Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
LIGHTNING ROUND: MORAL MONSTERS, MORAL COWARDS.
- Spencer Ackerman cites a very good counterexample against the moral cowardice of opposition to an independent commission to investigate the crimes of the Bush administration by showing that shows we're more than capable of handling these much-needed airings of past transgressions: "The 9/11 Commission was not without its flaws, but it demonstrated that a group of wise men can avoid rancor, maintain the good faith of both political parties, display independence, yield an authoritative history of an American trauma and do this all in an election year."
- I confess I don't understand the torture apologists' strategy in shifting the conversation away from the efficacy, morality and legality of torture to that of screeching "Pelosi knows something!" or that she is being "vicious" in criticizing the CIA. But we do have a word for people like Charles Krauthammer, syndicated national columnist, who can't even come up with a good example of the "ticking time bomb" scenario upon which to defend the use of torture. That word is sadism, which is the only explanation I can think of for his easy willingness to defend barbarism.
- I find Defense Secretary Robert Gates' description of his job as that of "being secretary of war in a time of war" incredibly refreshing. Past men in his position were formerly called the Secretary of War, which was changed to the more passive Secretary of Defense in 1947 to reflect the tremendous changes the United States military had undergone during the course of WWII. But Gates isn't hiding behind that change of title. He's owning up to the fact that his job requires him to make war and send soldiers to their deaths and that that is something no one should desire.
- It's a good thing that the president is noting the hypocrisy of "the media" for calling his $17 billion in budget cuts insignificant while at the same time calling attention to the presence of similar drop-in-the-bucket earmarks in last year's budget as wasteful. Of course, the lesson seems to have been lost on Jake Tapper, who titled the above news item, "President Obama: Media Critic." Sigh.
- Michael Savage might be a bigoted jingo who doesn't deserve a public platform in any country, but it's fairly absurd that the British government would go so far as to ban him from entering the country. That being said, the irony of Savage calling upon his old friend Hillary Clinton to intervene is delicious.
- Remainders: Gingrich's influence in the conservative movement continues to expand; Fox News can't get enough of those tea parties; I don't understand Rush Limbaugh's anal fetish; and critical vice presidents, then and now.
--Mori Dinauer
COMMENTS (7)
Actually the 9/11 Commission and its report turns out to have been a typical case of beltway group think, getting the story wrong in important ways, and also failing (refusing) to actually assess blame.
I am surprised and disapponted in AmPro and Ackerman forthinking it was a success (except to the extent it helped bury the real story about Bush failure to prevent 9/11 and gin up the attack on Iraq).
Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2009 6:37 PM
sadism
Might be true, but IMHO misses the mark.
The proper category for bullying-from-a-safe-place authoritarians such as Krauthammer, Cheney, W., Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kristol, Podhoretz, Perle and their ilk is coward.
Posted by: joel hanes | May 15, 2009 7:37 PM
Can someone explain to me why the example Charles Krauthammer gave isn't a good example? I think it takes contortions to dismiss the example he gave. Maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by: Adrien Wild | May 15, 2009 9:46 PM
Outside of DC, you can't find 10 people who buy the 9/11 commission's report.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2009 12:32 PM
In case you Lefties hadn't heard, Britain is becoming a "soft totalitarian" Orwellian dictatorship thanks to NuLabour and its thoroughly leftist agenda of political correctness, diversity, and multiculturalism. Savage may well be a jerk, but there are untold examples of Britons (always Euro-Britons) persecuted for their beliefs. It's like the politicians and the bureaucrats and the academics read 1984 a long while ago, forgot they did so, but then started to construct Oceania anyway. It'd be risable if it weren't so damned anti-democratic and all.
Posted by: Crimethinker | May 16, 2009 3:11 PM
I find Defense Secretary Robert Gates' description of his job as that of "being secretary of war in a time of war" incredibly refreshing. Past men in his position were formerly called the Secretary of War, which was changed to the more passive Secretary of Defense in 1947 to reflect the tremendous changes the United States military had undergone during the course of WWII.
This seems a bit off. The Department of Defense was created in 1947 by merging the Department of War (which had jurisdiction over the army, including the then Army Air Force) and the Department of the Navy (which had jurisdiction over the Navy and Marines). The new name was chosen because, traditionally, Ministries of War were specifically associated with the army, while ministries of defense were associated with whole armed forces. It wasn't just that the name was changed - the DOD has a considerably broader purview than the old Department of War
Posted by: John | May 17, 2009 12:54 PM
"I confess I don't understand the torture apologists' strategy in shifting the conversation away from the efficacy, morality and legality of torture to that of screeching "Pelosi knows something!" or that she is being "vicious" in criticizing the CIA."
Maybe to drown out some rather problematic allegations, such as those by Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff, that prisoners in Irak were, upon request from the VP's office, subjected to torture in order to produce evidence for a link between Sadam Hussein and Al Qaida?
Posted by: SRW1 | May 18, 2009 9:45 AM