Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, May 15, 2007 02:45 PM

  What I don't get.

  The weight of the lawlessness has not resulted in mass resignations. I don't get that.

  Remember way back when when O'neal left the administration because the decision to invade Iraq had already been made and that terrorism prior to 9-11 was not a priority?

  The dangerous nature of this administration MUST have been apparent to many insiders early on and yet they've hung on, through all of these revelations.

  Generals fired because the told the truth. And, many other examples.

  Can it be as simple as: you're either with us or your a terrorist boot lick?

  As an example, get in the way back machine, there was the white house counsels office where the Yoo memorandum and the "quaint" Geneva conventions policy was emerging. Only one lawyer from that office that I know of resigned over that. He took a nice job at Harvard law, but made no public stink about why he actually left except for some mildly critical interview he gave and then went silent.

  I just don't get it.

  I know there's a quote somewhere from some famous founding father about the silent and acquiescent being far worse for the health of the constitution and the republic than those actively seeking to destroy it.

  —Politically Lost Read Politically Lost's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel