Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Sacrificing For Junior

by digby

If I didn’t know better, I’d have to think that Bush is trying to tank John McCain’s campaign before it even gets started. First he adopts the wildly unpopular McCain Doctrine of escalation and now he’s going to use McCain’s favorite empty stump line to try to sell it:

The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush’s Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.

Its central theme will be sacrifice.

St. John loooves to talk about sacrifice. Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. He’s been saying stuff like this for years:

The costs of this war have been high, especially for the over 2000 Americans, and their families, who have paid the ultimate price. But liberating Iraq was in our strategic and moral interests, and we must honor their sacrifice by seeing this mission through to victory.

and this:

We all have an obligation to play our part in defending our ideals. Not all of us will be soldiers. Not all of us will find the courage to race into the burning tower as others flee. But God grants us all the privilege of having our character and patriotism tested. All of us have the duty and occasion to sacrifice something of ourselves so that the civilization we are so blessed to be a part of, that so many have sacrificed so much for, will prevail against all challenges and threats, and endure long beyond our brief time on this earth…The sacrifices entailed in our defense will not be borne equally. They never are. But we all have a moral obligation to do what we can to ensure our country remains worthy of the greater sacrifices that will be made by others.

and this:

War means sacrifice, and this war is no different. As our brave soldiers battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, they leave their families behind, risking their lives each day in our name. We ask them to fight for us, to imperil life and limb, to serve our nation with honor. Our fighting men and women endure great sacrifices for America, and so it is reasonable to ask what sacrifices other Americans are making.

The answer does not always satisfy. Our wars are national conflicts; we are all Americans and we are all in this together. But why then is it so easy for the rest of us – those who aren’t soldiers or their family members – to go about our lives as normal?

It is not for lack of opportunity to do otherwise. While our soldiers are fighting and dying, every American on the homefront can do something, however big or small, to support our national effort.

At this time of sacrifice it is more important than ever to join as fellow Americans in a national cause greater than the sum of our everyday routines.

It’s his mantra, and during the time when everyone felt they were doing their patriotic duty by flying as many flags on their cars as possible, it probably would have been inspirational. Sadly, that time passed some time ago, when Iraq was revealed as a strategic and moral cock-up of epic proportions. Now calls to sacrifice for this useless, meaningless meat-grinder are going to sound like somebody’s been sneaking into Laura’s prescription tranquilizers.

As much as I’m horrified to see Junior adopt the Mccain Doctrine of escalation, I’m very pleased to see him adopt his rhetoric of sacrifice. Everything Junior touches turns to garbage and he’s going to pull McCain into the rancid compost heap right along with him. I think it’s quite obvious that Americans have decided they’ve sacrificed quite enough for the honor of the neocon codpiece.

.

Most Overlooked ’06 Highlight

by digby

Atrios links to a thought provoking post at Whiskey Fire about the identity politics of the conservative movement which I recommend you read. I feel a new meme coming on.

It reminded me of one of the best moments of 2006 which I don’t think has been properly commemorated:

Ben Domenech Resigns

In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday.

An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately.

When we hired Domenech, we were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity.

Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times.

We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism.

It was a low point for the Washington Post and should have taught them one simple lesson: don’t ever listen to Hugh Hewitt. Hiring a callow wingnut as the counterpoint to the awesome Dan Froomkin was a bad idea in the first place and publishing crap like this is even more embarrassing today than it was then:

Since the election of 1992, the extreme political left has fought a losing battle. Their views on the economy, marriage, abortion, guns, the death penalty, health care, welfare, taxes, and a dozen other major domestic policy issues have been exposed as unpopular, unmarketable and unquestioned losers at the ballot box.

Democrats who have won major elections since 1992 have, with very few exceptions, been the ones who distanced themselves from the shrieking denizens of their increasingly extreme base, soft-pedaled their positions on divisive issues and adopted the rhetoric and positions of the right — pro-free market, pro-business, pro-faith, tough on crime and strongly in favor of family values.

Yet even in a climate where Republicans hold command of every branch of government, and advocate views shared by a majority of voters, the mainstream media continues to treat red state Americans as pachyderms in the mist – an alien and off-kilter group of suburbanite churchgoers about which little is known, and whose natural habitat is a discomforting place for even the most hardened reporter from the New York Times.

Yeah, he was a brilliant political observer. Prescient too. How sad that the Washington Post’s readers have missed out on further trenchant analysis like that.

And now Red State, the home of the little Domenech, has gone the whole way and signed up for Wingnut Welfare. How predictable.

.

Shaken Not Stirred

by digby

I can’t believe I didn’t think of this.

There are a bunch of really good year-end round-ups out there and Crooks and Liars made a handy year-end list of them. I particularly liked Dahlia Lithwick’s 10 most Outrageous Civil Liberties Violations.

But the best year-end list, hands down, goes to Brilliant At Breakfast for her Brilliant 20 of 2006.

.

Bush’s Law: if it’s possible to make things worse, he will.

by digby

When I wrote about the Saddam execution the other day, I said I was struck by how much it reminded me of other disgusting snuff videos that had circulated earlier in the war. I had not, at that time, seen the worst of it. The underground video of his actual hanging, allegedly taken without permission, is everywhere now and its implications are devastating:

At the funeral in Al Auja and across the Arab world, Hussein’s fellow Sunni Muslims expressed outrage at his chaotic final moments, revealed in grainy footage circulated widely on the Internet and on television showing his execution at dawn Saturday in Baghdad.

The video, which appears to have been recorded with a cellphone, showed onlookers taunting Hussein with chants of “Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!” a reference to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr, whose Al Mahdi militia is accused of hunting down Sunni Arabs and killing them. As the trapdoor snapped open beneath Hussein, some in attendance cheered, “The tyrant has fallen!”

The shocking spectacle appeared to deepen the deadly sectarian divide between Sunnis and the Shiite majority that now leads Iraq’s government.

“Today they proved themselves that the trial and the execution were mere retaliation and not justice,” said a mourner from Tikrit, near Al Auja, who gave his name only as Abu Mohammed, a customary nickname. “It is clear now against whom we should retaliate.”

As the images ricocheted across the Arab world, they drew angry comment in newspapers, on television and on Internet blogs in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and other heavily Sunni Muslim countries that are allies of the United States.

In an interview on CNN, Hisham Melhem, the pro-American spokesman for the Arabic satellite news station Al Arabiya, called the execution a total disaster and described the future for Iraq as “descending into a black hole.”

Saddam Hussein is the the man I would have thought was least likely to be turned into a martyr, but damned if they didn’t manage to do it. Bush’s Law. And here’s the great thing about it — the US, which claims rather unconvincingly that it had no say in this because Iraq is a sovereign country, gets blamed for this right along with the Shi’a government and Moqtada al Sadr. Terrific. Lose, lose for us — as usual. Heckuva job, Bushie.

But then, as Glenn Greenwald points out, the Maliki government is really just emulating their US mentors as they do not let obstuctions like the rule of law stand in their way when they wish to do something; they just seek a “workaround.”

That is a sublime phrase — “legal workarounds”. Our polite media here at home refers to deliberate and knowing government lawbreaking as “bypassing” the law, or sometimes they will even pretend that the law being violated just does not exist. But “workaround” is a nice phrase, too.

The article details the “frantic quest” by the Iraqi government to concoct legal contrivances — any at all — to “justify” the immediate hanging despite the court’s order. They finally compiled enough pretty, signed “decrees” to secure the Bush administration’s approval to carry out the hanging. But the rush to snap Saddam’s neck did not allow enough time for all laws to be “workedaround.” Some laws standing in the way of the hanging had to be deliberately disregarded:

Mr. Maliki had one major obstacle: the Hussein-era law proscribing executions during the Id holiday. This remained unresolved until late Friday, the Iraqi official said. He said he attended a late-night dinner at the prime minister’s office at which American officers and Mr. Maliki’s officials debated the issue.

One participant described the meeting this way: “The Iraqis seemed quite frustrated, saying, ‘Who is going to execute him, anyway, you or us?’ The Americans replied by saying that obviously, it was the Iraqis who would carry out the hanging. So the Iraqis said, ‘This is our problem and we will handle the consequences. If there is any damage done, it is we who will be damaged, not you.’ ”

Or, put another way, the Iraqi Government — revealingly “frustrated” by the need to pretend to operate within the law — knew that hanging Saddam in this manner was illegal, but they did it anyway because they know there will be no consequences. No wonder the President praised their adherence to “due process” and the “rule of law” — the President’s followers and the Shiite militias ruling Iraq appear to share a similar understanding of those terms.

That Iraqi government sure was made in Dick Cheney’s image, wasn’t it?

What a horrible, stupid cock-up on top of all the other horrible stupid cock-ups. The United States simply cannot do anything right in Iraq. Nada.

There remains one question that is probably quite important: what was the rush?

None of the Iraqi officials were able to explain why Mr. Maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait. Nor would any explain why those who conducted it had allowed it to deteriorate into a sectarian free-for-all that had the effect, on the video recordings, of making Mr. Hussein, a mass murderer, appear dignified and restrained, and his executioners, representing Shiites who were his principal victims, seem like bullying street thugs.

But the explanation may have lain in something that Bassam al-Husseini, a Maliki aide closely involved in arrangements for the hanging, said to the BBC later. Mr. Husseini, who has American citizenship, described the hanging as “an Id gift to the Iraqi people.”

I dunno. They woke up ministers at 1:30 in the morning to rush to the hanging. Seeing as a Sadr Army death squad carried out the executution, one might think they had an interest in making this as provocative as possible. And perhaps Maliki had personal reason for wanting to offer this “gift” to certain Iraqis — a gift that would ensure his own continued power. From Juan Cole’s must read article in Salon:

By the time of Saddam’s trial, sectarian strife was widespread, and the trial simply made it worse. It was not just the inherent bias of a judicial system dominated by his political enemies. Even the crimes for which he was tried were a source of ethnic friction. Saddam Hussein had had many Sunni Arabs killed, and a trial on such a charge could have been politically savvy. Instead, he was accused of the execution of scores of Shiites in Dujail in 1982. This Shiite town had been a hotbed of activism by the Shiite fundamentalist Dawa (Islamic Call) Party, which was founded in the late 1950s and modeled on the Communist Party. In the wake of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic Revolution in neighboring Iran, Saddam conceived a profound fear of Dawa and similar parties, banning them and making membership a capital crime. Young Dawa leaders such as al-Maliki fled to Tehran, Iran, or Damascus, Syria.

When Saddam visited Dujail, Dawa agents attempted to assassinate him. In turn, he wrought a terrible revenge on the town’s young men. Current Prime Minister al-Maliki is the leader of the Dawa Party and served for years in exile in its Damascus bureau. For a Dawa-led government to try Saddam, especially for this crackdown on a Dawa stronghold, makes it look to Sunni Arabs more like a sectarian reprisal than a dispassionate trial for crimes against humanity.

Perhaps it was. It looks to me as if the “government” of Iraq has finally been exposed as a simple factional tool of the Shi’a. Good to know. Too bad for us that we are backing such a government since it gives the vast majority of Muslims around the world another reason to hate our guts.

In case anyone’s wondering what the implications of the US taking sides might be:

To the Muslims in the light green portion of the map we seem to be siding with the Muslims in the dark green portion — while at the same time making them hate us too. Excellent plan. Winning those hearts and minds one snuff film at a time.

Update: Perhaps the Americans laid out as part of a deal. Bumbling fools who are in over their heads often have no idea when they are being played.

Update II: Leave it to an atheist to see the glaring religious symbolism:

You know, foreign occupying power, powerful religious group agitating for the execution of a hated, charismatic competitor, promises of who will bear the guilt for the deed, metaphorical washing of the hands…jebus, if I know what a counterproductive PR disaster that was for the Pharisees and the Romans, what’s the matter with the American leadership in Iraq? Don’t they read the bibles they thump? Add to that that they’ve apparently done the execution at a time when it is “religiously unacceptable”, and we’ve got a situation that makes Pontius Pilate look good.

.

Professional Courtesy: Pardoning The Pardoner

by poputonian

Richard Ben-Veniste wrote in Thursday’s Washington Post:

At bottom, the decision to pardon Nixon was a political judgment properly within the bounds of Ford’s constitutional authority. The specter of a former president in the criminal dock as our country moved into its bicentennial year was profoundly disturbing. I believe Jerry Ford acted in accord with what he sincerely felt were the best interests of the country; that there was no secret quid pro quo with Nixon for a pardon in return for resignation; and that Ford, a compassionate man, was moved by the palpable suffering of a man who had lost so much.

Oh, puke. Instead of recognizing the damage done to the country, or to the lingering political disease wrought by Ford’s pardon, Ben-Veniste draws it back to the “palpable suffering” of Richard Nixon. I guess we know for sure that Ben-Veniste’s basic affinity lies not with the people, but with the Washington establishment where one of its own had ‘suffered palpably.’

How about this for a New Year’s resolution?

Unhappy New Year

by digby

For someone as old and decrepit as I am, New Year’s Eve isn’t quite the thrill it used to be. And frankly it was a dud as often as not even when I wasn’t old and decrepit. Nowadays I tend to stay home and watch movies (since everything on television is unwatchable on this night for some reason) and I really don’t like crowds anymore.

(I might have just the tiniest skosh of champagne in a gorgeous glass. Here’s to you, Judy!)

If you have any regrets about not attending some fab event tonight, I recommend watching these classic movies — which feature two very, very bad New Year’s parties.

and this one:

I’ve had some extremely disappointing New Year’s eves in my life but nothing like those.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Update: My commenters (including the director of the fine film Red State) reminds me that The Twilight ZZone marathon is on the Sci-fi channel — definitely heads and shoulders above the usual New Years Eve fare. If you don’t have Sci-fi channel you can watch New Years Rockin’ Eve which is kind of like The Twilight Zone only not clever or interesting.

.

More Civility

by digby

I had read about this nonsense before, but the whole story hadn’t emerged. This is dipshit America in a nutshell:

KATY, Texas (AP) — A man unhappy with an Islamic association’s plans to build a mosque next to his property has staged pig races as a protest during afternoon prayers.

Craig Baker, 46, sold merchandise and grilled sausages Friday for about 100 people who showed up in heavy rain. He insisted he wasn’t trying to offend anyone with the pigs, which are forbidden from the Muslim diet.

“I am just defending my rights and my property,” Baker said. “They totally disrespected me and my family.”

Muslims don’t hate pigs, they just don’t eat them, said engineer Kamel Fotouh, president of the 500-member Katy Islamic Association in this Houston suburb.

“I don’t care if he races, roasts or slaughters pigs,” said Yousef Allam, a spokesman for the group.

The dispute began when the association asked Baker to remove his cattle from its newly bought land. The association plans to build a mosque, community center, athletic facilities and a school.

Baker agreed to move his cattle but thought the Muslims also wanted him off the land his family has lived on for more than 100 years.

Earlier this month, Baker conceded that the Muslims probably aren’t after his land, but he said he had to go through with the pig races because “I would be like a total idiot if I didn’t. I’d be the laughingstock now because I’ve gone too far.”

All the same, Baker plans to continue the weekly pig races until interest dwindles.

The association never meant to imply it wanted Baker to move, Allam said.

“If we somehow communicated that to him, then we apologize,” he said.

Resident Susan Canavespe said the pig racing wasn’t mean-spirited — “It’s just Texas-spirited.”

Texas-stupid.

Good thing we’re exporting our superior civilization and culture all over the world, huh? I can’t imagine why they aren’t more grateful.

Update: Speaking of pigs, a reader reminds me of this earlier embarrassment:

“I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig,” Bush said at a news conference earlier in the day punctuated with questions about spreading violence in the Middle East and an intensifying standoff with Iran about nuclear power.

The president’s host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, started a serious ball rolling at this news conference in the 13th-century town hall on the cobblestone square of Stralsund. But Bush seemed more focused on “the feast” promised later.

“Thanks for having me,” Bush told the chancellor. “I’m looking forward to that pig tonight.”

[…]

“Apart from the pig, Mr. President, what sort of insights have you been able to gain as regards East Germany?” a German reporter asked.

“I haven’t seen the pig yet,” Bush said, sidestepping the question about insights gained from his two-day visit to this rural seaside region that once rested behind the Iron Curtain.

And when an American reporter asked whether Bush is concerned about the Israeli bombing of the Beirut airport and about Iran’s failure to respond to an offer for negotiations, Bush replied with more boar jokes before delving into the substance of the questions.

“I thought you were going to ask about the pig,” said the president. “I’ll tell you about the pig tomorrow.”

.

Courtesy

by digby

It was interesting listening to Dick Cheney pay tribute to Gerald Ford for his civility yesterday at the memorial service. He said “he answered courtesy with courtesy and discourtesy with courtesy.”

As I’m sure you’ve all noticed, Republicans are talking about civility almost non-stop these days and so is the media. Everyone agrees that now that the Democrats won it’s time to bind the nation’s wounds once again and move into the future without dwelling on past unpleasantness. The Dems need to learn some of that Ford Administration courtesy:

On Tuesday, Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session. A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney’s ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush’s judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice.

“Fuck yourself,” said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

Leahy’s spokesman, David Carle, yesterday confirmed the brief but fierce exchange. “The vice president seemed to be taking personally the criticism that Senator Leahy and others have leveled against Halliburton’s sole-source contracts in Iraq,” Carle said.

As it happens, the exchange occurred on the same day the Senate passed legislation described as the “Defense of Decency Act” by 99 to 1.

Cheney’s office did not deny that the phrase was uttered. His spokesman, Kevin S. Kellems, would say only that this language is not typical of the vice presidential vocabulary. “Reserving the right to revise and extend my remarks, that doesn’t sound like language the vice president would use,” Kellems said, “but there was a frank exchange of views.”

Gleeful Democrats pointed out that the White House has not always been so forgiving of obscenity. In December, Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry was quoted using the same word in describing Bush’s Iraq policy as botched. The president’s chief of staff reacted with indignation.

“That’s beneath John Kerry,” Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said. “I’m very disappointed that he would use that kind of language. I’m hoping that he’s apologizing at least to himself, because that’s not the John Kerry that I know.”

[…]

Tuesday’s exchange began when Leahy crossed the aisle at the photo session and joked to Cheney about being on the Republican side, according to Carle. Then Cheney, according to Carle, “lashed into” Leahy for remarks he made Monday criticizing Iraq contracts won without competitive bidding by Halliburton, Cheney’s former employer.

[…]

Republicans did their best to defend the vice president. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), while pointing out that he was unaware of the incident, described Cheney as “very honest” and said: “I don’t blame anyone for standing up for his integrity.”

As Cheney said of Ford, “there are worse things to be remembered for than your capacity to forgive,” which is really moving coming from an honest, courteous, man of integrity like him. Surely we can do no less than Ford did and give a blanket pardon to the Republicans for their truly egregious, illegal behavior once again. Isn’t that how it works?

BTW: Did anyone notice that Junior apparently can’t bring himself to cut short his vacation to attend these various state funeral ceremonies? He’ll roll back into town on Tuesday for the big one. He’s tired. He spent three whole hours talking with his advisors about Iraq.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Crossover Dreams: Borderline Cinema

By Dennis Hartley

The spirit of Sam Peckinpah lives on (sans slo-mo) in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. First-time director Tommy Lee Jones casts himself as a contemporary Texas cowboy named Pete who befriends a Mexican “vaquero” (the namesake of the movie’s title). Estrada is an illegal looking for steady work and a brighter future here in the land o’plenty. Jones utilizes flashbacks to illustrate the growing kinship between the two compadres, who bond in the usual “cowboy way”-drinkin’ and whorin’, sleeping under the stars, and reaching a general consensus that A Cowboy’s Life Is The Life For Me (as a great man once sang.) In the key vignette, Estrada confides that, if “something” should ever happen to him, he wishes to be buried in his home town. In half-drunken sentiment, Pete vows to see it through if the unthinkable happens. Guess what happens next?

When Estrada is mysteriously killed, Pete becomes incensed by the indifference of the local authorities, who seem reluctant to investigate. When he learns through the grapevine that his friend was the victim of negligent homicide, thanks to a boneheaded border patrol officer (Barry Pepper), he goes ballistic. He abducts the officer, forces him to dig up the hastily buried Estrada, and informs him that the three amigos are taking a little horseback trip to Mexico (and it ain’t gonna be anything like Weekend at Bernie’s).

Much unpleasantness ensues as the story evolves into a “man on a mission to fulfill an oath” tale…on the surface. Despite the simplistic setup, astute viewers will begin to realize that there is a deeper, mythic subtext; this is one of those films that can really sneak up on you. Although my initial reaction was more visceral than philosophical (I didn’t find any of the characters particularly likeable, it started to feel overlong, and I was repulsed by some of the more graphic scenes) I eventually realized that I had just been taken on an Orphic journey, and it suddenly all made sense. The film gives you hope that, despite the rampant cynicism that abounds in this world, there is something to be said for holding true to a personal code that covets friendship, loyalty and a deep sense of honor.

In today’s climate of post 9/11 paranoia, and self-appointed “minutemen” who “guard” our borders, it’s a damn shame more Americans haven’t seen the 1983 “American Playhouse” drama El Norte, which is only available on Australian PAL DVD (Wha?!). Gregory Nava’s highly effective portrait of two Guatemalan siblings wending their way to the U.S. after their activist father is killed by a government death squad will stay with you long after credits roll. The two leads give naturalistic, completely believable performances as the brother and sister whose desperate optimism never falters, despite fate and circumstance thwarting them at every turn. Claustrophobic viewers be warned: a harrowing scene featuring an encounter with a roving rat colony during an underground border crossing though an abandoned sewer will give you nightmares. And don’t expect a Hollywood ending-this is tough going but thoroughly enlightening. Worth tracking down.

It’s a Lou Dobbs film festival! Try these: Maria Full of Grace, The Border, Lone Star, Touch of Evil, Border Incident.

On the lighter side: Born In East L.A.

Also…

R.I.P. Peter Boyle

According to the perfunctory news obits that aired recently, one might get the impression that the only claims to fame for the late Peter Boyle were his roles in Young Frankenstein, Taxi Driver and on TV’s Everybody Loves Raymond. He may not have been a big marquee name, and may have made a few ill-advised career moves (Where the Buffalo Roam comes to mind) but he was a dependable character actor who always left an indelible impression. Here is some of the Boyle legacy worth revisiting:

Joe-Although the socio-political rhetoric in this 1970 sleeper hasn’t dated so well, this was the starring role that first put Boyle on the map.

The Candidate-Boyle is in top form here as Robert Redford’s savvy political campaign advisor. Boyle delivers a number of wonderfully droll asides with perfect timing.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle (TV only)-A tough, realistic 1973 noir that cries out for a DVD release. Robert Mitchum stars, but Boyle excels as a two-faced, low-rent hit man.

Death and the Compass-This obscure crime thriller (set in a dystopian future) from director Alex Cox is a hit-and-miss affair, but Boyle’s intriguing character fascinates.

The X-Files – The Complete Third Season (Slim Set)-Worth renting just to watch the episode “Clyde Bruckman’s Final Repose”, a fan favorite that spotlights a memorable Boyle performance.

-DH

.

More Fun With Herblock

by poputonian

We posted this a year ago and I thought anyone who missed it might enjoy the not-so-instant replay. I wrote it in response to some smartass on another blog who claimed that Bush wasn’t the first prezninent to claim the right of extra-legal power in order to wiretap the citizens.

You are absolutely right to point out that Bush is not the first president to use the wiretap illegally. At least one past president confronted matters of grave national security by shifting the legal locus of control to his own domain. He understood how secret spy programs were necessary to preserve this great nation of his. He believed that citizens would willfully surrender their liberties to him, and he knew the threat constituted by a hostile media, and he knew what to do about it. He also understood how to make a nation of bedwetters feel more secure. But his theory died when an activist judge ruled against the argument of executive privilege, a ruling which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. By then, what might be called ‘harangue fatigue’ was creeping into the American living room and, frankly, people were sensing that they had reached their limit.

All of which now necessitates an illusory extra-legal theory in regard to what the founders really meant when they designed our system of government. Let’s call it — ‘The Separation of Powers, Except‘ — clause to the Constitution. Naturally, it would tip off the enemy if this extra-legal power was stated directly in the Constitution, so what the founders did was they cloaked it in mysterious ambiguity so only a future right-wing ideologue could detect its presence. But make no doubt about it, as a previous Chief Executive had ascertained, a very close reading of the Constitution shows the founders’ original intent, and it was as plain as the ski-nose on his face. It really does give the president extra-legal power, in spite of what the courts ruled.