Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Published Letters: 182 Editor's Choice: 16
Just raising the issue of the pardon was smart for the Democrats, because it puts Bush in a corner no matter what he does. The longer he doesn't send a wink to Libby about it, the more pressure is on him to roll on his co-conspirators, likely the Vice (or Assistant) President of the United States. And the longer he doesn't commit to NOT pardoning, the more sleazy they all look. And if he does pardon him, that is bad, too -- so bad that I don't think his party will support it because of its potential effect on the 2006 election. A lot of people think it was Ford's pardon of Nixon that cost him the 1976 election.
It has been a long time since Democrats really had their act together. Perhaps at last they do. Meanwhile, a lot of Republican chickens are coming home to roost. What a wonderful year it could be.
[Please pass to Tim Grieve]
Dear Mr. Grieve:
I think you may have missed some of the discussion that is coming both out of the Pentagon and from retired senior officers, as happened on the Lehrer show a couple of days ago. The consensus appears to be that we have to withdraw troops no matter what because (1) we have abused the reservists with multiple and extended tours in Iraq about as much as the country will tolerate, and since Bush won't call for a draft (way too late in the game for that), and since being a reservist has lost a great deal of its appeal in light of the treatment of those sent to Iraq, it is becoming impossible to maintain present strength in Iraq, and (2) as a result of all that, the nation is far too vulnerable to a real threat to its homeland to allow the Iraq adventure to continue at present troop levels.
In short, no amount of politics is going to stop those troops from coming home.
And the reason those Pentagon officers didn't want to speak on the record is that they were leaking stuff the White House didn't want people to be looking at. Bush and Cheney want to exploit the "cut and run" criticism of Democrats as much as they can, even though they know the truth about inevitable withdrawals of troops. They want the Iraq story to be dictated by them and no one else.
So when the Pentagon types tell the truth like this, in what to me is an expression of concurrence with the retired officers being interviewed by the media, it angers the White House because once again it makes it appear that the Bush team was so incompetent it couldn't even keep troops in the field in a war they wanted to prolong (bearing in mind that their original strategy was for a large American garrison to occupy those 14 bases we built for decades to come).
A year ago the White House would be chasing the leakers in the Pentagon with white fury, and Congress would have joined in. No longer. That zeal has been transferred to self-preservation. It is all unraveling, day by day.
Sincerely,
Douglas L. Wilson
Naples, Florida
Farhad Manjoo does a good job of updating the pros and cons, but I agree with his correspondent "tempus", who counsels going for the filibuster, on grounds that Democrats have too much to gain and too little to lose not to.
Let's dispense with the surrounding political climate. Forget the polls on Alito. Laymen know next to nothing about judges and care only slightly more until the TV klieg lights go off. The independents won't care two bits' worth about him six months from now.
On the other hand, Democrats are hungry for action. Not going for the filibuster, with so many liberal groups organizing and raising money to support that effort, might take considerable steam out of the '06 election campaign. Who needs Democrats if they won't fight for control of the Supreme Court when we have a president happy to usurp the Constitution on a daily basis? Our forebears took up guns over stuff like this, and we're afraid of political fallout? Please.
It is hard for Senators to spike Alito because the package is appealing. He is certainly technically competent to be a Supreme Court justice. But so was Judge Bork. And he got spiked because he terrified most of us with his wacko views on the Bill of Rights. Alito is more subtle -- but not by much. He looked those Senators right in the eye and said Roe just might be suitable for reversal, for example. And on every other major civil rights issue, he comes down on the wrong side. Competence is not justice, and if we think he is going to treat the Constitution unjustly, we need to stop him.
So what if the nuclear button is pushed, and the filibuster rule is abolished? It is certainly true that Democrats would then have power over the judiciary when they take control one day. But don't you also understand that failing to fight produces exactly the same result as if abolition were already an accomplished fact? The French for that is fait accompli, remember? We are ALREADY nuked. The only question is whether we can undo the nuking by playing chicken, or redirect the blast at power-crazed Republicans.
There are football coaches who shun passing because three things can happen when you pass, and two of them are bad. Against tough opponents, they lose.
It's time to get this ball in the air.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
