Paul Krugman: Forgive and Forget?

[flpoljunkie]

January 16, 2009

Forgive and Forget?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.

Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1

[ErinBerin84]

1. I wonder why

Krugman didn't go to the "meeting" the other day (read that he was invited, but did not go.....probably had better things to do I guess).

[Dawgs]

2. "should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime"

Did Obama make a decision, or did he just answer a question on some morning talk show?

Sounds like Krugman would fit right in at DU.

[flpoljunkie]

4. We don't know, but we will soon see.

[Dawgs]

6. That's my point. Krugman consistently criticizes Obama for things that may, or may not, happen.

None of us, including Krugman, have any idea.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. His answer to the question was widely interpreted by diverse people to mean that

holding bush and his administration accountable isn't a high priority.

Of course what Obama says and what he does may be two different things. We saw that with FISA, where he said he would filibuster immunity for illegal surveillance crimes and instead turned around and voted for it.

So who knows?

I do believe that if Obama wastes his political capital shielding bush co from investigation and prosecution that it will harm his presidency.

I agree that Krugman would fit right in on DU. He's highly intelligent, a recipient of a Nobel in economics, and he's a very good writer.

I didn't agree with him on his candidate during the primaries, (I worked for Obama) but i tend to agree with him on most things over all.

[AtomicKitten]

13. He would fit in at DU because he creates strawman arguments by jumping to conclusions. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

22. Are you saying that if Krugman takes Obama at his word that he is creating a straw man by doing so?

I don't understand what you mean.

Do you think that Krugman would do better to assume that Obama wasn't being forthcoming in his remarks and has a secret agenda he's not talking about?

Let me ask you your personal opinion.

1. Do you believe the new administration should investigate and prosecute crimes of the previous administration?

2. If the new administration is too forward looking to do that, what would be your opinion about that?

and lastly 3. would it be better for the press to remain silent about the crimes of the bush administration and whether or not it appears that that the Obama administration will investigate and follow where that leads?


My personal opinion is that it is a very good thing that the people through change.guv are pushing this as their number one concern. I also think it is very good that the press (such as Krugman) are talking about this and pushing for justice for our country and people. Will George after all is pushing the other way (for zero justice) and I don't see you much upset about that, though of course you may be and I just haven't seen it.

From where I sit, it appears that you are annoyed at Krugman because he is pushing for justice. Am I reading that right? It's interesting that in his column he used the Clinton administration as an example of what we shouldn't do, so I don't think Krugman is writing this because he's being throw-back partisan here. I think he wants justice.

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about the issue of investigating the bush administration.

[AtomicKitten]

23. His piece is based on his assumption that Obama has made a decision.

Obama is being coy for two reasons (IMO):

1. Holder is still on the hot seat today before Congress.
2. Junior's pardon pen is still poised and operable.

I, in fact, would be appalled if Obama did not investigate and prosecute this administration for war crimes. It must be done for America to regain its soul and moral standing.

I am annoyed with Krugman because he yet again is undermining Obama with his assumptions. I take no issue with his POV. I would, however, prefer that he argue the merits of prosecution and not insinuate that Obama has already decided not to go there.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Alright, I see where you are coming from and I have no quallel.

Where I diverge slightly is that I think it's good to keep conversations going and people interested in the possibility so that more options remain open politically and in the public discourse. And that would also include the public lobbying and pushing of Obama to do the right thing.

It was widely reported that Obama 'left the door open a crack' and that's a good thing, IMO, and I don't think that should be overlooked, either, and specifically to point out this isn't a done deal because of one interview.

I think there are 2 kinds of divisions.

There are those based on differences in strategy and tactics.
And there are those based on different values.

And I don't see any differences based on values between Krugman, me or you on this issue.

Given the context as provided by Obama's interview, and the uniform analysis of the talking heads, I think Krugman has to come at it from that angle. To ignore that angle is to cede the parameters of the discussion to the likes of W. George.

[Merlot]

41. 2. Junior's pardon pen is still poised and operable.

If Obama does plan on investigations, he's wise not to tip his hand.

My feeling is that Obama won't go after bushco, Obama will focus on the present and future problems. However, he will allow investigations to go forward.

At least, that's my hope.

[AtomicKitten]

42. Rachel was talking about the fact that we as a nation have no other choice

but to investigate and prosecute for war crimes as part of a treaty the U.S. signed. I was under the impression Junior broke all treaties including opting out of the International Court from the get-go.

I need to research this, but I am reasonably certain Obama will not break such a treaty. It's a rather poetic way of doing what the entire planet feels he must. He will be the instrument of justice.

Or at least I hope so. If not, I'm going to get cranky. This must be done; there is no other way.

[chill_wind]

15. Well said.

eom

[Dawgs]

18. I agree with him on most things as well.

I just think he spends a LOT of time criticizing Obama, whose not even President yet, for things he MIGHT do; which sounds a lot like the things said on DU.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. I think though that Krugman is far more interested in justice being done than in critizing Obama.

We have Will George and all the usual suspects trumpeting how great it is that Obama has made the decision not to investigate the crimes of bush et al, and I think it's critical that there are other folks pushing back and demanding that crime be investigated and prosecuted.

Obama said what he said, and many diverse people, including Krugman interpreted it to mean that Obama was sending a signal that maybe he wasn't as hot on stopping crime as he was in looking forward.

So how do you interpret what Obama said?

If Obama decides to let the bush crimes slide, what is your opinion on that?

(i know, it's hypothetical, yet it's a hypothetical brought up because of the fact that justice is the number 1 question at change.gov, and Obama just spoke about it last weekend Sunday.)

and lastly, If Obama appointed a special prosecutor and it was determined crimes were committed and indictments were brought, would that be something you would OK with?

[Dawgs]

30. I think that Krugman criticizes Obama because it sells.

So how do you interpret what Obama said?
Obama meant exactly what he said. He's going to do what he thinks is best for the country.

If Obama decides to let the bush crimes slide, what is your opinion on that?
It depends on a few different things. If he investigates, finds wrong doing, and doesn't do anything I would be disappointed. If he chooses not to investigate because he feels it will hurt his efforts in getting other things done, I would be okay with it. If he chooses not to investigate because he doesn't want to look back, I will be disappointed.

I trust Obama enough to do what's best. That's all I can ask.

[roguevalley]

38. given the ambiguity of his answer (no one above law but lets not

look over there because its backwards not forward) it makes one wonder if he truly will do anything. If he suggests a commission, it will be to give the appearance of looking but nothing will come of it. Commissions are places where crimes go to die. Jonathan Turley made that clear. I think Krugman deserves more respect. He was tilting against the machine back in the day when it could cost you everything.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. The ONLY way to avoid past mistakes is to understand how/why they happen.

This whole bullshit of let's just look ahead, the past is past, etc is why humans always end up in the same old shit again and again and again .....we collectively rarely have the will to put the work into learning what went wrong. It is always much easier to make the same old mistakes, than to learn about why we make them.

It is absolutely essential to go back and root out the problems and punish those who broke the law. If we don't there is no need for anyone going forward to adhere to them.

[SuperTrouper]

5. You're right. Letting Bushie and Cronies get away with it

will only encourage future thugs to do the same. Obama's Justice Department must follow the law and take all leads, no matter who ends up falling.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I think an independent prosecutor would be the best bet. That way it has nothing to do

politically with Obama, yet an investigation and a report will be done as well as appropriate prosecution should that be the way the investigation goes.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Irishonly]

10. I couldn't tell by his answer

Sometimes I wonder if Nixon and all of his cronies had bee put in jail if Boosh would have gotten by with all of his law breaking. I also couldn't tell by Holder's answers yesterday if he was going to push for prosecutions.

[Aloha Spirit]

14. I agree that Holder is the person to focus on here, as Obama has said he would be in charge of

determining if there is any wrongdoing to prosecute.
His answers sounded very cautious, like someone who doesn't want to be accused of political motivations once the ball gets rolling.

[EraOfResponsibility]

40. Holder said that he'd let the evidence lead him where it will n/m

[BeyondGeography]

11. Oh, look, Krugman has fired another warning flare about Obama again

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

12. "should reconsider his apparent decision" ... key word "apparent" ... FAIL

[Occam Bandage]

16. It's been interesting to watch Krugman focus less on economics and more on political activism.

He seems to be enjoying his work.

[Raster]

19. And good on him for it!

[MarjorieG]

25. An academic with all the right answers, has often displayed political tin ear.

[Zuiderelle]

17. I wonder what all those critical of Pelosi on this same issue have to say about this?

I'm sure it will be something completely irrational.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. My bet is opinions that don't match with yours you view as irrational?

I suppose that is a possibility, but it's not all that likely, IMHO.

I've been critical of Pelosi on this issue. I think letting the bush admin slide on the codified law, administrative law and constitutional law has been very bad for the country.

However, Rep. Pelosi took the constitutional remedy "Off the table."

Obama, while indicating he was more forward looking than interested in past crimes still "left the door open."

So at this point that is one clear cut difference.

Now it that is irrational, i ask you? or what?

[Zuiderelle]

31. I think they both deserve criticism, if there is to be any criticism at all.

[John Q. Citizen]

34. I've been more activist oriented on the new administration. I've been calling on them to

appoint a special prosecutor ASAP after Tuesday.

I'm a patient man, but I do have my limits. I like the Krugman piece because it lays out the arguments in favor of bringing justice for alleged crimes.


As far as Pelosi goes, she's had lots of chances to do the right thing in terms of over site and hasn't done much. I think it's possible she may have signed off on water boarding or rendition or something which might put her in jeopardy should it come up as a legal issue for the bush Administration.

What do you think? Any possibility Pelosi signed off on stuff she doesn't want investigated?

or is that just crazy?

I'm asking you because you might know. What's the word?

[mmonk]

35. How so?

[EndElectoral]

20. Thtank you Mr. Krugman....Without accountability of Bushco, they'll simply d it again down the line

[Thrill]

21. As usual Krugman is jumping to conclusions. Whats new?

[JitterbugPerfume]

26. It is the business of the press

to hold the politicians feet to the fire.

Didn't FDR say "make me do it" about the new deal to the press? It is easier to do the right thing if someone is pushing you toward it.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Although Krugman "may" have a point, based on his speculations

as to the future, I'd wish he would stick to the economy, and at the very least, I wish he could have made himself available to meet with Obama when he was invited to do so.

It just seems odd that Krugman has so much to say about what Obama is thinking, but couldn't actually meet the man and talk to him face to face. Krugman meeting Obama would have made much more sense than Krugman determining what Obama "meant" although Obama was vague enough that any determination as to is future actions are premature.

[AtomicKitten]

43. I agree he should stick to the economy. n/t

[xchrom]

32. +13

[mmonk]

33. + 14

[Better Believe It]

36. K & R

[Raster]

37. +19

We Can Do Better!:kick:Justice For ALL!

[backscatter712]

39. What Obama should do: Sic Holder on the Bushies, then move forward.

Send Holder to deal with the Bushies. Then Obama can move on to other things, while saying that Holder's just doing his duty as Attorney General. Holder can say his hands are tied - he's seen evidence of serious criminal activity, and is bound to act.