Broder: Do We Want to See Cheney in the Dock?
The beltway logic as expressed by David Broder:
In times like these, the understandable desire to enforce individual accountability must be weighed against the consequences. This country is facing so many huge challenges at home and abroad that the president cannot afford to be drawn into what would undoubtedly be a major, bitter partisan battle over prosecution of Bush-era officials. The cost to the country would simply be too great.
When President Ford pardoned Nixon in 1974, I wrote one of the few columns endorsing his decision, which was made on the basis that it was more important for America to focus on the task of changing the way it would be governed and addressing the current problems. It took a full generation for the decision to be recognized by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and others as the act of courage that it had been.
I hope we can avoid another such lapse. The wheels are turning, but they can still be halted before irreparable damage is done.
In this very article he admits that he was all for the impeachment of Clinton over a blow job, but thinks that investigating people for possible war crimes is, "a matter of regret".
I mean, seriously, on what planet do these buggers reside?
And I note that he admits he was one of the few columnists to praise the pardoning of Nixon. That's because there are some sights too hideous to imagine.
Looming beyond the publicized cases of these relatively low-level operatives is the fundamental accountability question: What about those who approved of their actions? If accountability is the standard, then it should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings. Ultimately, do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?Erm, yes.
He is proving that he understands perfectly well where this should go, but the notion of Cheney ever having to answer for his crimes is simply too repugnant for Broder to stomach.
But he has no problem supporting a witch-hunt into that dirty Clinton person with his penis thingy, because he's disgusting. Cheney only committed war crimes, Clinton had sex. I mean, that's just evil.
These people literally boggle my brain.
3 comments:
What we want is to find out if the former Vice President may have done anything illegal that should, possibly be examined in a court of law.
Then, if that answer is yes, we need to have this examined in that same court of law and, if found guilty, then, yes, Mr. Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney should be in the hoosegow, for sure.
No one is supposed to be above the law.
No one should defy our Constitution or our laws.
No one.
Not even Dick.
Mo Rage
The blog
And do you see this for what it is?
"The wheels are turning, but they can still be halted before irreparable damage is done."
This is acknowledgement that the right-wingers will go nuts on everyone, should this go forward.
Can you imagine the hate, anger and vitriol Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Really(?) would create if this goes very far? And then there are the nutcases on the streets, with their sidearms.
It needs to happen and it should happen but it would be very, very ugly to the point of dangerous, I believe.
Mo Rage
The Blog
Mo,
I agree that the nutters would go more insane than even their present state of utter nuttiness.
But the country is either a nation of laws or it is not.
Personally, I care not whether they pardon him. I simply want to see it established that what he did was illegal. The US and the Limbaugh, Beck and O'Reilly nutters need to admit that torture is wrong. That will suffice.
Post a Comment