Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Forgive and Forget?
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.
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. It's not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation's security. The fact is that the Bush administration's abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.
At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for "right-thinking Americans" - their term, not mine - and there's strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.
The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq - an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security - in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.
Speaking of Iraq, let's also not forget that country's failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.
There's much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years - in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?
Why, then, shouldn't we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?
One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn't there be some penalty for the Bush administration's politicization of every aspect of government?
Alternatively, we're told that we don't have to dwell on past abuses, because we won't repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration's political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won't do it all over again, given the chance?
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.
- Posted in
226 Comments so far
Show AllDr. Krugman,
I fear you are correct in your prediction of what will happen without an investigation of Bush-era corruption. And I fear that your prediction that to be President Obama will stay the hand of the justice department in a vain effort to garner Republican support for his programs. And I'm glad I'm nearly 63 so I don't have to live too much longer and watch the end of liberty in the United States.
Given the enormous economic and fiscal difficulties the country faces, I do not expect things to be significantly better by 2012. In fact, they will probably be worse for most Americans as the debt bomb explodes and destroys the dollar's value. And so, I expect some screaming Republican fascist like Benudi Giussolani to be elected at that time.
His or her election will have been facilitated by shifts in the electoral college greater than now expected caused by the abandonment of many northeastern and rust belt cities by people losing houses to unemployed foreclosure. They will flee south to find cheaper living opportunities, swelling the population of sunbelt states, but not enough to flip them politically. They will be like the Democrats of New Orleans: lost in the red sea of Tejas.
Do not write off another Bush in 2012.
Her name is Palin.
Good point.
It is too often dismissed that if we don't support Obama we will wind up with Palin/Bush 2012.
But that's the reality of the situation.
Kudos to Paul Krugman for putting into words that which so many know in their heart of hearts to be true.
anandakos, I don't expect things to be much better in 2012 either. I mean, I have faint hope that they will be, but realistically know that unsustainable systems ultimately fail. No one on top is saying anything about making this system sustainable, and without accountability, we have no hope changing direction or preventing more thugs from perpetrating their crimes.
Again, it is and will always be up to us, or I should say, WE, the people, the grassroots, to change ourselves. We must change our lives regardless of what the military/industrial/political class does. By changing our lives to match our values, we can start pulling the rug our from under this system and have some hope of creating a new, sustainable system in its place. No guarantee of success we do do this, but it seems realistic to expect failure if we don't. Unfortunately, we will visit our failure on our children and all others to come if we choose to do nothing.
Let's get going, folks. It's obvious to all but the most benighted that the aforementioned classes are not going to help us.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Thank-you Prof. Krugman. There's still one reasonable person writing for the NYT.
---USAn---
Elected officials are held to a higher standard. This festering wound must be cleansed and cauterized or our republic will never heal. Even if it takes the all of the New American Cemetery.
By far, the most greivous abuse of power was the White House propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq invasion to congress to gain war powers. In plain English, they lied their butts off. As a result of this deception, millions of Iraqis were killed or maimed for life, or turned into refugees, while thousands of coalition troops were killed or maimed for life. This war will most likely have a long term cost of over 3 trillion dollars.
As much as I would like to see Bush and Cheney held accountable, at this point we are not talking about the impeachment they richly deserve. However, the most productive reaction would be congress eliminating the war powers vote. On two occasions now, propaganda campaigns have been used by the white house to deceive congress into giving a president war powers. The is compelling evidence that the Gulf of Tonkin alleged attack of an American ship in International Waters by North Korea may have been a staged black ops mission. The result was war powers given to Lyndon Johnson to escalate our presence in Vietnam into a full scale war.The scare tactic of that era was the Dominoe Theory, that one my one countries in Asia would go communist and become allies of China.
We need to go back to the original constitutional provision for America going to war, a full vote in both houses of congress. The last time we did that was 1941 when we declared war on Japan. The difference is there is no empowerment of the president beyond normal non war time powers to do such things as warantless wiretaps.
On the other hand, the firing of attorneys at the Justic Department for political reasons only to establish caging lists to eliminate voting rights for Hispanic and African Americans needs to be fully investigated. It represents politicizing the Justice Department. It also attacks the role of a Karl Rove entrenching himself behind a White House stone wall to operate in favor of the Republican Party. This includes violating the Presidential Transparency Act created after Watergate by conducting official business on a Republican Party computer server and witholding e-mails. With holding evidence represents Watergate style arrogance of power. An example needs to be made of this situation and Rove needs to get reamed out.
that a brain lesioned psycho with the awareness of a down's syndrome child could do so much damage to the republic simply draws attention to what a shit hole the republic has become
investigate that
cheers, b
Exactly. Bush is a symptom of just how decadent the US has become. I know many progressives believe that the US has always been decadent and evil, but evil compared to what? Powerful nations usually are abusive, but some are worse than others. Many agree the Nazis were the worst in the modern era, though I doubt they were any more extreme than the Mongols, the Huns, or some of the Roman Emperors. So there are gradations here.
And it seems that at some point of decadence, and one might say "evil," the whole system becomes completely unsustainable and soon crumbles. And that Bush was able to get into office, and to stay in office for eight years, provides great evidence that the decadence has reached such a level that the point of disintegration for the US political system and economy has arrived.
Down's sydrome children are some of the most wonderful loving and peaceful beings on this earth.
Whoopdeedoo, but they still lack awareness.
To go to war, yes.
And your response is apropos of?
My stupidity is a consequence of your intelligence Aggie.
Aren't you satisfied with that fact yet?
Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. doesn't really matter. It's our society that is the problem. Not just the current nut at the top. We have to change the entire kingdom, not just the king. The author has to know this, but also knows how far his editors will allow him to digress from the party line. Krugman may want some change but ha will be content with just a change of kings.
Hoa binh
Thank you since1492, I think that since this kingdom has been a kingdom of nothing but crime and punishment, a kingdom of forgiveness would be a great change indeed.
How about a Common Dreams investigative committee, a special CD website (with members such as Elizabeth Holtzman and Paul Krugman), seeking the evidence, evaluating, recommending--
A citizens' committee--attended and contributed to by the rest of us?
How about county citizens' committees with a county's best brains and f2f meetings across the country?
If the politicians won't do something HOW can WE do something other than mouth off and complain and project negativity onto the future?
A good place to start is here:
http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1501
Member of Congress Tammy Baldwin is introduced the "Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008" which calls for investigations into alleged illegalities during the Bush years. There is a good chance that she will introduce it again, if there is public support.
If you read it over and think it deserves support, call your reps at 202-224-3121 and tell them so.
You can simply say that you believe Bush is or is not guilty and of what and how you want him punished, and or reprieved and why.
You cannot speak or vote for the rest of us, we all must speak for ourselves.
Personally I see that Bush executed the war with legislative power that was given to him by congress while our judicial branch looked on.
The people of this country when polled returned a seventy percent approval rating at this time and the war happened through these mechanisms.
Once started, we could not just make it all go away. That is the nature of war.
I feel it was a collective mistake, not a mistake made by one man.
I see my part, and I truly regret it. I forgive myself.
I see Bush's part, and I truly regret he played it. I forgive him.
I think these are good and valid points.
But adjudicating just what Bush's culpability is regarding these crimes is what a judge and jury would be for. Let these "crimes" be openly dealt with in order to determine if they are crimes, and how the perps should be punished.
The world has dealt with problems such as these before. Because the Nazis, for example, had widespread popular support, and were elected in, did not get certain Nazis off the hook when the Third Reich tumbled down. Nor did a defense of ignorance or "everyone did it" get the leaders off the hook.
Yes, let these crimes, if they are crimes, be openly dealt with in order to determine whose culpable. As well as to set the historical record right.
Perhaps the nature of our court systems is due to change. I see myself as equal to the task of gathering information, looking at the evidence and handing down a verdict.
I have payed close attention to this crime and what has happened as it unfolded right before my eyes.
I did not need a judge to feel it my duty to be as impartial and fair in my consideration, nor did I need to be in a special box to feel the greatness of my
job.
I feel I have met most of the criteria, and meet it to lay down my verdict.
Not guilty.
"The people of this country when polled returned a seventy percent approval rating at this time and the war happened through these mechanisms."
That's just how gullible the American people have become. It was obvious from the start that the government was lying about the reasons for going to war. A small number of people here on Common Dreams were pointing out the lies being told. Many people around the world were pointing out the lies. A few people in American were yelling at the top of their voice about the lies. They were all drowned out by the desire to go to war by the many in America.
Rickster
Hi Rickster
The majority for the Iraq War would not have formed without the overwhelming juggernaut of the corporate mass media. Anti-war opinion (and fact) was almost completely frozen out. Even when 200,000 of us marched in San Francisco in February '03, the San Francisco Chronicle "balanced" its coverage inch by column inch with a pro-war rally of about 20 Hell's Angels types in San Jose; and the rest of the media followed suit. AOL reported 20,000 in the San Francisco march, and when a few hundred people blogged in with the truth, AOL pulled down the column, while leaving up the one next door saying "Liberals are Idiots." (AOL doesn't do newsblogs anymore.)
The challenge for the left is fairly simple, but daunting. Can we create channels of communication which rival those of the corporatocracy? These would have to include not only alternative media and the internet, but also, since we don't have their money, face to face channels as well. Until we do there is nothing to be gained from complaining about the American people. If you are going to do an organizing or even a publicity campaign, insulting the target population is not a good place to start.
Laurenceofberk,
I think Obama is a result of that left organizing bearing fruit.
What kind of pie now gets cooked with those apples will have to do more than anything with the absorbing of the fact that it can be done, and he is proof.
But I think the left is in some sort of collective shock, induced by the power they were not sure they had suddenly coming out of them.
A power equal to the corporate mass, that did not go anywhere just because they took one step with it in Obama. A power that needs another step, and then at least 26 more before it becomes habit, and becomes a real earthly power.
That next step of power has little to do with what we do to Bush, and more to do with what we do with Obama.
If everyone truly wants their power with Obama to produce persecution and prosecution of Bush, then fine. It just seems to me that there are better things to do that would add to what we want to build than that.
Please, please, please everyone, at least think about this seriously and with love.
"If everyone truly wants their power with Obama to produce persecution and prosecution of Bush, then fine. It just seems to me that there are better things to do that would add to what we want to build than that."
We can do both. It's not going to take the entire government to investigate the alleged crimes pulled off by bush and company. A special team of 15 to 20 people working in the background could do it in 2-3 years.
Rickster
"It's not going to take the entire government to investigate the alleged crimes pulled off by bush and company"
rickster, you just hit the nail right on the head of the problem.
Until these "alleged" crimes are investigated, they are only alleged.
In which case there is nothing even to forgive, yet.
Wow.
Nice.
hmmmm.
As I told you I am a believer in due process. If there is enough evidence for a crime a investigation has to be implemented. I believe there is already enough evidence for trial but the full scope of the crime still needs investigation. It's not going to take an army of investigators to do it either.
Rickster
Or in my case, I did not necessarily know if lies were being told to justify war.
I just felt that defense can only be justified when you are defending yourself from an attempt of others to harm you.
My heart simply quelled at the idea of pre-emptive defense, which seemed crazy.
I think Obama supports pre-emptive attacks, though he has his own twisted version of it.
"My heart simply quelled at the idea of pre-emptive defense, which seemed crazy."
You know it's funny but the whole war on drugs is based on a preemptive defense. He's doing an illegal drug so we have to arrest him before he commits a crime on somebody else. The only problem is the vast majority of illegal drug uses don't commit a crime on anybody else. Most illegal drug users are casual users and their not actually doing any real harm to their selfs. Alcohol does more harm to a casual user than any of the illegal drugs do.
Rickster
You mean war on "illegal drugs" right, I think they are the ones that "terrorists" use. ;) :0)
Honestly, Obama HAS to stay above the fray. The real action has to come from folks outside the US working with groups inside the US, but not governmental. Then when the time comes to lock Bush & Cheney away, Obama needs to say: "hey, I've been above the fray and i'm not getting involved now...do what you have to do." This way, he gets the best of both approaches.
Obama can stay above the fray but this needs to be done by America. Eric Holder just testified that waterboarding is torture. With four and one half days left for Bush to contemplate whether to grant broad pardons or try to tip toe out quietly this is not the moment to tip hands, do ya think?
Let the guy think he has beat the rap like he always has. Preemtive pardons would be an admission of guilt that he is loath to make. So let him slide on out the door with a smirk. Then let him sweat it out as the dominos fall his way, one by one. Next wednsday is the day to start demanding action.
All it will take is one parent of a dead soldier and one district attorney to file criminal charges against Mr. Bush and company for murder and/or conspiracy. (Vincent Bugliosi's book: "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," has 231 reviews on Amazon.) Even without a district attorney a relative could file a civil suit for wrongful death ala OJ Simpson. And yes, FPIE, the search for a venue can start on Wednesday.
Investigate the BFEE at your own risk. Hamilton, Roemer and the rest of the democrats on the 9/11 Commission are all still alive and kicking...Oh, I forgot, the 9/11 Commission report was a whitewash...Why does anybody think the next investigation of BushCo will be any different?
The next bipartisan investigative commission does not have to be a whitewash.
Don't forget, the Bush White House has successfully withheld an enormous amount of information from both Congress and the 911 Commission by stamping it "top secret classified." In particular, none of the documentation known to exist about the input from foreign intelligence services (the Pakistani ISI, Mossad, the Saudis, the Brits, and others) to the Bush national security team in the months immediately preceding the WTC attack has ever seen the light of day.
Barack Obama (through new CIA director Leon Panetta) can lift that self-serving veil of secrecy courtesy of the outcome of last November's election. Not only can the existing 911 attack narrative be comprehensively ventilated, but so too can all that classified stuff about the warrantless NSA wiretapping programs, the torture, and the fixing of intelligence around Bush's Iraq invasion policy.
I mean, don't you think somebody should be criminally prosecuted for destroying all of the videotapes of these pre and post-waterboarding interrogation sessions with Khalid Sheik Mohammed - the man who is now ballyhooed as the single most important source of intelligence in the global war on terror? KSM is crazy as an outhouse rat. Yet the whole 911 scenario used to sell us war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere hinges upon his credibility. According to right winger Joe Scarborough, 70% of the actionable intelligence that Bush has used to thwart various post-911 planned terrorist attacks and keep America safe for the last seven years are directly attributable to KSM. Would you buy a used car from this fruitcake?
I like the investigative commission approach. What is needed is an executive branch willing to turn over public records rather than withhold records or destroy records. Come Tuesday of next week, all that changes.
Bill from Saginaw
What you said. Thanks.
There are too many democrats that agreed with everything BushCo did that would come off as being as bad as BushCo if there was a true investigation into their abuses.
Secondly, we already know about torture and eavesdropping, which strikes me as a replay of Dick Nixon’s “limited hangout”. While I agree that Obama will have the power to de-classify materials I suspect that we’ll find just about the same thing we found in W’s Texas Air National Guard files; squat. For three generations the Bush family has mastered the art of covering their tracks up to destroying the Congressional Records on the Congressional investigation into Prescott Bush’s treasonous attempt to recruit Marine General and Medal of Honor recipient Smedly Butler to overthrow FDR.
"thwart various post-911 planned terrorist attacks"
He thwart attacks. Seems like every case the government uncovered ended up being dropped. All I can remember hearing is they had stopped some. Can you link to any information of any actual cases. Seems like I would remember something like that. Maybe I'm getting old.
Rickster
Paul, you cannot be serious! Bush is in no way escaping the best kind of conviction that we have at our disposal. Public opinion. He has been tried, convicted and hung. Give the poor guy a break, it is time to see that forgiveness is within our grasp, and condemnation but a news cast, blog cast, world cast away.
It is the mind that can never be satisfied that punishment was good enough, that at some point must also be tried, convicted and hung.
But if the majority or a respectable number of the people want to convict Bush, there is no reason not to at least hold a symbolic conviction of him and everyone who was responsible for the war.
As I recall 70% of the American people supported the war, and almost one hundred percent of our representatives supported the war. This is how the war was started and fought.
This action of war, has been condemned and the reason why we reacted, I think I understand.
If Obama gets this then I have only respect for him and his desire to stop letting war, even if it is the continued awful fall out, direct us.
You seem to want to keep war front and center.
Forgiveness, is the greatest lesson for us all and if we had all forgiven the action of Sept. 11th that was caused by war, instead of responding in war, we would not be here.
Though I did not support the war, I cannot say I did really support forgiveness either, and feel equally guilty as Bush for it's cause.
Perhaps in the end it is ourselves that we avoid forgiving in wanting to punish Bush.
Remember and forgive!
Leea
"As I recall 70% of the American people supported the war, and almost one hundred percent of our representatives supported the war. This is how the war was started and fought."
You have to remember that support was based on the faulty information and lies provided by this bunch of cowards.
Yes indeed you are right. But I as an American citizen did not buy their reasons for war, and that was a choice I made. Other made the choice to believe it, but it is not hard to convince a frightened mass of people.
I was scared to death after the 9/11 attacks, for my children especially and my first response was that we should retaliate, and my justifications and imaginings of what this entailed were great indeed.
Then after I thought about it, I simply decided it was better to let them come to my home and fight them there as a real threat that I could see, rather than go to their home and attack them because I feared they might hurt me.
This decision process that I went through nestled in my safe little mountain valley community in the lazy banana belt zone that I call my home, was not so difficult.
But for those who live in the city, and felt the heat, and smelled the death and were intimately acquainted in those attacks of Sept. 11, well it was a little more real for them, and I think that justly so, they responded as they did.
To go to war.
We were unprepared for such an attack, and I think many people acted from a state of shock, including our president, congress and the majority of people.
I think this is all forgivable, and after all we cannot be held responsible for the actual acts of terror perpetuated against us, even if we easily see the ones we perpetuated prior to that.
To end war we must just all stop it in all it's forms it takes. We must forgive instead, of retaliating, and forgiving this war and forgiving Bush is as fine of a moment as any to begin.
Let's release all the dangerous offenders from our prisons and forgive them as well.
Ironically, all the non-violent criminals are about to be released from the Californian prisons because of over-crowding paired with our economic crisis.
Do you think Bush's crimes would fall under violent or non-violent in a court of law?
That depends on who hired the judge.
I think that is true with all these "non-violent" criminal being released too, their conviction and sentence had to do with who hired the judge, and their release will have to do with who hired the judge too.
Mother Goose rules.
Bush's deliberate deceit and deception had the following result. There are over 4200 Americans dead in Iraq, more dead back in the US and at the hospital in Germany. There are tens of thousands injured both physically and mentally. By the best figures available there are somewhere over a million dead Iraqis and Afghans with untold thousands wounded and millions displaced. Do you consider that to be violent or nonviolent?
The results are violent. Whether Bush was deliberately deceitful and deceiving and whether that caused all that death and violence, is not even in a court of trial.
I prefer to go with the innocent until proven guilty thing.
Ironically most of them non-violent criminals only crime was their choice of an intoxicant. They were guilty of a victimless crime and shouldn't have been sent to prison, jail or even got into any trouble with the law.
Rickster