pursue the destructive and illegal actions that ocurred over the last 8 years although I do not know how to best do this without initiating a fire storm along with it. It is dangerous to do it and also dangerous not to do it. Walking the line about how is critical and needs to be done. I know that it may not be able to be undertaken without pain and but it still needs to be done or we will face this issue again and again...

US war crimes will resume

Um, they haven't stopped, which would be a prerequisite for them to resume.

What I really want to know is if Bush can pardon people for unindicted "crimes."

Yeah. The President can pardon any offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

That is not "any that have been charged", or "any that have resulted in convictions".

I would rather have affordable health care than waste time and money watching Congress (who are accomplices in the lawlessness) have one of those "show trials" for Bush/Cheney.

Bush and Cheney are criminals and deserve to go to jail - but they aren't going.

I'm not going to waste another precious minute of my life whining about it - I just want them to go away.

They will have a higher judge than me.

The media would accuse Obama of "dwelling on the past,"

Let's see --- a bank is robbed, and 5 minutes later the robber is caught. His lawyer argues in court that since the robbery occurred prior to his arrest, the robber should not be held accountable, as this would be "dwelling in the past".

Do I have that right?

ALL crimes that are prosecuted happened "in the past", and therefore ALL prosecutions are "dwelling in the past".

Empty out the prisons, Boys! They've just found the flaw in our court system! Spring 'em all! Close all the courts! Fire all the judges! Let the free market in crime reign - no one can be prosecuted! Raise an altar to Al Capone and Ma Barker!

And to George Bush, who came up with the rebuttal to 200 years of legal wrongdoing.

.

lou:

The opportunity to apply the law was while Bush was president. Congress, including many in the opposition party, and the courts failed to do it. Bush had many accomplices and enablers. You gonna go after all of them? And is Congress going to investigate itself?

lou, are you aware that it is not Congress that would be prosecuting them? Ever heard of courts? Federal D.A.s?

Congress has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions, once they have passed a law making an act a crime.

...Congressional Republicans would no doubt label any investigation a "partisan witch hunt."

So how is advocating doing nothing about admitted violations of the law not partisan? How is not contesting the "Unitary Executive" theory not a partisan act?

P.S. I bet a lot of the details of how Bush & Co. violated and ignored the law will be leaked once Bush & Co. lose the ability to retaliate next week. The decision about whether or not to investigate may well be taken out of his hands.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama quietly sics a couple of congresspeople with a litigious and legalistic bent, and a couple of DOJ folks, into investigating and preparing cases. While he goes about setting directions for economic recovery, pulling out of Iraq, trying to get Israelis/Palestinians to sit down together, getting a green program started, restoring our diplomatic relations...etc., etc. Then when things are going better, getting Fitzgerald on board and bringing out the long knives. And doing it in a way that co-opts the saner Republicans, and there are a few left. We've elected one hell of a pol, folks, who has the potential of becoming a statesman.

So, count me with those who want to see the Bush Maladministration strung up by their balls/boobs, figuratively speaking, pun intended, but all in good time. Other priorities must come first, IMHO.

Nashville Fan: False dilemma.

Obama will put in the past, but he's got a whole DoJ working for him. They tend to concentrate on laws that were "broken in the past" rather than trying to catch laws "broken in the future".

Gawd, you people are so effen stupid. War crimes! Guilty until proven innocent. Eric Holder, a crook himself, says waterboarding is torture and you are prepared to declare Bush and the CIA guilty of war crimes based on the meanderings of a Clinton hack. You people aren't interest in the truth. You're just a bunch of out-of-touch whackos.

Enjoy your Obama cause he's gonna follow the EXACT same mideast foreign policy as Bush. And when he's not doing that, he's gonna be tripling the debt in four years as he drives the economy further into the tank. Enjoy your socialism cause you are about to see how much harm your fellow travelers can do.