Friday, November 26, 2004
Hey, let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Gonzales!
A thumbsucker from the LA Times:
Some balance, huh?
Where to begin? Which Gonzales will show up for work? Presumably, Bush knows—otherwise, Bush wouldn't have nominated him. And I was about to say that someone should just ask him, but all that would come out of Bush's mouth would be meaningless drivel of Hughesian talking points, so why bother?
Seems to me I remember December and January stories in 2001 wondering whether the Bush administration would be moderate.... And look what happened then!
Anyhow—heck, maybe at some point someone will pick up on this—the point on Gonzales isn't that he thinks the Geneva convention is "quaint," bad though that is. The point is that Gonzales wrote the brief that says Bush has the "inherent authority" to set aside the law (here)
That's not moderation in any sense of the word. In fact, it is, precisely, a revolution; taking power by overthrowing the rule of law.
And somehow, this story just doesn't get covered. I wonder why?
SCLM to citizens: Lay back and enjoy it!
UPDATE Link to Gonzales brief fixed, thanks to alert reader Ben G.
But friends and former associates, and even some adversaries, say Gonzales also has shown a balance that has been obscured in his service to Bush over the years.
Some balance, huh?
Now, with his presumed ascent to the top of the Justice Department, people are starting to wonder which Gonzales will show up for work: the relative moderate who emphasizes a low-key, fact-based approach to the law, or the ardent advocate who follows the marching orders of his president and friend and his expansive view of presidential power.
(via LA Times)
Where to begin? Which Gonzales will show up for work? Presumably, Bush knows—otherwise, Bush wouldn't have nominated him. And I was about to say that someone should just ask him, but all that would come out of Bush's mouth would be meaningless drivel of Hughesian talking points, so why bother?
Seems to me I remember December and January stories in 2001 wondering whether the Bush administration would be moderate.... And look what happened then!
Anyhow—heck, maybe at some point someone will pick up on this—the point on Gonzales isn't that he thinks the Geneva convention is "quaint," bad though that is. The point is that Gonzales wrote the brief that says Bush has the "inherent authority" to set aside the law (here)
That's not moderation in any sense of the word. In fact, it is, precisely, a revolution; taking power by overthrowing the rule of law.
And somehow, this story just doesn't get covered. I wonder why?
SCLM to citizens: Lay back and enjoy it!
UPDATE Link to Gonzales brief fixed, thanks to alert reader Ben G.
