Where's the beef?
This morning, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post takes a Devil's advocate approach to try and understand the President's repetitive claim that operating above the law is necessary for the "protection" of the American people. Mr. Robinson writes:
Instead, the response from the White House to its critics is "trust me", or that ol' chestnut, "we haven't had a terrorist attack in four years." Well, yeah, but by that standard, Bill Clinton was the greatest anti-terror President of all time, wasn't he? After all, on Bubba's watch it was a full eight years between the '93 bombing of the World Trade Center and the end of his term in office in January '01.
So I can only conclude that the very lack of specific, beneficial examples resulting from Mr. Bush's extra-legal policy reveals a basic lie at the heart of his rationale. This is virtually identical to the lie at the core of other Administration practices over the past four years, little things like indefinite detainment, extraordinary rendition, prisoner torture, none of which have resulted in demonstrable successes, or even a single conviction in our courts.
Am I just missing the big picture here?
Until this Administration offers some verifiable evidence that its dictatorial actions are indeed making America safer, I guess I'll just have to cling to my skepticism and outrage. I need more than "trust me" as a reason to abandon the Constitution and America's historical adherence to basic civil rights, especially from a group that has more than demonstrated its lack of credibility on just about every issue imaginable.
In the words of that classic fast-food ad, "Where's the beef?"
[C]an this administration's usurpation of power somehow be justified?I keep wondering if there is any evidence that the domestic spying policies of the Bush Administration have actually yielded positive results, and if so, why those triumphs have not been trotted out immediately as proof of the effectiveness of said practice. I mean, if Mr. Bush's double super secret surveillance program has thwarted terrorist plans and/or operations, why not tell us about it? Why not cite some specific examples? Wouldn't that immediately put this entire debate to rest?
Every time I work it through, the answer I come up with is no. The president has no right to ignore the rule of law as if it were a mere nuisance.
Instead, the response from the White House to its critics is "trust me", or that ol' chestnut, "we haven't had a terrorist attack in four years." Well, yeah, but by that standard, Bill Clinton was the greatest anti-terror President of all time, wasn't he? After all, on Bubba's watch it was a full eight years between the '93 bombing of the World Trade Center and the end of his term in office in January '01.
So I can only conclude that the very lack of specific, beneficial examples resulting from Mr. Bush's extra-legal policy reveals a basic lie at the heart of his rationale. This is virtually identical to the lie at the core of other Administration practices over the past four years, little things like indefinite detainment, extraordinary rendition, prisoner torture, none of which have resulted in demonstrable successes, or even a single conviction in our courts.
Am I just missing the big picture here?
Until this Administration offers some verifiable evidence that its dictatorial actions are indeed making America safer, I guess I'll just have to cling to my skepticism and outrage. I need more than "trust me" as a reason to abandon the Constitution and America's historical adherence to basic civil rights, especially from a group that has more than demonstrated its lack of credibility on just about every issue imaginable.
In the words of that classic fast-food ad, "Where's the beef?"
posted by Bob P @ 10:03 AM
1 Comments:
An excellent point. Thus far the administration has asked for every bit of power and authority on a "trust us we know what we're doing" basis. And sure, no more attacks have happened...but why is it the only "successes" we hear about here at home are ones like Padilla or the Lakawanna Six? Is that really all there is? And I think it's fair judge the success of the "war on terror" here at home by tossing in Iraq and Afghanistan, since the Bush administration does. Looking at the record over there, are we supposed to feel confident about what's going on here at home? Are we simply supposed to say "Sure, take my free speech rights, since you're keeping me safe"?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home