If the economy were strong and there were no national security threats or ongoing wars, or any other pressing matters where time, effort, and political capital needs to be expended, then lawbreaking could be investigated?...... But if it were all like that Obama would not have been elected.

I'm out of outrage. We sit around here and bash the "cynics" who suggest "all them politician/crooks" are the same. But other than being wrong about the universal "all", given the few powerless exceptions to the rule, those cynical rascals are right. Isn't that the point of about 1 out of every 5 of GG's pieces--that the political class and their media and business courtiers/enablers (or is it the business class and its political and media courtiers/enablers) have zero intention of being accountable to anyone, not each other, and certainly not the public. Subordinates willingly fall on the sword to protect the status quo, everytime, and the few public servants with even the slightest shred of integrity and courage necessary to speak the truth have their lives ruined quickly and permanently (unless they have the good fortune to become bloggers). Liberal truth tellers get fucked, right wing criminals get radio shows and a loyal following (Liddy, North, Limbaugh). Justice in America is a concept that's almost dead. Try and imagine something like the Church Commission happening today. Get serious. The 9-11 commission was barely comparable with little more than a predetermined final product.

The really big question for me is that if we can't change this dynamic by putting new faces in new positions through elections, and we can't get anyone actually entrusted to enforce the law to actually enforce it, what do we do? Emmigrate to Canada, New Zealand, Europe . . . is it really any different there? If Dick Cheney actually stepped foot in Germany or whichever European country has pending charges against him, do you actually think they'd have the cajones to arrest him and prosecute him? I seriously seriously doubt it.

Maybe Leona Helmsley was right--taxes are for the little people (apparently she meant the law too). I'm still trying to figure out how they suckered me (or I suckered myself into believing) into shelling out for a useless law degree. I can either start small and work my way to enabling the man, or I can starve and declare bankruptcy. That old job delivering the mail is looking better and better by the second. Only I'd rather be delivering the mail in Costa Rica.

For Obama to take on the prosecution of Bush's crimes during his administration it would have a devastating effect on his to ability to govern. The Republicans are already gearing up to destroy Obama just like they did with Clinton. The Justice Department is full of Bush cronies and will need to be totally purged. So are many other departments. His clear out and clean up tasks are quite daunting. I think the opportunity is lost.

I'll grant, it's been a long time since my high school civics class. However, my admittedly limited understanding of our government is centered around the division of powers as first told to me: the Legislative branch writes the laws, the Executive branch, well, executes the laws, and the Judicial branch enforces the laws.

I would define the role of the judiciary differently - I would say the role of the courts is to decide cases and controversies among the citizens, to ensure that criminal defendants receive due process under the law, and in doing so, to interpret the Constitution.

Police and prosecutors (part of the executive) are said to "enforce the law" which I take as essentially meaning the same thing as to "execute the law."

Bush and Cheney will claim Executive Privilege *after* they leave office. The Dems will not push it to the Supreme Court (too partisan!). They will never be investigated or prosecuted for their crimes.

...generated by some fair War Crimes trials followed by some speedy hangin's at The Hague.

But maybe that's just me.

With all the talk about 'bi-partisan' and 'trans-partisan' and 'not being partisan' - clearly a widely accepted concept to be taken as inherently good [morally and technically] -, can anybody give me a good reason why there are political parties at all? I am not taking the cynical PoV that it doesn't matter what name they give themselves as they already believe the same things. I find that many parties all over the world do have major differences between them. It's just that, well, these differences seem to not count anymore, and most everybody is happy with that.

In a country subscribing to the creed of 'competition is good as it works in favour of all by making things better and cheaper' it should be highly disturbing to ask for non- or bi-partisanship - it's just a very small step from a presumed general consensus [be clear: among those benefiting!] to a prescribed general 'Gleichschaltung'.

Last week's episode of South Park was a mild take on Ocean's 11 and such movies. The political caricature was just a nice add-on, I had hoped. Now, it seems, Trey/Parker were spot on: It doesn't matter, Demopublicans all!

BTW, regardless of which way Congress and the White House go, they will always be attacked by right-wing pronutters. Best example are Mr Reid and Ms Pelosi, who, in the view of the O'Haneillys, are Extremists and Communists - even when they side with George Bush Junior.

Absolutely right, GG. There is a case to be made for a limited executive privilege, and as long as it is applied in a consistent and principled manner, I don't have a problem with it. But deliberately refusing to investigate misconduct in the name of some misguided sense of "moving on" is not a principle that anyone should be in favor of.

First of all -

Glenn, I started reading Unclaimed Territory way back when due to your persistence and eloquence around precisely these issues. Thanks for all your efforts.

Second of all, what kind of crack are these particular village idiots smoking and why hasn't it killed them yet?

Let's take a poll and find out, honestly, what percentage of the public wants "the government" -not "the Bush Administration" and not "the Clinton Administration" and not "the Obama Administration," but "the US Goverment" to be able to do ANYTHING without some degree of oversight, accountability, and liability in a court of law for violations of US statutes.

Is there anyone outside of the beltway tin hat reality defiance zone who thinks this is a good idea? And if so, for heaven's sake, WHY?!?!?!?!?

I suppose this is one possible answer, but it is the opposite of convincing:

... It is ironic that the virtues of loyalty, discipline, and self-sacrifice that we value so highly in the individual are the very properties that create destructive organizational engines of war and bind men to malevolent systems of authority.

Each individual possesses a conscience which to a greater or lesser degree serves to restrain the unimpeded flow of impulses destructive to others. But when he merges his person into an organizational structure, a new creature replaces autonomous man, unhindered by the limitations of individual morality, freed of humane inhibition, mindful only of the sanctions of authority.

-Stanley Milgram, "Obedience to Authority", 1974

link at signature