Which candidate - assuming there is no impeachment - will continue to investigate, indict .....

... and pursue conviction and sentencing of George Bush and Richard Cheney, to name just the top two criminals?

...would be most likely to seek prosecutions of Bush and Cheney and for that matter any other co-conspirators in the BushCo cabal? Well, I would think that Hillary certainly would and most likely Obama depending on which one becomes the nominee. That would depend of course on how strong the blood lust would be for payback on the BushCo crimes. Many republicans still don't believe any of the Bush policies regardless of what they have been since January 2001 represented impeachable offenses. John Edwards probably would too, but only if he felt there was strong pressure from voters on both sides.

I don't believe that any republican nominee would pursue impeachment/prosecutions of any top ranking offices in the current administration. In fact I would think there would be a tendency to block and pardon BushCo guilty parties just as Gerald Ford did with Nixon, perhaps throwing a few republican scapegoats under the bus.

The clincher though would be to tie these guys into a smoking gun corruption scandal over the Iraq War or a direct tie in with 9-11 and/or the cover-up which followed leading us into the Bush War mess. That would create a critical mass of outrage sufficient to force impeachment IMHO.

Of the field now, I dunno.

Sadly I doubt either will happen.

It seems so simple - so appropriate - yet we get attacked for pointing out WHY accountability is so important.

Of this field, only Kucinich and Edwards can point to at least a smidgen of some past record of anti-corruption activities.

The accountability for BushInc is crucial to this nation's survival as a democarcy. Look what happened the last time accountability was pushed aside in favor of secrecy and privilege.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”
>>>>>>>.

in the interests of "healing the nation." It happened before after Nixon, after Reagan, and it will happen again. I agree Kerry and Feingold are the only two who would have followed through.