Steve’s Rant: Gonzalez Needs To Go
March 29th, 2007 | by steve |March 29th, 4:30pm… Steve, the perennial Republican supporter, says:
Gonzalez needs to go.
This whole thing is fucked. Firing people on ideological differences? Why? Because you can? One thing when the anti-Bush crowd says the whole administration is corrupt another when it actually is!!!
If Bush commanded this or if there is clear proof that Bush said this a la Watergate-tapes or something then… Congress needs to impeach him. There is no way. I think in the whole the guy isn’t as evil as Bring It On the media makes him out to be. But dude… c’mon? Firing someone over ideological differences is probably illegal in most situations outside, say, a church. But firing someone because they won’t play along with the big boys.
Look… I ain’t kidding… I’d be crazy to continue supporting someone if this thing goes down like it is going down. First remove Alberto and if this thing keeps going… becoming a Bush idea, then I got a problem. Evidence is probably being shredded as we speak and Gonzalez apparently does not use email. How can you be the Attorney General and not use email? My mother is 60 and she thankfully uses email instead of calling day in and day out. In my little life I get what… 40… 50 a day, all because of work. What does an attorney general get… what should he get? Think about that. Alberto not getting email? Yeah… right.
But what do I know…
45 Responses to “Steve’s Rant: Gonzalez Needs To Go”
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Steve, take a deep breath…let it out, repeat as needed.
The president can, is authorized by both statute and Constitution to, replace any US Attorney at any time for any reason except to impede justice. Newsflash: every one of those US Attorneys was hired for ideological reasons. If they fail to live up to their expected ideologies, they can be fired and replaced by one who will. Not only is it not a high crime, it is not a misdemeanor. Congress cannot impeach the President for replacing US Attorneys for ideological reasons that he hired for ideological reasons. Period. Full stop. End of sentence, paragraph, essay.
By steve on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Not a high crime but dude… if any of these people were let go for investigations on the President or by some form of retribution, which everyone seems to be “not talking about” from the Bush camp, don’t you think the system is a bit corrupt?
The whole thing smells like an abuse of power. Trust me, I usually err on the side of the President, this time I don’t. I don’t know why that is such a problem for you to grasp Craig.
By alec on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Alberto Gonzales doesn’t need email. He just gets direct mind-messages from Karl Rove deep within his troll cave.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Steve,
Removing a US Attorney who is (or is about to) investigate someone with the purpose of stopping the investigation would be (I would imagine) a crime: obstruction of justice. However, removing a US Attorney who had successfully prosecuted someone (say, “Duke” Cunningham) would not be a problem at all if that US Attorney had completed his or her four year term. All US Attorneys are, simply, by statute, “subject to removal by the President”. Period. After completing their term, the statute states, they continue to serve until replaced.
My point is, there is, as of yet, no evidence that any of these people were removed in order to obstruct justice and, so, there is no crime involved and so impeachment is out of the question. Perhaps further investigation will turn up evidence of crime BUT…the point of your post appears to be that if the President replaced any of these people for ideological reasons, he should be impeached and I’m saying that replacing a US Attorney for failing to live up to the President’s expectations, including ideological expectations, is no crime at all. US Attorneys are subject to removal by the President.
The only impeachable offenses are those termed high crimes or misdemeanors. Replacing US Attorneys for ideological reasons falls into neither of those categories. Unless someone proves an attempt at obstructing justice, there is no impeachable offense here. That the problem of grasping here and it’s not my problem…it’s yours.
By Ron on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Steve, unlike your other conservative brethren here, you have just grasped the distinction between unethical and illegal and have realized that they are equal in terms of their wrongness and unfitness in the highest offices of the land.
Craig is happy to let ‘em walk on a technicality. Hey, crooks do it every day if they have good lawyers.
Don’t even start typing anything about Clinton, cons. That dog will not hunt. This is your shitbag in the drivers seat now.
I’m not a praying man, but I am hoping for your eventual conversion to sanity. I too was taken in by these hucksters not long ago.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Ron,
Sorry but the Constitution says nothing about ethics. It cites “high crimes” and “misdemeanors” both terms refer to crimes, not ethics. You simply cannot impeach the President because you think him unethical. You must prove crime.
I am not happy about any of this, Ron. I am pissed off as hell. The whole thing has been mishandled from day one.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
And yes, Ron, crooks walk every day on technicalities if they have good lawyers. That’s because in our system of law, it is up to the state to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and must do so without infringing the accused’s constitutional rights and in accordance with law. If the state fails to do that, even the guilty must go free. That’s to help assure that the innocent are not convicted. Even at that, it does not prevent all innocents from being convicted but without such “technicalities”, the state could tromp on everyone’s rights and almost no one could secure even the innocent from wrongful prosecution.
I’m no lawyer but if I were, I would be proud of my ability to get a crook off on a technicality, thus holding the state to its duty to prove guilt while preserving the rights of the accused. The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Thank God and the 14th Amendment for that.
By Ron on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
Craig, the author of the impeachment clause favored its use for maladministration, but Madison thought it gave too much power to Congress. Thanks alot, Madison. Perhaps an amendment might help keep the executive straight(er). Sure we might go through a few executives like shit through a goose, but think of it as a distilling of sorts.
You say you are pissed off. Fair enough; most cons are going around excusing this or going “what scandal?”. I would just rather you not see the specificity in the Constitution as the last line of defense against unethical behavior.
My biggest problem with conservatives is that they preserve the status quo whether it is any good or not. If the law is not responsive, why don’t we get along to changing it? It’s there for us, after all, not for the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.
I don’t need a civics lesson on the way things are; I just think certain things suck and they need fixing. I think that is when people like you and people like me stop communicating, when we don’t realize that we both know how it is. One of us would like to have it changed. The other one seems to be throwing his hands up.
By Ron on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
“I would just rather you not see the specificity in the Constitution as the last line of defense against unethical behavior.”
Amend that “against” to “for”.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
Ron,
I have no objection to changing the status quo. I was merely trying to clarify what is the status quo.
By Chris on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
I do not think that there is an impeachable offense here. I do believe that the public has a right to know what type of people are governing them and how and why the decisions are made.
By Ron on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
You may not, Craig, but I see you iterate the status quo more often than deplore it. Silence equals compliance.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
Well, Ron, I am a Conservative, after all. That can’t be a BIG surprise to you. However, usually what I’m doing is stating the status quo which is often in question. In other words, too often I see people around here misstating (at least as it appears to me) the state of the law and so, I see it as necessary to go into what is the state of the law. As, for example, this current controversy. Steve appeared to have been under the illusion that a President could be impeached for removing US Attorneys for ideological reasons. That is simply not the case. He can’t. Before we talk about what SHOULD be, we must be clear on what IS, no? And so I attempted to clarify that.
But, yes. I am a Conservative, even if a fairly independent and, in most issues, I think, a fairly centrist one. It is, therefore, to be expected that I would respect the status quo more often and to a greater degree than someone who is Liberal, even one who is fairly independent and, in most issues, fairly centrist.
As for Silence, I can’t help you. It is true that I don’t always chime in with my view on every issue. Some issues don’t interest me. Some days, I simply cannot muster the gumption to fight about some issues. Often, my only interest is to clarify what I view to be the issue and what the status quo is without taking a side. I think that is a valuable contribution, even if I don’t take a stand and debate one point of view or another.
I do think that I spend a lot of time arguing my point of view on issues. My POV is not always what one might expect from a self-asserted Conservative. Take for example several debates that I have had with SteveIL and, here with Steve.
Sometimes, I have a greater aversion to what is offered as suggested changes from the status quo more than I do to the status quo. In short, I am neither as activist nor as Progressive as you are, Ron. You ought not take that as anything but a compliment on my part to you. I am not ashamed of my positions or of my level of activism (or lack thereof) but I do admire many of the more activist and Progressive people who post and comment at BIO! I may not agree with you but that doesn’t stop me from admiring you.
By Ron on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
“As, for example, this current controversy. Steve appeared to have been under the illusion that a President could be impeached for removing US Attorneys for ideological reasons. That is simply not the case. He can’t. Before we talk about what SHOULD be, we must be clear on what IS, no? And so I attempted to clarify that.”
Yeah, I see what you are saying. But you understand why I could easily get the impression that by defining the status quo, you are defending it. I don’t understand anymore this tough-luck outlook that suggests that everything is the way it is and you need to deal whoever you are. I reject wholeheartedly a Thomas Sowell, for example, asserting that conservatives accept a tragic/realistic view of nature and liberals deny it, preferring their own world with its own rules. Conservatism by definition seems to me to be anti-progress, anti-change-and I think that anyone who looks at the march of history even in the most cursory manner has noted that mankind has changed things for the better over time, using his mind to come up with new ideas and integrate new realities. But the conservative does not seem to do this. They reject change, and are suspicious of newness. They defend the present even if the future is a better deal.
Conservatism is resistance to change, in its essence. And heaven knows how many evils have been upheld and prolonged because of it. Spare me the observations on the failures of collectivism in the last century. Orwell knew about authoritarians masquerading as progressives before the Cold War(today, they are known as neocons, by the way). But it doesn’t have to be that way. There can be good change without oppression.
That’s what I’m for.
By tammara on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
steve- i think you might be getting close to giving up the koolaid. that would be good. keep thinking.
i had a conversation with one of my sentators when i was in dc last. i reminded him again that i wanted him to stop funding the war- and that if he voted to pay for the war, he owns it.
he told me, if we don’t fund it, then bush will take the money from someplace else.
i told him, just because the president will definately do the wrong thing doesn’t give you any space to do the same.
many things are legal but not moral. i draw the line at moral. this incident is a moral issue. i don’t give a shit about the legal issue.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
Ron,
Sure. I understand how you would conclude that. Part of the problem, and it is my problem, is that I’m rarely sure what change to get behind. In this case, should the removal of US Attorney’s be made less a matter of Executive authority or is it a matter of tightening up oversight from Congress’s end? If it needs to be a change to the Executive’s near unfettered power of removal, will an amendment to the US Code take care of that or would such an amendment be unconstitutional, would an amendment to the Constitution be required. If a tightening of oversight on Congress’s part, how would that be best handled? These are questions, the answer to which I do not know. So then, I am at a loss as how to proceed.
The problem with progress, from a cautious Conservative’s point of view, is that not all progress leads to improvement. I think few Conservatives are so averse to change that they will stick with the status quo no matter how bad the status quo is. The difference between the Conservative and Liberal often comes down to two things:
(1) Conservatives prefer slower change to quicker change. We observe that change does not always result in improvement. Some change, while bringing improvement in some area, might bring about a worsening in other areas (the law of unintended consequences). And so they prefer to plenty of time being taken over change, thorough thinking through. We’d rather not jump from the fire into the frying pan.
(2) Conservatives prefer change in small steps to wholesale, sweeping change. Small steps can be more easily managed and errors more easily corrected than wholesale change.
(3) Conservatives prefer change through democratic means to change via judicial means. If change means bringing about a worsening of a situation, Conservatives prefer that (a) they be the one’s responsible for the damage and (b) be able to correct the damage. For this reason, Conservatives prefer states right solutions to federal solutions and electoral solutions to judicial solutions.
THREE things! The difference between the Conservative and Liberal often comes down to THREE things!
By Paul Jordan on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
steve, my old friend,
We do not always agree, but as a former staunch Bush supporter, I feel your pain dude. It is exactly this kinda stuff that elevated me to the lofty perch of BIO contributor.
Good luck with the whole Reaganitis bout impending…..
By steve on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
Hey… guys… Craig is right to a point and he is correct on his take on when these guys can be dismissed but… c’mon even if the President can legally let these people go, I am curious as to why and why all of them? If he lets one go, it’s ok and no one notices, but to let all or most of the staff go at one time, in a way that looks like a conspiracy? Hmm…
Remember Paul, Reagan is our greatest American. Don’t knock it!! I still am voting Republican next election because right now, I don’t see it on the left side.
By Paul Jordan on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
That’s what I love about you steve, self induced drug therapy leading to terminal hipocracy. Take another pill dude.
PS, Reagan was, not is… and I never see left, I am blind in that eye due to a stroke, I only see straight down the middle…
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
Steve,
We’re only talking about eight US Attorneys out of 93.
By 4Truth on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
Craig, we are talking about corruption. GWB fired 8 attorneys to cover up 1 or 2 that were after GWB friends. GWB accepts bribes, tries to fire the prosecutors and gets caught. GWB & AT Gonzazles can’t even get a good lie going. They try to say memory problems again. HOW PATHETIC.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 30, 2007 | Reply
4Truth,
Which two and what was the nature of their being “after” GWB friends?
By Paul Watson on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Craig,
You’re not going to make me bring out the Spanish Inquisition again, are you?
By Chris on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Reagan our great president?
The man who cut taxes on the rich while doubling taxes on the working people.
The man who set us up in a race to see who could go broke first - us or the soviet union.
The man who was resposible for taking a lot of the teeth out of the Sherman anti-trust law.
The man responsible for the breaking of unions.
I think not.
Craig
The only definition of an activist judge is one that voted against your opinion.
By Ron on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
“ I still am voting Republican next election because right now, I don’t see it on the left side. ”
If John Cole’s conversion is any measure, you’ll be voting Democrat this upcoming election.
By Ron on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
“In this case, should the removal of US Attorney’s be made less a matter of Executive authority or is it a matter of tightening up oversight from Congress’s end? If it needs to be a change to the Executive’s near unfettered power of removal, will an amendment to the US Code take care of that or would such an amendment be unconstitutional, would an amendment to the Constitution be required. If a tightening of oversight on Congress’s part, how would that be best handled? These are questions, the answer to which I do not know. So then, I am at a loss as how to proceed.”
As plebes, I’m in the same boat as you. These are lawyer questions. I’m not a lawyer. A change will come in the form of a multiplicity of compromises, as it has been and I suppose shall ever be. Instead of a big state/little state axis, it will occur on a progressive/conservative axis. One thing I am certain of is that I would like something to be done, instead of wondering what can be done?- and leaving the matter pat. What indeed would be the theoretical fire into which we would jump if there were oversight upon the dismissal of US attorneys? Why indeed is it a bad thing to keep the executive in close check, he being the furthest from the locus of power otherwise known as you and me? Questioning the scope of the executive is not all that radical, it’s been a bone of contention since 1787.
The executive seems to have deveoped a right to hide itself using separation of powers as an excuse. I’m sick of it; the executive theoretically springs from the first branch(and was appointed by the House in olden times). It is not an entity unto itself.
I don’t know, Craig. I’m just not a Hamiltonian. I’m not afraid of what some founders would have called “mob rule”. I think George Mason was right, this thing is collaspsing into a monarchy. I like the idea of representative democracy, I do not like the idea of an executive that does whatever it wants once in office. If we had more mob rule, or more Congressional power at least, maybe we could rid ourselves of the tendency of Americans to be woefully ignorant about politics, because they would be engaged and empowered.
Adressing your #3:that is not a conservative position, imho. I too prefer electoral means but if evil hides behind the letter of the law, then I can only hope our justices interpret wisely to ensure all Americans are permitted their inalienable rights. Sometimes we can’t fix something without an arbiter. Most of the big questions, namely minority and women’s rights, have been resolved and quite wisely by the modern judiciary, as far as I am concerned. I don’t see any more sea changes in the futures’ judiciary canon.
Progressives and “radicals” are the heirs to our heritage as rebels. You’d have been a Tory if you followed your three principles. I’d be a Whig.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Paul,
I wasn’t expecting that, no.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Chris,
Nope, not even close.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Ron,
There is and should be. I didn’t have this situation, specifically, in mind when I made the “from the frying pan into the fire” metaphor. I was speaking in the most general terms, overarching principles, as it were. The questions that I asked, the lawyers questions as you called them, are the main stumbling blocks in this current situation. I don’t know what course of action to take up because I don’t know what the law and Constitution allow.
No. The Judiciary is the farthest from you and me. Except for local judges, we don’t vote for the guy on the bench. Unless he commits a crime, he can’t be removed from power and he can only be removed from power via impeachment. He answers to no one, least of all you and me. This is why Conservatives prefer change via state legislators to judges. At least if the change proves to be a f*ck-up, it can be as easily changed by the same electorate as the change was created. When a judge f*cks up, there’s nothing to do but hope some other judge, either higher up the judicial chain corrects it or the same court corrects it later on.
However, I don’t think it is a bad thing to keep the executive in check. I keep repeating, I’m not objecting to the congressional oversight. However, the executive, in many respects, especially as they relate to foreign affairs and national security, must have a certain degree of opacity. In my opinion, great harm has been done by the many leaks that have appeared in the news. Our enemy reads the newspapers, pays attention to news broadcasts. It is a very bad idea to be telling him what we are doing to discover his identity and plans and stop him before he strikes again. Very bad. Congress, on the other hand, can’t sneeze without everyone knowing about it.
Yes, I agree. However, the Executive branch was designed to be strong and energetic, able to act quickly, secretly and effectively to protect the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. Where we probably differ most is in what each of us consider to be the proper scope of the Executive.
By tammara on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
our enemy is currently domestic, and cloaks himself in executive privelege. if our military was able to do its job, it would get rid of him as a threat to our nation.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Ah. A military coup being suggested here on BiO! I love it. What sort of government, Tammara, do you suppose the military, having ousted Bush, would put in his place? And what on earth could you do about it once it did?
By Ron on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
“The Judiciary is the farthest from you and me.”
This is fair. I’ll concede that. Hell, they’re not even beholden to their appointers, which is right and proper.
Let’s take another scenario and apply your conservatism. How does the democratization of the Middle East, effected by invasion and head of state removal, adhere in any way shape or form to conservative principles, and if they do not, why do you support them? Is it intelligent to exercise caution within our borders but expect others to endure upheaval with success?
By Ron on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
“However, I don’t think it is a bad thing to keep the executive in check. I keep repeating, I’m not objecting to the congressional oversight. However, the executive, in many respects, especially as they relate to foreign affairs and national security, must have a certain degree of opacity. In my opinion, great harm has been done by the many leaks that have appeared in the news. Our enemy reads the newspapers, pays attention to news broadcasts. It is a very bad idea to be telling him what we are doing to discover his identity and plans and stop him before he strikes again. Very bad.”
Craig, “national security” has been used as a pisspoor excuse to cover up malfeasance since Vietnam. This is a classic case of “those who do not remember history”, or those who are not reading it. You are falling for a ploy. Nixon did the EXACT same thing, with the illegal eavesdropping and all. I’ve been reading a book about the press by Tom Wicker who says that historically, the press has more often NOT printed things due to a national crisis and have more often than not caved to pressure when “national security” is uttered. He discussed the hand wringing that goes on in the editor’s room when these stories come to their desks. His point is that he believes when the press goes with a story, it does so with trepidation. So I think that when the press is going with these stories and the White House screams “national security!!!!” it is a tool of intimidation-and that is something we cannot have, enemy at the gates or not.
But, we are way off track now. National security is not an issue in the attorney matter and I think you and I both know Gonzo is caught in a lie and yes it is bad when you are caught packing the federal attorney pool with your toadies by firing people who won’t play ball. I mean, do you get a sick feeling in your stomach when they won’t even allow fucking transcripts of the testimonies? This may be Washington inside baseball but so be it, it’s probably just as odious as the packing of K Street. All of it has a deleterious effect on our democracy-what’s left of it, that is.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Ron,
That’s an interesting question. Of course, I would not favor just running around and replacing every thugocracy, militarily, and replacing it with a Democracy. The Iraq invasion was about a great many things, only one of which was democratization. That is really more about the Realism/Isolationism v. Idealism/Interventionism continuum than it is about Conservative v. Democrat. As you are no doubt aware, there are many Conservative Realists, as there are many Conservative Idealists.
It is possible, I will concede, that my Idealism is not wholly consistent with the three general principles that I listed earlier. But who ever accused human beings of being wholly consistent? After all, there are plenty of Social Conservatives, whose principles and actions would conflict altogether with those of Libertarian (Small Government) Conservatives. And then there are Compassionate Conservatives who seem to piss off just about everyone.
My support has less to do with democratization (although I would obviously prefer a democratic and representative government in Iraq to another thug whose sole redeeming quality is that he is OUR thug), than it does with removing a thug that had once been our thug. Hell, Bush I couldn’t even support an internal coup that he, himself, encouraged and had promised to support. Without our intervention, in one form or another, Saddam would have died in office, only to be replaced by Uday and/or Qusay (either, in my opinion, would have been, if anything, worse than Saddam).
I could, of course, simply say, “Well, our job is done…we’ve removed Saddam and killed his sons and leave Iraqis and Al Qaeda to sort out what comes next. I simply do not see doing that as being in anyone’s best interest in the long term.
I would have loved for regime change to have come from within, through a process of raising awareness of the blessings of democracies in some form or another. It simply wasn’t going to happen. Saddam was simply too paranoid and too Stalinist in his approach to maintaining a stranglehold on his power.
The short answer is, I acknowledge that I am not a garment without seams, as it were. My thinking, believing, and my conscience do not always pull in the same direction. This is not surprising. Human beings are not, as I said, known for their complete consistency, first of all and second, I described myself as a Conservative who is, in many issues, fairly centrist.
I’ve tried to get along with the crowd at “Blogs for Bush”. They won’t have me. I’m too independent and prone to think and say that, perhaps, Bush has made some colossal mistakes and that doesn’t go over well.
I like to think of it not as being inconsistent or confused but as, well, complex and willing to break with consistency when I find factors at play that override what consistency would dictate.
Probably that sounds like a cop out but it’s an honest attempt to answer honestly.
By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
Ah! that’s the quote I was searching for above:
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
As to your comment #34, Ron, I’ve read plenty and I don’t think Nixon and Bush II are in any way comparable but that’s for another discussion, as you say. However, surely you’ve read The Federalist and what they say about the need for speed, secrecy, and flexibility in the Executive. It is they that won the debates, they that set all Executive authority in a single person and for the very reason that, when it comes to things like foreign relations, treaty-making, and protecting the country, the very virtues that “Publius” recommended be ratified in our Constitution are the very things at which you are chaffing.
In any case, you are right. That’s a discussion for another post on another day.
By Ron on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
“The Iraq invasion was about a great many things, only one of which was democratization. That is really more about the Realism/Isolationism v. Idealism/Interventionism continuum than it is about Conservative v. Democrat. As you are no doubt aware, there are many Conservative Realists, as there are many Conservative Idealists. ”
The last of which was about democratization, which is what “liberals” have been trying to tell everyone since this began. How do you feel about the term “neocon” to describe the interventionist idealists? Why do everyday conservatives shy from the term as if there is no distinction? The duckling trail behind a Pat Buchanan type is not terribly long. It would seem to me as if the interventionists are taking conservatism to where it is going in terms of its importance and gravitas.
“Hell, Bush I couldn’t even support an internal coup that he, himself, encouraged and had promised to support.”
That’s because Bush is a double crossing asshole. Ask Sadd…oh, wait, you can’t.
I don’t think I’d be this friendly if you could get along with “Blogs For Bush”. God, talk about the pits of intellect. Jeff Gannon writes as well as Mark Noonan.
By Ron on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
“ It is they that won the debates, they that set all Executive authority in a single person and for the very reason that, when it comes to things like foreign relations, treaty-making, and protecting the country, the very virtues that “Publius” recommended be ratified in our Constitution are the very things at which you are chaffing.”
I know. After wearing the cover of my Federalist Papers thin, I’ve only begun to realize…I’ve been reading the wrong fucking book!
By Ron on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
So Craig, when George Bush’s NSA eavesdrops on antiwar activists, how is that all that different from Nixon?
I’m sorry, I really want to hear this.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
Ron,
I’m not sure what you mean about “last of which”. Democratization is right in there with the rest of the two dozen or so whereases in the Iraq AUMF. It clearly got less play than the whole WMD thing but it did get play before the war. It definitely was not an afterthought to cover for the fact that we found no WMD. But that may not be what you mean.
How do I feel about it? I have few, if any feelings about it at all. I think it is often misused. Properly, it applies to very few, though influential, people. Not everyone who supports this military intervention in Iraq is a neocon but that is often the way it is used. But that’s the way of populist political chatter: words lose their precision and the level of debate often suffers. It is often observed and commented that Liberal had, in the past, come to be almost a dirty word. Not literally, of course, but even Liberals would avoid the label “Liberal”. Finally, I think, Liberals are taking the term back with pride. I think, too, that, as things have soured in Iraq, the term neocon has taken on the same “dirty word” feel as Liberal used to have. As for me, although I use labels — it’s almost impossible to carry on political speech without labels — I don’t feel comfortable with any single label for the very reason that I explained above: I’m not altogether consistent. Anyway, since I don’t think I properly fit the term ‘neocon’, when people use it of me, I just ignore it.
That’s true, although the trail may get longer. As Iraq becomes more and more obviously a costly mistake to more and more people, the trail behind the interventionists may shorten considerably.
I think that’s clearly been the case since Bush II took over.
That made me laugh. I’m not even sure quite what you mean but I still found it funny.
Well, the difference, I think, is that Vietnamese never attacked America, blew up buildings using jet-liners full of Americans. Vietnamese were never any sort of domestic threat. Militant jihadists have been and may still be. Nixon never had a credible reason to be carrying on any kind of spying on people in this country (with the possible exception of the most radical and militant groups which are always a concern; witness Timothy McVeigh). While I do not approve of Bush’s executive officers spying on antiwar activists, Bush cannot afford not to be conducting such spying.
Sure, it may be that Al Qaeda is no longer interested in pulling off another 9/11 but we can’t afford to assume that. It was like a decade between the first, mostly failed bombing of the World Trade Center and the second. The absence of large-scale, organized, Al Qaeda sponsored attacks may mean many things: (a) that we’ve so weakened and harassed Al Qaeda that they’ve been unable to attack us again or (b) that they are merely making plans, preparing, gathering resources and people and intelligence for their next big attack. Which, we don’t know. What we do know is that they’ve promised further attacks. Whether that’s bravado or true, I don’t think we can afford to assume that it’s nothing more than bravado.
But even if Al Qaeda is now out of the “direct attack on the American homeland from within the country” gig, that doesn’t stop the various and sundry wannabes from trying to do what Al Qaeda did. We know this because we’ve read about them — I’m assuming that those reports aren’t just made up whole cloth, that there have actually been people who have planned to carry out terrorist attacks within the country.
The short answer, then, is: Bush II actually has a, to my mind credible, reason to be evesdropping on international calls involving phone numbers suspected of being connected with terrorists, for tracking and mining banking records, phone records, and other records. It should not be used to snoop on antiwar activists if there is no evidence that they have anything other than carrying plackards and shouting slogans outside the Pentagon but I do think that using such tactics and others that we may not know of yet, are both constitutionally proper exercises of Executive authority, and necessary.
Short answer: to the extent that they’ve been improperly spying on harmless protestors, there is no difference. The difference exists in that Bush II has a credible need to be doing what he’s been doing to the extent that those tactics have been used for bona fide anti-terrorist purposes. Nixon never had any such threat to justify his snooping.
By Ron on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
”Democratization is right in there with the rest of the two dozen or so whereases in the Iraq AUMF.”
Feh. If you didn’t look carefully you’d miss it. Almost all of the whereases were related to all of the bullshit charges against Saddam. Once the WMD quest went sour, democratization began being trumped up more as the reason for being in Iraq. I’m not saying it was never discussed prior to the invasion. The rationale became more prominent once the other reasons turned out to be bogus. The real reasons we invaded, of course, are not even in the AUMF.
“Not everyone who supports this military intervention in Iraq is a neocon but that is often the way it is used”
This may be true, but I also think that alot of people don’t know they have gone neocon. It’s not really as pejorative as one may think; if it walks like an idealist and quacks like an interventionist, it’s a neocon. Neo because it just isn’t really hewing to conservative dogma. They would have fit in quite well with Woodrow Wilson’s Democratic party. I think people who call themselves ”conservatives” are typically united by nationalism, traditionalism, and a good bit of exceptionalism-and they will excuse any action to defend those principles, be those actions conservative or not. They don’t care about conservatism as a philosophy or a set of principles per se. Their country is the greatest country on earth, their people the greatest on earth, their beliefs the best and damn those who try to prove otherwise. It all sounds great, but Kim Jong Il says the same thing to his people. We just don’t send people to reeducation camps if they do not agree.
”As Iraq becomes more and more obviously a costly mistake to more and more people, the trail behind the interventionists may shorten considerably.”
That’s already happening to some degree, but it isn’t stopping some of them from wondering if it’ll work in Iran, either. There is also a significant percentage of people who will dig in their heels the more the adventure spirals into failure- the Krauthammers, the Victor Davis Hansons, The Mark Steyns, the Ralph Peterses, and their readers-who really think our way of life and reputation is on the line-unmindful of the fact that we have already sacrificed both to attack Iraq for no discernable reason.
“That made me laugh. I’m not even sure quite what you mean but I still found it funny.”
I’m glad. I was hoping you’d catch the reference to it’s sister book from Mentor, the Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. Guess that’s the one I should be tearing up.
“Short answer: to the extent that they’ve been improperly spying on harmless protestors, there is no difference”
That’s all I was saying. You’d be surprised how many libs would approve of the surveillance if they had just not gone out of their way to circumvent the FISA court when there is simply no reason to do so. God, I don’t want to get into that shit again. Libs said “just do it right”. Stop hiding from oversight. I think a strong case can be made that the Bush White House cannot handle oversight. I think it’s time to wonder why. In the case of Gonzalez. In the case of Iraq intelligence. In the case of warrantless wiretapping. In the case of Gitmo. I’m sure I could go on. But the pattern is undeniable and I guess I just feel as the obviously smart person that you are, you should be asking questions instead of spending time outlining why there isnt anything we can do. Please don’t take that as me trying to tell you what to think, not that you’d allow me to do so anyway. I’d rather see such a perceptive person be out of the box more than reading the instructions on the side of it.
By Ron on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
“Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
Only if it is a foolish consistency.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
Ron,
I must say that our exchange on this thread has been among the most pleasurable I’ve had in a long time. You’ve been consistently courteous, respectful, intelligent and nuanced. I’d like to buy you a beer sometime.
It does seem as though we’ve reached a natural stopping point. I think we understand one another, respect one another, and like one another. That’s probably all any Conservative and Liberal can hope for.
Have a jolly good day, Ron. Unless you have any questions or specific areas that you would like to explore, I’m going to consider this my sign-off comment.
Take care!
By Ron on Apr 1, 2007 | Reply
Thanks, Craig, I had a good time too. Til’ next time!