Did you want the answer to that question in theory, or in practice?

Obama will have a huge say over what Holder does.

The fact is simple: Obama, if you can believe his pledge to step up the war in Afghanistan, may be in for a HUGE cluster-f--k. My brother has been deployed with Special Ops in both Irag and Afghanistan, and Afghanistan will be by far the hardest to turn into something remotely resembling a victory.

The country essentially has no economy other than the drug trade, and their own army is incompetent.

If Obama is bogged down in 2010, rest assured that he will want to use any and every means he can to push on.

Everything, apparently, is fuckin' "simple."

Last reason that Obama / Holder will NOT prosecute Bush/Cheney:

There is no political upside.

While there are people in the population who truly hate Bush & Cheney, and would love to see a trial, there is absolutely no upside for Team Obama. Consider:

• How much political capital it would waste to conduct a trial for a year or two.

• What parts of their social / domestic agenda would have to take a back seat?

• Take a note from Gingrich and the reps, who wrongfully thought that prosecuting Bill Clinton would give them a big boost in their 1998 election efforts.

• And, above all -- what if they successfully prosecuted Bush/Cheney, and then another attack occured on US soil. Fun fodder for 2012 if you're seen as the president who focused on stopping a past president, rather than stopping Al Qaida.

In a couple of Bush's final appearances this past week, including his last presser, he said something to the effect that "things didn't always go according to plan."

I wish that one of the worthless interviewers or press had asked him, "In fact, Mr. Prez, what WERE your plans?"

The idea of this imperial presidency and the power grab and political gutting of the government is well documented by countless observers, but everyone knew it had to end in, at most, eight years. What were they hoping would happen? Were they planning to declare martial law? Were they planning to put another Republican puppet in there and stay in power? If so, why would they run McCain? Was he just a sock puppet they recruited because they thought Obama (as a black candidate) could not win? Were/are they that short-sighted?

How were they going to hang on to power?

I know you really want to intellectualize, but lots of things in life are pretty simple:

Name one president who ever wanted less power or fewer options than his predecessor.

Human nature is so goddamn simple that it's not even funny.

The plan was simply to keep a sizable American military presence in the heart of the Middle East.

Everything else was peripheral, and those parts had shoddy planning.

Obama will have a huge say over what Holder does.

The fact is simple: Obama, if you can believe his pledge to step up the war in Afghanistan, may be in for a HUGE cluster-f--k. My brother has been deployed with Special Ops in both Irag and Afghanistan, and Afghanistan will be by far the hardest to turn into something remotely resembling a victory.

-- steveindallas

I think it's a tie as to which could be "turned into a victory" rhetorically. Neither of them can. But I have no quarrel with your assessment about Afghanistan and Obama's blustering on about it.

Yes, he of course has a say as to what Holder does. How tremendously astute of a statement was that? But the fact is, if this investigation begins, the avenues that it takes will wide be and many. Obama is able and capable to go about his other business while the investigation, and possible prosecutions go on. His business happens to be plentiful and important and of consequent interest to the American people.

It seems to me that many people forget or don't consider that when they way the options or the outcome of these investigations that we or I am hoping to see, that time does not stand still. They speak of all of this as if the investigation will not uncover anything that has not already been uncovered. Not only will that not be the case, but the effect on the general public will be substantial as the dirty works are uncovered. This Torture/War crimes subject, if investigated, will not be a stagnant subject.

OK, maybe there is no "political" upside.

What about the oath to uphold the constitution? What about upholding the law? What about the duty a president has to do what is right?

None of this is of any value?

Read my second letter, in particular point #4.

Obama will not want the first 2 years of his administration upstaged by investigations or Senate hearings.

But more importantly: Our own state department has predicted a 50% likelihood of another attack on US soil in the next 5 years.

Do you think Obama will want to be perceived as the president who was more diligent in investigating Bush/Cheney than investigating Al Qaida?

C'mon, dude. Think like a politician. You know I'm right on this.

I know you really want to intellectualize, but lots of things in life are pretty simple

Sure. People often make things more complex than they are, but in my experience, people tend to err on the side of oversimplifying things rather than thinking things through too much.

In this case, I don't actually disagree with your conclusions, but I just think it's ridiculous that out of a dozen letters, you haven't missed an opportunity to call something "simple."

Afghanistan seemed "simple" at the beginning. Defeat the Taliban, have a loya jirga, pave some roads, paint some schools, pack up and leave. Ask your brother how that turned out.

Human nature is so goddamn simple that it's not even funny.

Like anything else, from a distance what seems simple is irreduceably complex when viewed close up. Yeah, people in general behave pretty consistently... but try predicting how a taxi's gonna move in downtown Boston when you're going downhill on a bike at 20mph.

OK, get back to work, "Mr. Simple."