Bush-era Intelligence Issues: Moving On?

President Obama has been clear that he wishes to look to the future and pursue an active domestic agenda, rather than dwelling on the mistakes of the prior administration.  Unfortunately, revelations like the recent report that Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA to not  reveal to Congress a program designed to assasinate Al Qaeda leaders, make this desire more difficult.  See this very good Question and Answer article on this subject.

Will we really be able to move on from the Bush-era controvesies if we don’t confront them? I am of the opinion we cannot.  What do you bloggers think?

Iggy Donnelly


Filed under Cheney, Enhanced Interrogations, Political Reform, Republicans, The Economy, torture, Wingnuts!, World Politics

13 responses to “Bush-era Intelligence Issues: Moving On?

  1. lilacluvr

    We definitely need to investigate and prosecute, if for nothing else but to show the rest of the world that we are a nation of laws.

    But, in this political climate of such deep division – are the Democrats afraid to push things too far for fear of a backlash from voters?

    I can understand Obama’s position on wanting to look to the future but are the Republicans helping him to get to the future with their Party of ‘NO’ about each issue?

    But when specific laws were broken, and can be proven, then let the chips fall where they may – even if it means going to the top of the White House level.

    Besides, don’t you think Dick Cheney would look smashing in an orange jumpsuit?

  2. That’s a good one, Lilac.

  3. We’ve got a lot of mess to clean up and I understand Obama feeling the need to move past the ethical dark days to get us all out of the economic dark days.

    Still, the more that comes out, the more it gets harder to say, “yeah, I know, but we’ve got bigger fish to fry”.

    I wonder if doing something like pressing the issue on Cheney ends up truly keeping us safe by showing other nations we stand by our principles and clean up our mistakes.

    Wouldn’t that be ironic justice?

    Interesting how he was so talkative, so available to speak to anyone with a microphone until this issue came back up. Now he’s returned to the “undisclosed location”.

    • lilacluvr

      But he did leave his little mini-me, Liz, to do his talking for him.

      I wonder if that undisclosed location is next door to Bin Laden? Seems the Bush Administration never could find either one!

  4. tosmarttobegop

    LOl I already said enough on this.

  5. Bad Biker

    This is a very delicate balancing act for President Obama. For one, no administration has ever launched an investigation of the prior administration. Since we tend to go Dem – GOP – Dem with our presidents, an investigation at a highly publicized level could set a very dangerous precedence.

    In the second place, for purely political reasons, the GOP has been marginalized and a very public investigation would energize the talking heads and moronic GOP politicians like Tiahrt, Bunning, Inhofe and Palin.

    My educated guess (okay, not so educated) is that Barack will allow Holder to turn over the stones quietly to see what is lurking under them. If there is a slam-dunk conviction waiting for Cheney, he’ll allow it to go forward.

    If there isn’t an absolute guarantee of conviction, Obama will let the matter die.

    Keep in mind that nearly half of the country is in favor of torture and could care less about niceties of international and domestic law.

    I am not saying that is acceptable, but merely stating the fact that dang near half of the country sees no problem with waterboarding Abdul.

    • “Keep in mind that nearly half of the country is in favor of torture and could care less about niceties of international and domestic law.”

      Thanks for this important point. If bin Laden is responsible for all we say he is (and, I don’t know that for sure) who could argue with killing him and/or his deputy if the opportunity arose? I don’t think I could. But the precedent that the president does not have to include the congress in its decisions is undeniably fascist. This latter trend needs to be corrected.

  6. klaus

    OMG, this is a toughie.

    Man, back in the day, I was out in front yelling for Nixon’s scalp.

    Now, I’m not sure what that would have accomplished. Rule of law, yes. Truly beneficial? I’m not so sure.

    Granted, Nixon’s crimes are kiddie-stuff compared to the War Crimes that Busy & Co committed. People truly died.

    But, let’s be honest: Obama may be popular, but political capital is not infinite. Any sort of investigation would probably end up costing either health care reform, a concerted stimulus, a tightened regulatory environment, or something.

    Believe me, that’s a bitter pill for me to swallow. Especially in light of the way Ken Star was in sessions for basically Clinton’s entire tenure. Think about that: what started as an investigation of Whitewater morphed into an ongoing witch-hunt that ended with an impeachment because of an affair that wasn’t actually illegal.

    A very bitter pill. I’d love to bring back the pillory, so I could go and throw rotten tomatoes at Cheney.

    I’ve also said that the public humilation of such a display might truly prove a deterrent to egomaniacs like Evil Uncle Dick.

    • klaus, you pretty much said what I think, I’m not willing to waste health care reform capital on a worthless shit like cheney.

  7. Bad Biker

    “A very bitter pill. I’d love to bring back the pillory, so I could go and throw rotten tomatoes at Cheney.”

    Damn, talk about waiting a long time in line – you could get in line with fresh, green tomatoes and they would be ripe and rotten by the time you got to chuck them at Big Dick.

  8. “Bush-era Intelligence” blahahhahahahahhahaha
    Oxymoron don’t you think?