Posted by Damozel | Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[W]hen asked what advice he would give to a President Barack Obama or Democratic Congress on the matter of handling former Bush officials, McClellan speaks now of the perils of probing the past.
“If Obama were to win,” he said last week, “that would be an issue his administration would have to face early ... because he’s pledging to be a uniter, not a divider — without saying those exact words we campaigned on in 2000. He’s pledging to change the way Washington works, and if Congress were to pursue that, it would be very divisive.”
At Pandagon, Pam Spaulding says:
Here are the words of a man who knows where all the bodies are buried in this corrupt, amoral administration. Obama need not take the advice of former White House
professional liarspokesperson. Investigate all of them and throw these criminals in the pokey....It’s not divisive to get to the bottom of the lies and illegal acts that this administration has perpetrated on this country....
In reality, I doubt Obama will do any of that. I hate thinking it, but that's what I think. Back in April, Susan of Texas wrote:
He has already chosen to side with authority too many times, to protect government lawbreakers or save the world.
He will not prosecute anyone in the government. He has too much respect for its institutions. He will not get us out of the Middle East. He sees us as saviors of the world. He will not restore the rule of law. As Chris Floyd says, to do so would be to implicate those who broke it. He will support religions over secular society, out of respect for religion if not for many of those who practice it. He sees religion as an authority to succumb to, a necessary part of public, not just private, life..(The Hunting of the Snark)
She concedes, as I do, that the Democratic nominee is who progressives have to vote for. But I am not , any more than Susan, looking for Barack Obama to make bold moral decisions (FISA, the death penalty, his "overheated" NAFTA rhetoric, the Saddleback forum he ought to have declined to participate in, and on and on).
Any Democrat is preferable over any Republican. Their time has come and gone, at least until the famously short American memory dims again and they can return to power, the next generation of Goldbergs and Podhoretzes and Bushes. But I don't think the changes we are hoping for will happen if Obama is elected. When in the course of human history did those in power willingly give up power, especially ill-gotten power that might never come again? When did people ever gain freedom except by fighting for it? (The Hunting of the Snark)
[T]he crimes are hiding in plain view. A federal court has already found the domestic surveillance program was unlawful and there is no question as to the torture question — as found by the International Red Cross when it informed Bush that that war crimes charges could be brought. [More; emphasis added]
Barack Obama strikes me as very much the same sort of accommodator as Pelosi. Again, I wish I didn't think so. And again, I am most definitely voting for him because he's the best we've got.
Perhaps the next generation of Democrats might not be willing to change their principles for power. I've seen a few hopeful signs.