Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1089 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Digging into that quote just a little further
[Read the article: The art of neoconservative innuendo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ML to GG (re: arming Iran)
As I wrote at the time, quoting Talleyrand, "it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder."
As was pointed out upthread, this quotation is often attributed to Tallyrand, but is actually derived from Fouché. However, searching Bartlett's Quotations on Bartlby.com yields this footnote:
Note 1. Commonly quoted, “It is worse than a crime,—it is a blunder,” and attributed to Talleyrand.
Which refers to Fouché's original:
“It is more than a crime; it is a political fault,” (1) —words which I record, because they have been repeated and attributed to others.
Memoirs of Fouché
Link:http://www.bartleby.com/100/758.html
How fitting. I think Ledeen has very unwittingly described the only true accomplishment of the entire neoconservative movement. They have achieved a political fault. In addition to being a fault in the sense of a failing, it is also a fault in the seismic sense. This neoconservative fault, once it fails (as all faults eventually do), will strand its adherents on an island where conventional concepts of morality, truthfulness and lawfulness have no meaning. The strain on this fault increases with each ridiculous pronouncement they make.
Let us all look forward to the day of the quake when they are all set adrift and our continent is free of their stench. (Wink, wink)
-
OT--Is George Will channelling Glenn?
[Read the article: Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars on behalf of Israel ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Will's column today is based on a series of questions he believes Mukasey should address before being confirmed. For example:
-- The Constitution's Framers, disliking the British sovereign's "prerogative power" to set aside a law for a claimed public good, stipulated that the president shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." But consider "signing statements," whereby presidents, when signing legislation, attach statements sometimes directing the executive branch not to execute certain portions. This practice is, in effect, something the Constitution does not permit -- a line-item veto. Savage, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on this president's signing statements, writes that such statements were rare until the mid-1980s, when some conservatives urged frequent use of them as a means of maximizing presidential powers. Savage says: "If a president has the power to instruct the government not to enforce laws that he alone has declared to be unconstitutional, then he could free himself from the need to obey laws that restrict his own actions." Is this a real danger?
Link:http://tinyurl.com/2fflmj
Very interesting reading, with several of the questions being ones that Glenn has commented on in detail.
Of course, the key question is whether any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the courage to ask such questions, insist on clear answers and then vote no if Mukasey's answers suggest greater loyalty to Bush rather than the Constitution.
-
FISA thoughts
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems to me that Democrats should be insisting on two points as a bare minimum in discussing the FISA renewal:
1) No immunity, whatsoever, should apply to members of the executive branch or to the intelligence community within the government. There simply is no excuse for breaking the law by a group that was actively involved in lobbying for changes in the existing law. Since they were pushing for changes in the law, that means they understood the law as it stood and had a responsibility to abide by it while they were working to effect changes.
2) Telecoms should be considered for immunity only on a case-by-case basis. Those who objected initially to requests from the government, but co-operated after being subjected to coercion should be able to apply for immunity by providing documentation of undue pressure being applied. Of course, for "national security reasons", there should be a system for conducting these hearings in closed session, perhaps even within the FISA court itself.
Unrelated to FISA: Glenn, I think the war-mongers spent more time opining on women's rights in Afghanistan than Iraq.
-
Derek Dreyer
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In Chris Matthews' case, I wonder whether his flip-floppiness in this regard (his seeming ability to veer wildly from Republican hagiography to intelligent counter-establishment debate) is in fact part of or even essential to his appeal as a "non-partisan" commentator.
I haven't watched Matthews much, but when I have, I have gotten the distinct impression that he is merely trying to draw out the most extreme statement possible from each guest. In a courtroom, he would definitely be guilty of "leading the witness". I see a strategy where he restates an extreme version of a guest's (or the guest's opponents') views to try to "whip up" an impassioned response. He feigns empathy with the guest during the setup, but then his attitude during the responses looks very self-satisfied and at times even as if he is laughing at the guest.
In effect, his "flip-floppiness" is merely a tool to draw out a soundbite that will make him even more important.