FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The New York Times reports that congressional Democrats are going to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration even after the president leaves office in January. That could prove to be quite a task.
Where to begin... Abuse of the power of the Executive Branch... Torture of detainees... The role of former White House aides Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firing of federal prosecutors... Eavesdropping without a warrant. It's a very long list.
The rub is that President Bush may be able to block subpoenas long after he leaves the White House.
In 1953, Harry Truman blocked a congressional subpoena almost a year after he left office. Truman told Congress the Constitution still empowered him to do so. Then Congress backed off.
If the last eight years are any example you can bet the Bush administration would do everything it could not to cooperate.
Here’s my question to you: Is it a good idea for the Democrats to begin investigations of the Bush administration?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Ralph from Yakima, Washington writes:
In all sincerity, I believe this is necessary for the future welfare of the country. It should be low key and handled by a special investigator appointed by the Congress. It should not be done by Congressional hearings seeking to play politics.
Kay from West Virginia writes:
If, once he's inaugurated, President Obama wishes to appoint a special investigator to go back and look at illegalities during the Bush presidency, I would support that. If, on the other hand, he wishes to use agencies that should be doing other things, I would oppose that. We need all parts of government to be looking forward, not backward.
Pat from Michigan writes:
No, not now. There is real work to get done and no time to waste. These types of investigations seem to drive a wedge between the parties and this in not the time for that.
Such an investigation would be great for the Republicans. The Democrats would come off petty and vindictive rather than bi-partisan and statesmanlike. And by torpedoing bi-partisanship during a national crisis, they would have less chance of success with their proposals. The GOP would be in a stronger mid-term election position as a result.
Why would we ever want to investigate George, Dick and the Gang? I mean, it's not like they stole an election or started a bogus war or two or three or wiped out a nation's vast surplus or sent a country into an economic disaster. And they are definitely not guilty of paying back their political backers in some insanely lucrative way at taxpayer expense. Let's instead recognize them for their huge contributions to the needy like Halliburton, the struggling oil cartels, and impoverished Wall Street.
That's what they do best, Jack. Investigate, hold hearings, point fingers. Anything to avoid actually doing something that helps the American people who pay their salaries.