E.J. Dionne: 'Rule of Law'? That's So '90s

[highplainsdem]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/17/AR2005101701165.html

'Rule of Law'? That's So '90s

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005; Page A25

We are on the verge of an extraordinary moment in American politics. The people running our government are about to face their day -- or days -- in court.

Those who thought investigations were a wonderful thing when Bill Clinton was president are suddenly facing prosecutors, and they don't like it. It seems like a hundred years ago when Clinton's defenders were accusing his opponents of using special prosecutors, lawsuits, criminal charges and, ultimately, impeachment to overturn the will of the voters.


Clinton's conservative enemies would have none of this. No, they said over and over, the Clinton mess was not about sex but about "perjury and the obstruction of justice" and "the rule of law."

The old conservative talking points are now inoperative.

<snip>

Great column about "an administration and a movement that can dish it out, but want to evade responsibility for doing so and can't take it when they are subjected to the same rule book that inconvenienced an earlier president."

[Cha]

1. Thank you, EJ Dionne, for

writing down the obvious!

[highplainsdem]

9. Exactly how I felt. It was so good to see this in print.

[jbfam4]

30. One thing E J left out

What will we tell the Children?

[bluestateguy]

2. I can't wait to say: "It's about perjury, and obstruction of justice..."

It'll feel like 1998 in reverse.

[gratuitous]

31. With one important difference

Whereas Clinton and his administration were found innocent of all wrongdoing, I don't think that Bush and his cabal will be similarly exonerated when all is said and done. Just like his daddy, who had to pardon his co-conspirators while he was a lame duck in 1992.

[babylonsister]

3. Thanks, hiplainsd! Ah, as many have said, karma rules! nt

[Tatiana]

4. About freakin' time someone in the press mentioned this point.

The Republicans only have themselves to blame for the hell they are going to suffer.

Not Fitzgerald, not the Democrats, not Clinton, not Earle, not the SEC, not the "librul media," not the Justice Department... NO ONE but themselves.

I can't wait until the criminal prosecution is over and the Wilsons get their day in civil court. Then the real fun and games will begin.

Here's to frog-marches!

[redstateblues]

5. How can they blame it on us- They run the government!

They control the non internet media, the congress, the White house and the supreme court. We are basically just sitting back and watching- imagine if some dems had subpeona power!

[Tatiana]

7. Just imagine - Wilson's legal team WILL have subpoena power in a civil case

And thanks to the ruling in the whole Paula Jones civil trial debacle, initiated by the right-wing, what we don't get from Fitz, we can get from Joe Wilson deciding to sue these evil bastards civilly.

Talk about reaping what you sow...

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mr_hat]

20. OJ lost the civil suit brought against him.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Occupation

[Rosco T.]

6. Need to make Buttons/Bumper Stickers/Posters....

"It's The RULE OF LAW STUPID"

send them to every Dem Sen/Rep and get them to wear them.
Posters at every BushCo stop..

start the chants ever chance we get..

RULE OF LAW
RULE OF LAW
RULE OF LAW

[unblock]

8. "wartime" will be their excuse for blatant hypocrisy

you see, investigating the sh*t out of clinton was all fine and dandy because we weren't at war. those little excursions down in somalia and kosovo, those don't count. clinton didn't go around saying war, war, war, so he was fair game.

but shrub goes around saying war, war, war. which, if you're a die-hard freeper, roughly translates to, "none of the rules apply to me".


10-to-1 harriet miers is of the opinion that legal action can't be taken against a sitting president during wartime. i think god told her that.

[No Exit]

18. Their claiming "wartime"--when THEY started the war--will be like

the case where the man who murders his parents asks the court to take pity on him "because I'm an orphan".

[alittlelark]

10. I was so politically unaware that I didn't know Clinton was impeached

until I saw a headline to that effect. And I considered myself a liberal. I had been lulled in by 7 or so years of comfort while raising young children.

It's amazing what a difference a few towers and some interest make.

I am NO LONGER just 'catching headlines'.


I want these horrid parasites out of my 'body politic'.

[CheshireCat]

19. Welcome back to the real work, Litle Lark!

I know so many people who have had to put political awareness away while caring for small children.

Teach your children the importance of activism. They are lucky to have such a caring mom

[highplainsdem]

12. kick

[prescole]

13. Even the Mafia doesn't go after wives

like the Bush cabal went after Wilson's wife. What a bunch of arrogant thugs. Payback is tough, boys.

[CatWoman]

16. Welcome to DU, Prescole

:hi:

and that's a damn good point!!!

"Even the Mafia doesn't go after wives"

However, we know that the Mafia is 100% more capable than these morans.

[ClintonTyree]

14. One of the differences between the two cases........

is that Clinton was still an extremely popular President during all of the partisan witch-hunts surrounding him. Conversely, bush's popularity is at it's lowest point EVER, worse than before his post-9/11 transformation into "the war president" and his meteoric rise in the polls. People hate him now, they don't trust this administration and will never again.
Maybe the American people are smarter than I've given them credit for. They CAN tell the difference between an excellent President who had certain character flaws and a ROTTEN president who's all form and no substance. Bravo, America! :applause:

[PinkyisBlue]

32. And another hugh difference

between the two cases is that Clinton was voted into office in two honest, fair elections. The current occupants of the White House have bullied their way into office via a forced Supreme Court decision and an illegal, dishonest election.

[drone]

15. Catching Up

The repukes should have analyzed that their behavior could return and "haunt" them. Isn't there a thought: What goes around comes back around?

I have never known a republican that I decided was ahead of his time.

[No Exit]

17. What a GREAT, GREAT, article!!!!!! n/t

[sasquatch]

21. Hypocrits are reserved the hottest spots in hell.

[SensibleCenterist]

23. It could have been better

One thing you DON'T find in this column is that the prosecutors of Clinton were all political hacks appointed by politcal hacks. The prosecutors of today's Republicans are all career lawmen.

WHO appointed Ken Starr? Jesse Helms and Sentele.

WHO appointed Ronnie Earle? Not any elected Democrat.

WHO appointed Patrick Fitzgerald? Not any elected Democrat.

Dionne puts forth a FALSE comparison.

[Gronk Groks]

24. True, but leave the guy something to write for next week.

In fact E-mail him your observation if you think he may of overlooked it. Frankly I'm just happy that someone in the Corporate Media is starting to print ANY attack on the reThugs.

As a previous poster said, the mantra should be:

"Rule of Law"

Something the reThugs seem to have a hard time comprehending.

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. Good points, SensibleCentrist, and

important to emphasise. True, because of their transparent lunacy, it was pushing on an open door, but Dionne's piece was still a world-class encapsulation of the broad farce, the implications of which have made a laughing stock of their activities, their political hopes and even their careers. And I don't mean just those, apparently, imminently to be indicted, of course.

Truly, the latter do no more than represent a louche and squalid subculture, completely without shame, but with a bluntness of moral perception that surely horrifies the average American.

[madmark]

29. The republican legal cabal befriended Clinton's girlfriend, found out

about the dress, then put the jones (republicans) civil lawyers on the information to hit him with in deposition. The raising of the monica bj to a national legal issue was a manufactured product by the republicans. None of that exists here.

[edhopper]

26. I have been saying this for a while now.

The hypocrisy for the Repukes is overwhelming.
The Clinton case was all about the "Rule of Law" I remember Lindsay Graham specifically saying it was NOT a partisan issue but a legal one. Where is he now when idiots like Kristol, Mathews and Hitchen's are saying that politics is now being made criminal. (Yeah, Treason is so hard to get upset over, not like SEX!)
Look at the Meirs crap. With Roberts, it was forbidden to ask about religion. The Repukes kept saying that a President's choice must be confirmed as long as he or she is qualified. Now the religofascist want a religious litmus test to approve the nomination. It seems that it's only the Dems who aren't allowed to challenge the Pres.
I wish America would wake up to these Repuke assholes.
Three chears for E J for writing this!

[vickie]

27. I've been thinking this very same thing for years and wondered

why no one on our side was making this argument. Finally - Mr. Dionne steps up and hits it out of the park. Way to go E. J.!!!

[madmark]

28. I can still remember them repeating the "rule of law" mantra

ad nauseum about Clinton lying at the deposition about his blowjob in the bs rnc driven-created civil paula jones case. The "rule of law" is actually applicable when it comes to marketing wars on false premises and wrecking clandestine agent's careers, and their prior clandestine operations, and jeapardizing existing affiliates lives.

[krkaufman]

33. Hardly apples to apples, Mr Dionne

To: [e-mail]

Comparing the current investigations and indictments against top Republican and conservative officials to the multi-year witchhunt against Bill Clinton deflates the relative severity of the crimes for which the Republicans are accused.

In the end, the Clintons were cleared of all charges, except a lie intended to coverup a sexual indiscretion. This little blue lie is hardly comparable to the campaigns of deceit executed by the Republicans, to lead us into an unnecessary and damaging war (whose only benefit is lining the pockets of the military-industrial complex), to shift political control within Texas and thereby the country, etc.

We're about to count the 2000th fatal casualty to US forces in the Iraq war, dwarfed by the Iraqi civilians killed, and you compare a blow job to a blown job of capturing bin Laden. If you want to provide a comparison, please compare the resources expended in pursuit of a charge against Clinton to the cumulative expenses in the Plame, Delay, Frist and Abramoff investigations.

And please don't assist in propagating the spin that the quantity of charges and investigations is a sign of out-of-control Democratic persecution of Republicans. Given the fact that the Democrats have little control or power, it's more likely that the quantity of investigations and charges are simply evidence of a systemically corrupt Republican Party. If we spend an amount equal to the Clinton investigations, how many more indictments would be brought? (Maybe somebody would even look into Bush's alleged insider trading, given that Bush's Justice Department is going after Bill Frist for effectively the same behavior.)

Regards,
<Me>