Rocky Hillside

OTOH, as Gene Robinson recently noted in his column, Sarah Palin could be our vice president right now.

Yet another way to look at it: at this point in his first term, G.W. Bush was ignoring all of the nation's problems, including pesky intelligence reports that al quaeda planned to hijack planes as part of a major terrorism plot.

What would your list look like? I was a bit surprised by mine.

No doubt it could be worse. Much worse. But there's a big gap between hopes for real change and "he's better than a couple of psychos."

Obama's administration seems crippled by a bizarre naiveté about the public dialog and the legislative process that seems to continually put us in the "well, it's not what you want and it's not that good and it has some bad aspects but it's better than nothing so you should support it" bind. Stimulus, Sotomayor, health care, bank bailout, enviro appointments . . . .

I nearly agree with Eugene Robinson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081702178.html) when he writes, "[W]e didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one." (I am not sure that some of these things are actually forced by "expediency." It seem just straight out naive bungling.)

Well, I think you and Gene Robinson are right. I did vote for real change and for someone who I thought could be a great president. And I agree with your list, but I would give him more time. If it were a report card, I'd give him a bunch of incompletes.

As far as investigations/prosecutions of the last administration, I think there should be an independent counsel, and it should not end with prosecutions of underlings but instead of those who had the ultimate responsibility and decision-making authority.

I agree that a final report card might end up much differently. Eventually - I hope - the administration will find its legs. I hope it's while Obama is still popular enough to get things done.

My (never met face to face!) friend Sam has a different take on who should be prosecuted and how. Maybe he's around and will pipe up . . . ?

Yep. I think the lower level guys should get nailed too - not as severely as the top dogs. To do anything else lets criminals immunize themselves from things they know are crimes by getting a memo or an order that says it's okay. Lower level folks need to learn that they must say no despite an order to commit a crime against humanity.

Sam, my problem is with "fall guy" prosecutions. Cheney has now all but admitted that Libby took the hit for covering up Cheney's role in outting a CIA agent. Certainly, it's hard to get at the top guys with so many underlings willing to protect their bosses. Maybe that will be less true now that the bosses are out of power.

I have a problem with "fall guy" prosecutions, too. And that's a risk if they started with the little guys. On the other hand, indicting the little guys would probably stop any of them from covering up for the big shots.

I think it's moot though. I doubt we'll see anyone charged.

Well, freewheel, looks as if you called it. Little guys who didn't follow the memos will be investigated, those who wrote the memos won't. Outrageously backwards.