I'm talking more about the level of a Donald Rumsfeld
— people who authorized torture and greenlighted the
kidnapping and rendition of innocent people.
I didn't like their policies, which is why we needed to win the
election — to get them out of power. But I don't know what
the evidence is against them on any specific charge. When you have
a truth-and-reconciliation commission . . . look, I'm still
fighting the bombing of Cambodia. I still have my gripes with the
administration that bombed Cambodia before you were born, so I
think it's important to bring these things out. If you have a case
against someone, you bring a case.
With all due respect, we've had elections before that
tossed people out, but then the same people returned to power later
just as Dick Cheney did after leaving the Nixon administration. If
we turn the page without full examination and prosecution, aren't
we in danger of seeing this again?
We should have full examination, I'm not denying that. You asked me
a specific question: "Should they be charged?" I think that further
information might take us to that place, but what we want to do is
unify the American people. The American people do not want
wrongdoing to go unaddressed. We don't want any Democratic or
Republican administration to abuse power, and that's what they
tried to do with wiretapping, that's what they did with
politicizing the Justice Department, that's what they did in many
more ways that we could see almost on a daily basis. And yes, that
should be stopped.
What Mr. Leahy is putting forward, in terms of a truth-and-reconciliation committee, has always been helpful. It was helpful in South Africa, it was helpful in Rwanda, and they were talking about doing it in places like Lebanon. Ultimately, only the Congress can be responsible for preserving our constitutional prerogatives — that we get information from the executive branch when we ask for it, that members of the administration appear before us when they are called to the Congress.
Let's talk about global warming. What is the single
biggest obstacle to getting a major climate bill through
Congress?
Rep. Waxman has said he will have a bill out of his committee by
the end of May. We have to unify people around the fact that unless
we address global warming, we're not really going to solve the
climate crisis, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and improve
the quality of our air. I don't think there's any question that we
need to proceed. The question is how do we do this in a way that
grows the economy rather than have fearmongers describe it as
something where we will lose jobs.
Does the current economic climate make it harder to do
that?
Everyone says this to me, "The current economic climate and the
price of oil, hasn't that changed the debate?" No, I think it
argues for climate change. I think it argues for an
aggressive energy policy, and we will have one. This is a very
important issue to the president, it was important in the campaign,
and you don't walk away from that because the price of oil is lower
or because the economy is down. In fact, all of the research tells
us that energy can be a force to turn the economy around. Nicholas
Stern, who studied the effect of climate-change legislation for the
British government, said, "Not only does this not harm the economy,
unless you do it, you will harm the economy."
Email
Stumble
AIM
Del.icio.us
DiggThis
Fark It!

- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC.