Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 16 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Wait Until Obama is Elected
[Read the article: Conservatism vs. authoritarianism: The British vs. the U.S. right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]U.S. Republicans will sound just like John Major again. Remember how worried they were about executive over-reaching when Clinton was President? Nothing they do is principled and they see no reason to be consistent from one interview to the next (look at McCain -- he can't even remember what he said from one interview to the next) let alone one administration to the next.
Their only principle is raw power. If they are in the majority they are in favor of majority power and against minority prerogatives. If they are in the minority they use every trick in the book and then some to thwart the majority. If they control the executive they are in favor of executive power; if they don't, all of a sudden executive power is dangerous and must be severely limited.
Mark my words: as soon as Obama is elected the same Republicans who have been yelling and screaming about the need for a strong, unitary (dictatorial) executive will be the biggest supporters of the need for checks and balances, and in particular the need to give congressional minority parties the right to stop anything they want to any time without any consequences to them.
And they won't even realize they are being inconsistent. To them it is entirely consistent because, as I've said, their only principle is power.
-
Is this only retroactive?
[Read the article: George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but just based on the section of the bill that you quoted, it looks like there might be something else going on that in some ways might make this a bit more of a compromise.
If (and I really mean IF) that is what is going on, the compromise might be something like this: OK, you can have your stupid amnesty for any actions taken within these specified dates, but in exchange, there is no amnesty for anything that happens after January 17th 2007.
If that is the case, then perhaps that's the compromise right there.
I still agree with you 100% that this is unnecessary and craven, and a huge cave-in to Bush and the tele-comms, but perhaps (and I really mean perhaps) it's not quite as bad as it seems right now.
Do you know what aspect of the law applies to actions taken after January 17th 2007? Thanks,
-- Joel
-
The U.S. under Bush is a rogue superpower.
[Read the article: Tom Friedman doesn't understand why America is unpopular in the world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like the way you describe what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot and another country behaved the way the U.S. has been behaving for the last several years:
Op-Eds from Fred Hiatt and Charles Krauthammer condemning them and demanding that "meaningful action" be taken against such a "rogue nation."
I would go one step further. Ever since Bush's invasion of Iraq, and more and more since then, the U.S. under Bush is actually a rogue superpower.