Canons to Left of Them,
Canons to Right of Them
Note (lest the blue pencils begin to volley and thunder): I do know how to spell cannons, honest.
Following is an exchange by e-mail with a right wing friend, to whom I had sent a New York Times article about the surprising extent of wiretapping and FBI snooping, some of it just now coming to light. He dismissed anything from the Times as suspect, unreliable, and probably selective in its information. So I sent this:
Gil
I’ve read the New York Times (and worked its fair-and-balanced crosswords) every day for over 30 years, and I’ve often wished it were as liberal as you and others think it is. But that’s a judgment call, so everybody’s right.
In our e-mail exchange on wiretapping, presidential power, etc., you rejected the NYT account out of hand as not to be trusted.
So here comes a book by a blue chip, pure-bred conservative, Jack Goldsmith, an insider on those issues — appointed by Bush to head the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) until he decided that a number of the things they were doing were illegal or of doubtful constitutionality – so he was fired.
The book is The Terror Presidency. Here’s a brief excerpt from the Preface.
Al
(excerpt)
“At first, I paid little attention to the beady stare from behind
the oversized eyeglasses in Richardson’s portrait. (He’s talking about Eliot Richardson of Watergate fame) Two months into my job, however, I had thought a lot about the sixty-ninth Attorney General. During those eight weeks, I was briefed on some of the most sensitive counterterrorism operations in the government.
“Each of these operations was supported by OLC opinions written
by my predecessors. As I absorbed the opinions, I concluded that
some were deeply flawed: sloppily reasoned, overbroad, and incautious in asserting extraordinary constitutional authorities on behalf of the President. I was astonished, and immensely worried, to discover that some of our most important counterterrorism policies rested on severely damaged legal foundations. It began to dawn on me that I could not—as I thought I would eventually be asked to do—stand by or reaffirm these opinions.
(He considered resigning – drafted a letter of resignation – but decided to stick it out)
“So I decided to try to fix the opinions to save as many of the policies
that a sound legal analysis would support. I was pretty sure, in
December 2003, that this decision would put me on a collision
course with my superiors. But I figured it was more consistent
with my oath of office and professional responsibilities, and that my
superiors would let me know when I should leave. Seven months and many confrontations later, I was gone. “ — Jack Goldsmith, from his Preface
(Gil’s response)
Just because a member of the administration does not agree with the legality or constitutionality of certain actions does not make him right. Obviously others in the administration and outside of it - including me - are convinced that the wiretapping is both legal and constitutional. Just what do you not understand about the evil intentions of the radical Muslims. Are you aware of the terrible actions that occurred in the school in Beslin. Osama said that what happened in Beslin will be multiplied 100 fold in our country. In Beslin over 350 people were murdered - including over 170 children who were raped and than slaughtered. I am furious over the likes of the NYTimes and their ilk who by their actions put our country and our children in danger. We are living in different times.
If you do not understand this, I don’t know what else to say.
As far as Bush appointments, he also appointed the current head of homeland security and this guy is a real Bozo. I’m sure that over the years Bush has made a lot of dumb appointments like Chertoff and Goldsmith.
As I said before, the only good thing about the Times is the crossword puzzles.
(and my reply)
At least we both like the crossword puzzles. It’s a start.
As to the rest of what you said, I know all that. I knew all that before you said it. The “evil intentions of radical Muslims” include destruction of the American way of life, our democratic system, constitutional law, checks and balances, and values. For my money, Bush and the radical neocons have done half their work for them, and the judges they’ve appointed are ready to do some of the rest.
I don’t think it’s going to work. The people of this country have an uncanny way of coming to their senses. But it would help if some of the better, brighter, more successful people like you, who are capable of real leadership, would be more alert to the erosion of civil liberties and constitutional safeguards beneath their own feet. No radical Muslim, in his wildest dreams, could have hoped to cause as much damage as our own “leaders” have inflicted.
Just what do I not understand? That’s what.
So now we’ve compared notes again. Let’s see how it looks next year or the year after.
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
A - The puzzles suck … a rat’s warren of foreign phrases and marginal celebrity names. Times of London any day.
B - Remember what all Ad Men should know: Just because a guy in a funny hat or a white coat says something doesn’t mean it’s true. Osama, or someone who looks like him, says a lot of weird stuff … lately, for example, suggesting I should convert to Islam … and seriously, where did it get him? Living in a cave and wearing a fake beard. Honestly. By 1, Taking a Whack-Job seriously, and 2, using that as justification to empower an emergent Police State, the easily frightened simply accelerate the dismantling of a free society. “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Franklin)
Comment by Mark — September 13, 2007 @ 10:15 am