Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 533 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Pelosi's motives
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is easy to think that Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders fall into the traps they do, and fail to do the right thing because they really believe the same as Bush does, and are just playing us in a giant game of kabuki, but I don't accept that. If they are that cynical and manipulative, they'd be Republicans, where these attributes are publicly lauded.
In the frontline documentary, "Cheney's War" we find out that shortly after 9-11, the Administration considered going to congress for a true carte blanche terrorism resolution that would explicitly authorize them to take any action against terrorists even on US soil. They decided against it because of the Democratic controlled senate. So they did whatever they wanted anyway, but without the full congressional blessing they presumed they could get from the GOP run House.
So the situation is more complex than "Pelosi just tells us what we want to hear while giving Bush everything he wants."
There are alternate possibilies, and the saddest one in my view is that Pelosi knows Bush deserves impeachment, and that FISA shouldn't be gutted and the rest, but she, and Reid do not engage in these fights because they believe they'll lose.
Remember the dominant media narrative after the dems won the majority was all about how it was just for those southern conservative Dems they won, and I think the Democrats internalized that. They are still playing by 2002 rules, and probably think their win was just dumb luck, that events in Iraq went badly and then the Foley thing sealed the deal for them. I bet Foley only swung a couple seats, and the Dems would have at least taken the House even without him (obviously the Senate win was so narrow it's impossible to predict how that would have gone under different circumstances).
Perhaps I am deluding myself, but when I see evidence that the Bush administration itself doesn't see the Democrats as on board with their program, it reminds me not to fall into the despair trap of assuming they're all the same. Pelosi may only be "less bad" than Hastert, but shit, that matters.
-
Kitt:
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The old "term" for that is "irony". The new term is more wordy. "Serious" people equivocates for the real meaning, "Assholes". The term for capitalizing a word for it to have force is called 'identifying expression'. I think Brutus of Rome coined that phrase.
Hmm, not able to find much along these lines in google on "identifying expression" if you know of something I'd be grateful.
As to "assholes" that wasn't how I understand the term, I take it to mean "the self-appointed guardians of acceptable discourse" and an indication to the artifice which holds up their otherwise indefensible opinions. They certainly are assholes, but that's not the meaning I understand from phrases like "the Very Serious David Frum said yesterday..."
I do see how "irony" applies though.
-
Jordan:
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is false logic. The fact that the White House refrained from seeking congressional approval (on the grounds that they could not depend absolutlely on the outcome) does not prove that they would not have gotten the approval, had they asked for it. In fact, the overwhelming evidence since then suggests very strongly that they would have gotten it, and the "complicity" argument survives.
It would have survived anyway since the "complicity" does not require that the White House and Congressional democrats actually conspire or openly admit to one another that they hold identical beliefs in this regard. They can work towards the same ends for their own reasons while overtly competing with one another for electoral advantage.
But anyway that item was merely illustrative, not exhaustive. I could point out other examples if you like. The choice of relatively eager investigators to lead key committees like Conyers, Waxman and Leahy who have all produced meaningful oversight and results (if not what we would want, you cannot argue they have knocked off a few heads and ameliorated some of the problems). Pelosi knocked Jane Harman off Intelligence, she had the spine to move Conyers and Waxman to less influential oversight portfolios, if not passing them over for true quislings like Lieberman.
Wrongly fired prosecutor John McKay said today that he believes AGAG will be prosecuted by the DoJ IG soon. This would be a direct consequence of congressional oversight, oversight which the Republicans would certainly not have done and that the Democrats did not have to do. There was plenty of pressure to "legislate, not investigate" at the outset of the DoJ Scandal.
As I finished with, the Congressional Dems may only be slowing the march to the abyss, but they are slowing it. You may take the failures as proof they're not really on our side, I take them to mean they're often just chickenshits who know the right path but fail to take it. John Conyers' reputed advocacy for the August FISA cave in would attest to that. I do not question the man's sincere belief in the rule of law, but he chickened out from the fight at a key moment.
We tried to solve the problem first with more democrats. Now I think we need better ones. The Bush Dog campaign of OpenLeft is something I believe works towards that. It might only take knocking off 1 bad Democrat to cause 10 others to suddenly find spines.
-
Kitt:
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your tinyurl took me just to Frum's (amusing) visage, but not the promised adjective.
-
Kitt:
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Haha. You're right, it is much more fun to read Frum as intentional satire.
I hereby nominate Frum to be a guest blogger here in Glenn's absence. Long live irony.