Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
(a) hold the previous administration accountable for its crimes,
The problem was that the Bush cabal was very careful about not committing any crimes in the literal, legal sense. Or, rather, making sure that what crimes they did commit were not technically criminal. So Obama had few options, other than to simply stop the technicalities they employed.
(b) aggressively pursue policies that reverse the damage it caused?
He did, repeatedly, and was overruled every time by Congress in regard to the biggies, like the Authorization for Use of Military Force and closing Gitmo. He also radically changed American foreign policy from one of massive "shock and awe" invasion overkill tactics to primarily surgical strike limited drone tactics, reducing civilian casualties from the millions to the hundreds almost literally overnight and resulting in a very successful actual fulfillment of the mandate behind the AUMF (to get the terrorists behind 9/11) and for that he was excoriated by his own party, after GOP whisper campaigns took the drones out of that bigger context.
In short, he was damned when he did and damned when he didn't by both sides of the aisle.
What would give someone that responsibility, if not being elected in a landslide on the mandate of change along with a supermajority in his party, Keith?
*sigh*
Debunking the Myth: Obama’s Two-Year Supermajority