Two lawyers want to bring suit against the government because their privileged phone conversations with their clients were intercepted. The Obama of Kossack hallucination would have supported this cause. But the Obama of reality is doing everything it can to fight it.
As Marcy Wheeler documents in detail, the Obama DOJ is now spouting the Cheney/Addington view of government in its purest and most radical expression.Here's Marcy:
But why the fuck would an Executive Order--which is not a law but, as the term implies, an Executive Order--bind a non-Executive entity regarding information it created? This whole passage, read in the context of the wholesale rollback on Executive claims to have exclusive control over classified information just reeks of desperation. Not to mention an acceptance of Cheney's contention that we have fewer than one--or even two--branches of government.Back to Greenwald:
There is only one branch with the power to decide if these documents can be used in this Article III court proceeding: The Executive. What the President decides is final. His decision is unreviewable. It's beyond the reach of the law. No court has the authority to second-guess it or to direct the President to comply with a disclosure order.Big laffs: Here's a typical Kossack reaction...
Maybe the Obama justice department is pursuing this case precisely so it will be ruled against and establish a badly-needed precedent.
Have been wondering that myself...so far, it's the only idea that makes the bizarre continuation of BushCo policies make sense.
Obama and Holder are no fools. And I can't believe that they would protect Bush policies that are anathema to the rule of law. They can't tip their hand, but I'm convinced that whatever they're up to, it's going to work out to be the right thing to do to help root out the abuse.Oh jeez. Oh jeez. This is painful.
As I write, someone is sleeping in the next room, so I can't laugh out loud. But man-o-man -- holding it in is tough. These delusional rationalizations have me visualizing a housewife who tells herself that her husband is faithful even after he shuffles home at 5 a.m. with lipstick stains on his underwear.
On a related note: Obama says, vis-a-vis a proposed inquiry into the Bush/Cheney crimes, that he is "more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards." I knew that he would say those words -- those exact words -- six months before the election. That's why he received the backing that he received.
Elsewhere in the news...
Rush: He's still an idiot, but making him the center of the national debate will one day be regarded as a really, really, really dumb move.
By the way, he recently referred to Talking Points Memo as a "far left blog." Wow. What does that make Cannonfire?
Single Payer: Barack Obama is having a big health care party and Single Payer is not invited. hipparchia at Corrente wants to do something about that situation.
Watchmen: Okay, I'm stumped. I'm furious about the way Alan Moore has been treated. My sense of authorial rights tells me that if he did not want the film to be, it should not be. Yet I want to see it. Should I?
8 comments:
"Those exact words"? Got a link?
Because it sounds like you need to apologize for being prematurely correct!
I don't see why putting the spotlight on Limbaugh is such a bad idea. What it has done is take the oxygen away from all the rest of the GOP. Do you think the Boehners and McConnells of this world relish being totally eclipsed by this blowhard, who moreover is telling everyone the GOP is a bunch of idiots?
Oh no, I think the GOP would dearly love to see the whole Rush thing blow away, because it's making them look like who they are: an utterly unserious, irresponsible party.
Rush is doing exactly what he should be doing. Trying to get more listeners and be talked about as much as possible. This is why the Dem plan to make him the leader of the GOP is ridiculous. It means that Obama can't even stand up to a radio show host. In fact, the GOP are laughing at Obama privately, but they can't do so publicly because his approval rating is still high. That'll change soon enough. It's like in any strategy, you just have to hold on long enough for the tides to turn. Turn they will, and then the floodgates will open. Not everyone is ready to test those waters just yet because of what is happening with Rush. But that day will come. In a way, Rush is paving the way.
About the Kos' minions, I couldn't stop laughing. That is hilarious! Well, it's sad too. But today, I'm laughing.
As I recall, Obama actually DID say something during the primary campaign to the effect of we should look forward and not backward (and not, I might add, in the context of race relations). Some commenters noted then that it was likely code-speak for not holding Bush et al accountable for their crimes.
-------
I'm also bothered by this line-item veto thing. Politics in a system where various constituencies are being represented is the process-art of negotiation and compromise, and line-item veto power would not only make all that essentially pointless, but in practice it would likely lead to an endless cycle of veto-revenge as parties traded power.
On the sad front: Sen. Russ Feingold tried to convince the public to support the effort by likening the passion for earmarks to the passion to get Osama Bin Laden. Even though he's playing the terrorism card in reverse, he's still using an emotionally-charged issue to sell a political proposal, with all that that implies.
On the hopeful front: even the MSM (CBS News, I think it was)called it "a coalition of members from both parties wanting to increase the President's power."
Sergei Rostov
Re: Watchmen - Artistic solidarity dictates that you do NOT go. Also, the book is *always* better.
No, not always.
"The Godfather": mediocre (but entertaining) book, masterpiece movie.
"Wicked": appallingly bad book, outstanding Broadway musical.
This one is sure to get me flame-baited:
"LOTR": no, Tolkien was not a great writer. A great fantasist and storyteller, yes. Prose stylist, absolutely not (not in the same league, not even close, to fellow fantasist C.S.Lewis and I say this as a rabid fan of both), his writing is really turgid and ponderous. But the movies are wonderful.
Many have made the argument that "Dr. Zhivago" the movie far surpasses "Dr. Zhivago" the book, but I am not on firm enough ground on either one to argue for or against the proposition--and I'm sure my dissing of Tolkien will earn me enough ire for one day.
Re: "Watchmen" -
If Moore had bought paid Dave Gibbons the same amount of money that the movie producers will wind up paying him, then the movie probably shouldn't have been made. If you want to honor Moore's wishes, you could take a walkman and listen to music while the stunning visuals project onto the big screen. (Note: a 1980s walkman would be era-correct for this idea, I think, not some fancy new I-pod)
Personally, I hope the other creators of "Watchmen" get some compensation for the movie. From John Higgins (colors) all the way up to the DC publising folks. Moore's a talented guy, for sure, but I think it takes a lot of other people to really take his ideas to the remarkable level.
Someone posted this at my blog and it sums it up: "The White House is fighting a Radio talk show host and the talk show host is winning
Post a Comment