John Barry recently wrote an article in Newsweek called, "The Politics of Vengeance", saying that "Obama should avoid the blame game on Bush’s security failings." In nearly 1,500 words, Mr. Barry managed to both dismiss the debacle of the Bush presidency and attempt to belittle Representative John Conyers’ attempts to shed some light on who could be responsible for at least a portion of the problems currently facing our country.
With his pen pointed squarely at Conyers, Barry refers to the Judiciary Committee’s report as a "scattershot 486-page condemnation," looking to point out "virtually everything controversial the Bush administration did." Rather than being a "scattershot condemnation," the Committee’s report points out the literally hundreds of errors – many either criminal or on the edge of being so – made by the Bush administration. Unfortunately for Mr. Barry, the charges levied against the former administration are not simple cases of jaywalking or unpaid parking tickets. Barry’s approach is strikingly similar to that of many Republicans, who would prefer to simply sweep everything under the rug, without even offering a simple mea culpa. It’s in the past, certainly, even if the past is fresh and sharp in the memory or nearly every man, woman and child.
Admittedly, I do agree with Mr. Barry at least on one point: Obama should not personally be the Crusader of Justice to shed light on What Went Wrong and Why. The President has far too many things on his plate just in trying to slow the economic, military, and moral slide that Bush and his administration put into action. But I believe that Mr. Barry is wrong that everything should simply be ignored. In reality, and contrary to Barry’s thinly-veiled assertions, Conyers himself is not trying to take the role of Crusader of Justice. Instead, he is pushing for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the claims that range from abuse of power to possible criminal negligence. Although the investigation itself is absolutely partisan – in the tough political environment the Republicans have found themselves, few if any want to further tarnish their brand – the appointment of a Special Prosecutor would help to keep the eventual findings non-partisan.
The most interesting part of Barry’s piece rested not in what he tried to deny, but rather in his reasoning for not pursuing any investigation.
"What we know:" Barry writes, "President Bush authorized everything."
Unfortunately for history books (along with the possibly hundreds or thousands of individuals tortured during the Greater War on Terror), knowing something to be true does not always make it a fact. Without proper investigation – and possible prosecution – those of us who "know" of many crimes or grievous mistakes make by the Bush administration can be dismissed as "holding a grudge" or being part of some leftist conspiracy.
Look at even the most common of criminals, and remember that we still require investigation. Just because someone is caught on video in the commission of a crime, thus almost clearly proving their guilt, we don’t simply let them walk away because, "well, everyone knows they did it."
While mentioning harsh interrogation techniques, Barry rightly points out that despite briefings to top members of both parties, "None of them took substantive steps to object," adding "(Private letters don’t count. They paper the files for subsequent backside covering.)" Now that Conyers, at least, is willing to stand up and not only object, but push for a veritable Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Barry is dismissing his efforts as a "lust for vengeance."
Looking to make his point by drawing comparisons to Iran-Contra, Barry does gain some footing in pointing out that "the prime mover," President Reagan, "was judged too popular to attaint." Contrary to Iran-Contra, President Bush was not too popular by any measure when Congress fell into Democrats’ hands in 2006. Instead, bowing to pressure from within the party as well as the media, Democrats chose not to pursue investigation of the Bush Administration over the concern that it would further polarize the country. Now a scant two years later, there is certainly an increase in polarization between Republicans and Democrats, though this has been tempered on the Left in part by Obama’s victory. Anyone who believes that the whole of Republicans are okay with President Obama need only look to the recent gift given to Republicans by Chip Saltsman, then-candidate for RNC Chairman: a CD containing the songs "The Star Spanglish Banner" and "Barack the Magic Negro."
Should Conyers and his Judiciary Committee risk further polarization, not just to find the answers that Barry insists we already know, but to have them documented for historians and pundits alike? If everything is already "known," what purpose then would investigation serve?
Representative Conyers sees inquiries as essential if America is to regain "our moral authority". Really? Is the rest of the world waiting for some bloodletting? No. Obama's election is seen, joyfully, as evidence that America has turned the page. Let us do the same. Leave the new president to restore America's standing by his actions—actions hopefully overseen by a more vigilant legislative branch.
Maybe the rest of the world isn’t waiting for some bloodletting, just as we don’t expect Conyers to insist the Bush administration endure a "Perp Walk" through the media spotlight, but it’s too tough a pill to swallow that the former President be allowed to simply ride off into the sunset. Now that Democrats control the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives – taking office with oversight and limits of power having been drastically eroded over the past four years – there is one belief that Republicans and Democrats aren’t polarized on. Barry agrees with the calls on both sides that power needs to be reigned in, and oversight restored.
Now that we, as a whole, have let one administration run amok either through complacency or fear, everyone expects the Democrats to relinquish powers enacted by a Republican administration and play fair. It’s morally telling that the Democrats are both willing and eager to restore the type of government that made our country a beacon of freedom.
As the Obama administration sweeps into office bringing with it both hope and transparency, it is still vital that we allow Conyers and the investigative arm of our government to do its job in both uncovering and documenting the various crimes and missteps of the Bush administration, even if everyone does indeed "know" about them. I believe this would be a very important step in showing the people of America, as well as the world, that despite the best efforts of the Bush administration our justice system and investigative bodies still possess the ability to find the truth, and maintain the rule of law.