- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Alberto on why Ashcroft’s testimony was not beneficial (it wouldn’t “add to the discussion”) :
"As a general matter, we would not be disclosing internal deliberations, internal recommendations. That's not something we'd do as a general matter, whether or not you're a current member of the administration or a former member of the administration."
The reason it wouldn’t “add” to the discussion is that Ashcroft “would not certify the legality” of the program.
However, if Ashcroft would have signed it, you can bet that Alberto and the administration would be trumpeting these “internal deliberations” at a very high volume.
If you support Bush policies, you can add to the discussion, if you don’t support them, you become irrelevant – it’s that simple.
Either you are a “loyal Bushie” with a total contempt for the rule of law, or you are irrelevant and unable to contribute to the debate.
Pick a side. Are you with Bush and the fight against terrorism? Or are you against Bush, and with the terrorists?
That’s how this argument is being framed; and it’s criminal in more ways than I care to elaborate upon.
We’ve really reached the point where supporting the “rule of law” as this country has always known it has become equivalent of being an ally of Osama Bin Laden.
Yes, it’s that simple.
