Yes, but Will He Hold Them Accountable?

During an interview yesterday, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked President-elect Barack Obama a question that is on many Americans' minds: will Obama appoint a special prosecutor to investigate potential crimes of the Bush Administration.

Obama's answer conflicted with other parts, to the point that the answer, as a whole, was not clearly understandable:

"'We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law.' Obama said. 'But my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward.'"  (ABC)

Two parts of Obama's answer suggest that he might seek to hold the Bush Administration accountable:

1) "...obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law"

2) "That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law."

Each of those two parts is followed by another part, which suggests that Obama is not interested in seeking accountability (total of two contradictory parts):

1) "But my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing."

2) "But my orientation's going to be to move forward."

It doesn't take a major deconstruction to see that elements of President-elect Obama's answer directly conflict with each other.

John Cole at Balloon Juice commented:

"Of course I understand the need to be forward looking, but I simply reject this notion that we should no nothing about past abuses and possible crimes because we don’t want our intelligence services looking over their shoulders.

"Of course we do. We have spent decades with an intelligence and foreign policy establishment that has never been held accountable, never had to look over their shoulders, never been required to pay for their sins and their failings, and what do we have to show for it? With the stories of unaccountable and unnamed intelligence agents at the center of the abuses at Gitmo and Abu Gharaib, is a blanket pardon for their sins and crimes the way forward?

"I would suggest not. Common sense would suggest not. If team Obama is intent on restoring us to the status of a nation that does not torture, they are just going to have to suck it up and make sure that those who have tortured and those who have committed crimes are brought to justice."

Memeorandum has more commentary.

Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* GOP Hawks Become "Deficit Hawks" Again

* Bailouts: Rep. Frank's Sensible but not so Modest Proposal

* Real Bonuses Based on Fake Profits

* Cleaning up Political & Corporate Culture Could Help Economy