Democrats May Be Headed to Showdown With Obama Over Bush Probes

[cal04]

James Rowley
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601127&sid=aDYQRfop9MWc

Some Democrats in Congress don’t want to let George W. Bush leave town.

They want to continue investigating alleged wrongdoing by former administration officials like Karl Rove just as President Barack Obama is urging them to turn the page.

House Judiciary Committee Democrats have a long bill of particulars. They want to force Bush-era officials to testify about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and alleged politicization of law enforcement. They want to press inquiries into Bush’s program of warrantless wiretaps and into allegations that suspected terrorists were tortured in U.S. custody or turned over to other countries for such mistreatment.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee, has called for a “truth and reconciliation commission” to investigate such Bush administration tactics.

So far, Obama hasn’t endorsed the probes.

(snip)
Some say that while the nation’s economic crisis may be pushing other concerns aside, it doesn’t eliminate the need to uncover past mistakes.

“There is room for members of the Senate or the House to do what we are supposed to do, which is oversight,” said Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Congress “can walk and chew gum.”

[Jackpine Radical]

1. As FDR said, "You know I want to do the right thing.

Now make me do it."

[csziggy]

2. So many are so brave to go after Bushco now - wonder what they were being blackmailed with before?

They could have done this "oversight" sometime in the last two years, but most members of Congress ran away from criticizing Bush & cronies as fast as they could. Until now.

[Enrique]

5. maybe this suggests they weren't being blackmailed

:shrug:

[csziggy]

9. Or whatever was being held over them has no impact with Bush out of office.

[Enrique]

11. do you think they have something on Obama now?

since he seems to be balking at investigating?

[marshall]

29. I think any president is reluctant to call the dogs out on another president

Even when they are from different parties and have vastly different approaches to government they are still members of a small and elite fraternity.

[Enrique]

44. that would be outrageous

these are serious potential crimes at the highest levels we're talking about. I have a much more generous view on Obama's motivations than you, I think he's thinking about his agenda and the good of the country, not about his brotherhood with Bush.

[csziggy]

43. No, I think Obama just does not want the distraction from fixing all the problems Bushco left

But I think we need to go after these guys. Think about it - many of the movers in the Bush administration were aides in the Noxin White House who saw how few of the perpetrators of the Noxin crimes were actually prosecuted. Then they managed to get away with even more and worse crimes in the Reagan, Bush I,and Bush II administrations.

We need to make sure all the Bushco crimes are investigated and prosecuted and the loopholes in the laws closed. Otherwise, in a future administration the minions who have aided and abetted the current crop of criminal traitors to the Constitution will be back with even dirtier crimes and eroding more of our rights.

[EFerrari]

15. No really so many. Conyers and Leahy are still doing what they have done

as chairs of the respective Judiciary Committees. It's yet to be seen if they are willing to do more than make noise.

[rpannier]

3. The logic of turning the page is similar to

A man in his 60's who thirty years ago murdered 15 people but was never caught.

Finally they know who he is. But hey. Let's move on.
It's been thirty years and all that.
He hasn't killed anyone since then.
Let it go.

[MadBadger]

4. They dont NEED Obama's endorsement of this...right?

So I dont understand what the big deal is. If the Legislature wants to do this, then okay.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. I thought that they could go ahead?

[Enrique]

12. Obama's role is in the story

“There are very confusing messages coming from the Obama administration,” said Margaret Satterthwaite of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University. The nation is “poised” to learn whether Obama will “account for this abusive program” or “we are going to continue to have stonewalling and silence.”

The Rove subpoena will test Obama’s willingness to give Congress the information it seeks. Rove has been ordered to appear Feb. 23 for closed-door questioning by lawyers with the House committee probing the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and allegations that politics prompted the prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama.

Siegelman is appealing a 2006 bribery conviction and seven- year prison term for taking a $500,000 campaign contribution from HealthSouth Corp. founder Richard Scrushy in return for a seat on the state’s hospital regulatory board.

Executive Privilege

Bush invoked executive privilege to bar congressional testimony by Rove and other White House aides about the firings. The Obama administration must now decide whether to side with its predecessor.

The subpoena is an opportunity for Holder “to send an early signal of how he intends to handle some of the leftover baggage of the Bush administration,” said Representative Artur Davis, a Democrat from Alabama who is running for governor.

“The subpoena raises complicated legal questions” because the administration’s “obligation to protect the institution of the presidency” is “in conflict” with the committee’s “desire to get to the truth,” presidential spokesman Reid Cherlin said in an e-mail.

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. Obama has had a lot on his plate in the last 3 weeks or so.

[Skittles]

13. THIS should be FIRST on his plate

[MadBadger]

14. Fixing the economy should be first on his plate. Its actually insane to think differently.

Total frickin insanity. How does going after Shrub help get millions of people working again?

[EFerrari]

16. Not going after Iran Contra allowed Bush to happen in the first place.

[Skittles]

17. B I N G O !!!

you got it

[hootinholler]

24. Allowing a man who had assets seized in WWII to be elected to the Senate

Has caused no end of harm to the nation. Hits paw prints are all over Nixon, his Son, and everything they touched.

-Hoot

[chill_wind]

33. And another Bush regime will come back ten times more virulent.

Because the message will be that we accepted it. And we should make no make no mistake--there will be more Bushes and Palins and Scalias and Roves and Addingtons etc etc etc determined to return to power again any way they can.

[Greyhound]

40. As always, straight to the point. n/t

:kick:

[Skittles]

18. exactly why lying, thieving murdering bastards get away with their shit

Obama should have immediately appointed people to hold the last administration accountable - IMMEDIATELY

[ThomWV]

22. It is absurd to think that only 1 thing can be accomplished at once

[MadBadger]

23. Nobody's arguing that. I'm responding to a poster who thinks going after Bush is Numero Uno

[Zhade]

37. What good is a working economy if the rule of law is broken?

It's letting criminals get away with their crimes that destroyed the economy in the first place!

[Maru Kitteh]

7. Some poor General Practitioner or Urologist probably has to probe Bush once a year.

Poor schmuck.

[sandnsea]

10. Next to nothing else will get done

That's the gamble they're taking by going forward. What's the point if they aren't going to do anything when they're done anyway? They either have the evidence to hand out endictments - or they don't.

[MadBadger]

19. If Obama were to have began his term by investigating Bush, I'm not sure he could get a second term.

His poll numbers would plummet because the average American wants him to devote most of his time to the economy. By coming in with a message of change and bipartisanship, immediately going after the previous Republican administration would give the Media and the Republicans all the ammo they needed.

I dont care if Leahy wants to investigate, but It baffles me when people think investigating the Bush administration should have been Obama's first priority.

[EFerrari]

20. I agree that Obama can't be seen to be pushing this. It won't play.

And that means we're screwed because Congress is completely dysfunctional, no matter what Conyers and Leahy say to the press.

[chill_wind]

30. And he also can't be seen to be condoning or protecting.

Congress needs to return to what lingering memory it might still have of separation of powers and its sworn oaths of duty. Will that happen? There's the very disturbing question...

[ThomWV]

21. For me the success or failure of Obama's Administration will rest on enforcement of law

If he does not enforce law he will be a failure as President, if he does enforce law he starts on level ground.

[Individualist]

28. Ditto!

[stklurker]

41. For me the success or failure of Obama's Administration will rest on enforcement of law

Yes.. but I think the majority of people in his first term will judge his presidency on his ability to recover the economy, and then address the debt. If he pushes prosecution as the priority and not the economy there will be hell to pay.. Others are correct, Congress and the committee's need to 'force' his hand. (force is in quotes for a reason.....)

[Raksha]

42. Absolutely!

What good does it do to be Chief Executive if you can't or won't enforce the law? Isn't executing the laws what the Executive Branch DOES???

[caraher]

25. "Some say... the nation’s economic crisis... doesn’t eliminate the need to uncover past mistakes.

First, "Some say?" That should be a banned expression, First Amendment be damned.

Second, there are mistakes and there are crimes. The latter abound and must be investigated, prosecuted and justice meted out. See, for instance, Glenn Greenwald's recent piece on torture.

[chill_wind]

26. Americans want investigations for Torture & Wiretapping. *A large majority.*

Two-Thirds of Americans Want to See Bush Investigations for Torture and Wiretapping; 40 Percent Want Prosecutions

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/two-thirds-americans-want-see-bush-investigations-torture-and-wiretapping%3B-4

Americans want to see justice done. If crimes have been committed – and there is ample evidence that they have – then the people who committed those crimes should beinvestigations prosecuted. You don’t decide it’s better or more politically expedient to look forward than to go back and prosecute someone who commits any other kind of crime. Why should this be different? More to the point, prosecutions do look forward—they look forward to deterring torture in the future.

War crimes, terrible crimes of torture and abuse, were knowingly committed by senior members of our government, and the only way to ensure it doesn’t happen again, and to show the world that we are sincere in our desire to keep it from happening again, is to prosecute the people responsible. If every administration knows it has carte blanche to break the law because the next administration will always let them off the hook, I shudder to think what new crimes will be committed in the future.

As of this moment, the Obama administration is in violation of U.S. law. Dick Cheney admitted his role in the waterboarding of suspects and said he would do it again; the attorney general, Eric Holder, said that waterboarding is torture; and the Convention Against Torture, which is U.S. law, requires the criminal investigation of torture. There is zero doubt that the law has been broken.

The country seems to be ahead of President Obama on this question. I hope he will listen.

[EFerrari]

31. What I notice is that calls for prosecution are met with claims of emotionalism.

I just heard one instance this morning on WJ. Leahy says in his statement that we shouldn't seek "vengeance". We need to correct that claim where ever it originates because it's gaslighting.

[chill_wind]

34. "Prosecutions do look forward—they look forward to deterring torture in the future."

And that could be said about the other crimes as well. A very good and matter-of-fact concept.
One to use on the nay-sayers for sure.

[Beetwasher]

27. This Is EXACTLY The Way To Play This!

Obama is "reluctantly" forced by Congress to go along w/ investigations. Yup. This is the way it should be played. Control the debate about it by having OUR side HAVE the debate about it.

[MiniMe]

39. Obama is stepping back from having anything to do with the investigations

And I think he is playing it smart by doing that. It is Congress and the DOJ's responsibility to investigate this, not the President's. Obama isn't going to interfere. But he is staying out of it. He has said that if it turns out that there were criminal actions, they should be prosecuted. How are they going to find that out unless they investigate.

[Vincardog]

32. There can be no reconciliation without True Fair Prosecutions, They have admitted their crimes

[AzDar]

35. You don't prosecute, you are complicit.

:patriot:

[Zhade]

36. Nothing alleged about it.

Glad to see Dems still willing to stand up for what's right.

[DearAbby]

38. This again shows

different set of laws for those in power, and the rest of us. Why in the hell should I obey laws, when others can so blatantly violate them and get away with it. It has happened more and more.

Even if there isnt a soul prosecuted for this, the information of what went on should be made public. We have to be informed of the depth of these crimes so we can learn from the experience. So it never happens again.

People can multitask.

These people will return again and again, why? Because they have no fear of taking responsibility for their crimes.

And if they can violate the law and not be held responsible, why should we obey the laws? Either we are all bound by the law, or we all are not.