« Subprime | Main | From An Alternate Universe ... »

June 21, 2007

Comments

So I wonder: what part of being a minority woman disqualifies you from being a "Good American"?

I'm no expert on these things, but I'm pretty sure minority women could attain "Good American" status through donating to Republicans or other examples of extraordinary work in the service of kleptocracy.

Condoleeza Rice, I'm pretty confident, is indeed a Good American.

Condoleeza Rice, I'm pretty confident, is indeed a Good American.
But probably not "good" enough to become US president. Apart from being a female of color she is unmarried and childless*.

*but in the eyes of the "right" people she would be also disqualified as a wife with children because then she should have "other priorities".

You don't understand hilzoy, these three women, much like the Gittmo prisoners who committed suicide, were engaged in an act of asymmetric warfare against the United States of America. I mean, just look at their names. Teresa Kwong - obviously from axis of evil member North Korea. Tovah Calderon, an even more popular name for those from the middle east than Mohammed.

Finally, and perhaps most frighteningly, there is Karen Stevens. The mere fact that here name sounds so American sends chills up my spine - definitive proof of her evil doerness. Some might say that the name "Karen Stevens" is a perfectly normal American name, but as a wise SecDef once said, absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence of known unkowns and known knowns. Clearly Mr. Schlozman did the right thing in ferreting out this sleeper cell of highly educated women and transferring them to other places in the Justice Department, foiling their nefarious plans to protect the civil rights of ungood Americans.

In fact hilzoy, I'm getting mighty suspicious of your insistence on applying "standards," and "reason," and "the law" to a U.S. cabinet department that obviously has no need for such things. Don't you know that WE ARE AT WAR!

I'm getting mighty suspicious of your insistence on applying "standards," and "reason," and "the law"

indeed. don't forget what Martin Luther said:

    But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.

again, Reason is the Devil's Greatest Whore. we'd all do well to avoid partaking of it whenever possible.

Another example of the good deeds done by our rulers:

The D.C. Circuit Court on Wednesday, after pondering the issue for more than two months, on Wednesday refused to delay any longer putting into effect its decision that Guantanamo Bay detainees have lost all rights to pursue habeas challenges to their prolonged imprisonment.
...
the Justice Department appears likely to act quickly to get 12 District Court judges in Washington to dismiss habeas challenges by scores of detainees, and also to wipe out so-called "protective orders" that assure the detainees' lawyers access to their clients at Guantanamo and access to information the military may use to justify continuing to hold them.

Clearly the forces of good are winning the battle to create a legal black hole from which not even light can escape.

Slightly off topic but something not discussed much is the extent to which Bush has also politicized the Pentagon in the same fashion as the DoJ. Only those officers who play the Bush political game get ahead, and those who speak truth that is politically inconvenient have been cast aside. Do that for six years running, and you are going to get a screwed up military that cannot give meaningful military advice. There are no Shinsekis and Tagubas left.

Why is it that every time I read this blog my ACLU contribution goes up?

dmbeaster, is it really that different from the past with the Pentagon? This is an honest question because I seem to have difficulties to see that institution as apolitical (after WW2 that is) but can't judge the extent/degree to which it has been politicized during the past say 60 years.

As this story develops, the thing that concerns me most is the response to such shenanigans. In particular, I'm worried that a response that reaches too far (i.e., one that attempts to create more security for career lawyers will serve to ensure the DOJ remains comprised predominantly of "good Americans." In other words, come 2008, when a Democrat takes over the White House and tries to restore some balance to DOJ, you're gonna hear cries from RedStaters that this is hypocrisy.

What can be done to restore balance, but not purge the DOJ (or be open to criticism that that's what's happening) come 2008?

As this story develops, the thing that concerns me most is the response to such shenanigans. In particular, I'm worried that a response that reaches too far (i.e., one that attempts to create more security for career lawyers will serve to ensure the DOJ remains comprised predominantly of "good Americans." In other words, come 2008, when a Democrat takes over the White House and tries to restore some balance to DOJ, you're gonna hear cries from RedStaters that this is hypocrisy.

What can be done to restore balance, but not purge the DOJ (or be open to criticism that that's what's happening) come 2008?

Apparently, Republicans are too dumb not to understand that, when Democrats come back into power--and they inevitably will--the Democrats will use exactly the same tactics in the DoJ as the Republicans did.

What annoys me re: the Pentagon is the way the administration and its supporters hide behind well-regarded Generals like Petraeus. It's not just that the president is the generals' boss & you don't publicly break from your boss if it's good for your career--he is their commanding officer. And even if they're free to retire, if they do, it's not like they can just get a comparable position in the next administration.

Look at how Taguba testified to Congress v. what he told Sy Hersh about what he was really thinking. And Taguba is not a trimmer who won't risk his careeer to do the right thing--his report's quite honest--but there are limits to what a sitting member of the military can do & say.

14 more of our fellow Americans have martryed themselves in pursuit of our dear leader's quest for Trumanesque glory! The benevolence and inspiration of our President must be truly great to inspire such sacrifices in honor of his petulance.

Edward is right -- by doing what they've done, the DoJ has been seeded with idealogues chosen preciesly because they put party above the law.

Weeding them out may not be possible, not within the current law and certainly not within the sort of additional safeguards Congress is likely to pass. (Not that safeguards matter when one branch of government simply decides to stop obeying them).

Luckily, it appears 'competence' is not their strong suit and they may weed themselves out simply because they are in over their heads.

How much damage will be done in the meantime remains to be seen.

In Other News: Dick Cheney has reiterated his belief that the VP's office is not part of the executive branch, and is therefore not required to adhere to any law or regulation targetting the executive branch.

Dick Cheney has reiterated his belief that the VP's office is not part of the executive branch, and is therefore not required to adhere to any law or regulation targetting the executive branch.

Can he be impeached for that?

Not "Can Congress/the Senate muster the votes to impeach him", which is a different argument, but as a matter of law: if the Vice President of the United States has declared himself to be a fourth branch of government, outside the checks and balances of Executive, Judiciary, and Congress, ought he not to be impeached?

I agree with some other posters here, and do not think the racism criticism is fair (though all the other ones are).

Apparently, Republicans are too dumb not to understand that, when Democrats come back into power--and they inevitably will--the Democrats will use exactly the same tactics in the DoJ as the Republicans did.

They're not dumb. Many of them simply believe that Democrats already do this on a constant basis, and that the DOJ is loaded from top to bottom with Democrats as a result; Republicans don't seek to hire conservatives in order to stack the deck, but simply to try and bring matters closer to parity.

I agree with some other posters here, and do not think the racism criticism is fair (though all the other ones are).

If it sounds like racism and it acts like racism, it would behoove the originator to show that it isn't racism.

From a real American.

Republicans don't seek to hire conservatives in order to stack the deck, but simply to try and bring matters closer to parity.

Ah, yes. Like if you're uncomfortable because you have one foot stuck in too-hot water, you can balance it out by sticking your other foot into icewater.

You don't help the public handle a lie by spreading the opposite lie. You don't fight corruption by putting in new corrupt judges etc.

These people are extremely stupid. Or they're lying.

They're not dumb. Many of them simply believe that Democrats already do this on a constant basis, and that the DOJ is loaded from top to bottom with Democrats as a result; Republicans don't seek to hire conservatives in order to stack the deck, but simply to try and bring matters closer to parity.

Otherwise known as the Nixon dirty tricks defense.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad