Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Stalemate or There Won't Be Blood
Advance warning: I've become pretty bored with the Democratic primary of late, so this post is about something else. Also, I apologize for the blunt, crappy lede, but I'm not feeling well at the moment and I can't really think of a better way to say it right now.
Outside of the funhouse-mirror world that the Democratic primary has become restricted to, we've had some interesting developments in the last couple of weeks. We had Petraeus and Crocker explaining that the surge, as it is called, has more or less been successful in reducing violence, but that this is a brand of progress which we may see reversed if the wind changes. We were also given definitive documentary evidence that Bush and his NSC were directly involved in signing off on the selective application of the Geneva convention with respect for bringing the techniques of torture to bear against our designated enemies.
The Iraq war is now five years old and the Bush administration is well into its last year of pressing forward in its application of the theory of the unitary executive. It has become perfectly clear that we will not see the Democratic opposition take any decisive or meaningful action on any of these fronts before the year is out. There will be strongly worded letters. There will be, perhaps, hearings.
There likely won't be indictments and so there won't be convictions. Even if there were, they would be answered back with pardons.
There won't be impeachments.
So we can, I hope, start to see why Bush was so typically nonchalant about the startling revelation that he had green-lighted torture (as if we ever should have believed that such initiatives simply arose organically at the bottom of the hierarchy of command). When Nancy Pelosi promised that there would be no impeachment under her leadership, when she took impeachment "off the table" as she said, what she was really doing was putting impunity on the table, a particularly comical concept when taken in consideration of the absolutely cavalier group to which her comment was addressed.
It would seem that I am somehow supposed to find solace in the likely prospect of increased Democratic leadership in the coming year. I am told that impeachment or any proceeding with actual teeth would simply be a waste of time, but underneath it all is the implication that any such dealings would put at risk the prospects of further Democratic wins this November.
However, this is not comforting to me. I am being made a sort of promise that leadership will someday arrive by the hands of those who refuse to take any risk in leading right now. I am being told essentially that if I and others will only grant them more power then they will finally do what is right.
I do not like this bargain and I do not like the feeling that it gives me. It strikes me as Faustian. I particularly don't like that I have little other choice but to trust that these promises will be made good. I remain weary of the taste that will arrive upon my tongue if it comes to pass that I've played the rube.
Happy Tax Day.













Comments (12)
Don't give up all hope. There might be some light at the end of the tunnel.
April 15, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has given a typically thoughtful and balanced response here, but I don't hold out much hope from him or anyone else when it comes to following up on these issues once the Bush administration has departed. It's not simply punishing them that concerns me, but rather that they've damaged the structure and purpose of our government in ways that are potentially irreparable should they go unchecked.
April 15, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putting two ideas together:
Is it possible that the reason she doesn't want to impeach Bush/Cheney is to avoid another Ford/Nixon pardoning? Maybe she wants President Obama to feel free to criminally prosecute them without possibility of pardon!
OK, I didn't think so either, but it is fun to speculate!
April 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.. thanks for trying, Ben. Of course, this is precisely why Kucinich and others propose impeaching both of them. Obviously, you can't just impeach Bush in this administration. I can't remember where I read it, but it's been speculated that Pelosi is personally reluctant to step into the role of President were both of these men removed from office. The source wasn't verified or substantial AFAIK, but if she really is averse to the prescribed line of succession in our Constitution then she has no business being Speaker.
April 15, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am both saddened an enraged that this is likely the case.
April 15, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am being told essentially that if I and others will only grant them more power then they will finally do what is right.
Told by whom? Particularly, the assertion that they will do what is right? I would like to believe a path of granting more power would somehow lead to saner restrictions on power, but it is a road that does not seem well-lit or without potholes.
I do believe that a President Obama in conjunction with a strong Democratic majority in Congress would represent the end of outrageous infringements - say sanctioned torture or Guantanamo.
Not so certain however concerning items like telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping or illegal border searches.
Since nearly the founding of our country, and somewhat independent of the originating political party, there has been a steady drumbeat of increased federalization and infringement of individual freedoms. In essence, not so much an assault on the Bill of Rights as a slow but steady grinding.
Conversely, full revolution notwithstanding, few and far between are instances of restoration of liberty and revocation of power once said liberty has been distressed or said power granted. I cannot help wonder, or perhaps fear, if finally we citizens learn the reason for paltry action on this front by the Democratic party has less to do with its unwillingness to risk loss of political capital rather than its instinctive disdain at loss of established power.
April 15, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Told by the Democratic leadership, specifically people like Nancy Pelosi, that they can't get entangled in enforcing our Constitution because it would be a distraction.. from getting more Democrats elected.
I generally share your view and the concerns therein. Bruce Fein has been making this point for the last year, that these expansions of executive power will lie around "like loaded weapons" for future administrations. I know we're not supposed to criticize Democrats around here apparently (sorry, I'm never going to buy into that nonsense, election or no), but I'm not comfortable trusting the Democrats in this respect. "Put us in power and we'll fix it" seems to be the implication, but I'm seriously skeptical of this.
April 15, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Told by the Democratic leadership, specifically people like Nancy Pelosi, that they can't get entangled in enforcing our Constitution because it would be a distraction.. from getting more Democrats elected.
Sadly, agreed.
What I probably failed to communicate in my previous comment was an apparent lack of the silver lining in the cloud - that to my knowledge Speaker Pelosi never offers that implication where "things will be better" in terms of reinforcement of personal liberties after attaining an unassailable congressional majority. Perhaps a more general rainbow leading to the pot of gold, but never really the colors involved, particularly with regard to the issue of constitutionality.
If such implication was made, my immediate question would have to be what sort of majority would be enough for her and the Democratic party (or any other)? What consolidation of power would satisfy her estimate of "enough" to pull the trigger? We'd likely be disappointed to learn the answer, no?
April 15, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't think of any specific statement where this is spelled out, but rather it seems to me to be sort of implied that they'll go ahead and get around to it at some later date... probably. Or not. Remember all of the puffed up rhetoric from Pelosi and Reid about the "new direction Congress"? Yeah, that's kind of why I'm coming down so cynically on this one.
April 15, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 15, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, am not smart enough to devise a method to get them back, though I would desperately support nearly any sane plane to do so.
Any big ideas out there?
April 15, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/18/bill-clinton-george-hw-bush-will-help-president-hillary/
Another reason I'd hate to see Hillary steal the primary. It would be kind of hard to press war crimes charges against the son of your BFF.
April 15, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment