Maddow: MSNBC Special on Iraq WMD Will "Upset" Many

[Amerigus]

123. Why Obama and Congress did nothing...

A couple of people have asked why Obama and Congress did nothing when it seemed evidence showing fraud was so strong. The issue mattered to voters in the 2008 election - one of two major reasons Obama edged out Hillary in the primaries was the fact that she voted for the Iraq war.

When Obama first got into office in January 2009, some held out hope he would prosecute Bush era crimes. When asked, the President said he wanted to look forward, not back. Most people thought he decided not to burn his political capital by starting investigations and prosecutions. But a member of Obama's transition team spoke about the issue when it came up behind closed doors:

Dean Chris Edley [of UC Berkeley] volunteered that he’d been party to very high-level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it...Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).

But even though the Iraq debacle polled as a major issue with voters, no one in the network media would report on it, and no one in Congress would stand up. Some voters expected Congress or President Obama was waiting to take action after inauguration because Bush could no longer pardon his pals, but it never happened.

John Conyers, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee tried a little harder than Obama, calling in 2009 for a special prosecutor because so many "breadcrumbs" suggesting crimes led right to the Bush White House.

But this request got no further than the desk of Attorney General Eric Holder, a "revolving door" appointment who has his own history of questionable activities. The WMD intel crimes met the same dead end as the mortgage fraud crimes that caused the economic collapse. Why? Perhaps it was potentially too "messy", with Democrats too complicit (Chris Dodd, for example, told British ministers the war was inevitable). But sitting Dems may have felt too vulnerable to retribution or blackmail for other improprieties.

Maybe you have an opinion as to why, but Conyers at least did something, Kucinich tried something, Waxman tried something, Feingold spoke up, Cynthia McKinney spoke out, and many localities passed resolutions calling for prosecution. Most in Congress did nothing, beholden to military industrial interests or unwilling to stick their necks out.

The Chilcot Hearings held in the UK also found the Blair administration at fault, speaking much more openly about the deception at the highest levels than we have in the US.

But Obama's appointments and weak stomach for upholding the rule of law continue to be a nagging issue.