Is the Problem with Finger-Pointing That We're Using the Wrong Finger?

Help me. I'm confused. Are we supposed to ignore the past, forget finger-pointing and blame-gaming and look forward? Or are we supposed to demand accountability? Or some third option?

On the one hand, we have the expectations of a lot of Obama Nation for something between John Conyers' Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a post-mortem impeachment of Bush, Cheney, et al. On the other, we have Obama's anodyne reassurances about looking to the future, mirroring the Bush insistence that an "accountability moment" happened, in November 2004, and is now past history.

On the one hand, we have the current Administration's embrace of waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping. On the other, we have Tim Geithner's apparently innocent failure to pay some taxes in a timely manner.

Hey, I bow to no one in my scorn for a Treasury Secretary-designate who can't figure out his taxes, but -- are the same senators who pooh-pooh any idea of (to use a Clinton impeachment era phrase) sending a message to our children about federal officials flouting the law going to get all pious about Geithner's boo-boo? And is the only reason because Geithner isn't yet sworn in?

What's the part of this I'm missing? You can violate the Constitution and our treaty obligations (which the Constitution makes part of the law of the land) with impunity, but woe unto you if you run afoul of the tax laws?

Comments

[Javani]

"Are we supposed..."

Speaking of you, you are a talented comedian. Irony is a great tool, you might comment on what Pres. Obama asks us to do, "be responsible," yet he is asking to borrow a trillion dollars from China and other foreign states with the promise he will spend it wisely, including paying off state government misspending, nothing in writing.

Also keep on 'em on New Orleans.

[Beachrunner]

Well, the progressive are going to have to have someone/thing to focus all its hatred on, now that Bush will be gone in a couple of days . . . . so, logically, why not just continue to focus it on him? I mean, this could go on pretty much go on endlessly, blaming Bush for generations.

[mountainmama]

Beachrunner seems to think that following the law requires hatred. First time ever I have encountered this exact confusion.

[usedtowander]

Obama's oath, just like every other POTUS, is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The U.S. creates laws and signs treaties. Enforcement of those laws and treaties IS the form of honoring that oath that is expected.

Failure to make a concerted effort to vigorously enforce egregious, and visible violations of the law is a violation of the oath. Especially for political reasons.

If Obama is to be taken seriously, he must vigorously pursue those individuals who broke laws - where the statute of limitations has not run. No matter the individuals' former role.

If he does not, then he's not one bit different from George Bush - he will simply be tolerating felonious violations to suit his political purpose. That's not change we can believe in.

[sebastianguy99]

What you're missing is a consensus on this issue, that's what you're missing. If you want to see this happen then stop being lazy , go out and do the hard work of persuading people who don't see it as you do that this is a worthwhile and important thing to undertake.

All you folks calling for these investigations and prosecutions should do the same. You are all blowhards who want to sit on your behinds typing out righteous indignation and condemnation, but you want Obama and Congress to do the heavy lifting.In other words, you want them to play with political dynamite.You want this happen? Then get out there and talk to people. Because right now this is not an issue people place high on their Want To See Done List.

Do the old fashion leg work. Create a marketing campaign to reach people on this issue. Do something other than sit on your butts and talk about what you fear isn't going to happen. Make it happen. And if you can't, too bad, that's the way it goes in a democracy.

[GonzoFactor]

What you're missing is that all of the finger-pointing, exposure of facts, and so on that anti-Bush media, citizens, bloggers, and the rest have been doing has produced zip. It's going to take governmental power and resources to produce meaningful investigations and prosecutions. The Repugnicans have stonewalled everything effective while they've been in power, and their True Believers are going to stonewall what they can now that they're out. This is a job now for a relatively honest Justice Department and Congress.

[shockmagog]

We ARE out there. This IS "out there."

By the way, you seem a little detached--as if this issue hardly merits your concern. As if 8 years of the worst presidential administration has not touched you in a personal way. Here's a little info information to get you started:

http://www.thousandreasons.org/

[starboymikey]

If Obama and the Dems focus on punishing Bush for his obvious enough crimes, that is all this administration will be about, because it will dominate all activity in Washington.

As much as I want to see this gang brought to some kind of justice, I far more want to see fixes for the economy, health care reform, a solid plan for us to become energy independent, a quick withdrawal from Iraq and a host of other things that are vitally important to all Americans and the world in general.

Make some real progress on these things first, at which point Obama will have enough political capital to spend on going after Bush/Cheney. To start down that road first would be a huge mistake in my view. Not only will Republicans fight tooth and nail to keep the truth from coming out, but it will cost Obama whatever good will he's managed to build so far.

[sebastianguy99]

You are correct, this would be the mother of all political battles and would consume Obama's presidency.

[TLV]

The president does not carry out these investigations nor does he run the Justice Department.

[SurrealPumpkin]

I could care less about Bush. If Obama can come up with a way to re-establish the Constitution as the preeminent law of the land and can close the loopholes that allowed Bush to take the garden shears to it in the first place, then I can live with it.

If the only way to protect the Constitution is to drag Bush&Co kicking and screaming into a court of law, I'm good with that too.

[PlaceboStudman]

The question is, is there a statute of limitations on investigating and prosecuting a former administration? If there is, there shouldn't be. And if there isn't, then I say, let's let President Obama worry about damage control, and not letting Bush's atrocities continue any longer than they have to.

Then, after some days or weeks or months...but within the first year, go back and start the investigations and give Bush and his cronies what they deserve, after the country has had the time to take a collective sigh of relief and think rationally upon the atrocities caused by Bush and all his supporters (including democrats who supported him)

[SurrealPumpkin]

It depends on the crime.

[WmC]

You can point the right finger of blame here (and help to set a Guiness record):

http://fingersalutetobush.org/

[bayside]

The truth will come out,, The truth always comes out no matter how they try to put lipstick on it..We have to abide by laws they do too..

[dotmafia]

The real truth of why the Democrats won't push for impeachment is because it threatens to reveal the full extent of their own complicity in the government's abrogation of the Constitution, those set of laws which Bush called 'just a goddamned piece of paper'.

This is not just a conspiracy theory. The evidence of this complicity is there for all to see, but only those who choose not to look with their eyes wide shut will see it.

[aka-ub]

I believe the answer to the question in the final paragraph is yes: you can shred to constitution and commit war crimes, but you can't make an honest mistake on your taxes. And why is this? Because the democrats are spineless jelly fish who bend over at the drop of a hat, while the republicans will stick it to their opponents with solidarity whenever given the chance. I.E.: Obama says "No one is above the law" and then says "But let's look forward, not back". Well, guess what? IF YOU DON'T INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE CRIMES THEN IN EFFECT YOU ARE LETTING THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THOSE CRIMES BE ABOVE THE LAW! HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?

[SENATORCALLENBOWE]

I LIKE THE MIDDLE FINGER MYSELF :)p

[JAUG]

When the so-called leaders of our country break the laws (including the ones they put into motion) can we really hold any business/c­lergy/indi­viduals/un­ion/law enforcement/etc accountable for doing the same?

[backhandpath]

Don't we all have a finger to show Bush!
Editilla~New Orleans Ladder

[ReneeGold]

Yes, we are supposed to refrain from finger pointing, and instead: demand accountability.
There is a difference!
Welcome to the new administration, where the level of discussion is elevated to real discussion, not agenda/pro­paganda-pu­shing!
It's about time!

[timezone]

Very valid points which I hope will be addressed during this new, upcoming administration. I hope there will be consequences for those that have ignored the American Public, choosing instead to line their own pockets or forward their own agenda. Whether it's Wall Street or waterboarding, we should demand accountability.