Quote :

In his press conference Monday night, Obama repeated his mantra that "nobody is above the law and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, people should be prosecuted just like ordinary citizens. But generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards." The principle once again is that Obama is for prosecuting Bush administration lawbreaking only when proof of such lawbreaking bonks him on the head. All the more reason to keep it out of sight, then.

__________________________________________________________

Suppose my sister was murdered ..........

And then, when asked if I wanted to find the murderer and see them punished, I said .......... "I'm more interested in looking forwards than backwards".???

And then suppose, I was actively involved in impeding investigations that might find the murderer ???

People would question my motives/sanity ...

I think Obama sees himself as a pragmatist ........ he sees achieving his agendas as more important ........ affecting more "good" for many as opposed to punishing a few ....

As far as Greenwald's question :

"Suppose there's a ruling from a federal court, upheld on appeal, that Bush broke the law -- the criminal law -- when spying on Americans without warrants. If you're Obama, what do you say when asked: "How can you possibly claim that nobody is above the law when your own DOJ refuses to do anything about a formal court ruling that Bush officials violated the criminal law in how they spied on Americans"?"

I don't think he wants to be placed into that position and that is why all the wrangling within the courts ....

In some way, Obama is going to have to renounce the "secrecy" powers of the "executive" presidency ...... otherwise, there are many who will distrust him.

Plus, compromising with evil has a way of returning to bite you in the ass.

Hitler killed 6 million as regards to race.

Stalin killed 60 million without regards to race.

And yet this evil man was our ally in WWII.

As far as I know, no country ever tried to intervene in Russia's internal affairs either during the war or afterwards to stop the killings.

Apparently Hitler's real sin was not killing millions of his fellow human beings but his strange propensity for invading other countries.

I'm sure the allies called cooperating with the evil tyrant Stalin against a common enemy a matter of pragmatism ......

pragmatism of the sort perhaps that Obama represents ?????

Than having your empty head up the ass of tv ....

Is having your head up the ass of the empty heads who produce trash tv.

"Still, the rise of the obscenely overpaid executive has given us our own version of de Waal's socially disruptive game, undermining the cohesiveness that has always been America's great strength during crises. President Obama's recent blunt words about the trend appeal strongly to our inner primates, and his effort to stem the socially toxic trend toward economic inequality initiated during the Reagan administration represents a vitally important part of his agenda.A"

So why don't we kill them in the middle of the night ?

Only what is given to them by others .....

The problem is not Limbaugh (who loves the attention and the money) ..... the problem is a segment of the american people who agree with him.

When we have ENTERTAINMENT ...... the electronic Coliseum.

At a time when the Republican Party needs to expand its vision and its world, it pathetically now lets itself be defined by the smallest of entertainment/political worlds .... the mind of Rush Limbaugh.

They are committing suicide.

Yeh, pop that milk-filled tit right into my mouth baby!

Sergeant Joe Friday

"The facts, mam, just the facts."

Obama is a gifted orator, but that has nothing to do with political experience and the confidence it produces.

A few years as a senator is just not enough.

At this point, I believe he is probably a bit frightened, although as a politician he has learned the skills of an actor and is able to present a "confident" image to the public.

FDR had been in public service and politics since 1910.

So it was that when he became president in 1932, he had the confidence and experience to choose widely from all sectors of society, those whom he thought would most truly represent the interests of various groups in his more populist government.

Obama instead chose "professional" politicians and career "civil servants" ........ because he knew that he did not have the experience to "go it alone" ....... he just didn't "know the ropes" well enough.

I think this was unwise from a "change" viewpoint, but he probably had little choice if he was going to quickly create a functioning administration.

I must say Obama's behavior on this issue is inconsistent with his campaign rhetoric.

Many possible reasons have been given by posters here ....

In a sense, the Congress is itself accomplices of all that has happened the last 8 years .... perhaps they fear self-incrimination.

Perhaps Obama is afraid of the shadow govt or the moneyed interests connected with Bush and the republican party?

FDR didn't have to contend with a military-industrial complex or a semi-private intelligence organization like the CIA.

Perhaps criminalizing a former president is just seen as too radical.

By resigning, Nixon insured that he would not be pursued or prosecuted for any crimes.

Not much help ..... but only time will tell.