Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Might Pursue Criminal Charges Against Bush Administration
Biden says criminal violations will be pursued
Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden said yesterday that he and running mate Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November.
US Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) is introduced at a rally by his running mate Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) in Dublin, Ohio, August 30, 2008. Biden said yesterday that he and Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if they are elected in November.(REUTERS/Matt Sullivan) Biden's
comments, first reported by ABC news, attracted little notice on a day
dominated by the drama surrounding his Republican counterpart, Alaska
governor Sarah Palin.
But his statements represent the Democrats' strongest vow so far this year to investigate alleged misdeeds committed during the Bush years.
"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden said during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, according to ABC.
"[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution," he added, "out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."
Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".
"[I]f crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News. "You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
Congressional Democrats have issued a flurry of subpoenas this year to senior Bush administration aides as part of a broad inquiry into the authorisation of torturous interrogation tactics used at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
Three veterans of the Bush White House have been held in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to subpoenas: former counsel Harriet Miers, former political adviser Karl Rove, and current chief of staff Josh Bolten. The contempt battle is currently before a federal court.
- Posted in
202 Comments so far
Show AllI'll believe it when I see it. Must admit I still like the idea of having bush's state funeral behind bars. SHame that statements like that will make it more likely that bush will nuke Iran and declare himself dictator/decider in chief for life.
Obama "Might" Pursue Criminal Charges Against Bush Regime
And the pope "might" become a protestant.
Will Obama do it?? (google....."Please see FISA Law Amendments")
I think so, too.
Obama MIGHT pursue criminal charges!? Either he thinks that there is a lack of evidence against the greatest cabal of criminals in the 21st century or else he is worried about the ensuing negative fallout from corporate America. I side with the latter. It is difficult to pander to the under-represented 'justice for all' electorate when you rely on corporate America to finance your campaign. Nevertheless it is obvious from Obama and Biden's mere mentioning of the possibility of prosecuting the current pack of thieves, that they feel they can no longer ignore the demands of the majority to try this administration for a long list of serious crimes.
-- Gee, I wonder if Bush and Company *might* be in violation of the Constitution.
-- I wonder if they *might* be war criminals.
-- I wonder if they *might* have lied about weapons of mass destruction.
-- I wonder if they *might* have needlessly and murderously killed over a million Iraqis. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
-- And I wonder if Obama and Biden *might* have voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $500 billion.
-- And I wonder if I was dreaming when I heard Obama say that, if necessary, he's in favor of invading not only Iran but Pakistan as well -- with the use of nuclear weapons not "off the table."
-- And I wonder how "Team Obama" feels about George Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates? ... In a June 29, 2008 "Times of London" article quotes Richard Danzig, Obama's top military adviser, as saying:
"My personal position is Gates is a very good secretary of defense and would be an even better one in an Obama administration."
The "Times of London" article goes on to say:
"Obama's top foreign policy and national security advisers are pressing the case for keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon after he won widespread praise for his performance. The move would be in keeping with Obama's desire to appoint a cabinet of all the talents. ...
"Some advisers acknowledge privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be 'responsible' in handling Iraq -- rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out -- to appear more centrist, a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance."
Click here for the entire article -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4232070.ece
-- And I wonder if it was a *different* Barack Obama who voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees, executive as well as judicial.
-- And I wonder if, in 2006, Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman, in Liberman's primary fight against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont.
-- And I wonder if it was a different Barack Obama who voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act.
-- And a different Barack Obama who voted for the F.I.S.A. bill --after vowing not to.
-- And a different Barack Obama who, like John McCain, wants to increase the Pentagon budget.
*Might* all of the above be criminal offenses as well?
Dittos.
They MIGHT fly to the Moon on gossamer wings too. Don't hold your breath.
Although this will be just another forum for Barack Bashing On Common Dreams, it is good for the Common Person that Bush and Criminal Charges are being publicly linked by Obama & Biden.
The Obama haters on CD say the two parties are the same; I don't hear McCain calling Bush out. The are in bed together. BIG difference. For the Common Person. For the future.
Obama.
Or vote McCain/Nader if that's your truth.
So I am Stupid and Dishonest?
Insult me personally some more RichM.
Obama is polling at over 50% now. Around the world he's strongly preferred over McSame. Conclusion: You Obama Haters do not own the truth. Your sanctimonious platitudes repeated ad infinitum represent a minority of thought-and thinking processes too.
Insult me some more RichM-Then Go vote for Nader or McCain. Big deal, those horses are dead.
Maybe RichM won't, but I will: Yeah, you're Stupid and Dishonest.
I was a supporter of this little weasel until he finally showed his true colors.
He's nothing but another shill for the republicans, much like Old Joe Lieberman. Same story. More war against the world and Americans at home.
Useless.
Keep "thinking" translucent, keep thinking. Hopefully, one of these days, you "thinkers" will come out of your caves and join the rest of the real progressives who really stand for humanity and the ending of the murder and war against it.
Its YOU guys who are the barbarians.
Vote for Obama and fire another bullet into the head of another Iraqi man, woman or child, in your name, translucent.
If anyone is DEAD it's the Dead Democratic Party. They became part of the Repug Party back in 2000, or have you not figured that out yet? They have helped give Bush/Cheney/Rove pretty much everything they have asked for since 2000. The Repugs and Dems are one party. They just hide behind different labels. How much more does one need to see to grasp that? It's called Denial.
I see someone is calling RichM "sanctimonious" and referring to his "sanctimonious platitudes." That's so typical.
Usually it's words like "self-righteous" that people drag out to attempt to slam those who tell the truth about Walk On Water Obama. Those who see Obama as their lord and saviour or "The Second Coming," can't bear to hear the truth about Mr Hope/Change.
"Obama is polling at over 50% now."
I don't doubt that. Most people are sheep...even around the world.
In this country most people can't possibly think outside of the D and R rut. It's in their programming. And the D and R rut is, in part, how we got to where we are today.
The Definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...like voting for Dems one "election" cycle after the other and expecting positive change.
Calling Obama's critics "Obama haters" is no more disingenuous than your calling his supporters "Democrat apologists."
q
poo-poo to you. bush-lite indeed.
I doubt you are stupid, and Ive seen no evidence of dishonesty. But the polls change constantly, almost as much as has Obama's opinions and intentions. One might surmise that, after eight years of the worst president ever, even a dead democrat would slaughter any living republican in a race for the office. But instead we see Obama actually behind in Florida, to name only one such polling datum and McCain has yet to receive the "kick" he will get from the convention speech tonight.
I remember that McCain was an ardent opponent of Bush once upon a time, as Bushs' absence from the convention and his relegation to a short taped speech out of prime time indicates. Remember the abysmal lies of the South Carolina primary way back when? Just showing that it is conceivable that McCain has actually opposed Bush more than has Obama.
Calling those who will not vote for Senator Obama "haters", and I readily note that some use sophomoric and ill thought out rants, brands you as well as them. I believe that this is a momentous time in our nations history, a black man actually might become President, and about time too. However, I believe this is the wrong man at the wrong time , so am I a hater too?
I have voted for Ralph Nader twice now and will do so again in the fall. Not because I hate Obama but because Nader speaks to me of a shared vision for this nation, and has for eight solid years. It is less important to me that Nader cannot win this race frankly because either candidate, democrat or republican, will take this nation down the same road, for the most part, as we have seen since Reagan. The democrats have proven to be cowardly and complicit far too many times, and when they were most needed to be in opposition as well.
You may think me unreasonable, you may call me an idealist, but if I do not stand up for what I believe then I am not a good citizen.
"The reasonable man adapts to his surroundings, the unreasonable man attempts to change his surroundings to suit himself; and all progress depends upon the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee: Thoughtful. Thank you. One question if I may?
What is the benefit of seeing McCain in office rather than Obama? Many on CD openly advocate for this now. Why not work for change, start a revolution or whatever, under the Democrats? Why are the Republicans preferrable?
Thanks again for a reasoned post.
I prefer reasoned discourse. Thanks for it.
As to your premise above; it is the wrong question, in my opinion. However a true revolutionary might answer with the cant that things may just have to reach a tipping point before the American people awaken from their credit induced coma. If you believe that a centrist democrat like Obama is a better choice than a moderate republican as is McCain I think you operate more on the myth of the democratic party than on its reality.
Those here who profess disgust with both the party and its candidate may sink to hyperbole and sophomoric responses in their frustrations but they nevertheless understand that something is terribly wrong with the system and its processes. Perhaps they witness the Clinton administration with its NAFTA's and its tossing thousands off the welfare rolls to balance a budget on the backs of the poorest among us and fail to see their vision of the democratic party in that. Perhaps they
take the measure of the actions, or more precisely the lack thereof of that "opposition" party during the six years of a GOP majority in both branches and understand that we all were let down by their compliccity and cowardice when we needed them most.Maybe they note the way Senator Obama, in his brief and meteoric rise, fails to vote on key issues, or votes "present" and wonder at his position and his spine.
In truth I look at my vote a bit differently than do others. Many cannot see spending that vote on a candidate who cannot win, which, I really believe, is a short sighted vision of the power of that vote. I have always voted for that candidate who best expressed my own vision for the path of this nation, and I always will. I realise that the electorate has been made almost irelevent by the power of corporate monies polluting our process and actually buying our elected representatives. When we need two plus years and half a billion dollars to decide a presidential election while other nations spend pennies and take a few weeks to decide the same question something is very, very wrong. When democrats campaign on ending a war, on reducing corporate welfare and immediately renege on both promises after winning a majority a thinking voter should take pause.
In a culture seeking instant gratification building a third party is difficult, but it is very ,very necesary, and it starts with you and me.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Right-on. He's also voted FOR all war appropriations which makes him pro-war, despite his posturing to the contrary to fool those gullible ones who will allow themselves to be fooled by his "hope and change" BS. He's also talked about attacking Iran and Pakistan and sending MORE troops to Afghanistan. Ugh.
And on a cosmetic level, when I see him standing up there in front of a wall of flags with his little flag lapel pin on---just like Bush/Cheney et al---that doesn't look like "change" to me. That looks like the status quo, which is what one will get will Obama/Biden.
----------> Nader/Gonzalez 2008, if there is an "election."
Well said, RichM.
I don't hate Obama - I hope he's reading this.
If politicians keep saying whatever they think will get them elected, and people keep voting for things they dont want - then all we have is lies all around.
If people let the politicians know we see through their lies - who's to say what can happen? Truth?
As long as the debates are closed to anyone who opposes the corporate plutocracy, the people might as well say what they think here.
That's not hatred - it's free speech.
Please, some scepticism is fine, but please don't spurn a rare morsel of good news when it comes along.
What good news is this exactly? A very vague and qualified statement that Obama MIGHT do something? Especially when it directly contradicts what others in the Obama campaign have been saying for the last month. When we've seen this before with the Obama campaign where they will happily talk out of both sides of their mouths to different audiences. And next we'll see Obama-writers talking about how there's 'confusion' in the campaign, right before just assuming that the part that's being directed towards them as audience is what will happen and thus ignoring the messages that say something else will happen.
The one thing you can rely on is ACTIONS. Forget the words, what have the Dems done in the last two years when they've had the power to do this? That's your best indicator as to what's going to happen after Obama is elected.
Sorry, I'm already tired of the Obama campaign lying to voters. This results in little to no trust in what they say.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
So, would prefer that they say categorically that they won't prosecute?
I have no illusions about Obama; I doubt anything will come of this either, but you all are playing some kind of puerile game of "my cynicism is bigger than yours".
"impeachment is off the table" I seem to have heard that somewhere....I think this a ploy to woo Nader and McKinney voters and nothing more or less....While I would love to think of Cheney spending his last days in a federal prison, it simply aint in the cards...
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"The one thing you can rely on is ACTIONS. Forget the words, what have the Dems done in the last two years when they've had the power to do this?"
Right! One direct action I see coming from the Democrats:
Nancy Pelosi TAKING THE CONSTITUTION "off the table".
GO Cindy!!!
My Congressman told me personally in an email that the Democrats won't impeach because they are implicated in the crimes! He said, "We'd have to impeach most of Congress."
You must be young to think this is a "morsel of good news." I'm over 60, I have been watching this charade of a "democracy" for too long to take seriously anything any of them say. They lie. Even the charming ones. Especially the charming ones! And the Democrats rival the Repubs. Johnson lied his way into one of the biggest, ugliest wars. The Viet Nam war was the Democrat's war fulfilling the Democrat's ugly agenda. And the current Democrats are further to the right than they were then. Richard Nixon (our GW Bush) is considered to the left of today's Democrats. They know how to work people.
It's just lucky for the empire that: You're always able to fool most of the people, most of the time, some of the people all of the time. Johnson said the Viet Cong had attacked at the gulf of Tonkin. Proven to be a lie. Everyone knows now. Millions killed for empire. Americans were fooled for a long, long time. And now we have the same thing. Both parties. Killing and maiming for empire and a hot career advancement.
Sorry to disrupt the happy-talk.
Well, who the heck knows what the Obama administration will do. Because on this issue, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. There have also been leading figures from his campaign saying 'there is no political will' to do this, or that they 'don't want to criminalize public service' and that they don't want even the impression that they were going after the Bush criminals.
As always with Democrats, its better not to even listen to words. We know from NAFTA and other issues in the primary that Obama will lie and say whatever he thinks will get him a vote today.
So, what we have to look at instead is ACTIONS. What is the track record of the Democratic majority in Congress on impeaching and investigating and charging the criminals in this administration. After all, the Dems have had control of congressional committees with the power to force witnesses to testify, obtain documents and do some serious investigations.
Take a close look at what this Congress has done (which is really to actively protect the Bush criminals from prosecution and impeachment), and that's your best guide to what the Democrats will do next year.
If you really want a strong investigation, elect Nader President and elect a strong Green Party contingent to Congress.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Does anyone seriously doubt that W will spend his last week in office issuing presidential pardons to half of the republicans in the US, including himself, Cheney, and Rumsfeld?
q
A president cannot pardon himself -- assuming laws still mean something------------------lizard
Well, isn't it obvious by now that the law means nothing to the bush administration? They'll just have one of their slimy lawyers draft a memo saying that, as a last act, the president may issue preemptive pardons for himself and Cheney.
The Constitutional restriction on the President's power to pardon himself is limited to cases of impeachment. He can pardon himself in other circumstances.
q
Exactly how would the Democrats have stopped them? Even if the Dems had a majority in both houses of Congress - which they don't - Bush and Cheney would simply ignore any legislation that may have been passed to rein in the administration's recklessness.
So please explain exactly how the Dems could have stopped Bush and Cheney's crimes.
q
Correct. It's called 'log jam'. We need a supermajority in Congress to achieve any meaningful change.
Just a note
Have you noticed how the minority republicans have blocked legislation, manipulated votes and controlled the direction of both Houses? Democrats could have filubustered and taken many parliamentary measures to act lie an opposition party and failed to do so. Why would you think they will alienate the corporate cash cow with greater numbers?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
duplicate, sorry
The ability to block legislation is useless when previous Congresses have already given Bush what he wants and is now using to carry out his destructive policies.
As for taking their case to the public, the corporate media - backing Bush all the way - has diminished the Dems capacity to do so.
q
This is an interesting new perspective on whether Obama-Biden are making these statements
to gain support of more liberals or progressives and will drop the inquiry when they take power, or it is a legitimate
attempt to deal with the crimes of the Bush administration.
Those on the left must hold Obama's feet to the fire on this and other issues to make the second mentioned option a reality.
Only time and the power of activist pressure will tell.
Please explain the leverage you are going to use to apply pressure?
Are you just talking about letters and calls and petitions? Because that's what people have been trying to use to 'pressure' the Dem leadership of Congress into impeachment. And we've seen how that is ignored and basically useless.
The leverage you have is today. Obama needs your vote. Right now, you've got something Obama wants. If you just blindly give Obama your vote without nailing down a deal on this now, you've given away all your leverage.
And even then, we know from the primaries and the discussion on issues like NAFTA that Obama has no problem lying to voters, then taking back what he says later calling it 'overheated rhetoric' from the campaign. So, even if you do use whatever leverage you have today, its a very likely possibility that Obama would just lie to you.
But, after the election, when you've already given Obama the one thing he wants from you, you will have no leverage and no ability to apply any pressure.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"Those on the left must hold Obama's feet to the fire..."
LOL.
Oh yes, that's worked splendidly since 2000, hasn't it?
Those on the "left" have supposedly been "holding their (the Dems) feet to the fire" (on impeachment, war criminality, USAPATRIOT ACT, torture, spying on and on and on) with phone calls, e-mails, letters, faxes, protests, sit-in and you see the state of things, don't you?
Give me just ONE example of this pabulum of "holding their feet to the fire" and when it has EVER worked?
It's grandiose wishful-thinking and false hope. And that's all it is.
These useless politicians don't give a damn what any of us think therefore there is no "holding their feet to the fire."
Because they have essentially said to us: Screw you. We don't care what you think. We don't take our orders from you. We take our orders from the Bush regime, the war industry and the corporations. Period.
The corporations and the war industry will "hold Obama's feet to the fire" most successfully. After your lord and saviour Obama gets your vote, he will forget about you.
I hear this "holding their feet to the fire" pabulum about as often as I hear "the #1 reason to vote for Obama is the Supreme Court."
Who do you think gave us Alito and Roberts? THE DEMS.
So people can put that Supreme Court argument in the trash where it belongs. To begin with Obama would only nominate and it's up to the Bush-enabling Senate to confirm or deny. And does anyone truly, honestly think that Obama or McCain would nominate a so-called "Liberal?" Ha! Dream on. And that's what the Obama people do. They dream these delusional thoughts of what their lord and saviour is going to do for them.
Some very low level flunkies 'might' go to prison for a few months until some Blue Dog Democrat Justice Department official paroles them. No one who actually made the most basic and fundamental criminal decisions in the regime of George Wanker Bush will even be investigated by an Obama Justice Department. If McCain wins, fuggitaboutit. The reason Nixon never went to prison after Watergate was because those people who actually are members of the Power Elite (many of them Democrats) do not want to see a former president actually spend time in prison. The very idea alone is horrifying to them. Such an idea is "off the table" and always will be, even for a demonstrable traitor like Bush.
Bush cannot pardon himself, everybody else but not himself. If He does blanket pardon before he leaves office, than I will continually request that the next President (plus my governor)to blanket pardon all but the worse criminals out of our criminal system. That would save a hell of alot of tax money. But; don't hold your breath because "to pursue would be detremental for the nation"
lip service... nothing more, nothing less.
I fear as much.
It's infinitely better said by Nader. Upon leaving office, Bush & Cheney will be FUGTIVES FROM JUSTICE.
Nader/Gonzalez '08
This is an interesting new perspective on whether Obama-Biden are making these statements to gain support of more liberals or progressives and will drop the inquiry when they take power, or it is a legitimate attempt to deal with the crimes of the Bush administration.
________________________________________
It may be nominally interesting, sevenpointman, but with all due respect it sure ain't "new".
I just happened to hear some teevee analysis last night-- I don't remember from who, I was just flipping through the channels-- by some pro-Democrat who was explaining, in essence, that the Democratic Party truly values and works toward bipartisanship and "unity". For all I know, it may have been in response to this very question.
Anyway, he pointed out that Carter didn't pursue unresolved Watergate issues, and Clinton didn't pursue unresolved Iran-Contra issues (or S&L scandal issues, which the guy didn't mention) in the interests of "healing" the nation.
So the answer is the former option. IMO, Obama is just dying to be the Second Coming of Lincoln, and give a History-Making sonorous speech declaring that we must let bygones be bygones, etc.
And Democrats just love to dangle these little catnip mouses in front of a desperate and justice-starved constituency during the home stretch of a presidential campaign. Once they get in, they're invariably crowded by circumstances-- next thing you know, the discussion turns into "will they take on these controversial and divisive issues in their SECOND TERM?"
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... won't get fooled again!
...and I might learn to breath through my ears.....
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"if" "might" "Democrats' strongest vow"
The Kool-aid stand in open for business! Step right up, folks! It's not another cynical pandering for gullible votes, it's a principled stand for law and truth!
Honest! Maybe!
And if you don't like it, you get called 'Obama hater' and get accused of 'Obama bashing' - not to mention the snarky 'McCain/Nader'.
Insults and threats from the Democrats. If it wasn't for their excuses (those mean Republicans keep yelling at us until we cry!) you couldn't tell the two parties apart.
Obviously a lot depends on who the US Attorney General would be in the Obama-Biden administration.
Ramsey Clark perhaps? :-)
I guess John Edwards is off the A list.
You know I thought breaking the scandal about John Edwards affair was to guarantee that he wouldn't be VEEP but I also think that it was exactly to keep him out of the AG office. He's gotten a little soft but he used to have teeth and he used to know how to litigate.