Can someone explain to me why the Obama administration is defending Rumsfeld in these lawsuits?

[Logical]

Maybe they legally have to. But why would Obama do it unless he had too?

[Enrique]

1. teabaggers are making him do it

don't you understand how government works? :sarcasm:

[daa]

4. I love it nt

[villager]

2. He's a great leader! He's just "forced" to do terrible things!

Just remember: Nothing can possibly be his responsibility!

[QC]

13. That's really not fair.

Good things that happen anywhere in the world are always Obama's responsibility.

It's only the bad stuff that he is never, ever responsible for. Somebody else did that.

[uponit7771]

17. Yeap, progressives should impeach him now !!!! /sarcasm

[CakeGrrl]

18. Don't go making people all tingly, now. -nt

[Hawkowl]

23. Terrible, but great.

Like Valdemort according to Olivander.

[Autumn]

3. He wants to

looking forward and all that rot.:shrug:

[obxhead]

5. When you're continuing the same crime

it's in your best interest to defend the people who started it.

[RC]

10. You nailed it there.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. I thought Rumsfeld was being sued personally, w/o the Government being a codefendant.

[archiemo]

7. Ding ding ding!!

[uponit7771]

15. NAH, Gottah Bash Obama somehow

[Logical]

19. LOL....nice try! Here you go.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_Justice_Dep._defends_Rumsfeld_in_0313.html

[no_hypocrisy]

21. OK, I see . Protecting the concept of Sovereign Immunity.

[Logical]

22. And NOT digging into crimes committed by the Bush administration. Proud of that also?? n-t

[treestar]

8. In some thicket of government regulation

There is an explanation. When people are sued in their employment capacity, their employer defends them. It would take a while to come up with the regulations, and they'd be boring. Better to look for exciting and sinister explanations.

[alc]

9. there can be many trumped up charges against any administration

It's mostly a matter of courtesy to defend the previous administration with as much energy as you hope the next administration will defend you - whether you think the charges are real or trumped up you should defend against them and let the courts decide if they are valid.

Aside from courtesy, the next administration will have lots of ammo against you. They can prosecute for a long time even if the charges are bogus. The last thing we need is for each administration to spend time getting the previous administration convicted of something. Once it starts it will never end and happen every time the presidency changes parties.

[RC]

11. And if the last administration was truly criminal. Such as

knowingly starting a war in an innocent country, that did us, US, no harm, using known falsehoods? And killing upwards of one million civilians after destroying their seat of government and not doing anything to replace it, so a civilized country descended into chaos, anarchy and terrorism?

[Hoyt]

12. I agree. Rummy and bush were criminals, but prosecuting them would make things worse in future.

[stevenleser]

14. Exactly. n/t

[Hawkowl]

24. That assumes your enemies are honorable

Absolute bullshit argument you have. You are arguing for some nonsensical 21st century chivalry between rival administrations. You are assuming that if the rabid Teabaggers get into power they will somehow magically transform themselves and graciously allow Obama to fade into history rather than blaming him for the cataclysm they will bring about.

You are advocating a gentlemen's agreement to turning a blind eye on our constitution. An endorsement of unaccountable power vs. the LAW. You are in effect arguing that you have no confidence in representative government, no confidence in the people to discern right from wrong, no confidence in the people to control their leaders.

Perhaps you are right, but at least know for what you are advocating.

[jwirr]

16. I would guess it has to do with setting a precedent. If we can sue Rummy

then we can sue all government employees in the future.

[WillyT]

20. K & R !!!

:kick: