I think I see this as a stickier issue than I think Glenn does. On one hand you have to enforce the rule of law.

On the other hand, though, even a false investigation can be a very effective political weapon. (The Republicans didn't have to convict Clinton -- they just had to impeach him.) Given that, there's a fear that enforcing laws against your predecessor will lead not to justice, but rather to a general devaluation of the law into a tool of political gamesmanship -- that what is actually "just enforcement" will look like "just politics."

How do you prevent confusing "justice" with "just Washington"? Well, if you can say clearly and convincingly that what Bush did was so wrong that it required investigation by any objective standard, then you may be able to convince everyone that it is justice and not a political hitjob. The problem? Well, if Bush had been caught having an affair with an intern, our American populace would have a clear objection. But violating the constitution, destroying civil rights, and using federal offices in illegal ways...oh, sure, that's worse than boinking some intern, but try telling that to the people. (Compare Ted Stevens (corruption) with Larry Craig (a bit of illegal gay sex) -- Stevens did more harm to more people, and to the rule of law itself, but he's the one who almost got reelected AFTER being convicted...)

The solution to that? Well, how about some sort of national force independent of either political party, whose sole job is to determine whether laws have been broken and recommend action? Sort of a GAO for law?

Or the Dems could grow a pair. Either way.

we'll have 4 years of overflowing bi-partisanship, with the Republicans and Democrats dancing down the aisles, hand-in-hand, working together to pass meaningful legislation that once again elevates our great nation to the pinnacle of Democracy, delighting freedom-loving people everywhere!

I wouldn't say that Litt's position (however disingenuous or conflicted) is entirely vapid. With respect to the policies and misdeeds Glenn is talking about, the most important things are that they be exposed in the daylight and that they end. A prosecutorial approach (either through literal prosecutions or through perjury traps masquerading as congressional investigations) may not actually serve those goals all that well.

Obama should commit to daylighting and ending the practices by using the tools that do so most effectively. In the process, I think it's fair for him to consider whether a proscutorial approach will support or impede exposing the truth. He also has to try to resurrect a functional government, which was compromised on so many levels by both Bush and congress over the last eight years. Investigations will be divisive, and may catch some people whose conduct was borderline, but who may otherwise be worth keeping around. It's not wrong for Obama to consider these factors in deciding how far to go with investigations.

That much said, yes, this approach reinforce the hypocrisy of our "justice" model. My solution would not be to prosecute more rich people, but to prosecute fewer poor ones for the crime of self-medication. Alas, that's not on the table.

I never trusted Obama or believed the hype, but I never even considered not voting for him or voting for somebody else. I'm not sure I understand your point of view. Given that at the very minimum we would expect the US president to be a consumate politician with little regard for truth or the rule of law, the only choices left to us is what would be the symbol that we send with our vote. One would send the message that as a nation we are entirely comfortable with the last eight years, that we are xenophobes and war mongering racists. The other would demonstrate that the people of the country are ready for some kind of change, and are not quite as xenophobic or racist as the actions of our government would indicate. The reality of how Obama would govern, given that McCain would be almost certainly worse and that a vote for Barr or Nader would be useless at best, and advantageous for McCain at worst, is pretty much beside the point.

The decision to me--given that revolution is currently off the table and there are no viable third party alternatives--seems pretty easy. It does not exclude us from continuing to write and act against the policies of the government, which I expect to remain unchanged but for the legal nomenclature. Can you explain your perspective to me?

I was certainly NOT pointing to you as advocating the ignoring of the various and sundry transgressions of the Bush (or past) administrations.

I was merely making a comment that it seems (to me) as though the Washington establishment seems to believe that if something is big (or bad) enough to cause a few cocktail parties to lose guests or that if a company's demise will cause "certain economic problems" that those people or corporations should be given a pass.......for the good of the country. That way of thinking is the epitome of the Versailles Syndrome.

I apologise if you thought I was criticizing your comment.

Digby and everyone else who says/thinks this will be correct until a constitutional/rule of law entity commands the kind of respect harnessed by the likes of NRA, AIPAC, and similar interests.

Accountability Now must take somebody down. Not only that, but they must openly and in advance announce who that somebody is, then do it, and then openly take credit for doing the job after it's done.

Until that happens, Greenwald's cries in the forest, while important, will not get the job done. Because right now there is absolutely no penalty to those in power for behaving as they do.

I know the above has been said thousands of times, but that doesn't mean it ain't true.

Well, how about some sort of national force independent of either political party, whose sole job is to determine whether laws have been broken and recommend action?

Long ago, in a galaxy far away, there was an organization called the Department of Justice. Not only could it recommend action, but it could in fact initiate action and, after a fair trial, law breakers were even put in jail. Sadly, that force died during the Error of Emperor Bush.