It's a safe bet that many on the right who oppose prosecuting Bush administration personnel for possible criminal activities enthusiastically support the concept of capital punishment on the grounds that it is a deterrent against criminal behavior. Though this viewpoint is certainly arguable, what is striking is the seeming indifference of those who hold it towards deterring criminal behavior by future Presidents. What possible rationale can there be for not wanting to deter willful lawbreaking and trashing of the Constitution by our chief executives? Are the consequences of such actions considered trivial and not worth avoiding? Our experience of the past eight years provides a clear and emphatic answer: Absolutely not!

"Senate Dems To White House: Preserve Records (Especially You, Cheney)"

Good news?

http://tinyurl.com/6b4p4y

Um...let's see

how many times can you show that an armed rebellion has done anything other than lead to an even more repressive junta

There was that little thing starting in 1776 in the New World...

Yes, the 1776 anomaly was different. I could go on about how that was different (the rebellion was against a foreign, occupying power, for one thing, not against the established government of a nation), but even if you ignore that, that's...

One.

Out of... how many rebellions in the past 200+ years?

I'm not so sure I want to play those odds...

See, now you're thinking, people. What we need is turn the investigation and prosecution into an economic stimulus package. Not only TV and advertisers would benefit, but small businesses, as well. Perhaps the prosecution can take place in a football stadium. Cities could bid for the rights. Bush would hire is own "dream team." The possibilities are endless!

@Tim - no problem with the pads, only I needed to pay for the goods. No worries, however, clearly from my last couple of posts, the meds are kicking in and things are looking up!

as much as i admire your writing, so often you get too caught up in the righteous vision of idealism and miss the reality that pragmatism can accomplish.

-- metropolitannyc

_______________________________

OK, upon consideration I decided that "wbrooksjr" was satire; I'm hoping this is too. It's either an impeccable parody of totally wrongheaded Supercilious Received Wisdom or actual totally wrongheaded Supercilious Received Wisdom.

If it is the latter, I will only counter that it's absurd to claim that Glenn has missed "the reality that pragmatism can accomplish"-- on the contrary, that's what he's on about. President Unitard's moribund maladministration is nothing but "the reality that pragmatism can accomplish".

Now that the initial ecstasy and frenzy of Happy Horseshit over Obama's election has temporarily subsided, I feel able to pry up the rock I've been hiding under and cautiously see if my fever of alienation has broken.

Oscar is still a bit shaky on the old pins, but I cannot forbear to decry the pernicious technocratic piety, invariably presented in a pseudo-thoughtful, "savvy" tone, that a "reform" president has a "mandate" to rescue the nation from pressing economic and foreign policy crises and debacles, and dismisses, trivializes, or outright rejects the necessity of rigorous investigation and prosecution to restore the rule of law.

Lip service and purple prose brimming with vague generalities about Man and God and Law are all the anti-rage these days, but only the idiotically credulous or enthralled mistake soaring oratory for appropriate action.

I'm pleased to find that Glenn hasn't budged from his clear and correct belief that the rule of law needs to be spit out of the belly of the leviathan of political pragmatism that has already ravaged the nation.

Sigh.

And if loose talk about Truth Commissions and other dodges keeps up, you're going to force me to go into my comments archives and dredge up all of my past fulminations on such foolishness.

I enjoyed your entire post, but this was particularly amusing: President Unitard's moribund maladministration ....

Very nice.

Glenn,

I think pragmatism is key here. Obama cannot be looked upon as someone out with a political vendetta. That would ruin any chance he has of making good decisions, which would benefit the USA and its citizens.

However, that does not mean the investigations will not happen. What that does mean, is the Obama administration cannot be seen as the one pushing it forward. I think the wiretapping issue is a great example, because I definitely feel that one might be prosecuted. I expect a ton of anonymous accounts of what was happening in the previous presidency surface in newspapers on January 21. If these accounts are egregious enough, and anger the public enough (you will have to play a role in making this happen) a sufficient contingent of the US public will hopefully demand some sort of investigation, essentially forcing Obama's hand.

While I don't expect high-level officials to be convicted, I do hope enough dirty laundry will be aired that they will have a hard time showing their faces in public. While their punishment might not be equivalent to that faced by an ordinary citizen, hopefully, it will be demeaning enough that any future officials willl be discouraged from engaging in illegal activities.

While their punishment might not be equivalent to that faced by an ordinary citizen,

So, in other words, we'll have a two-tiered system of justice -- one for "ordinary citizens" and another for Presidents and their top aides -- and you're OK with that, because it's important that Obama get stuff done?

And if having a country where political leaders operate above the rule of law is the price to pay for that, you're ready to pay it?

No more "nation of laws." It's now: "nation of men"?

Glenn has a great point there that he shared with that commenter. A great point.

However, I am convinced that we have had a nation of men and not laws for a long, long time.

As a very mundane example (to not pick on that damn Nixon again), let me just say that the common criminal has faced much harsher penalties for his small crimes than the "white collar" criminal who stole millions and destroyed countless lives and families.

Or, the disparities of penalties based on skin color for another example.

Or, just the fact that the historical list of high level executive branch crimes is very lengthy, but the list of men convicted and sent to prison is sort. (god damn sort)