They dug into anything and everything they could find and had to resort to trying to nail him over whether a sworn statement matched an obscure interpretation of a definition over which both sides lawyers and the judge deliberated for ages. In fact, before Clinton gave his famous answer the judge called a recess for about half an hour just so they could go over the definition AGAIN. After all that, it WAS made very clear that the people who dropped the ball on 911 weren't members of the current administration, but the previous one. The one that stopped Al Qaeda blowing up LAX New Years 2000 and had Republican Congressmen whining about the cost of firing cruise missiles at Saddam to enforce the No Fly Zone when he was CLEARLY not a threat. While the Governor of Texas wrung his hands over Somalia and Kosovo and sagely declared how wrong it was for the POTUS to commit troops without a well defined objective or exit strategy. No, I believe Bush going after Clinton would've been a disaster for him.

And for that matter I think Obama worries about some of the same things regarding going after Bush, and he's on record not wanting to pursue this. The problem is we had senior administration officials declaring things we agreed are illegal under Geneva were, in fact, LEGAL, then ordering their subordinates to perform them. Whether you see it or not, Obama's worked hard, too hard, perhaps, to try and be non-partisan, and I'm sure he'd like nothing better than for this to go away. Unfortunately there's enough evidence there that if Justice didn't investigate it would be a simple matter of looking the other way. The one bit of good news is that for once we're looking at the people who made potentially illegal policy rather than those stuck carrying out that policy.