THE HALLS of Congress are too often filled with cowardice and groupthink. So it is reassuring when not one but two lawmakers show the moral fortitude to defy party politics to take a stand on principle.

Yes, I believe the principle was established by Vidkun Quisling (sorry Arne).

Every time the democrats are standing up to Bush on something I look at my watch. . .

You took us there at 1:42 PM:

Another non-existent gotcha. I made the distinction and then asked you which side of the distinction you're arguing. This is obtuse.

I'm blandly citing post-Clinton United States behavior that I'm arguing has the effect of drastically harming our reputation and standing in other nations.

I'm glad you brought this up. Clinton bypassed the UN to bomb Bosnia, and Iraq. He meddled in the governmental affairs of Haiti and did a few other things as well. Yet he was popular.
At the UN Mugabe is popular, so is Ahmadinejad.
Castro and Chavez are VERY popular no matter what they do to their people.
The USSR was popular even though it was more imperialistic than anyone in recent times. Even Russia today with diminishing civil rights and blatant killing of dissenters is popular.
China is popular no matter how many polluting coal plants they make, dissidents they jail, or lead toys they sell.
Hell, all the Muslim countries that sell slaves, kill gays, and subjugate women are popular.

There is only one conclusion possible. We need to be more like them.

test. nsa? who knows? Test!

In a letter to Senator and Chairman Patrick Leahy, Retired Generals write the following:

"The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules that can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - has long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey."

Sincerely,

Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)

Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)

Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000

Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)

Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93

Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)

Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88

http://tinyurl.com/3858rm

Yeah, sure, it's Fred Hiatt's role in the Palace to whip up enthusiasm for the regime's latest outrage du jour. Everybody's got a job in the Palace, and that's his.

And when even Democrats -- Big, Important ones like DiFi and Chuckie, too -- break ranks with their herd, and issue statements of support for the decisions and choices of the regime, it's obviously out of Principle, which everyone knows Democrats have none of, and not craven ass covering.

I don't think DiFi and Chuck really "approve of torture." That's the effect of what they are doing by acting on Hiatt's "Principle," but that's not how they see their craven action.

No, when Dems do things like this, I've often been reminded of the appalling actions of the Judenrats in the ghettos of Eastern Europe during WWII. Of course the Judenrats were not free during the period, and the lies they told and the betrayals they perpetrated and the crimes they enabled were always, of course, at the command of their SS overlords; we all understand that. And still they did these things, horrible things. And they knew with a kind of inconceivable terror that what they were doing was leading to the extermination of an entire people.

But as many observers have pointed out in trying to explain their actions (thankfully, nobody has suggested they were acting on principle!), survival was often paramount in their minds, their own survival and that of their kin. They had to do what they did, pass the judgements they did, and betray who and what they did, or they would wind up on the corpse pile with the rest.

And of course, in the end, that's where they wound up anyway.

In other words, all their submission and cooperation with their overlords netted them nothing, in most cases not even time. The ghettos were cleared, their occupants exterminated, and the Judenrats were sent on the transports too when their services were no longer needed. The same fate awaited them as their fellows.

Ultimately it made no difference whether they submitted and cooperated with the SS or not; the Einsatzgruppen, the camps and the ovens awaited no matter. There was no reasoning, no argument, no appeal, no level of complicity that would save them.

Not everyone has it in them to fight back; DiFi and Chuckie have shown themselves, once again to be tools of the regime (this is not new for them). From appearances, they are doing it to save their own skins from whatever they think awaits them. There is no principle involved except survival. Their own.

Things are worse than they appear.

Not everyone has it in them to fight back; DiFi and Chuckie have shown themselves, once again to be tools of the regime (this is not new for them). From appearances, they are doing it to save their own skins from whatever they think awaits them. There is no principle involved except survival. Their own.

Things are worse than they appear.

-- Ché Pasa

They are worse than they appear. Chuck and Di didn't cave because they're afraid of der Busher. They caved because they basically agree with him and don't really have a problem with torture (as long as it's the "bad guys" getting dunked and not any of their friends).

I do think there are a few Dems who are really afraid, but I think the number who simply can't be bothered to stand up because they aren't really bothered by what Bush is doing is much greater. That's a real problem.