...never really standing for anything until he's read the winds. So...

"Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he (Obama) has the right to make. "

will probably not be the decision he does make. Afterall, it's not in The Great Ones best interests. Consequences over principles...he always says!!

A pretty sorry state of affairs.

This is the first time I've read your 12/27/07 post and good lord, it IS scarily prescient. We're still making the same arguments a year later, except the bipartisan "let bygones be bygones" train has now left the station and is pushing full steam ahead, with only a stalwart few such as you and Krugman desperately trying to turn it around before it's too late.

We CANNOT allow Obama to sweep the war crimes of the Bush Administration under the rug. If he succeeds, then we will know for certain that his "Yes We Can" change and hope schtick is a bunch of crap and he is cut from the exact same cloth as the people he claims to be so different from. If any, progressives and their organizations must work even harder than they have in the past 8 years or else, I truly fear that a modern version of the Dark Ages lies in store for us.

(Help! I can't get the second one deleted!)

a fairly lonely media voice in the wilderness here?!! Where are all those other concerned types that care about silly things like the Geneva Convention, the Constitution and America's standing in the world?

Greenwald nailed it yesterday when he pointed out the silence and/or agreement with Bush torture policies because of complicity. Both the media and Congress, including democrats, have blood on their hands.

And what are those high and mighty liberal blogs saying about Krugman this morning? Am I hearing crickets? Where are the calls for Obama to listen to his voice here, not just his economic one?

This isn't a liberal or conservative issue, btw, so let's stop talking about it in one-sided terms, unless you want to discuss right and wrong, moral and immoral.

I read somewhere recently that foreign countries want to prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes - they're waiting to see how we're going to handle it first before initiating any action.

Ball's in your court, Obama, but this isn't basketball.

Holder's testimony yesterday was much more direct and positive. It may be that Obama is simply letting his nominee navigate the actual investigation and prosecution decisions. While my life experiences never included anything remotely like this, I have taken on a few politically sensitive tasks. One learns from this to insist on authority commensurate with the degree to which one's ass is on the line. Holder almost surely did this.

Getting back to Krugman's lonely voice, I am also struck by the relatively benign way he has described the Bush Administration crimes. A casual reader would not know that we are talking about war crimes including homicides, the theft of billions, thousands of predictable (and predicted) American deaths because Bush's team treated safety and environmental regulations as prizes for political supporters and contributors, and hundreds of other major felonies. Blago is a piker by comparison, but it's ok to hyperventilate about his crimes. Krugman no doubt knows all this, but either chose not to write it or had it edited out. I would love to know which it was, and why.