Columnist – John Sammon
Should Obama investigate Bush for wrongdoing?

The great thing about history is that it repeats itself. Oh sure, the trappings and circumstances are different, but the basic premise returns. For example, the United States fought a nasty guerrilla conflict in the Philippines in 1900 that was much like Vietnam would be sixty five years later, though the weapons were different.

Here we have Obama in the same position Gerald Ford was in 1974. Ford pardoned Richard Nixon after Nixon committed high crimes and was facing impeachment and resigned from office.

Ford said it was for the good of the country, that prosecuting Nixon would be too costly and inconvenient, too wrenching an experience for the American people already exhausted after the months-long Watergate affair, and that with the challenges we faced, we needed to move on, and forget about it.

Ford waved off allegations that this effectively put the president “above the law.”

Here we go again.

This time with Bush.

The idea that not pursuing criminal conduct because it’s distasteful and inconvenient is a fascinating premise in a country that continually lauds itself as a bulwark of righteousness, law and order.

If we move on and forget about it, if we don’t even look into Bush’s handling of Iraq and all its fallout, is this a double standard? You can be sure of one thing, if you commit a crime as a private citizen, the courts will not determine that it’s too much of a hassle to prosecute you, and let the matter slide.

Obama may be reluctant to involve himself in any way in this mess and with the economy the way it is, and other pressing issues of the day, we could understand that.

There’s just one sticky problem about letting wrongdoing off. IT ENCOURAGES WRONGDOING IN THE FUTURE, AS WELL AS CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW IN THE HIGHEST CIRCLES OF GOVERNMENT.

If there’s no fear of punishment, why fear doing it?

Oliver North was excused on a technicality for his participation in the Iran Contra fiasco of the Ronald Reagan Administration. North and Nixon had one thing in their favor, something they shared. They both did what they did (supposedly) for the American people, in the interest of the American people, for our benefit. All of us.

This is key. If you rob a liquor store, you’re doing it just for yourself, to get money. You go to jail. If on the other hand you rob an office to get records on your political opponents (as Nixon did), or carry out a secret money-laundering operation to impact events in both the Middle East and South America (as North did), you’re doing it for the good of the country. Even though both acts were harmful to the country and accomplished the opposite of what was originally and dishonestly intended.

It’s the ultimate act of patriotic subversion.

The claim that the president committed crimes for the good of the American people and should be let off without even looking into it, because to look into it could be troublesome, costly, inconvenient, and what’s even more disconcerting, prove to one and all that the government is capable of doing wrong, as well as being wrong. To do this is to prove the president is above the law. As long as he can establish he did it for patriotic reasons.

But is wrongdoing patriotic?

I have an uneasy feeling Obama may disappoint me and say let’s just forget about it. At least half a million people were killed because of Bush’s decision to, as he put it recently, “clean up the Middle East.”

If we can’t learn from our mistakes, then we’re saying we never make mistakes.

I can’t buy that.

——————————————————————————
Amazon.com Widgets
——————————————————————————