Should there be an inquest into crimes and abuses commited by the Bush administration?

New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman asks:

Why, then, shouldn't we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

I would answer than Congress has had ample opportunity to review and question just about every decision made by the Bush administration over the past eight years. That should be enough.

Congress could have impeached President Bush if it felt so strongly that "crimes" had been committed. For whatever reasons, Congress chose not to do so. That should be enough.

Barack Obama could have decided that such an inquest was a priority for himself, his administration, and the American people, but he has decided that it is not a top priority at this time. That should be enough.

Oddly, for all of their support for Barack Obama in the presidential campaign, Krugman and the other so-called progressives have decided that they know better than Barack Obama how a Barack Obama presidency should set its priorities. These people think of themselves as being above the president. They indeed look down on the president. They in fact look at Barack Obama as if he were a mere puppet to do their bidding, the way the Neo-conservatives looked at President Bush.

Myself, I have faith that Barack Obama will do the right thing.

Who knows, maybe Barack Obama or even Congress will decide to investigate Bush-era policies. If so, so be it, but it is not up to Paul Krugman or the rest of The Progressives to demand that the president or Congress take actions that may not necessarily be in the best interest of all Americans, which is the criteria that an Obama Administration should be using.

-- Jack Krupansky