I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.
Mark Anderson at Bright Fire takes Krugman's point much further.
Krugman tally of crimes reaches six, but Anderson manages to add a few more, but both agree the biggie is this one.I want to say one quick thing about Obama’s comments on this, echoing Paul Krugman in today’s NYTimes: a) Obama would be making a huge mistake, despite the short-term advice being given him by inside counselors (the top one the son of an Israeli terrorist) about letting the Neocons and other criminals get off the hook; and, b) it isn’t up to him.
Here is a simple question: who is responsible for nearly a million civilian deaths in a faked war? There was never, ever a need for an Iraq war; and that statement will stand the test of history. Given its truth, we should not be talking about the few thousand GI deaths as the cost of the war, but should recognize that the United States, without cause or any particular aggression on Iraq’s part, and without any proven concern for its own safety, did cause the deaths of between 600,000 and 1,000,000 civilians in that country.
Obama has now sworn to "preseve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States". By allowing Bush and his pals to walk away with no investigation into their behaviour, Obama's first mistake is not far away.
Re. deesillustration. Dream on.
The US electorate endorsed Bush and his gang in 2004 and that was the end to any chance of an "inquest".
The same applies to your UK election in 2005.
Posted by: sam_m | 25 January 2009 at 05:05 PM