Congressman, did you agree with letting George H.W. Bush off the hook?

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.

“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,” Obama told journalist Will Bunch. [Philly.com, April 14, 2008]

“I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now,” Obama continued. “I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated.”

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.

“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,” Obama said. “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.”

Nevertheless, Obama said he would be inclined to take action “if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody is above the law – and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.”

It’s less clear how Hillary Clinton would handle evidence that Bush and his top aides violated criminal statutes in the “war on terror” and the Iraq War. But Bill Clinton has said his wife wants to collaborate with Bush’s father, suggesting that she would not pursue accountability for the son.

On Dec. 17, 2007, Bill Clinton disclosed that his wife’s first act in the White House would be to send Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to repair America’s damaged image.

“The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again,” said Bill Clinton, who has accompanied the senior Bush on international humanitarian missions over the past several years.

The remark suggested Americans should be impressed that the country’s two dominant political dynasties would team up in early 2009 to tidy up some of the mess created by the headstrong son of the senior dynasty, the Bush Family.

The Bushes and the Clintons have held pieces of the nation’s executive power for more than a quarter century dating back to George H.W. Bush’s election as Vice President in 1980.

Defending His Son

In responding to Bill Clinton’s remark, George H.W. Bush issued a statement making clear he would not join in any slap at his son’s foreign policy. That, in turn, means that Hillary Clinton’s “first thing” is unthinkable if her new administration were trying to exact any accountability from George W. Bush for his wrongdoing.

So, to get the senior Bush onboard for the worldwide tour, there would have to be an implicit understanding that the second Clinton administration wouldn’t investigate the younger Bush’s crimes – from authorizing torture, ordering warrantless wiretaps, exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity, waging war under false pretenses and other abuses of executive powers.

If Hillary Clinton does get elected, Americans should expect to hear lots of talk about “leaving that one for the historians” or "no need to get bogged down refighting old battles.” That’s exactly what happened in 1993 when Bill Clinton entered the White House after defeating George H.W. Bush.

Clinton and other senior Democrats shut down or wrapped up four investigations that implicated senior Republicans, including Bush, in constitutional abuses of power and criminal wrongdoing during the Reagan-Bush years.

The Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages case was still alive, with special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh furious over new evidence that President George H.W. Bush may have obstructed justice by withholding his own notes from investigators and then ducking an interview that Walsh had put off until after the 1992 elections.

Bush also had sabotaged the investigation by pardoning six Iran-Contra defendants on Christmas Eve 1992, possibly the first presidential pardon ever issued to protect the same President from criminal liability.

In late 1992, Congress also was investigating Bush’s alleged role in secretly aiding Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during and after Hussein’s eight-year-long war with Iran. Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-Texas, the House Banking Committee chairman, had exposed intricate financial schemes that the Reagan-Bush administrations employed to assist Hussein.

There also were allegations of indirect U.S. military aid to Iraq through third countries, including the supply of dangerous chemicals.

Lesser known investigations were examining two other sets of alleged wrongdoing: the so-called October Surprise issue (allegations that Bush and other Republicans interfered with Jimmy Carter’s hostage negotiations with Iran during the 1980 campaign) and the Passportgate affair (evidence that Bush operatives improperly searched Clinton’s passport file in 1992, looking for dirt that could be used to discredit his patriotism and secure reelection for Bush).

All told, the four sets of allegations, if true, painted an unflattering portrait of the 12-year Republican rule, with two illegal dirty tricks (October Surprise and Passportgate) book-ending ill-considered national security schemes in the Middle East (Iran-Contra and Iraqgate).

Had the full stories been told, the American people might have perceived the legacies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush quite differently.

But the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats dropped all four investigations beginning in early 1993, either through benign neglect – by failing to hold hearings and keeping the issues alive in the news media – or by actively closing the door on investigative leads.

Clinton let George H.W. Bush retreat gracefully into retirement. [For details on the scandals, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

Joining the Cover-ups

In his 2004 memoir, My Life, Clinton wrote that he “disagreed with the [Iran-Contra] pardons and could have made more of them but didn’t.” Clinton cited several reasons for giving his predecessor a pass.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if that split would be to my political advantage,” Clinton wrote. “Finally, President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the matter between him and his conscience.”

By his choice of words, Clinton revealed how he saw information – not something that belonged to the American people and had intrinsic value to a healthy democracy – but as a potential weapon that could be put to “political advantage.” Rather than wield the Iran-Contra club, Clinton opted for a cover-up in the name of national unity.

Similarly, the Democratic congressional leadership ignored the flood of incriminating evidence pouring in to the “October Surprise” task force in December 1992.

Chief counsel Lawrence Barcella told me later that he urged task force chairman Lee Hamilton to extend the investigation several months to examine this new evidence of Republican guilt, but Hamilton ordered Barcella to wrap up the probe with a finding that the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign had done nothing wrong.

Some of the new incriminating evidence – including an unprecedented report from the Russian government about its knowledge of illicit Republican contacts with Iran – was simply hidden away in boxes that I discovered two years later and dubbed “The October Surprise X-Files.”

The “Iraqgate” investigation met a similar fate under Clinton’s Justice Department, which chose to ignore or dismiss evidence of covert shipments of war materiel to Saddam Hussein during the 1980s.

In 1996, when former Reagan national security official Howard Teicher came forward with an affidavit describing secret U.S.-backed arms shipments to Iraq in the 1980s, Clinton’s Justice Department went on the offensive – against Teicher, trying to discredit him and bullying him into silence.

That same year, the Clinton administration did nothing when Reagan’s 1984 campaign chief Ed Rollins wrote in his 1996 memoir Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms that a top Filipino politician had admitted delivering an illegal $10 million cash payment to Reagan from Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

"I was the guy who gave the ten million from Marcos to your campaign," the Filipino told Rollins in 1991, according to the memoir. "I was the guy who made the arrangements and delivered the cash personally. ...It was a personal gift from Marcos to Reagan."

The stunning anecdote did attract some press coverage in 1996 but the story died because the Clinton administration made no effort to follow it up. No government investigator demanded that Rollins reveal the identities of the Filipino politician and the Republican lobbyist who handled the pay-off.

Similarly, in 1998, when CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz confirmed that the Reagan-Bush administration had helped cover up cocaine trafficking by the Nicaraguan contra rebels, including evidence that traced directly into the White House in the mid-1980s, the Clinton administration chose to look the other way. [For details, see Parry’s Lost History.]

Dark Secrets

In the 1990s, even as the Republican attack machine pounded the Clintons with allegations about alleged ethical lapses and marital infidelities, the Clinton administration acted like it was determined to prove it could be trusted with the nation’s dark secrets, that it could cover up wrongdoing with the best of them.

The consequences for America, however, were less pleasant. With George H.W. Bush’s sinister history hidden, the door was opened to the restoration of the Bush Dynasty. If the full truth had been known about former President Bush, it’s hard to conceive how his son, George W. Bush, ever could have become President.

If Bill Clinton now is right about Hillary Clinton’s “first thing” to do as President – recruiting George H.W. Bush for a worldwide goodwill tour – she seems heading in the same direction that her husband took, looking to the future rather than insisting on an honest accounting of the past.

Sen. Obama may offer only slightly more hope for Americans who believe that another cover-up of the Bush Family’s wrongdoing would represent another severe blow to the Republic.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have rejected grassroots demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In the April 14 interview about a possible Justice Department examination of Bush’s crimes, Obama reaffirmed his opposition to impeachment.

“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,” Obama said.

Though one could argue that impeachment at this late stage of the Bush presidency doesn’t make political sense, what is alarming about Obama’s answer is that he seems to be willfully ignoring evidence that Bush’s record represents something that is indeed quite “exceptional.”

Still, a new President’s promise of at least a criminal investigation into Bush’s actions is surely more promising than the idea of an arm-in-arm world tour by the new President’s husband and the old President’s dad.

click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

In the bizarro world in which we live, any time I see words like "strong and balanced", I immediately look for a "catch". It's like Fox News promoting itself as "Fair and Balanced".

America's current infestation of Pre-2K politicians, who turned a blind eye toward the abuses of the Old FISA Laws, should not be allowed to legislate amnesty of any kind.

In every case of oversight concern, investigations into the abuses of the administration, are being chaired by the people who were supposed to be members of the opposition party, and had a duty to prevent this systematic dismantling of our constitutional way of life.

When I see names like Reyes, Rockefeller, Lieberman, Biden, etc...refusing to investigate the opposition due to their own potential liability...it insults my intelligence.

I support a stalemate regarding these issues, until we can replace the Pre-2K politicians who allowed the abuses to continue. These people let it continue for years, and they can't afford the full extent of their complicity, to be publicly known

I wouldn't want crackheads in charge of border enforcement, and I don't want elected officials who may have participated in criminal acts, in charge of legislation designed to make the alleged criminal acts a moot point.

We the people need to eliminate a lot more Pre-2K politicians before we can expect honest oversight.

How about upholding the existing laws, instead of fixing the BULLSHIT!

Congressman,

This bitter American has but one Q U E S T I O N:
What CAN the President and V.P be NOT guilty of?

==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!

Retroactive immunity breaks faith with those the law was written to protect. And it makes suckers of those who have shown faith to the law.

It is not the sort of habit a legislature should cultivate, because it leads to the reasoned disrespect of the product legislatures create, Law.

And then I wrote my name. It isn't
Frosted Flake

Mr. Chairman, the following can, and in a civilized Democracy, based on rule of law and it’s own Constitution, would be used for documentation for Articles of Impeachment:

Juan Cole writes that:

“…The Guardian, basing itself on a soon-to-be-published book by by Philippe Sands: The Torture Team reveals that torture was implemented at Guantanamo Bay in the face of opposition from Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers"

(this torture was implemented) "by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, by White House lawyers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington and William Haynes, as well as Jay Bybee and John Yoo, (two assistant attorney generals).”

“…Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, is quoted as saying that the perpetrators of torture could well be arrested and tried in other countries as war criminals if they travel abroad. It is an index of the despotism to which the United States has fallen victim that we must hope for other, more civilized countries, to try our war criminals. Why can't public officials be prosecuted for violating the Bill of Rights' guarantee against cruel and unusual torture? Why can't an International Military Tribunal be set up as at Nuremberg?”

Why indeed, Mr. Chairman? Is there no one left in our “leadership” that values the Constitution, the rule of law, Democracy, or indeed, civilization?

The corruption is too widespread, the hubris is too entrenched, the criminality is too far-reaching to be ended by “Sternly worded letters” or by petitions from citizens. The solution must come from our elected officials who have already been given the mandate in 2006 to uphold the Constitution. The solution must come from these elected officials who have already been given the tools, by the Founders,—and who are the only ones with the Constitutionally granted power—to stop the lawbreaking, and to punish the lawbreakers.

Mr. Chairman? The Citizens took action in 2006. We're still waiting for you to take your action. Ball’s in your court.

Torture victim's records lost at Guantánamo, admits camp general

· No evidence of al-Qaida suspect's interrogation
· CCTV automatically recorded over tapes

Same General
Says he had orders from Bush to conduct torture.

Now, having taken care of the trash, I would like to point at the contribution of President Carter.

Whoops, pardon a moment, I got some vomit on my shoe. Apparently, practice does not always make perfect. ...There. Now that I am presentable again, about Mr.President Carter :

By simply doing as he felt best, rather than as he was told, Mr. President Carter demonstrated that the way to peace is through shaking hands, rather than fists. But we knew this. Have, on average, since we were five.

Mr. President Carter showed also, and this is very important, that IF the Federal Government will not obey, We the People can attend our duty, Personally. With this in mind please recall that I have on occasion mentioned that We will, if you don't.

So. Who are you going to Salute? Bush? Carter? It's not like you don't have to choose.
Frosted Flake

Which came first: memos or torture?
John Yoo's legal opinions and questions about culpability and timing.
By Scott Horton
April 21, 2008

John C. Yoo likes the limelight, but it's causing him some grief. Of the half a dozen lawyers who played important roles in a Bush administration decision to legalize the use of highly coercive interrogation techniques, only Yoo has emerged as the public face -- and target -- related to the policy.

In 2002 and 2003, Yoo was second in command at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and wrote two memos, one for Alberto R. Gonzales and one for the Pentagon, that provided broad legal authority for the use of extreme measures in the questioning of wartime detainees. In one famous phrase, the memo to Gonzales concluded that only techniques "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death," could be considered torture. The 81-page Pentagon memo, declassified April 1, contained similar language and added fuel to the fire over torture and the White House. Through it all, Yoo has defended his position in the media.

Yoo is now a tenured professor at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall. Recently, the National Lawyers Guild launched a campaign to have him fired because of his role in the torture issue. This move has touched off a controversy, especially among legal academics concerned about tenure and academic freedom. Boalt Hall Dean Christopher Edley Jr. posted a response on the school's website in which he criticized the torture memos but defended Yoo: He was merely a "legal advisor"; real culpability rested with those who directed or implemented the administration's program, not with Yoo. Edley saw no basis on which Yoo could be charged with a crime. He quoted university guidelines under which the "commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law" provides the basis for dismissal of a tenured professor.

It's easy to understand the concern that academics have. If Yoo were fired on the strength of a public outcry about his ideas on torture, it could send a chill through academia. America's strengths as a nation include the preservation of an atmosphere in higher education that encourages the free expression of ideas, even radical and highly unpopular ones.

But does academic freedom really sit at the heart of this controversy? It's not Yoo's ideas in an academic setting that give rise to his current problems but his conduct as a government lawyer. Yoo says that he was asked his opinion about technical legal issues related to interrogation and detainee treatment during wartime, and he gave it his best shot. He also argues that he strained to give policymakers and actors the greatest possible latitude in which to manage a difficult conflict. But he only advised and theorized; others took the decision to implement the program.

But Yoo's account of how and why the torture memos were crafted may not hold up. Congress is preparing hearings into the subject, and they have invited Yoo to testify. International law scholar Philippe Sands and other writers have punched holes in Yoo's claims about the facts. It increasingly appears that the Bush interrogation program was already being used before Yoo was asked to write an opinion. He may therefore have provided after-the-fact legal cover. That would help explain why Yoo strained to take so many implausible positions in the memos.

It also appears that government lawyers had told Bush administration officials that some of the techniques already in use were illegal, even criminal. In fact, a senior Pentagon lawyer described to me exchanges he had with Yoo in which he stressed that those using the techniques could face prosecution. Yoo notes in his Pentagon memo that he communicated with the Criminal Division of the Justice Department and got assurances that prosecutions would not be brought. The question becomes, was Yoo giving his best effort at legal analysis, or was he attempting to protect the authors of the program from criminal investigation and prosecution?

In any case, Yoo kept the program running. Even the man who came in to run the Office of Legal Counsel after Yoo's departure, Jack Goldsmith, has written that he understood Yoo's project this way. Goldsmith also rescinded Yoo's memos.

According to Human Rights First, more than 100 people have died in U.S. detention in the war on terrorism. It documented 11 cases where the deaths resulted from coercive interrogation techniques, and others where there was at least some connection. Yoo insists that there is no relationship between the deaths and his advice, because he didn't set policy or carry it out, he merely offered a legal opinion. But had he refused to give the opinion that was sought, the program might have been suspended and some of those detainees might be alive.

Much of the legal work surrounding the torture memos was done in the shadows. It's possible that when all the facts about their preparation and use come out, Yoo will be exonerated. But the criminal law and ethical issues surrounding his work on the memos are very serious.

Is it right to say that lawyers dispensing bad advice in memos face no liability for what happens when people act in reliance on them? At the end of World War II, the U.S. took a different view in one narrow area. When the legal advice had to do with the treatment of detainees in wartime, the U.S. argued, lawyers had to adhere closely to the law or face prosecution. In one case, two German Justice Ministry lawyers were charged and sentenced to 10 years in prison for giving advice that allowed the creation of a special internment system for suspected insurgents. Their advice was close to that dispensed by Yoo.

The Bush administration came to Washington promising a culture of accountability. In this area, as in so many others, it has delivered just the opposite.

New York attorney Scott Horton teaches at Columbia Law School.

(emphasis mine)
==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!