It's the Constitution

Once again Krugman is right. Obama doesn't have a choice under the oath he will take next Tuesday to ignore the crimes of Bush and his cronies. It's not about what is convenient and comfortable for Obama and his team. It's about the Constitution and what the long term consequences of ignoring the laws that have been broken are.

Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.

I'm as big a fan of live and live as the next guy but this is about the rule of law and there should be consequences for breaking it or ignoring or wiping your feet with it.