Has the Bush administration done anything worthy of investigating?

Question

Like the ever changing justification for the Iraq war, or the warrantless wiretaps? Or the bidless contract for Halliburton? Are these things worthy of looking into more closely? Impeachment is an investigation, not a conviction...if the administration justifies warrantless searches as 'if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about', could we justify an investigation the same way?

my favorite detail to add...I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. and as usual, thanks for avoiding the question...

Answer 1

Personally I do not believe that investigations are going to result in what many Democrats hope they will. However, I do agree that if there is nothing to hide then there is nothing to fear. My main objection over investigations is that I believe they will be fruitless in the end. They will cost a great deal of taxpayer money and will absorb large amounts of government time which could be used better. The biggest problem with this whole idea is that from what I have seen a great majority of the people are against open ended investigations. It is not going to matter what any of us think though. The Congress will decide and will act accordingly. If they find evidence of impropriety on the part of the President or his senior staff they will be vindicated, but if they fail to prove their contentions they will be vilified in the next election. This makes this issue very much a double edged sword and one which I don't believe will bode well for anyone, least of all average people in the country.

Answer 2

If severe information surfaces implicating participants of the Bush administration in something unlawful, no remember what the case, the Justice branch will check out and if the information is powerful adequate, they're going to prosecute. this is their interest. i do no longer think of the Obama administration could flow on a witch hunt, nonetheless, and that i do no longer think of they're going to. As for sparkling Truck, who pronounced "attempting to deflect interest far off from each and all the corrupt Democratic politicians returned are you?" There are corrupt politicians on the two factors of the aisle. that is not a one-sided affair. There are surely greater Republicans who've been investigated, prosecuted and imprisoned those days. The Democrat v Republican finger pointing classes somewhat get previous. each and each time some thing occurs, each and each factors tries to trivialize the difficulty all the way down to a single factor to failure on the different area at which they are in a position to show blame. The Frank, Dodd, Fannie/Freddie line of attack on the loan disaster, which yet another guy or woman stated above, is a suitable occasion. The state of the economic gadget and the housing bubble weren't all led to via Democrats or Fannie and Freddie. they are not even the biggest clarification for the difficulty. there is loads of blame to be thrown around on the two factors in this vast mess. The checklist on the reasons and each and all the individuals and companies in touch could fill a quantity of books. I basically could chortle each and each time I study somebody attempt to sum it up right into a single paragraph and element palms at basically some human beings whilst ignoring something of the tale.

Answer 3

I'm generally always for more investigation, not less. What's the harm?

As for specifics, the justifications for the Iraq war can be found in the resolution passed by Congress, whether one agrees with them or not:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Warrantless wiretaps? I'd say that whatever surveillance techniques FDR used in WWII should be allowed today (although no cellphones or internet then - how did they survive!). The Fourth Amendment does NOT require a warrant in every case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

There is indeed an argument that the FISA law renders Bush's program illegal to the extent that his program doesn't follow the FISA procedure. But two questions have to be asked: is the president's action part of his powers as commander in chief? And if so, does the FISA law itself constitute an unconstitutional limiting of presidential power? The constitution prohibits congress from limiting presidential powers just as it prevents the president from reducing congress' power. All this needs to be sorted out.

An impeachment based on the FISA law might well resemble the Andrew Johnson impeachment. He was impeached in the house for violating the Tenure of Office Act - which he clearly and deliberately violated - and acquitted by one vote in the Senate trial. But the Act itself was later declared unconstitutional.

So, if questions need to be answered, I say go ahead. The people elected the Democrats to head the committees, so it's their will that would be implemented. I do note, though, that a lot of Bush opponents say they oppose the Iraq war but support the war on terrorism, and this program has far more to do with the latter than the former. And I don't know of any Democrat who has flat-out said stop the program, or only conduct surveillance in accordance with the FISA law. They offer complaints (which our enemies hear too), but don't offer concrete solutions.

Halliburton? My understanding is that the governmental LOGCAP system is more accurately described as an "up front" bidding process on a series of contracts rather than a "no bid" process for each contract:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/logcap.htm

The idea is to have entities ready to go BEFORE there is a conflict.

The only president to award a contract to Halliburton without it having submitted the low bid was Clinton (paragraph beginning "In 1997"):

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york070903.asp

I'd also like to know what the profit margin of Halliburton has been. The actual revenues don't matter if the actual percentage profit is low. I'd rather invest 100 and get 110 back than invest 1000 and get 1050 back. I wonder what the stock price of Halliburton has been, and its dividend record. That would tell a lot about whether they got a sweetheart deal. Greed and money are good, neutral indicators: by and large, investors don't care what they make their money on, just that they want to make more of it. If this company's stock shot up (independent of the rest of the market) that would tell everyone something. And if it hasn't, that tells us a lot too.

Waste? I would assume so! No big company seems to be able to resist the urge to gouge, or just be sloppy with OUR tax money. Interesting though - when someone asked John Edwards point-blank in 2004 if a Kerry administration would refuse to use Halliburton, he did not say they would. Again, all that criticism, but no commitment to do any different. The Rolling Stones' "Sweet Neocon" is still a good song, though. Mick always does "angst" pretty well. :)

So there is a lot to investigate, and a lot to consider on all sides. The Democrats not only will investigate, they have to! To a degree they have painted themselves into a corner, promising their base. So it will be very hard for them to back off. They will have to walk a fine line between backing up their rhetoric with action on the one hand and not appearing to politicize the war for partisan gain on the other. If they come up short, there will be the charge that they were persecuting the president (as happened, to a degree, to Newt and the Republicans) as well as the added criticism that they were undermining a war effort.

Short answer: sure, investigate!

PS Signing statements are like legislative history: everyone knows what the statute says, but people make statements at the time the law is enacted to make clear (or, yes, "spin") their interpretation of the law. Then, if there's an issue later, courts can look to this legislative history if there is ambiguity in the statute. Then again, judicial conservatives say the courts should stick more to the text of the law and not go outside it.

I don't think it is nearly as big an issue as people think it is if Bush, Clinton, or any president signs a law and says "I understand that this law does not attempt to limit the president's constitutional authority, and to the extent it does I consider it flawed." It's a tautology, like saying "the weather is sunny except when it's not." Again, both congress and the president issue interpretive statements.

What makes ME mad about Bush is that he signed the McCain-Feingold law. If that's not a violation of the First Amendment I don't know what is. Shame on the congress for passing it, Bush for signing it and the supreme court for upholding it! I wish someone would give Bush heat for not fighting the Iraq war to win - by attacking the problems at their source (Iran and Syria) - and for leaving our own borders relatively undefended. And the spending!

There's plenty to complain about without these other well-worn canards. Although I don't like the "if you have nothing to hide, surveillance is OK" justification either. It's either permitted or it's not, regardless of what someone does or does not have to hide.

Answer 4

I guess we'll find out when the new congress is in office. I'm sure the democrats left no stone unturned trying to dig up an impeachable offense.

Answer 5

Henry Waxman, soon to be chaiman of the House Government Reform Committee, says that he has more POSSIBLE causes for investigation than there are hours ticking on Dumbya's clock.
Soooooooooo much corruption .... soooooooo little time. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!

Answer 6

No. He has done nothing that any reasonable person could consider criminal. Impeachment is more than an investigation.

Answer 7

Yes! The list is so long, where should we start? There may be a problem now in that the Republicans have been in control so long without any true checks and balances that it may be hard to uncover the critical things that they have covered up by now. Remember, they protected and covered up Sen. Foley's molester behavior until they couldn't any longer, and that had been going on for years!

Answer 8

You could justify it the same way, but the analogy is faulty.

If the govt eavesdrops on you, you do not know it and your work/play/life is not interrupted. An impeachment would bring Congress and the Presidency to a halt. All activity stops because it is not merely an investigation; one side is trying to make the case to remove the President, the other to defend. So even if there is nothing to hide, the agenda of the administration goes from US first to self-preservation.

Answer 9

Yes everything he has done is worthy of investigation.

Dont forget the secret meetings Cheney had with the energy execs. They all make me sick. People who dont understand how Bush is a bad President and deserves to be investigated just make me shake my head in disgust. I find them all very odd.

Answer 10

I know you spend quite a bit of time here on Y!A. I see your questions and answers frequently. So how is it you don't know the answers you will receive in response to this?

This administration has done nothing more or less worthy of investigation than any other for the most part.

By the way. Unless you are calling someone in Syria or Lebanon, you really don't have anything to worry about. Besides....every character we are typing into Y!A is being filtered through a gigantic computer and has been for years. Even before 9/11.



Tempest in a teapot folks.....