Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Would Obama Hold Bush Accountable?

By Robert Parry
April 16, 2008

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have shied away from the issue of holding George W. Bush and his top aides accountable for war crimes, torture and other offenses – apparently out of fear of alienating potential Republican crossover votes.

But – under questioning on April 14 – Obama agreed that, if elected, he would have his Attorney General initiate an investigation into whether Bush and other senior officials violated criminal statutes and thus deserved to face prosecution.

Read on.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course not. Obama would be too interested in getting reelected. He wouldn't want to waste time and political capital prosecuting Bush. It will be a "That's the past, it was wrong, but we need to move forward" approach. Hillary, too. There's a better chance that McCain would prosecute Bush for torture than either Democrat.

john edwards fan said...

I made a bet before I began reading Mr. Parry's article. How many paragraphs would it take before it became an anti-Clinton screed? Sure enough! Wham!

But, Mr. Parry, you are indeed naive if you believe that Mr. Obama would "investigate" the Bush Administration's suspect activities.

Obama, as is his wont, phrased his answer in the conditional. He made no commitment to an investigation. At most, he MIGHT do a "review" of "what is out there now."

Obama is one slick politician!

peter said...

Every time you think that people hit the bottom of the stupid barrel, some one finds a bigger barrel. What a stupid web site, author and followers. Raise the national IQ and jump of a bridge.

Susan said...

My God, Robert, you have really gotten drunk on the Kool-aid.

Obama is the one, not Clinton, who is constantly yammering about wanting to reach across the aisle to people who have no interest whatsoever in compromise. Do you honestly think he would anything about Bush?

No matter who gets elected or appointed president, nothing is going to happen to Bush.

Anonymous said...

"However, the Illinois senator left himself an out, suggesting he would weigh evidence of Bush’s guilt against the potential political fallout from prosecuting a former President."

Isn't this EXACTLY what got us into this mess (the rationale Ford used to pardon-hold the president above the law)in the first place?

Anonymous said...

It's not gonna happen. Any candidate with the minimal belief in justice necessary to contemplate investigating the crimes of his or her predecessor will never be let anywhere near the presidency. In my dreams the next president will take the oath of office and then skip the innagural ball so they can speak before the UN and ask the world to forgive us and announce that the US will be comitted to abiding by international law.

Tom said...

Yeah, things run off the rails when Bob says, "It’s less clear how Hillary Clinton would..."

Was it that clear how Obama would handle this? He says he "can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now." Dude, you're a Senator, how much closer do you need to be? How much more do you need to see?

The problem is, Obama wants to keep the same illegal powers that Bush asserted, so he won't rock the boat.

If Obama is a revolutionary, I'm a ham sandwich.

Sad that the once-great Perry was sold on this bandwagon of delusion.