Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
zeroworker
Published Letters: 364
First off, I agree with Glenn's post, in its entirety. What's missing, and revealing, is the failure to mention Clinton's "harder" crimes.
I don't blame Glenn for this - he's criticizing Dowd's column, and that's fine. But isn't it interesting that MD failed to mentions Clinton's air campaign against Serbia and Kosovo? And his bombing of Iraq? And his bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan?
These are the crimes Clinton really needs to answer for, not his partying with Monica Lewinsky. Maybe he lied under oath, maybe not - if he did, then he should answer for that, but that issue is peanuts compared to his orders to bomb innocents in foreign countries.
The common thread, it seems to me, is that the American media and political class just don't care if you use the military might of our country irresponsibly and inappropriately. Instead, it's expected. In fact, Presidents that don't take these steps will get criticized as weak, certainly from the hard right, but often from such "moderates" as Joe Lieberman or Joe Biden as well.
THIS is what has to change. Of course Clinton's sexcapades are a joke compared to Bush's rampant criminality. But Clinton (and most of our previous Presidents before him) helped set the stage for Bush by being allowed to use force without justification and without consequence for so long.
It is my hope that all the people that got so angry with Bush (and appropriately so) over his lawbreaking and reckless use of our military will also get angry with Obama and try to prevent him from doing the same.
Given Obama's support for the bill immunizing the telecom companies and his intention to step up the war in Afghanistan and potentially bomb Pakistan witout Pakistani permission, I fear there will be plenty of opportunity for continuing these struggles.
I can't divine the future, but it seems clear to me that Obama will not willingly give up the new presidential authority Bush grabbed for the office. Some maybe, but probably not very much.
After all, as a member of the Senate, he supported to telecom immunity bill. And not just him, wide swaths of the Democrats in Congress. They capitulated time and time again while Bush trampled the Constitution. Why should they change their tune now? This is especially true of Obama, who can now wield the new power himself - a very tempting prospect, I would imagine.
Glenn, this gets to you "necessary but not sufficient" argument. Electing Obama and a Democratic majority in both houses was a necessary step towards rolling back the constitutional horrors of W, but not sufficient. Now we need to make the Democrat's lives miserable if they don't restore the old framework.
I'm not going to hold my breath - I just don't see it happening. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
US involvement in Afghanistan was and is not justified.
1) Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not the same thing. If a Cuban-American leader of an anti-Cuban terrorist group masterminded an atrocity in Cuba, would Cuba be justified in bombing Miami? No, of course not. Violence should always be a last resort - diplomacy was not given a chance. As odious as the Taliban were and are, they were still the ruling power in Afghanistan at the time.
2) The Taliban did make noises about turning over bin Laden at the time. The Bush Administration rebuffed their advances. Were they sincere? We'll never know.
3) Even at a strictly practical level, it should have been clear that the cure would be worse than the disease if we acted militarily. Afghanistan is not a country, but a bunch of tribal groups with their own interests who are perfectly willing to shift their support when they deem it advantageous.
Our support of the Northern Alliance was always problematic, especially since the Taliban was a reaction against the awful rule of the Northern Alliance in the first place. They would not be universally hailed by the population as liberators, and anyone with a passing knowledge of Afghan politics would have predicted a resistance would surface. Combine that with the dismal history of major power involvement in Afghanistan in the past, and the stage was set for a major headache.
4) Finally, it was also easily predictable that the firepower that the US would bring to bear against its enemies in Iraq would serve to undermine it's legitimacy as a backer of the new Afghan government, which would clearly not be able to govern by itself and would rely on US military might.
This is indeed what has happened - we've bombed wedding parties, funeral parties, villages, etc. causing lots of innocent civilian casualties. These kinds of screw ups, besides being criminal, are fantastic recruiting gifts for the Taliban and al-Qaeda, simply making the resistance stronger.
I could go on, but I believe I've made my point
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
