« For the Spider's House is the Frailest of all Houses | Main | Systemic Issues with the Torture Memo »

June 10, 2004


Cheney's "up for grabs" comment is a reflection that some in the BushCo team didn't view their victory as anything less than a 'regime change' that allowed them almost-monarchical powers.

Their obsession with doing everything exactly opposite to Clinton was another give-away of their mental frame.

These guys are not conservatives, or even small R republicans.

This election isn't about just about a party victory, it is about retaking our American way of governing.

One shame in this (though certainly not the greatest) is that after a man jumped off a cliff so many people waited until he hit bottom and there was a corpse to look at before they worried about it.

And the people who did worry were ridiculed for not trusting gravity to take care of it, and will be roundly ignored and forgotten the next time someone jumps off a cliff.


someone on Tacitus echoed that sentiment the other day, noting that so often when we have given this Administration the benefit of the doubt on something that seemed beyond the pale---and let's face it, the Administration and its supporters DEMAND we give them the benefit of the doubt on any WoT-related program activities---trusting them turned out to have been a mistake.

Not to detract from a fine post with pointless nitpicking, but the quote from A Fish Named Wanda isn't quite right. That should be "the message of Buddhism", not "the principle of Buddhism".


Actually, "everything is up for grabs" is a postmodernist principle, as ably explained by Josh Marshall in the Washington Monthly last year.

In the New Republican Tribe pomo model, all narratives about facts or normative standards are mere fictions. The reality is nothing more than power relationships, so you do whatever it takes to follow the most effective path to power.

If Padilla had blown up a few apartment buildings, would the same posters be talking about connecting the dots. From one extreme to the other.

If the 9-11 bombers had been picked up before the act, would we be having the same conversation?

But please carry-on, don't let me stop you.


By the same standard, should we have started locking up far-right militia members as enemy combatants after the Oklahoma City bombing?

Paperweight, not so (both w/r/t postmodernism -- you [and perhaps Josh Marshall] have got it wrong -- and w/r/t the Republican party]). But I'm out of time.

If Padilla had blown up a few apartment buildings, would the same posters be talking about connecting the dots. From one extreme to the other.

TtWD, I'm not suggesting that Padilla not be picked up, questioned, and investigated. I do suggest, however, that if the evidence shows that he's not guilty of the crime that he's accused of, he not be imprisoned for it.* This is not a radical viewpoint.

*I note that the jury's still out on this one.

von: What of the stronger assertion that he should not be imprisoned prior to the ascertaining of his guilt?

von: well, when you have more time, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I've seen nothing in postmodern political philosophy (including legal realism) which provides normative guides. In the behavior of the New Republican Tribe (very different from principled conservatism, with which I may disagree, but which I do not disparage) which I've not seen any regard for the facts or identifiable principles of behavior beyond a naked tribalism and striving for power.

Timmy, I guarantee that jailing you indefinitely would almost guarantee that you would not bomb any apartment buildings. And isn't that sacrifice worth the danger to potentially hundreds of innocent lives? Hundreds, Timmy. How can you in good conscience let yourself go free?

Also, let me add that calling due process 'one extreme' is galling.

You and many other people seem to be dominated by your fear. Humans and Americans are best when they do not choose to act out of fear.

Two years and more on, and now the G just comes up and says: "Oops, little mistake there, Mr. Padilla, sorry to have troubled you......" ?
And after two years and more of trying to push the "dirty bomber" as the poster boy for PATRIOT Act, indefinite-preventitive-detention rules [the execution of which we have been supposed to just "trust" the Executive Branch's wisdom on] - now their info has just turned out to be "wrong"???
Might this (and HOW might this) be related to the SCOTUS's pending decision re Padilla: might ShrubCo have decided dump the case in order to moot the Court's ruling, and avoid having their claim to neo-monarchical powers voided officially?
The mind boggles.
But then, after 3-1/2 years of Dubya, I'm getting boggled out!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad