Sounds to me like a good old fashioned Whitewash.

Too bad we didn't get what you wanted. What was that again?

Interesting article from James Bovard that appeared on Antiwar.com's article highlights:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0808c.asp

Should the president of the United States be exempt from both American and international law?

...

Few people would instinctively say yes. But, in actual practice, presidents of the United States have been legally untouchable for most of the past century for the foreign killings they ordered. Even when their orders resulted in the killing of vast numbers of innocent people, it was almost never suggested in this country that the president should face charges for war crimes.

[snip]

Killing foreigners seems to be a perk of the modern presidency — akin to the band’s playing “Hail to the Chief” when he enters the room. Yet, if a foreign ruler authorized killing Americans the way the U.S. president authorizes killing Somalis, or Afghans, or Pakistanis, Americans would almost certainly consider the foreign attacks acts of war.

[snip]

Bush’s top advisors — and especially Vice President Cheney — are devoted to a Nixonian view of absolute power for the commander in chief. After he was driven out of office in disgrace, Nixon told interviewer David Frost in 1977, “When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” Frost, somewhat dumbfounded, replied, “By definition?” Nixon answered, “Exactly. Exactly.”

Nixon's quote. Timeless, apparently.

Whatever President Obama decides to do about investigation and prosecution of Cheney and company, I'd really like to hear him foreswear their heinous example right from Day 1, preferably in his inaugural address. No preemptive military attacks on autonomous nations, no breaches of domestic or international law, no suspension of treaties. Then in the very next sentence, I'd like him to disown and renounce the expanded executive authority Bush usurped, lest he be tempted to exceed Constitutional proscriptions and circumvent the legislature and the courts for expediency's sake.

Would pulling a Ford write a blank check for future wrongdoing? I don't know the answer to that one. But I would like to hear President Obama to vow that his administration won't ever need a grant of immunity from his successor.

I'd really like to hear him foreswear their heinous example right from Day 1, preferably in his inaugural address. That would be divisive and partisan, and certainly not centrist.

I'd really like to hear him foreswear their heinous example right from Day 1, preferably in his inaugural address.

That would be divisive and partisan, and certainly not centrist.

stupid blockquotes tag...

The GOP didn't refrain from impeaching Clinton. Let the Congress now impeach and indict Bush-- let an investigation air out the crimes, let Bush pick his whipping boy to leave dangling in the wind (maybe Cheney?) and let Obama swipe down and pardon to save the bipartisan day.

"Far better to hold an investigation and whitewash the matter entirely, 9/11 Commission style, with no or severely limited criminal charges. That's the Democratic Party _I_ know" - baldster

Agreed. Completely. I consider that an "unprincipled" (spineless) approach, common in politicians of all stripes. I should have clarified what I meant by "principle".

"NOB.... If exposure of the Bush Administrations crimes through impeachment would have been "stupid," but immensely satisfying to you because it would have destroyed the Democrats, why did the Bush administration spend its dwindling political capital defying subpoenas and stonewalling Congress?" - Hag

Bush doesn't do what I want him to do. I think impeachment would have failed.

What I'm about to say is not a legal defense, nor is it intended to be, so save me the lecture, but...

I believe that Bush acted the way he did to protect us. I believe many democrats did the same. I think an impeachment trial would have provided a more open debate re. Bush's motivation. . . . that wouldn't change legality, but it could very well change voters minds . . . I think the democrats know that, and act accordingly.

I believe that Bush acted the way he did to protect us.

-- NotOrbitBoy

That explains you, but it doesn't explain why you think that. Please do elaborate.

I got in an email dispute with my mom about Lieberman. I was passionately advocating that he had to GO, because of his race-baiting, because of his campaigning against Obama while being part of the Democratic caucus, and in general because of his role in one of the most corrupt and lawless administrations in history.

My mother's response: Joe's a nice guy. We shouldn't be "partisan" or mean-spirited. Obama's campaign wasn't about "change" in the progressive sense (I think she might have been right on that point), but rather about "fixing Washington" (she might have been right there, too, but only if you use the sense of "fix" that means "to rig a game")

You know, I love my mom, but if her response is typical of Democratic views, the Democratic party is as corrupt and broken as the Republican party. This is why I often mention the "r-word" (revolution) and talk about third parties; it seems that our government is well and truly broken. We've come to a point where the old boy network and appearing civil and "nice" and "nonpartisan" whenever possible, have rendered topics like murder and torture and illegal spying irrelevant.

Mom has said outright that the Clinton impeachment has scarred her; she saw how the tools of politics can be used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon, and now she thinks we should never go down that road again. I've tried to convince her that the situations are not equivalent -- that screwing an intern is not the same as killing 100,000+ people -- and that removing a corrupt, murdering, lawless administration is in fact the entire PURPOSE of impeachment and other political censuring mechanisms, but she refuses to budge. She doesn't want an endless cycle of political retribution, she says.

Oy.

We truly are on the other side of the looking glass; it's not just the politicians who buy into this bankrupt placatory outlook, it's "normal people."

Where do we go from here? Canada?