« Public Financing or Die | Main | De-Privileging »
Obama Takes a Baby Step
(Tip of the hat to Christy)
Obama has gone on record saying that as President he would ask his Attorney General to "immediately review the information that's already there" and decide whether officials in the Bush administration should be prosecuted for crimes they committed in office.
Obama's statement came in a reply to Philly Daily News reporter Will Bunch, who posted it on his blog.
Obama's statement, which I have pasted in below, is typically cautious, but at least one of the candidates is now committed to at least a preliminary investigation of the rampant criminality of the Bush regime.
I remain frustrated by Obama's obtuseness at refusing to simply tell us the truth, that there are already several clear-cut examples on the record of criminal actions by Bush and his staff, such as illegal wiretapping and the ordering and supervision of torture. So when Obama says that he's not interested in impeaching Bush because:
"I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances,"he makes me want to pull my hair out and scream at him: What the f*** do you think "exceptional circumstances" are? I don't know about you, but almost every morning when I pick up the paper, I discover what I consider to be some "exceptional circumstances" staring me right in the face.
David Swanson at After Downing Street has been keeping impeachment heat on the weak-kneed members of Congress, starting with House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who has betrayed his up-until-now noble legacy by refusing to even preliminary hearings about the possibility of impeachment. Check out ADS for the latest on the big I.
Obama says he's been getting questions about impeachment on the stump. He needs to go beyond his promise of an investigation after he wins. U.S. soliders and Iraqis are dying unnecessarily every day. We need to confront him every where he goes and tell him to stop being such a wuss and tell the American people the truth. I bet his numbers would bounce ten points if he'd just say that any one of Bush's crimes was worthy of an impeachment inquiry.
Here's what Obama said:
"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. 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.
"So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."
9 Comments
Leave a comment
Not registered? Click on 'Sign-in' above and then select 'Sign up' in the lower right corner. Don't forget to click on the link in the confirmation email that will be sent to your email address.
He has to go past his promises of an investigation if he wins, but first he has to win. The way he's been swiftboated lately, he needs to get past Pennsylvania. I am bitter but pragmatic.
springsteen.net
Dear Friends and Fans:
LIke most of you, I've been following the campaign and I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest.
He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where "...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone."
At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.
After the terrible damage done over the past eight years, a great American reclamation project needs to be undertaken. I believe that Senator Obama is the best candidate to lead that project and to lead us into the 21st Century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans.
Over here on E Street, we're proud to support Obama for President.
Bruce Springsteen
Excellent nmp - people like Springsteen don't come to the polls alone. They bring others with their sensible words. I find the smear campaign truly revolting and no matter how the media says that Obama smears Hillary equally, I don't agree. He addresses the smears. He doesn't need to create smears about Hillary - she does that all by herself.
Sen. Joe Lieberman is reportedly ready and willing to deliver a glowing address at the Republican National Convention about his friend, the Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain.
You see the rigged debate? Hear about it?
Think Obama could say any more and not meet a bad end?
There is no end to the corruption in this country.
letter my friend in OR wrote to ABC about the "debates" - my mail is full of pissed off, bitter people
Wow, I am so glad I got to hear about candidates' views on health care, bankruptcy, foreclosure, the finance crisis that will leave more people homeless than the Great Depression, the WAR, our bankrupt nation/deficit, bailout of out of control, unregulated criminal banking institutions w/ taxpayer dollars, the trade deficit, torture authorized by the Oval Office, nuclear Pakistan and their crumbling stability, decline of the US Dollar, peak oil, the world food crisis, using food to create fuel, the assault on civil liberties, climate change. I could go on and on.
Okay, so I understand those issues and I sure don't sleep well at night because of it. But if the future leaders of the country don't talk about them, and the 'free press' doesn't ask about them, and the 'free press' doesn't cover them in a meaningful way, how the HELL are our countrymen supposed bind together to solve these problems? And will Joe Voter know who to vote for?
Unless....and this is something I have suspected for a good long while.... unless this 'free press' doesn't really want to use their power to 'share' these issues with the people? Nah... what benefit could there possibly be for the 'free press' to use their power, money and position to distract, distort, displace, diminish, and derogate these issues? Could it be that there is no 'free press' in the US of A? I mean, it wouldn't be the first time that a corporate oligarchy worked to keep a population ignorant and uninformed so that the last thing they would ever do was to collectively stand up and say 'no more.'
The debate moderation tonight was exemplary in its mocking of real issues --- it almost felt like a punishment for the people who watched for even daring to consider focusing on anything but the Bread & Circus routine of our lives. How dare us for tuning in to get information so we could participate intelligently in our so-called democracy.
Here's a warning: there will be a lot of down and out Americans who will lose their analog TVs next year and they won't be able to watch the Disney and Time Warner bread and circus drivel. I dare say that after a few months of clearing their heads, debased mega-corporations (esp those parading as the 'free press) will hear from them. Now that's a reality show I wouldn't miss. One of the most disturbing aspects of the Holocaust that the world still can't quite get their heads around is how/why under what Sun did the enablers (the common man, the intelligentsia) ever let Hitler get away with what he did. That's a different kind of evil -- more evil than the worst murdering despot. Those who observe and do nothing and those who enable it to happen.
Stephanopoulos and Gibson are fine enablers. I mean, what were they trying to create tonight? A symposium to prove to the nation once and for all that elections are total BS? That's right.... the oligarchy sure wouldn't want real people showing up to vote for real issues, would they? To that, I tell Steph's and Gib's masters, WELL DONE!
I will be sure, however, to tune into Steph's Sunday program this week. I am hoping for a hard-hitting analysis/expose on Barack Obama's lapel pin, or the lack thereof. It's important as my state hasn't gone to the primary polls yet.
Barack Obama is not an "elitist."
Unlike Al Gore he's not a Senator's son. Unlike John Kerry he didn't marry a woman worth $600 million, (and he doesn't windsurf). And most importantly, unlike Hillary Clinton, Dowd, Brooks, Kristol, Dobbs, Hannity, and the rest of them, Obama can walk into just about any storefront church or community center in the poorest inner city neighborhood in America's toughest cities and relate to the people there as a true friend and advocate.
What's more, Obama's presidential campaign has successfully organized, mobilized, and energized a growing coalition of working people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. There is nothing remotely "elitist" about a grassroots ground campaign that has registered millions of new voters and garnered small donations from over 1 million people with the average donation being about $109. Union households support him overwhelmingly.
The corporate media has ignored the whale of a story while fishing for minnows: The struggle within the Democratic Party today is like the one between Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Obama is trying to unseat the staid party leadership with a grassroots insurgency. He seeks to remake and rebuild the Democratic Party from the ground up after years of being hollowed out by corporate money. That possibility scares corporate media types -- the great unwashed masses might actually have a say this time in a national election.
Obama has inadvertently exposed the folly of the political punditocracy. Here they are fulminating about Obama's "elitism" when his two opponents are far more privileged than he has ever been. John McCain is wed to a beer-brewing heiress who is worth about $200 million. And Hillary Clinton's tax returns show that she and Bill raked in $109 million since 2000. The Obamas struggled for years to pay off their student loans -- how "elite" is that? And really, let's be serious, do you think David Brooks and William Kristol and Maureen Dowd and Sean Hannity and the gang are somehow less "elitist" than an African-American couple from the Southside of Chicago?
Hillary Clinton represents the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council; the Joe Lieberman/Diane Feinstein wing of the party. The Democratic Party "leaders," when they are not LOSING elections, will talk you death and promise you anything. But when they go to Washington, as Bill Clinton did, they'll vote against the interests of working-class people, screw over the labor unions with corporate-sponsored "free trade" deals, vote in favor of wars and corporate bailouts, deregulation and shifting the tax burden away from the rich and on to the middle class. We've seen that movie before -- it's called the 1990s -- and we don't want to have to endure the sequel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/why-the-elitism-smear-aga_b_97080.html
Wow! Great article!