- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Dear Glenn,
If you have not already seen it, Fred Barnes has an article on The Weekly Standard website that quotes approvingly Cheney's defense of the lack of transparency in the policy making processes of which he was a central part, especially as they relate to enhancing the power of the presidency to decide how to treat suspected terrorists. What is particularly striking about Barnes' article is that it is framed in terms of whether Cheney felt personally attacked by the criticisms he has received for his role in shaping policy. For example, consider this excerpt from the article:
"Cheney was reminded that during the campaign last fall Biden had called him a "dangerous." Cheney grinned. "I didn't take personally," he said." (errors are from the article)
What Cheney (and Barnes, apparently) fails to even consider is that Biden's remarks were aimed at the office of the VP, not the particular person occupying the office. The failure to note the distinction is symptomatic of the growing tendency not to think of our leaders in legal terms, terms which define the powers of people in their role as government officials, but in terms of personalities who may or may not be offended. As you have written about time and time again, one effect of this tendency is to trade questions over legal authority and responsibility for questions about what kind of person occupies the office. A consequence is that people draw the conclusion that Bush, Cheney, etc. should not be held accountable from the premise that they did what they did out of good intentions. The inference is a non-sequiter, but one people are more inclined to make when assessments of personal character--rather than legal authority--become the basis for deciding questions of responsibility and punishment of government officials
