Do you remember the claim made by Republicans asking people to vote for their party in 2000? The claim was that they were going to restore a moral White House. Bill Clinton had diminished the stature of the Presidency. The Republicans would start a new era. Bush swept into office--many people still believe, illegitimately, unlawfully . . . and immorally--and fired all Clinton's White House staff. Republicans (and we are made to believe, Americans) were heartened.
<snip>
But what now? Do we have to ask what Foley was up to as he "aggressively" pursued boy pages down the halls of Congress? What about Scooter Libby, writing erotic novels?
What about all the people Rumsfeld took down by accusing them of sexual improprieties? Like Guantanamo chaplain Captain James Yee. Or General Kevin Byrnes.
And let's go back a bit to Abramoff. No sexual shenanigans there, right? Nope. I guess it is no longer considered obscene to defraud others of millions of dollars, including one's own Native American constituents.
Nor is it considered immoral for the President to reserve the right to torture, when he feels like it. Now--as one of my colleagues has frequently said--he can roast babies over a fire in order to gain what he deems necessary intelligence.But he wouldn't do that, would he? I wonder who is on record saying it was time to "take the gloves off"? (Hint:He's the VP.) Who authorized the extraordinary renditions? The CIA black sites? The sexual torture at Abu Ghraib? Wasn't it Rumsfeld? Or was it Gonzales? Or was it Bush? Oh, I forgot: despite the fact that they have gone on the record repeatedly, authorizing extreme procedures, they're not responsible for what their underlings do.
Ever hear of "command responsibility" or the Nuremburg Principles?
<more>
http://www.counterpunch.org/bergen10032006.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
