Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Top Bush Officials
In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D. California) said she is open to press forth on some persecutions of top Bush administration officials.
“I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it,” she told Fox’s Chris Wallace. “And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past.”
Pelosi’s remarks come shortly after Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he wants to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives.
Conyers called for an “independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities.”
President-Elect Barack Obama told ABC News a week ago that he believes that Washington should look towards the future rather than the past. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he told ABC News a week ago. “On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”
Pelosi explained that Obama and Conyers are not “that far apart. There are different subjects and you treat them differently.
“We cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department to go unreviewed,” she added. “I want to see the truth come forth.”
Although it was an unpopular decision, President Gerald Ford was right not to press charges against President Richard Nixon. Prosecution would have damaged the American people’s faith in government and it would undoubtedly have torn the country apart. Prosecuting top Bush adminstration officials will have the same effect. If Pelosi and Obama are serious about bringing the country together they have to let byones be bygones and focus on the future.
Pelosi and Obama are not the same kind of politician, however. Where Obama ran as a moderate last year, Pelosi is known as an ideoligical liberal partisan hack who detests compromise. If one Democrat is indeed likely to prosecute Bush officials just to get even it is her.
Moderates and conservatives can only hope that Obama will have tremendous influence over the speaker, and that he will curb her desire for revenge.
While I’m in agreement with the “move the country forward” goal, it does make me wonder, is prosecution ever an option for when a crime may have occurred? Or should people get off scot-free in return for a stable country?
My worry is that a lack of investigation where necessary might create an “anything goes” atmosphere, where the executive branch believes they can simply do whatever they want because the next CIC will never allow an investigation to be opened in the spirit of “keeping the country unified.”
Do people with Rangel and Dodd on there side really want to start investigations. I really hope they do.
We need to move on. This is BS. There is a whole new president and we have a whole new set of problems to deal with…like, hum, lets see…double digit inflation.
Bush did the best he could under the circumstances. It is what it is. This has been a rotten 8 years so lets focus on making the next 8 years a little better.
Michael vdG is correct. This is very much like Ford pardoning Nixon, and for precisely the same reason. Political trials will destroy the republic. Galling as it is to the many who think that the outgoing administration is guilty of sanctioning torture and an unjust war, most of them are either complicit in those decisions because they voted for them, or are possibly guilty of various other criminal activities. The failure of the Democratic Congress to follow President Bush’s effort to bring greater regulation to the home lending industry is disgraceful, doubly so if, as it appears, Barney Frank’s lover was getting rich form his connections to Congress.
So there’s the thing, Michael M. – if we really investigated and prosecuted everyone in Congress or the Administration who had ethical or legal lapses exceeding parking tickets, I think we could just have the United States Marshall take everyone except a half dozen or so directly in Congress, plus all the cabinet heads and the President and Vice President to prison to wait the investigation and the trials. This would effectively cripple government.
One big problem is that since the mid 1960s we have tried to criminalize differences of policy and opinion through our efforts to use administrative force to obtain political and policy changes that cannot be obtained democratically. The efforts to end the war in Vietnam were one, Roe vs. Wade is another, and the decision to impeach President Clinton is a third. Much as it infuriates many on the left, prosecuting Nixon would have been a disaster. Prosecuting Clinton was the start of the unraveling of the Republican party, and prosecution of Bush administration leaders would simply destroy President Obama’s efforts to resolve the economic problems facing the nation. We need more centrist, non-ideological Gerald Fords and fewer fringe ideological Nancy Pelosis right now.
The real threat is the criminalization of policy differences. There are many on the far left who perceive any political disagreement as a crime. For example, there are many who condemn any military action they disagree with as a “war crime”, any combat or law enforcement against a group they romanticize as “genocide”, any intelligence gathering as a “police state” and on and on and on it goes. The far right has the seeds of the same thing in the other direction, with taxation condemned as unconstitutional theft by the government, participation in international institutions deemed “treason”, etc.
If we set a precedent that empowers an electoral majority to redefine anything they disagree with as criminal, it will not stop with the Bush administration. Instead, any party change in power will result in a raft of show trials as the former party is perp-walked by the new party in power. At that point, we would already be a banana republic.
Those who seek the emotional satisfaction of show trials against Bush administration officials should be careful what they ask for, or they and theirs will be next up in the dock 4-8 years from now.
Very well stated, Jason. As they say, what goes around comes around, and it pays to be careful about what you wish for, because you may receive it.
Jason you make a very good point. Any prosecution of Bush could turn into a witch hunt based on ideology rather than criminality.
It is widely believed that the Bush administration overstepped its constitutional authority. The prosecution of Bush could draw more firmly the lines that cannot be crossed. Unlike Nixon, who was accused of underhandedness and obstructing justice, Bush is accused of illegally starting a war and overstepping the limits imposed on him by the constitution.
Pardoning Nixon may or may not have been the right thing to do, but it is more palatable because the impact of his crimes was limited — nobody died. Some estimates have over 1 million dead in Iraq. The most conservative estimates are in the 100,000 range. This demands that justice be done.
The limits of executive power need to be scrutinized. The transparency and accountability of the executive branch of government need to be addressed in our courts. Assign a legal scholar on constitutional law as a special prosecutor. In this way we can use our government to ensure that the executive branch does not abuse its power. Our executive is not a king. He is subject to the supreme laws of this land. The violation of that law is a criminal offense. When more than 100,000 die as a result of these abuses, it is clear that the abusers should pay the highest price for their misdeeds.
Trying a former executive of high crimes after he has left office sends a clear message that no one is above the law. Ignoring these crimes is a strong indicator that the executive limits are not well defined and therefore not enforceable.
An independent non-partisan prosecutor who has no other role in the administration is the only way that the hard truth — not the Democratic or Republican version of it — can be brought to light.
We must be careful to balance the need to hold the executive accountable to the law of the people with the need of the executive to make controversial unpopular political decisions.
The prosecution of George Bush for his failure to preserve and protect the constitution will help us draw those lines.
“Jason you make a very good point. Any prosecution of Bush could turn into a witch hunt based on ideology rather than criminality.”
But then you turn around and voice your support of such a prosecution, and for specious reasons.
“An independent non-partisan prosecutor ”
There’s no such thing. None will be able to be found.
“Some estimates have over 1 million dead in Iraq. The most conservative estimates are in the 100,000 range. This demands that justice be done.”
Neither figure is accurate. The 1 million number has been debunked as the fraud it is, and the 100 thousand figure is off by tens of thousands. In either case, this does NOT demand that “justice” be done. This is the misfortunes of war. It isnt a crime which demands “justice be done”. Should we prosecute the flight crew of the Enola Gay as well?
“We must be careful to balance the need to hold the executive accountable to the law of the people with the need of the executive to make controversial unpopular political decisions.
The prosecution of George Bush for his failure to preserve and protect the constitution”
Thats all in your head. He has done a fine job of protecting and preserving the constitution. And if by any chance he did overstep constitutional law, thats what the supreme court is for. Besides which, failing to do so is not a prosecutable offense.
“will help us draw those lines.”
No it wont. What it will do is criminalize political differences, which is what you really want. If you want to “draw lines”, all you need to do is read the constitution and/or add to it.
No, the law should prevail for everyone. You are innocent until proven guilty. George Bush Blacked out key words in his Iraq WMD intelligence report given to congress. The justice system should decide, that is not a witchhunt. Mr. Meritt is right. We have to hold public servants, including the president, to the law, period. George Bush disregarded salient intelligence reports. He committed war crimes. Shame on Mr. Obama, a lawyer who does not stand up for justice. Mr. Nixon should not have been pardoned. He is not above the law. If it is not for all citizens, it is not JUSTICE! Come On!! Everyone should pay their taxes and the penalties if caught, even if we need their services, Mr. Geithner.