David Broder on Individual Accountability for Bush Operatives & Policy Makers: "A Dangerous Precedent"

Here comes pundit David Broder a-punditing upon Eric Holder's decision to name a special counsel to determine whether interrogators of detainees during the last administration broke the law.  "This just may be the most reprehensible column of a long and enabling career," says Attaturk.  So.  Are you ready?

"Cheney is not wrong when he asserts that it is a dangerous precedent when a change in power in Washington leads a successor government not just to change the policies of its predecessors but to invoke the criminal justice system against them....

"Looming beyond the publicized cases of these relatively low-level operatives is the fundamental accountability question: What about those who approved of their actions? If accountability is the standard, then it should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings. Ultimately, do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?"  (WaPo, emphasis added)

I know the answer to this one!  Call on me, me, me!

But no.  David Broder, who doesn't think accountability is or should be the standard (except for Bill Clinton), will answer his own questions, thank yew.  And his answer is way different from yours or mine.

In times like these, the understandable desire to enforce individual accountability must be weighed against the consequences. This country is facing so many huge challenges at home and abroad that the president cannot afford to be drawn into what would undoubtedly be a major, bitter partisan battle over prosecution of Bush-era officials. The cost to the country would simply be too great. (WaPo)

In other words, in times like these, members of the executive branch should be able to freely violate the law without fearing the sort of consequences that the rest of us face when we do that.  Holding the CIA accountable will "hurt morale."  Prosecuting Cheney would "set a dangerous precedent." 

Bill Clinton?  That's another story.  "I called for Bill Clinton to resign when he lied to his Cabinet colleagues and to the country during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "  (WaPo)  Broder doesn't mention that he called for Bush to resign for war crimes and other offenses.  That's because he didn't.

Attaturk again:

So war crimes get a pass while being disingenuous about foreplay is a crime against humanity. Got it.

Thers: 

"If accountability is the standard..."?

This is damning on its face. I can add nothing.

DougJ at Balloon Juice:

It’s simply astounding to me that the Village thought it was urgent to drop everything and impeach Bill Clinton for a blowjob, consequences be damned, are so concerned about what would happen if we prosecuted people for the violation of basic human rights.

Marcy Wheeler:

David Broder has officially gone there--stated that he is happy with the impeachment of a President for a consensual blow job, but unhappy with the prospect that Dick Cheney will be held accountable for the torture he ordered up.

Taylor Marsh:

David Broder was wrong then. He’s wrong now.

More at Memeorandum