It's time to get angry again.
Terry Gross interviewed Jane Mayer on her show this past Wednesday. Jane Mayer wrote a piece in the July 3rd edition of The New Yorker on David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief of staff (link to original article now dead; here is a link to an archived copy, and here is an archived copy from The New Yorker site) - and the legal mind behind much of the undermining and outright violation of the Constitution, from illegal detentions to redefining the powers of the President to be essentially without limits, that is being done by the Bush administration.
If you don't know who David Addington is, you need to find out. If, like me, you automatically think of Bruce Willis's character from the TV show Moonlighting [Cybill Shepherd, yumm] every time you hear that name, you really need to find out.
David Addington. Jack Abramoff. Tom DeLay. Karl Rove. Grover Norquist. Dick Cheney. George W. Bush. All hell-bent on destroying America to further their own twisted ideologies and maximize their personal returns. All reasons that everyone who voted for the Bush/Cheney ticket should hang their heads in shame. All reasons that the Office of the Independent Counsel needs to be reinstated.
History will note that we impeached a President for lying about a blowjob, yet we allowed this gang to stand almost completely unchallenged. Why?
Get angry. Do something about it.
Posts
Daryl Sznyter
5 years ago
5 comments:
Yeah, the presidency is without limits now. Just the other day, the presidential guard kicked in the door of the opposition radio station, shut it down and imprisoned its members, killed 65 illegal immigrants and put the bodies on the back of a truck and drove them through the city, and asked the opposition party, "where is your army?" when they complained about election fraud.
Oh wait. That happened in Gabon in 1993-94, not the U.S. But it's fun to imagine there's some kind of tyranny going on here in the U.S., isn't it?
Bill @ IB
This country has 200 years of tradition and the vision of Jefferson, Franklin, and crew to hold onto. So, we're not quite yet Gabon. It will take a few more Coulters and Limbaughs to drag us to that level. Because, once you're a traitor (as certain conservatives are fond of calling liberals), you're an enemy, less than human, and you can be treated inhumanely. But, of course, may be this is really a healthy trend for a democracy or a republic.
A good test of Right wing dismissiveness is to ask whether they would feel the same way if Clinton and Democrats were similarly secretive, setting up hidden prisons, pretending to not support torture, creating illegal tribunals, snooping anywhere they wished without any external monitoring, and trying to create unlimited and unchecked power in the White House. Short answer: their heads would explode. (In defense of conservatives, many of them are uncomfortable with Cheney and Bush.)
Still, if you're not already mad about it, it is kind of hard to believe you'd get mad now.
Happy post-July 4th and we'll all try to remember which truths are self-evident.
Super G
We're not even close to Gabon, Super G. Nor are we remotely close to tyranny.
Bill & IB
I don't have to be close to Gabon or tyranny to think we need to head further in those directions. (Bill, I will say that I'm sure you know about 10,000 times as much as I do about Africa however).
Super G
Bill, that's a classic Straw Man argument, one of the prime rhetorical fallacies. I say that David Addington is "the legal mind behind much of the undermining and outright violation of the Constitution, from illegal detentions to redefining the powers of the President to be essentially without limits, that is being done by the Bush administration", and you respond that our Presidential abuse of power is nowhere near as bad as in Gabon. Proving nothing other than the fact that we're still doing better than Gabon, and totally failing to address the issue of David Addington's legal positions.
And while you seem to be making a great deal out of denying any claims that we are living in a tyranny, a quick review will indicate that you are the only one who has brought up that term. You're counter-arguing against arguments that haven't been made.
Might I suggest that we all settle in and read the linked article, which runs to 15 printed pages, and listen to the linked interview?
Post a Comment