Obama Would "Immediately Review" Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House

Attytood's Will Bunch has a new interview with Barack Obama:

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

Read the full transcript of the exchange here.

Comments

[gdoud]

Oh Please...

I support Barack, but both him and Hillary have had years in the senate to stand up to Bush, and have failed miserably. When have they filibustered war funding? Supreme Court nominations that they knew were disastrous? Did either of them stand up and fight for our fourth amendment rights? Even back Move ON when they exposed that olive drab political huckster "Betray-us"?

No, they were too busy running for President - and expect the same pass that W will get, should they decide to get their hands dirty.

[antirepublocrat]

Obama needs to nominate someone like Bruce Fein or Bob Barr to Attorney General. These are long-time Republicans who are uncompromising Constitutionalists. Such a move would inoculate him against charges of partisanship.

[Burkelbile]

No pardons from President Obama.

Cheney ends up with a cellie from the Aryan Brotherhood and spends the rest of his life "facing the other way."

[nyboomer]

All Americans should seek to send Bush and Cheney to the Hague to answer charges of crimes against humanity. I am not averse to sending Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Doug Feith also.

[TerryW]

I agree with nyboomer. Saddam doesn't have much over this US regime we've had to live with for two terms, and look what happened to Saddam. I'd like to hear from the Iraqi refugees that no longer have homes and a country to live in. Let them tell us what it was like to be "liberated" by the US regime.

I'd also like to remind everyone that Ron Paul has not dropped out yet, there are actually still two GOP nominee candidates left in the running. If the media would stop ignoring this fact he'd been getting more support.

[Genna]

Good job, Obama.

I thought Democrats were not going to approach this behavior at all. I think Americans need to do something about this before former Bush administration officials start going abroad after his term is over. Think Pinochet. There are a couple of different arms of the International Criminal Tribunal/Court of Justice that might decide they were affected by these policies and seize them.

I'd rather have the U.S. deal with it than individual countries abroad. If another country grabs one of our high officials and the next president is forced to act to impede an international investigation, it will be bad for all Americans.

[kittyma]

Huffington, this headline is misleading.

[FromWayDowntown]

Like what else is new? Misleading headlines are par for the course here. Anything that makes you click on a link increases site revenue. It's all about the $$$.

[harveyr2]

A very post partisan position.

[MenopausalMick]

The thing that most concerns me about righting any of this is the sneer factor.

How is it that folks who get caught in lie after lie don't seem a bit concerned that anyone will ever call 'em on it? They seem to have a permanent sneer stamped on their faces. And they've gotten away with everything so far...It's been impossible to address abuses and possible criminal activities for many reasons, not the least of which is the make-up of the numbers in Congress and the fact that the attorney general's office has become a political tool for the executive branch BUT thankfully GW's time at the wheel is ending.

So how can they expect to avoid an accounting or investigations...or possible jail time? hmmm...
Either they expect that McCain will ignore everything of the last eight years in party loyalty efforts...or
They expect that Democrats have no chance at gaining a majority in Congress, much less the White House...hmmm....and golly gee....how might that be assured?

Might it be because we have voting machines made by a company who also makes ATM machines and yet there is just NO way they can have a paper trail...it's toooo hard to do that.

Fix the dadgum machines before next fall...or we're gonna get more sneering...and if we let this happen again, we probably deserve it.

[yossarion]

Of course! We can't these people accountable - Heaven forbid!! What would be next?, expecting people to be held responsible for their actions?? That only applies to the peasants. As for advancing the "cause" of the USA, the only "cause" these traitors have been advancing is their own & that of their corporate sponsors, to the detriment of the USA.

[Meok]

1) Can former executive members of the government be successfully prosecuted if they acted in good faith to advance the "cause" of the USA in the world? (even if you do not like the intended/unintended consequences of their actions, or even if you do not agree with the "cause")

2) If a sitting president lets such legal proceedings go on, isn't he or she opening a can of worms? Future president might bring comparable charges against the current sitting president, and even against past presidents like Bill Clinton or Carter, and that might never stop. In a way bringing such criminal charges would be a pyrrhic victory for the sitting president and shortsighted approach to politics.

Just my 2 cents.

[MenopausalMick]

hmmm...good faith....well, there's the rub, isn't it...darlin'?

And you bet. It opens a can of worms that desperately needs opening. Any actions that drag this country into war better be scrutinized.

If checks and balances so disappear that elected officials can do or say or fabricate anything they like to further an agenda...well, I'm not sure that form of government would be called a Democracy.

Just my .5 cents because I think that might be what I have in my pockets these days.

[elderly]

Can of worms? No longer operative.

The new expression is white house full of worms.

[cmdrgmh]

Atty General John Edwards. Ya, This will be just fine with me. They (Bush Adm) needs to be held responsible for the war crimes they have done and continue to do.

[2sunny]

YES! YES! YES!

[mero909]

Never going to happen. I quite sure Obama won't waste his time on pursuing legal action against the Bush Administration for the Iraq war and any "war crimes" committed during that term.

I recall the dems, who took over the Congress this last election, claiming that they'll impeach the President if they win. Right...

They'll do/say whatever that will get them elected.

[mero909]

This will never happen. Ever. Mark my words.

[athy]

Hmmmm¦.I wonder who Obama would recommend as Attorney General if he becomes president.

If newly appointed Attorney General decides there is enough information available already to warrant inquiry, who will be chosen to head Commission to investigate if former Bush officials should be prosecuted for potential crimes that took place in White House".

Perhaps Lee Hamilton, who recently endorsed Obama would be selected to head commission?

Hamilton, as Chair of Select Committee To Investigate Arms Transactions with Iran-chose NOT TO INVESTIGATE PRES. G.H.W.Bush or Pres. Reagan because he felt would not be good for country?

Hamilton, who co-chaired commission that investigated (yeah�right�if you say so) Sept. 11 attacks. (BTW ask how many still think govt not telling truth about 9/11)

Hamilton , who co-chaired Iraq Study group (ISG) which (critics-including Iraqi President Talabani) say focused too much on Iraqi oil and promoted long Iraq War.

With Obama, political loyalty trumps personal integrity. He "rewards" supporters-no matter what their positions are -even on matters of life and death. Ask Joe Lieberman. Obama (self-proclaimed strong anti iraq war candidate) supported Lieberman (STRONG supporter of Iraq�and now Iran�invasions) in CT Democratic Senate primary. Lieberman opposed by Ned Lamont ( popular ANTI-Iraq invasion candidate) Obama supported Lieberman to payback Joe because Joe supported Obama during Obama"s 2004 senate race .

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

[antirepublocrat]

Obama would be very smart to nominate a long-time Republican with principles and a Constitutional background. Bruce Fein and Bob Barr come to mind. There's no love between Barr and the current administration, and Fein has been a leader in a bipartisan movement to roll back the unconstitutional moves of the present administration.

Since impeachment will definitely not occur with such a narrow majority in the Senate, the only way to prevent Bush's actions from becoming precedent for future Presidents is to put him in the docket. There's ample cause. He violated numerous treaties.

[athy]

Hmmmm¦.I wonder who Obama would recommend as Attorney General if he becomes president.

If newly appointed Attorney General decides there is enough information available already to warrant inquiry, who will be chosen to head Commission to investigate if former Bush officials should be prosecuted for potential crimes that took place in White House".

Perhaps Lee Hamilton, who recently endorsed Obama would be selected to head commission?

Hamilton, as Chair of Select Committee To Investigate Arms Transactions with Iran-chose NOT TO INVESTIGATE PRES. G.H.W.Bush or Pres. Reagan because he felt would not be good for country?

Hamilton, who co-chaired commission that investigated (yeah¦right¦if you say so) Sept. 11 attacks. (BTW ask how many still think govt not telling truth about 9/11)

Hamilton , who co-chaired Iraq Study group (ISG) which (critics-including Iraqi President Talabani) say focused too much on Iraqi oil and promoted long Iraq War.

With Obama, political loyalty trumps personal integrity. He "rewards" supporters-no matter what their positions are -even on matters of life and death. Ask Joe Lieberman. Obama (self-proclaimed strong anti iraq war candidate) supported Lieberman (STRONG supporter of Iraq¦and now Iran¦invasions) in CT Democratic Senate primary. Lieberman opposed by Ned Lamont ( popular ANTI-Iraq invasion candidate) Obama supported Lieberman to payback Joe because Joe supported Obama during Obama"s 2004 senate race .

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

Makes you wonder¦.

[Dan1967]

NEW POLL IN MICHIGAN: BARACK OBAMA IS THE BETTER CANDIDATE AGAINST MCCAIN.

Barack Obama leads McCain in Michigan 43 to 41% with 8% undecided, but Hillary is losing to McCain in Michigan 46 to 37%. Barack Obama is clearly the Democrats strongest candidate against McCain in the general election. I copied and pasted the poll below, and the Link is here:
http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/2008/04/obama_does_better_against_mcca.html

Monday April 14, 2008
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- A new poll shows Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama doing better against Republican John McCain among Michigan voters than Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The poll by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA shows 43 percent of the 600 likely voters polled back Obama, while 41 percent back McCain. Eight percent say they'd vote for independent candidate Ralph Nader, while 8 percent are undecided.

McCain leads Clinton 46 percent to 37 percent. Ten percent say they'd vote for Nader and 7 percent are undecided.

Fifty-nine percent have a favorable opinion of McCain, while 55 percent feel that way about Obama and 45 percent about Clinton.

The poll was conducted April 3-8. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[INDIGO11]

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!
Give me a break...........no one is above the law.His buddies on the CFR are some of the worst criminals out there.If he does anything in regards to this issue he will be answering to the likes of those on the list below.
Obama is a member of the CFR/Council on Foreign Relations It's one big Good Ole Boys club/the shadow gov't .They are all in bed together.Baptist bootleggers faking to be in opposition to each other when in reality they are all working towards the same goal, and it ain't for you and me!This election is just one big game they are playing with John Q Public as the Fool!

Fellow CFR members are:

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton,John Edwards,Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson
Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich

Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush
Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, John, David & Nelson Rockefeller, Condolezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz
Alan Greenspan, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinge

Halliburton of Dubai, British Petroleum, Dutch Royal Shell, Exxon Mobile, General Electric (NBC)
Chevron, Lockheed Martin, Merck Pharmaceuticals, News Corp (FOX), Bloomberg, IBM
Time Warner, JP Morgan/ Chase Manhattan
& several other major financial institutions

[tbone99]

true, but would you rather be screwed by Obama or Mccain?Those raybans are pretty hot- lookin.

[CAPTAIND]

Just what we need, the most ultr-lieral in the Senate promising to go on a "witch hunbt" if elected president. Why not tell us you will do your duty and let your newly appointed attorney general make an iinvestigation. His comments are grand standing to anti-war types who want to hear such stuff. What about the defender of ciil rights- how about the Obama who wants us to give a pass to such people as Ayers or how about Rev. Wright and his anti-American comments. Why not tell us that if elected you will find a Joe McCarthy liberal clone to chase down all those terrible republicans that used to constitute our administration. Such comments are pandering and fly in the face of Obama's consideration of peoples rights

[b2008]

He said he would have his Attorney General investigate the issues. That was not a grand standing reply. That's what he's supposed to do. And I hope he investigates the Clintons while he's at it. So he can get all the crooks out of the government.

[Asbeau]

He'll gain huge respect on the world stage for cleaning up America's act, and boy does America need that.

[tbone99]

Obviously, you're not counting on the Clinton supporters to vote Democratic.

[LightningJoe]

Wrong on so many counts CAPTAIND, let me count the ways...

Obama is not "ultra-liberal." He is ultra-realistic, and moral; which understandably looks ultra-liberal to those who have grown too used to the rightward-pressured, invented reality of our recent so-called leaders, and their media enablers.

I assume your use of the term "witch hunbt," is a reflection of your evident passion; but Obama reminds us here of due process, which is not the stance of a witch hunter, nor of the administration that has committed these atrocities. Obama comes from a better place than they do.

The "anti-war types" you refer to, who do indeed see the sense in Obama's words, are roughly seventy-five percent of American citizens now. Marginallizing language backfires, dude, when you use it on a majority.

Obama never gave a "pass" to Rev. Wright. He just put the good Reverend's remarks in badly-needed perspective.

Your Joe McCarthy comparison is simply ludicrous rabble rousing. It has no power because, as I observed above, the rabble is for Obama.

It is often the case, that the worst of enemies make their best arguments in favor of what they oppose. I quote your own last comment verbatim, but in support of Obama:

"Such comments [by you] are pandering and fly in the face of Obama's consideration of people's rights."

---
Turn off the tv, and re-light your brain.

[brabry]

Do you think Obama can win Pennsylvania? Hillary said that she can't be beat.

[b2008]

Anybody can be beat, especially if they've run a witchhunt campaign like she just did. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she did lose. Most say it's likely she'll win though. But I'm an optimist.

[Tropiholic]

So far everything Hillary has said has been wrong. She should have had the nomination wrapped up by now, remember? Not so fast Hillary, the voters say otherwise!

[opines]

brabry:

If Hillary lose Pennsylvania, no big deal. She will explain that the primary in Puerto Rico is the biggie because if Obama is rejected by Hispanic voters, McCain would beat him in New Mexico.

Let the Super Delegates ponder that one.