How "Looking Forward" Tripped Up Obama

[unhappycamper]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/54745/how-looking-forward-tripped-up-obama

How "Looking Forward" Tripped Up Obama
by Robert Parry | March 13, 2014 - 9:21am

When historians set off to write the story of Barack Obama’s administration, they will have to struggle with why the 44th President chose not to hold his predecessor accountable for grave crimes of state and why he failed to take control of his own foreign policy.

This failure, which began with Obama’s early decision to “look forward, not backward” and to retain much of George W. Bush’s national security bureaucracy, has now led Obama into a scandal over the CIA’s resistance to the Senate Intelligence Committee drafting of a long-delayed report on the Bush-era policy of torturing “war on terror” detainees.

~snip~

If every government report required that the party being criticized agree to every detail of the allegations, no report would ever be issued. This idea that secretive CIA officials, who have already obstructed the investigation by destroying videotape of the torture sessions, should now have the right to block the report’s release indefinitely grants the spy agency what amounts to blanket immunity for whatever it does.

So, the question is why. Why does President Obama continue letting holdovers from the Bush administration, including current CIA Director John Brennan, control U.S. national security policies more than five years after President Bush and Vice President Cheney left office?

[grahamhgreen]

1. Why would anyone not actively prosecute the torture of innocents?

[malthaussen]

12. Because get real...

... no president is going to set a precedent for the person occupying that office to be held accountable for squat.

-- Mal

[grahamhgreen]

31. I know, but what happens in their soul to side with torturers???

[malthaussen]

32. Ah, now you ask for speculation

Only the Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of other men.

But surely part of the answer is an ability to compartmentalize and rationalize to an extraordinary degree. Which may just be a necessary requirement for a politician with national aspirations.

-- Mal

[grahamhgreen]

33. Let's hope not:)

[bvar22]

25. ...Because too many politicians with a "D" behind their names endorsed it,

kept their mouths shut while it was happening,
and FAILED to do their Constitutionally Mandated Duties to STOP it.

The Democratic Party regained large MAJORITIES in the House and Senate in 2006,
and Prosecuting War Criminals and War Profiteers was
"taken OFF the Table" by the Party Leadership.

This was NOT one of their better moments.

[enough]

2. There has never been a good answer to that question of

why Obama retained so many Bushco holdovers. There would have been nothing radical in bringing in new leadership at the beginning of his administration. It seemed like a clear sign that he was not intending to make significant change in these areas.

[newfie11]

3. +1

[zeemike]

7. There could be a good answer to the question

But no one dare say it, because conspiracie theories are not permitted.

[rhett o rick]

14. I will say it. Obama made a deal with the devil to become president. He promised not to

prosecute war crimes.

[zeemike]

15. Well it worked for Robert Johnson

Down at the crossroads.

[rhett o rick]

16. I like your taste in music. nm

[zeemike]

20. It's because I am an old fart.

And cream is what I nursed on as a young one.

[rhett o rick]

21. As did I. I never was a Beatles fan, I preferred Cream and Hendrix. nm

[pocoloco]

19. They talked him into believing that they would let him fuck Geronimo's skull.

LOL, you think they would ever let him in the club??

[Baitball Blogger]

4. It was so predictable, wasn't it?

Those who refuse to face the past, are bound to repeat their mistakes.

In Obama's case, he did just the opposite of what Bush did with Clinton. Bush dumped every conceivable policy that he could that had anything to do with Clinton, and we paid the price. And Obama essentially endorsed all of Bush's system.

I am thinking that if Snowden had come around before Obama came into office, that Obama would have made a different decision.

So many crappy policies survive because the higher ups think that no one has the power to catch them skirting the law.

[cantbeserious]

5. This Question Will Be The Enduing Obama Legacy

eom

[Mira]

8. It will be in my mind. I am so very sad to say it (again and again) n/t

[Hoppy]

6. Why not prosecute?

It would open the door for any future administration to prosecute any prior administration.

He would be worried about his own ass.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. No ...

While I agree with your first statement about opening the door for future administrations, I doubt he was worried about his self; but rather, the continuity of this government.

President Obama, more than any President in my memory, and even when I've disagreed with his position, has demonstrated that it's NOT about him, but all about what he believes is for the good of the country.

[rhett o rick]

17. I think that is a lame argument for not doing what is right. And him not seeking prosecution is

no guarantee he wont be prosecuted. Would you like a system where each president pardons the previous president? That really would take the pressure off.

[Hoppy]

23. But that is the system we have. Does Nixon/Ford ring any bells with you?

[rhett o rick]

24. So you are justifying Obama pardoning Bush because "it's the system"? Based on the

one case? Again, not prosecuting the Bush war criminals does not protect Obama from being prosecuted himself in the future.

[Hoppy]

27. Obama and drones could be construed as a war crime or even a domestic criminal act

by prosecuting and executing American citizens without due process.

[rhett o rick]

29. I agree. We need to stop the war crimes. We need to prosecute. nm

[Old Codger]

9. Instead of "looking forward"

Should be titled "Malfeasance" ...Failed to uphold the laws of this country...

[dotymed]

10. My answer?

We currently have one political party. They should be called what they are fascist oligarchs. They are completely
owned and operated by the 1% PTB.
There are a few small differences in the "parties" or at least their rhetoric. This is probably all Kabuki theater.
If Bernie sanders does run for POTUS, I hope that Americans are smart enough to grab this life-line, it will probably be the only
chance we have.
Until we ("our" congress and or president should have already done it and impeached most of our SCOTUS) get money completely out of politics, we will keep getting "the best government money can buy" sadly it doesn't work for the vast majority.
A third or fourth political party could be very helpful. Either way we need politicians who represent we, the people.
Currently, we have very few of those.
Any fool who believes "unfettered capitalism" works, is a fool.
Remember the politburo in the USSR? We now have one in the USA. It is greedy and dangerous, completely self-serving.

[rhett o rick]

18. There is really no method that I can imagine to get a progressive in the presidency.

I want Sen Sanders to run to counter the Corporate Wing of our party which controls who will run as a Democrat. Maybe if he could get some air time it might stir the public into civilly disobeying our oligarch government.

[arikara]

22. We have the same thing here in Canada

Right now we're stuck with the Canadian version of Bush, the Conservative Stephen Harper, an election stealing dictator who is doing all kinds of irreparable damage to the country. We have an up and comer with the so-called Liberal party, Justin Trudeau, a glib, likeable pretty face who is also for things like tar sands development and pipelines. In the past, the Liberals always campaigned from the left then veered hard right just as soon as they got elected, so we can expect no surprises this time if they manage to get in again. The NDP have had the function of splitting the vote the last few elections so that Harper can steal enough votes to squeak up the middle and gain a majority government with a lousy 38% of the popular vote. I wouldn't even be a bit surprised if Harper doesn't have his cabal donating to the NDP to keep them viable as spoilers.

Isn't politics a noble calling? Its just a game to placate anyone who pays attention to what they are doing, but most don't look at the bigger picture. Like why does the same shit happen no matter who gets into power? Why does nothing ever get changed back and why are there never any consequences for the destruction they cause?

[gussmith]

13. Beats Me

How one can be a Constitutional lawyer and not be motivated to call into account the black and white of human behavior. Could we have elected a president, as I have read, where preference is policy? Substance trumps rhetoric would be a fine slogan for the voting public.

[Thinkingabout]

26. This would normally handle by the House of Representatives who declined to do this in 2007.

Democrats was in the majority and it was spending lots of money like the Republicans wasting over $100m to run Clinton down. They wanted to spend their time getting this country back on track.

[Hoppy]

28. In most cases, an impeachment would be useless.

No Republican Senator would have voted to convict Bush. No Democratic Senator would vote to convict Ob.

[Thinkingabout]

30. Exactly and a waste of money like Issa is doing.