Payback Time In Washington?
The Sotomayor ruckus, with its senatorial and media back-and-forths about judicial power and racism, is one indicator that Americans like and trust each other less, if possible, than they have since maybe 1861.
Still a stronger indicator is the storm boiling over whether, and how hard, to go after Bush administration officials—former Vice President Cheney among them—over what they did to defeat terrorists.
No course of action would make less sense, or point more directly to the truth of the ancient maxim that those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.
To his credit, President Obama shows lack of enthusiasm for Holder's proposed maneuver —hardly surprising in a chief executive fighting hard just to stay in charge of his own domestic agenda. He needs a battle over Bush era intelligence policy the way the viewing public needs another Michael Jackson special.
And yet … !
Here was Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on Fox News calling for an investigation of news reports that Cheney kept from Congress intelligence about a controversial CIA anti-terrorism initiative. That's on top of other reports that Attorney General Eric Holder may name a special criminal prosecutor to investigate Bush-era interrogation policies.
The un-slaked thirst among Democrats for the blood of some who waged the counter-war on terror—and kept America completely safe up through the handover of power in January—is hard to come to grips with. What's in it for the Democrats? The joy of poking Republican hornets to fury? That helps the Democratic agenda? How? Who could think such a thing?
Oh, it's a Matter of Principle, as some say when speaking of Holder's motives. A Matter of Principle to go after public officials for the advice they gave the president? What about the principle that it's unwise to start civil wars when you don't have to?
Why can't Holder see where this thing is going? The destination is a great political toxic dump. He'll poison public discourse. Nobody will talk about Principles; they'll all talk about Payback, as Auden foresaw so many years ago in a great poem: "I and the public know/What all schoolchildren learn/Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return."
"Evil"—too strong a word? Possibly. Not so strong it doesn't correctly point to what Democrats can expect if they decide to criminalize political disagreement.
The Democrats go after the last Republican administration; the Republicans, once returned to power, as they will be, and maybe very, very soon if the Democrats keep doing the angry second-grader bit, look around for Democrats to go after. Don't we understand how this is how life works, even if it shouldn't?
Speaking of the Sotomayor confirmation, a good question on which to reflect is how we got so divided on this judicial appointment thing. One starts, or should, by looking at Ted Kennedy's bombastic lies—I said lies, senator—about Robert Bork: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters … "
Kennedy's ravings more than ruined the Bork appointment: They ginned up the wars we still fight over the awful things imputed to this nominee or that one, depending on what president happened to nominate him.
Americans, who slaughtered each other on the battlefield less than eight decades after independence, are no society of pious saints and cheek-turners. Americans get mad and mean with the best of them. What the best of Americans have to hope is that their leaders won't crank up the meanness machine save for the most urgent of causes.
The Sotomayor nomination isn't one of those causes. Certainly the Bush White House's post-9/11 strategy for preventing additional murders of innocent Americans qualifies as the oddest of all provocations for a political war of victors against vanquished. If the attorney general indeed goes to war with the Bush White House, the most generous and reasonable response one could make is, "General Holder—you must have lost your mind."
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
"The un-slaked thirst among Democrats for the blood of some who waged the counter-war on terror—and kept America completely safe up through the handover of power in January"
Mr. Muchison, there's little evidence that the previous administration's invasion of two countries and the slaughter of civilians "kept America safe". There's also little for you to worry yourself over if the safety of war criminals from prosecution by the current administration is what bothers you.
When in power, democrat politicians posture and threaten their supposed opponents. When out of power they beg for pardons before their own criminals can be indicted. W and Cheney are safe from the democrats, though they should both be under arrest pending trial for treason and war crimes, just as the Clintons should have been, but never were, when Bush gained the throne.
There's more than one view of the criminal GW Bush administration among conservatives. The one you're presenting is in lockstep with the mainstream news media's presentations for the past 8 years.
Echoing Mr. Roberts' comments in the previous post, to say that Cheney/Bush and their neocon apparatchiks kept America completely safe up through the handover of power in January is an attempt to prove a negative. And the Bush administration's crimes against the Constitution go beyond waterboarding. How about widespread non-waranted and illegal surveillance of Americans? How about the gutting of Posse Comitatus? How about the noxious Patriot Act, as well as many other insults against our heritage? The real legacy of that administration was their institutionalizing of the enabling apparatus for the coming Fascist Police State of America...the FPSA. I'd sooner take my chances with the slim odds of terrorism than the tyranny of government goon squads. And don't get the idea that I'm some sort of left-wing Marxist liberal, because I'm not!
Well said, Mr. Murchison. If we destroy civil discourse, the whole society will lose. This Congress and Administration is already working to suppress free speech through vindictive measures against political opponents like Rush Limbaugh and through hate-crime laws.
A republic or a democracy cannot survive hatchet attacks on political opponents.
What civil discourse?
#2 "I’d sooner take my chances with the slim odds of terrorism than the tyranny of government goon squads."
I'm not so sure the danger of tyranny is gone with the W. administration. I think we have in our future both terrorism and tyranny of government, not just one or the other. Often one breeds the other.
"I’m not so sure the danger of tyranny is gone with the W. administration. I think we have in our future both terrorism and tyranny of government, not just one or the other. Often one breeds the other."
That's the point DJ was making. W's expansion of Clinton's work in establishing an unaccountable federal police state is merely prologue to Obama's extension of the creeping growth of that same apparatus. This isn't really anything new, and it's been growing steadily since the Constitution was enacted. It's beginning to take its final form these days.
Now that the Totally Illegitimate Government Schools have "socialized" the American public, Eric Holder has gone full-bore Soviet by making the former rulers look bad. Pretty soon the previous administrations will grab their ill-gotten gain and settle down as expatriates in some tax-haven. The Caribbean, Monaco, or Switzerland will become American elitist party spots.
Really,the delusional Mr.Ed. the ultimate malcontent of the Chronicles Blog! Irrational hatred for Bush and Cheney even if they were exponentially better than ANY Democrat administration of the last 50 years. Their alleged encroachment on your civil liberties is nothing but your own delusion. But you just love being unhappy with any administration up until now because they offend your utopian sensibilities. But Obama, on the other hand, is magnificent! Isn't that your thesis, Mr. ED? Watching him end these unjust imperialist wars, bringing about the green economy with no countries and equality for all, abolishing hatred, crime and disease. On top of it he is so intelligent and so cool. How can you just not love the guy! So cool he won't even bother to prosecute the previous administration. I love that rationalization.
"Really,the delusional Mr.Ed. the ultimate malcontent of the Chronicles Blog! Irrational hatred for Bush and Cheney even if they were exponentially better than ANY Democrat administration of the last 50 years. Their alleged encroachment on your civil liberties is nothing but your own delusion."
So, Bush and Cheney were better than any democrat administration of the past 50 years? You mean they aren't democrats? How can you tell? Bush is a slightly dimwitted version of Clinton, and Cheney did a great imitation of LBJ, if one can imagine LBJ on LSD.
I don't like being the one to clue you in, but wanting to see Bush and Cheney tried for treason and war crimes doesn't mean I don't also want Obama removed from office on the grounds that he isn't even a citizen of the US.
You don't know anything about me. I'll bet you just stumbled onto this site today. Wander back to FR and pick up your pompoms. You'll never be able to hold your own here.
Mr. Roberts, I second everything you have posted on this thread.
"Certainly the Bush White House’s post-9/11 strategy for preventing additional murders of innocent Americans qualifies as the oddest of all provocations for a political war of victors against vanquished. If the attorney general indeed goes to war with the Bush White House, the most generous and reasonable response one could make is, “General Holder—you must have lost your mind.”
Gee, I didn't know the Bush II White House was so popular, I mean outside of Dallas County that is.
You want division Mr. Murchinson, how about Texans once again steal from the taxpayers to finance unecessary wars the rest of country's sons (and now daughters) have to fight in. At least in this case it's bipartisan. Lyndon Johnson, meet George Bush II (if you haven't already).
Good points, Mr. Scallion. Our former president and his entire regime should be in the dock facing charges of treason, conspiracy to violate entire sections of the federal registry of government felony law, and a laundry list of war crimes and corruption charges.
Before the FReepers show up with their chubby little knees jerking uncontrollably, I'll also state that Clinton and Obama are eligible for arrest on similar charges as well.
Mr. Murchison's article is based on the assumption that conservatives are, by definition, GOP stalwarts to a man, and that it's an irrefutable fact that GOP solidarity trumps morality.
I'm glad to see other conservatives besides me contributing their views to this thread.
Thank you for compliments Mr. Roberts. I don't want to smear all Texans know Ron Paul, Kinky Friedman, Fred Reed, Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings are all from the Lone Star State. But I do have a problem with messrs. Gramm and DeLay and the Bush family and the Hunts and others within the power structure of Texas clearly benefitting from being on the Federal Government tit and then turning around and saying "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiatble." At least Lyndon Johnson or Jim Wright or Wright Patman or Ralph Yarbourough or even John Connally never talked like that, nor did Lloyd Bentsen, the proper Tory that he was. You can't build a political movement dedicated to decentralism while trying to rip-off everyone else at the same time. Texans and all South Republicans, conservatives and the like would do well to choose their destiny: Tories protecting the fruits of the New Deal and the Great Society or Libertarian confederates like Paul or Dick Armey. You cannot be both, and if you don't believe me the wrecked careers of the Bushes and the Gramms and DeLays should tell you why.
To posit that previous administrations did great wrong is not necessarily to find it worth the harrowing experience of prosecuting them. Just as condemnation of one set of wrongdoers does not in any way imply endorsement of another set of wrongdoers. Criticism of Bush is not implicit praise of Obama or Clinton. One would not think this to be difficult to grasp. Condemnation of Stalin is not praise of Hitler. To bury Reagan is not to praise Carter. Etc. There is another matter where I am perhaps the thick one: how does the information on my library card in the hands of various federal agencies prevent a recrudescence of terrorism? Could I not with equal intellectual merit say that is my paternal fecindity that has prevented a repeat of 9-11? All my children have been born since that date, and America has been "safe.". (Except from criminals, economic decay and all other non-terrorist factors). As was pointed out above, one cannot prove a negative.
I understand your statement, Mr. Scallion. What's really funny to me is that W is referred to as a Texan. W is a Yankee, descended from an unbroken line of Yankees. He was even born in Connecticut and spent most of his life in Maine and Massachussetts, despite his daddy's claims of Texas residence for the family. W's silly pretend Texas accent is so obviously phony that I can't see how anyone could mistake him for a Texan.
I lived in East Texas for awhile and was told by natives there that anyone from another state was considered a Yankee until he made Texas his home culture and transferred his allegiance to the Lone Star, forsaking all other ties. It was amusing to me, a Sandlapper descended from Original Sandlappers and having 7 great-great Grandfathers who served in the ANV, to be called a Yankee.
There are, of course, scalawag Texans like LBJ and Rick Perry who are Yankees at heart. That sort is in league with the carpetbagging faux-texans such as the Booshes. I consider Texans my fellow Southerners, though I don't qualify for Texas citizenship myself.
Very well put, Mr. Bass. I enjoyed reading your comments.