Let me start off by saying that Reagan is the President of my youth, the President that as a child I trusted to keep the missiles from falling, who grieved the astronauts, and who – at the time, I thought – single-handedly defeated communism. You can solidly put me down in the “not a fan” column. Yet I still think he deserves a place on our currency.
Military personnel accused of ‘torture’ often claim they were just ‘following orders’. During the court martials at Nuremberg after World Was II, ‘just following orders’ didn’t cut it (just like “ignorance of the law is no excuse”). Nuremberg focused on the planners of the depravity:
The case as presented by the United States will be concerned with the brains and authority back of all the crimes. These defendants were men of a station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners and designers, the inciters and leaders without whose evil architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the violence and lawlessness, and wracked with the agonies and convulsions, of this terrible war.
I can’t tell you how weird it is to see “elderly white supremacist” in print? We’ve now found that he also dabbled in the arts (via BoingBoing). TPM has a very complete bio as well as a collection of his various diatribes from around the internet.
You’ve undoubtedly seen the Network-meets-Wall Street tirade of the Chicago Tea Party.
Also note that while Rich Santelli and his few brave band of brothers shout STOP! from athwart the floor of the stock exchange, cursing Obama’s spending and housing bailout plan, they mouth no exceptions to the bailout of the banking industry, or the plethora of tax cuts. Wonder why that is so?
Conservatives are likely to have the worst Black History Month ever, with an African-American leading both their party (Michael Steele) and in the White House. How will they be able to communicate their displeasure with the President with not-too-subtle references to fried chicken, rap music, and Cadillacs and not place the newly minted RNC chairman in a bind, forcing him to either condemn or condone their behavior, risking the wrath of true Conservative spokesman Rush Limbaugh?
It’s not even election day, and already the GOP is taking out the long knives. I’m unsure if McCain picked Palin as a stunt to woo the unicorns PUMAs, as a dog whistle to crazy-baselanders, or as a patsy for his increasingly probably defeat. In any case, the coalition of convenience formerly known as the GOP three legged stool of social conservatives, policy and pundit conservatives, and fiscal conservatives is rapidly coming off the rails. We can only hope that the GOP is too busy dealing with their own insurgents to pay attention to any of the real work getting done in picking up the pieces of eight-years of GOP-rule.
This really should come as no surprise, as McCain has an established track record of pulling the ejection handle or rapid reverses. By now you’ve certainly heard that John McCain has ’suspended’ his campaign.
(Yeah, yeah – I know its an F-16, an Air Force jet, and the Thunderbirds. But it works…)
This morning, the WSJ reports the following occurred:
…and if they did, they’d probably agree with it.
Many of us are making a big deal out of Sarah Palin’s inability to articulate the paramount legacy of this White House – The Bush Doctrine [wiki]. Here is a partial transcript and video of her interview with Charlie Gibson of ABCNEWS (more at HuffPo):
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine? PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
I’d like to make an effort to formally define the Bush Doctrine, to provide context for its existence, to examine its success, and to look at future challenges.
Regardless as to your political leanings, the Bush Doctrine exists for one reason and one reason only – to reinforce the Unitary Executive Theory, weakening what, to this point, had been the sole responsibility of Congress over the Executive Branch – the ability to declare war. Similarly, it seeks to remove any external, non-domestic restrictions by foreign bodies over US actions, including international agreements and treaties. In short, the US, as the sole remaining superpower (after the fall of the Soviet Union) would have the justification for acting unilaterally against any threat. This is further quantified by allowing the ability to wage preemptive war against perceived threats both in the near- and long-terms. In short, it means never having to say you are sorry.
