here's where Obama said he would not use DoJ to investigate the administration...

[Didereaux]

I saved this article and so no link, but all info is there for anyone who wants to track down the source. NOTE that he put the caveat that he would prosecute if evidence was found...which really is confusing since who, if not the DoJ then who has the investigative resources to take on the Bush administration. Good lawyer, he covered his tracks. Here's the germane portion of the larger article(which is below)
"But, Obama said, he would not use the Department of Justice to investigate the administration if elected. "I don't want to waste time as president spending all our time looking backwards. I want to look forward," Obama said, adding the caveat that if evidence of criminal activity arose, he would expect it to be pursued by the Justice Department."

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Print This Article
Wednesday, Jan 9, 2008Sunday, Oct 7, 2007
Posted on Sun, Oct. 07, 2007
Obama in S.C.; toughens security stance
TAYLOR BRIGHT
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would increase troops in Afghanistan and leave a strike force in Iraq to pursue terrorist organizations if he is elected.

"There has to be a time you have to deploy force," Obama told an energetic crowd of more than 1,500 people at Northwestern High School in Rock Hill.

The Illinois senator has relied on his early and ardent opposition to the Iraq war to separate himself from rivals Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

In an AP-Ipsos poll, Obama trails Clinton by 20 percentage points nationally. In South Carolina, according to a Clemson University poll done last month, he trails Clinton by 10 percentage points.

But he sounded stronger on security Saturday night.

"There's no doubt we would have to go after al-Qaida," Obama said. "And if you start seeing a strengthening of terrorist camps or bases inside Iraq, then we would treat those the same way we should be treating terrorist camps in Afghanistan or along the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan ... and disarm them."

Obama said he would withdraw troops from Iraq "tomorrow" if he could, leaving an American Embassy and a strike force, while increasing troops in Afghanistan by two brigades.

"I think we can do an orderly phased withdrawal of one to two brigades a month. At that pace, we would have our combat troops out in about 16 months, and what I would maintain is a very limited presence to protect our embassies, to protect our civilian personnel ... and to have a strike force to go after al-Qaida in Iraq or to engage in other counterterrorist activities."

There are currently some 160,000 troops in Iraq and about 25,000 troops in Afghanistan. Obama said he would not keep American troops in Iraq at the levels they are in South Korea and Germany.

During his speech, he also declared the surge has failed in Iraq and he would close the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba where enemy combatants are being held.

But, Obama said, he would not use the Department of Justice to investigate the administration if elected. "I don't want to waste time as president spending all our time looking backwards. I want to look forward," Obama said, adding the caveat that if evidence of criminal activity arose, he would expect it to be pursued by the Justice Department.

Obama spoke in front of a boisterous crowd in Rock Hill, receiving loud applause at points in his speech.

"The reason you're here -- let's face it -- is you're sick and tired of George Bush," he said.

He received an equally raucous response when he proposed increasing the minimum wage every year and criticized the No Child Left Behind education program.

"We should be increasing the minimum wage every year, make it a liveable wage," Obama said.

Fashioning himself as a Washington outsider, the first-term senator walked the balance between Washington neophyte and public policy veteran.

The mix easily won over the crowd, who lined up an hour and a half early to see him, as he ended his speech, "Let's go change the world."

"It was wonderful, a life-changing experience," said Karon Page, 31, of Rock Hill.

[Harper_is_Bush]

1. IMPEACH OBAMA!!!!

:evilgrin:

[Didereaux]

3. LOL now THAT is funny!

[AX10]

4. I'll Second the motion!

[MadBadger]

2. Your point?

[sandnsea]

5. "if evidence of criminal activity arose"

He will expect the DoJ to pursue it. Excellent.

Can somebody do anything besides distort Obama's record??

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

6. Nope....and that's the funny part......

that he is less sinister than Hillary!

Maybe they can impeach him for this....
Maybe he's a communist! :scared:

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[Didereaux]

8. less sinister than Hillary? Now you have simply got to provide some 'sinister; stuff to

back that up. And for godssake don't dredge up poor old moulder'n Foster.

[Didereaux]

7. and here is his 'loophole'...

Who has the resources capable of investigating the Bush administration? About the only one is the DoJ, so where is the evidfence supposed to come from? Does he expect us to believe that once out of office these criminals are going to line up and 'rat' the boss? They all will be well ensconched in good paying jobs, and to expect us to believe that these guys would sacrifice all jsut for justice and piece of mind? Obama is not a stupid man and apparently he is a capable lawyer as well. He gave the administration a 'Get of Jail Free' card and made it look as though he still held the hammer back.

[killbotfactory]

9. He doesn't want to make this race about getting revenge on Bush

It kind of goes against his hope theme.

If he finds criminal activity, he will pursue it.

[Didereaux]

10. that is not logical on the face of it....

If he doesn't investigate, then is he expecting perhaps the Evidence Fairy to flutter into the Oval Office and drop it on his desk?