PDA

View Full Version : Terrorism not the only danger


Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 10:57 AM
I just read this in the Washington Post with respect to the Bush Administration's theory that the executive and only the executive has authority to act in time of war:

"terrorism is not the only new danger of this era. Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the "sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs.""Oh!" you may say. "The Washington Post! What else could you expect?"

But the author was no liberal editorial writer. The author was conservative columnist George Will in a column entitled "No Checks, Many Imbalances" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003.html) (registration required on Post website).

Lindsey
February 17th, 2006, 01:19 AM
But the author was no liberal editorial writer. The author was conservative columnist George Will in a column entitled "No Checks, Many Imbalances" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003.html)
I think that is the column that the NYT "Opinionator" linked to. It's not often that I find myself in agreement with George Will, but this is one time that I do.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 10:26 AM
Note the thundering silence from the right on this one. I guess if you can't say "but what about Teddy Kennedy at Chappaquiddick?" then you can't say anything at all...

Lindsey
February 17th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Note the thundering silence from the right on this one. I guess if you can't say "but what about Teddy Kennedy at Chappaquiddick?" then you can't say anything at all...
Here's the thing: I should have thought this was a position that conservatives would be quick to embrace. So why are they not? Are they, in the end, more concerned with preserving political power than standing up for principle?

--Lindsey

ndebord
February 17th, 2006, 11:51 PM
Here's the thing: I should have thought this was a position that conservatives would be quick to embrace. So why are they not? Are they, in the end, more concerned with preserving political power than standing up for principle?

--Lindsey


Lindsey,

Duh.

earler
February 18th, 2006, 05:54 AM
Bear in mind that he who was shot has apologized, too, for all the hassle the cheney family has endured. Mary jo didn't do that. She didn't say she was sorry for all the hassle the kennedy family, and teddy in particular, had to endure. How unkind of her!

-er

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 10:58 AM
I suspect it's mostly because those who claim to be conservatives aren't conservative at all. They are every bit as determined to centralize power (in their own hands, of course, and only because everyone else can't be trusted to make their own decisions) as those in the far left.

Lindsey
February 18th, 2006, 11:53 PM
Q.E.D.

Lindsey
February 18th, 2006, 11:57 PM
I suspect it's mostly because those who claim to be conservatives aren't conservative at all. They are every bit as determined to centralize power (in their own hands, of course, and only because everyone else can't be trusted to make their own decisions) as those in the far left.
I think that is certainly true of the necons. There are still some true conservatives out there. George Will is one, most of the time. Rehnquist was mostly one as well. I hope that John Roberts will prove to be, too, but we'll see.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 19th, 2006, 12:20 AM
As you know, I'm also quite hopeful that Sam Alito will be one as well.

rlohmann
February 19th, 2006, 09:49 AM
Here's the thing: I should have thought this was a position that conservatives would be quick to embrace. So why are they not? Are they, in the end, more concerned with preserving political power than standing up for principle?That's a pretty broad brush, isn't it?

rlohmann
February 19th, 2006, 09:49 AM
Nonsense.

Judy G. Russell
February 19th, 2006, 11:35 AM
Oh please... you're far too smart to have fallen for the "we're only doing this to fight terrorism" silliness.

Jeff
February 19th, 2006, 02:35 PM
Oh please... you're far too smart to have fallen for the "we're only doing this to fight terrorism" silliness.

Some of us know better...

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against its government. - Edward Abbey

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=opin&article_path=/opinion/opin060219_2.htm

- Jeff

Judy G. Russell
February 19th, 2006, 03:11 PM
That's a very nice little paper you have out there, Jeff!

Lindsey
February 20th, 2006, 02:30 AM
As you know, I'm also quite hopeful that Sam Alito will be one as well.
I'm afraid I have no hope of that at all. I do hope to be proven wrong.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 20th, 2006, 02:32 AM
That's a pretty broad brush, isn't it?
I am open to alternative explanations.

--Lindsey

ndebord
February 20th, 2006, 09:53 AM
As you know, I'm also quite hopeful that Sam Alito will be one as well.

Judy,

Hope springs eternal and all that. Since you have (at least) a nodding acquaintance with this justice, I really want to share your hope.

The seat is eternal and as long as the Republic stands, so too are his pronouncements at the oracle's mouth. Perhaps he'll decide based upon his place in history or not.

Judy G. Russell
February 20th, 2006, 11:40 AM
I do hope to be proven wrong.And I hope not to be...

Judy G. Russell
February 20th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Bottom line: if we have to have a conservative justice (and we did, given the President and the Senate we have), better we should have a thoroughly decent human being as well, and Sam Alito is that, for certain.