I just don't see you getting to the roots of the problem. Ceaseless carping, although better than no criticism, is hardly a solution. Blaming Republicans and illiberal Democrats for everything doesn't help much either.

How many times do we need to discuss this? If you don't acknowledge that those at the top, in the Beltway, populate the Village--or however else you may want to put it--need to be held to account (i.e., the rule of law), then we have a political class that will continue to break the law with impunity. It simply won't end when Bush goes home to cut brush.

Also, this quote from the post: government lawyers will "become excessively cautious in giving advice and will substitute predictions of political palatability for careful legal judgment."

When did I miss these multiple issuances of "careful legal judgment"? I recall Yoo et.al., issuing only contorted justifications.

You really want to bolster the Rule of Law? Apply it without leniency TO THOSE YOU SUPPORT AND WHO SHARE YOUR VIEWS. That will make us really decide where the line of criminality should be drawn. The rest is just noise.

So war crimes and lying about a sexual tryst are comparable. I see. Your definition of criminality, which I infer from your comment, is broadly based and predicated on equivalency. Yet you observed to RMP that It is evident that much of what has been made criminal in this country shouldn't be. That, more than anything else, has eroded respect for the Rule of Law.

So which is it? Clinton's "crime" and Bush's "CRIMES" are equivalent? Or, "much of what has been made criminal ... shouldn't be [because] that more than anything else, has eroded respect for the Rule of Law"?

What is your definition of the Rule of Law?

However, so long as no such exception exists -- and it doesn't -- then committing perjury is as much an assault on the Rule of Law as is a war crime.

I guess you've left but I'll just add one thing: Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. Five House Democrats voted for impeachment and no Democratic Senators voted for conviction (I'm not interested in defending those Democrats who voted along party lines). What I do say is that Clinton was impeached which constitutes political accountability (although preposterously so, to me). We have not even a scintilla of evidence that Bush et.al. will be held accountable at all.

Following his Senate acquittal, Clinton was cited for civil contempt of court and fined $90,000. Moreover, his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years.

So not only are these two crimes completely incomparable on a moral level, it has to be acknowledged that Clinton didn't skate. The Clinton matter (a personal one between two adults) was aired and he was tried and received punishment. The rule of law was in effect. The same cannot be said for George W Bush.

The Clinton matter (a personal one between two adults) was aired and he was tried and received punishment. The rule of law was in effect

regarding perjury.

You'll laugh but I read your subject heading as referring to your having also written a piece at the ACLU site.

I then spent about five minutes looking for it.

You're right, that is a valuable read.

I know I shouldn't sink to level of a stay-at-home mom like Groenhagen ...

Tres magnifique! (fingers-to-lips-sound)

Well, I think you should be nominated sysprog II from this point forth. That's pretty efficient work for three minutes.

Even if you have it for a fact that Groenhagen IS a stay-at-home mom, why are you sinking to the level of diminishing stay-at-home moms in general in the process???? Timothy3???? Really? Making fun of stay-at-home moms (those who can do it these days)? Making light of moms who wish they could be at home (as if that's not a job in and of itself?)?

Of course I'm not making fun of actual stay-at-home Moms.

I was thinking more along the lines of (per Glenn h/t bystander) someone claiming to be Cpl. Kevin Groenhagen of the USMC:

The corporal: No, I mean a sissy like you. We're getting tired of sissies like you and Sidney Blumenthal discussing the military when neither of you spent a day in uniform. Stick to gay and lesbian issues.

He seems like a tough guy. Therefore, I conclude that, from his perspective, the original comment might cut deeply. Really, I would not criticize stay-at-home moms or anyone else regarding how they choose to live their lives. Only having a bit of fun.

Lord, you people are the modern day equivalent of Cotton Mather.

Interesting subject heading. Here's George Bancroft referring to an entry from Mather's diary: "The time for a favor is come," exulted Cotton Mather; "Yea, the set time is come. Instead of my being a made a sacrifice to wicked rulers, my father-in-law, with several related to me, and several brethren of my own church, are among the council. The Governor of the province is not my enemy, but one of my dearest friends."

Sounds a lot like Bush, Daddy Bush, and friends.

As for Charlie Rangel, I say full speed ahead but, I wonder, is how about a little press around the delicious hypocrisy of Rangel the same as whatever sins you believe have been committed, were performed for the protection of the citizens of the US?

Because in the first you cite as if were proof--and this without trial!--"the delicious hypocrisy" while in the second, it's more a matter of "whatever sins you believe have been committed." You make it very hard to follow your "arguments."

The real point about Rangel is that when Democrats get into trouble it's nearly always for personal peccadilloes, as opposed to stepping over the line in pursuit of noble goals.

Well, you seem to be acknowledging "stepping over the line" in pursuit of what you term noble goals. I guess that's something.