Axelrod vs. Cheney
Neat video courtesy of ThinkProgress of David Axelrod hitting back against Dick Cheney’s criticisms of the Obama administration:
This leads Kevin Drum to remark:
I’ve been mulling this ever since Cheney started spouting off a few weeks ago, and I still haven’t really made up my mind about it. Does an outgoing administration owe an incoming one silence? I don’t think that’s always been the case (historians please correct me here if I’m wrong), and I wonder if it really should be. Sure, it would be unseemly for ex-presidents and their staffs to engage in partisan feeding frenzies after they leave office, but is there really any reason why they should all take vows of silence? If Cheney thinks torture and warrantless wiretapping are vital to the nation’s security, then maybe he should go ahead and say so. Why not?
I think the “don’t criticize your successor” rule only makes sense as prudential advice. Not only is Dick Cheney not a credible messenger, but him speaking out looks like sour grapes and it’s all vaguely absurd. The prudent ex-president or ex-veep tries to shift into high-minded elder statesman terrain rather than slumming it à la Cheney.
But as a substantive rule, a “keep quiet” doctrine wouldn’t make sense. It was a good thing that Al Gore brought the credibility and perspective he had as a former Vice President to bear and criticized the invasion of Iraq. And even though I tend not to agree with Cheney on the merits of issues, there’s no denying that he’s been able to look at these things up close so if he thinks it’s important for him to speak out I have no procedural objection to that. It’s just that you’d have to be pretty dumb to actually think it makes sense to take advice from a guy with Cheney’s record.
80 Responses to “Axelrod vs. Cheney”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 5th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I have thought for some time that Chaney’s sole roll is to provide words for the most rabid right-wing Republicans to repeat.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
That was a good two years after his term ended. A decent interlude would be appropriate.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
The fact that Cheney is running his mouth suggests that he thinks he burned all the incriminating emails,etc. Obama should task someone to stress test that assumption.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
And if Cheney wants to volunteer information, then I would let him do so. Under Oath. Before a Congressional Committee. But only after investigators have dug up the skeletons. Then jack up some prison and bury Cheney under it the first time he perjures himself.
April 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
This fucking murderer. This would-be tyrant. This torture junkie. This piece of sub-human garbage thinks he has the right to open his reeking pie-hole? Kill him now.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
And even though I tend not to agree with Cheney on the merits of issues, there’s no denying that he’s been able to look at these things up close so if he thinks it’s important for him to speak out I have no procedural objection to that.
Good.
It’s just that you’d have to be pretty dumb to actually think it makes sense to take advice from a guy with Cheney’s record.
Huh? Why’s that? What’s the record of terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11. Oh, yes, that’s right: zero. Gee, maybe Cheney’s record isn’t so bad after all.
April 5th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Cheney to the chopping block!
I’m glad he’s talking. He’s begging the administration to come after him. I say, comply, and quickly.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Cheney’s counting on tradition and pity to keep him out of the dock. He’s treating his near-death condition like the proverbial Get Out of Jail Free card.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
How many Charles? Wait, why do you give him a pass for 9/11? Do you think that the biggest terrorist attack on American soil gives him a do-over? Seems awfully generous of you Charles. What about anthrax? Doesn’t that count?
Also, how many plots were foiled by Cheney’s invasions of privacy? How many were foiled by Cheney’s support for torture?
I’d say, as a rationalist, that having the worst terrorist attack occur on your watch makes your words less credible. I’d say that having used torture to generate phony attack scenarios makes your words less credible. But then, in my world, facts matter.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
How many Charles?
37.6435
Wait, why do you give him a pass for 9/11?
I don’t. I think he does bear some responsibility for that. But not nearly as much as Clinton and Gore.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
9/11, anthrax, DC sniper…
April 5th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Cheney’s counting on tradition and pity to keep him out of the dock.
That, plus the fact that there’s no serious case against him.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I think the last time we did this, “charles” was going by “gary”.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“DMonteith” was going by “Anthony.”
April 5th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I don’t know why David Axelrod feels the need to keep on bringing up Dick Cheney. I would think he would have other things to do like helping President Obama get his policy in place. Axelrod should have been content to let Cheney fade away into the ash heap of history.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Charles, what was that number supposed to be? In any case, please explain your case. So far all you have is argument by assertion. You’ve explained nothing, and haven’t given any reason why anyone who isn’t a mindless Republican Partisan would agree with you.
While you are marshaling your evidence, it would help if you could explain why the AG under Bush/Cheney didn’t list anti-terrorism as one of his top priorities until after 9/11. Please compare and contrast this with the Clinton/Gore priorities. It might also help if you could provide some insight into the specific actions taken in response to warnings about terrorist activity in the lead-up to 9/11.
In the end, like every moronic defender of Mr. Torture, you will not provide facts, just a simpleminded recitation of long ago disproved talking points.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
yep, that weird parallelism (”Anthony is X” as a response to “gary is y”) pretty well shows that “gary” and “charles” are one and the same. All I can say, as you guys lay out the case for prosecuting Cheney, is get ready for some solipsism, some ignoring of your rebuttals and insistance of stuff that you’ve explained many many times.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
You know, you’d think that Cheney, after helping to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would gracefully go to the ash heap of history. But then that’s counting on a Republican to have a sense of decency. Something we haven’t seen in decades.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Mixner has been “hatsoff” when trolling on the topic of marijuana, but when he’s cheering on torture, he can be “charles”, “jason” or all manner of socks. Dick Cheney likes his rent-boys that way.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
@ 15 Fade away into the ash heap of history
I totally disagree. I would keep the monumental failings of the prior administration front and center for as long as I could. To me, its as basic as politics get.
Tribunals forcing Cheney to explain his idiotic Grand Strategy, don’t get attacked while your nation collapses around you, would wrap up the next two elections for Democrats.
Real politik aside, and more importantly, he committed crimes. Crimes against the State and the People. There is a moral imperative involved.
April 5th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
It’s weird that he needs pseudonyms for a pseudonym, and that he always chooses lower-case regular-guy names, making it very easy to identify him. Once he starts talking about how Cheney can’t be guilty because he hasn’t been tried, and wanting him tried means we don’t want a trial because we already think he’s gulty, then we’ll know that “gary” is back with a vengeance.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
As for the “we didn’t get attacked since 9/11, and 9/11 was Clinton’s fault.” Nonsense. Clinton made a special, unscheduled speech in his final days to the Joint Congress, very reminiscent of Eisenhower’s Military Industrial Complex speech, were he spent most of his two hours warning of the rising threat of global terror and the need to take serious precautions.
The Republican and Media response was to essentially say, “Clinton has gone daffy.” Terrorists! Terrorists? What a goof ball that Clinton is.
As we now know, the Bush administration didn’t put terrorism on the back burner, it took it off the stove, poured it into some tupperware, and put it in the fridge.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Anthony.’
April 5th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
as i said elsewhere, cheney’s series of high-profile attacks on the obama administration is part of a pre-emptive defense strategy.
cheney knows that obama does not want to divide the country. so obama will seek prosecution only if it looks like justice and the law demand it, not like it’s a partisan witch-hunt against political enemies.
so the more that cheney can get his friends in the press to label him as a “sharp critic of the obama administration” etc., the more he is priming the press to treat any prosecution as an attempt to “silence a critic”. because obama will not pursue him if that’s how it’s going to look.
as usual, cheney is not doing anything for the good of the country. he is only acting for the good of cheney.
definitely one of the most evil men our country has ever produced.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Dick Cheney: only allowed one four-digit casualty terror attack on the American homeland on his watch, and don’t you forget it, bub.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Charles, what was that number supposed to be?
The number you asked for.
In any case, please explain your case.
Please explain my case for what? When your questions are so vague and cryptic, it’s hard to know what you’re asking for.
explain why the AG under Bush/Cheney didn’t list anti-terrorism as one of his top priorities until after 9/11.
Probably for the same reason that the AG under Clinton/Gore didn’t list anti-terrorism as one of his top priorities.
Please compare and contrast this with the Clinton/Gore priorities.
Clinton/Gore didn’t seem to place any greater priority on anti-terrorism.
In the end, like every moronic defender of Mr. Torture, you will not provide facts,
In the end, like every brain-dead anti-torture fundamentalist, not only do you not provide facts, your position is profoundly immoral and utterly nonsensical.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
The United States went longer without a terror attack under Clinton and Gore than under Bush and Cheney.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Dick Cheney: only allowed one four-digit casualty terror attack on the American homeland on his watch, and don’t you forget it, bub.
Hush, child.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Thomas,
David Axelrod isn’t a policy functionary; he’s a political strategist. Policy? I don’t want David Axelrod formulating policy! I want him organizing Obama’s domestic political, public relations strategy – and bashing Dick Cheney, keeping the miserable failure that he and the Bush administration represented, and highlighting the fact that Barack Obama is governing in a manner that Dick Cheney passionately disapproves of, is very smart politics for the Obama White House.
I want David Axelrod to stay 500 feet away from any meeting in which policy is being formulated, and begin every sentence he speaks with a reference to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, or Donald Rumsfeld.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Aw, I hurt his widdle feelings; I said something mean about his hero.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
@ joe from Lowell: The United States went longer without a terror attack under Clinton and Gore than under Bush and Cheney.
And when a major attack DID come, it was perpetrated by two midwestern white-bread US Army veterans.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Anthony.’
gary–grow up, man.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
The United States went longer without a terror attack under Clinton and Gore than under Bush and Cheney.
Brilliant. So if there had been a terrorist attack one day after Obama was sworn in as president, joe would have compared Obama’s record on terrorism unfavorably to Bush’s, on the grounds that “the United States went longer without a terror attack under Bush and Cheney than under Obama and Biden.”
You’re really outdoing yourself in the stupid department today, joe.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Aw, I hurt his widdle feelings; I said something mean about his hero.
Aw, I hurt joe’s widdle feelings; I said something not mean about the man he lives to hate.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
And when a major attack DID come, it was perpetrated by two midwestern white-bread US Army veterans.
Yes, that’s right, “efgoldman.” It’s a little-known fact that Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Ahmad Ajaj and Khaled Shaikh Mohammed are midwestern white-bread US Army veterans.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Of course I wouldn’t; judging the efficacy of counter-terror policies by a timeline like that is idiotic.
That’s why I’m mocking your for doing so, like here: What’s the record of terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11. Oh, yes, that’s right: zero. Gee, maybe Cheney’s record isn’t so bad after all.
Really, making an argument like that is – what did you call it? Oh, right, “outdoing yourself in stupidity.”
Seriously, you should knock that off. It really is an idiotic argument, and even by your own standards, it makes Bush and Cheney come off worse.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Mixner, wow, lay off the booze. At least until you’re 14.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
He was talking about Clinton’s term, Einstein.
Smoove.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
As Duncan Black has observed, it is truly amazing how the anthrax attacks have been so successfully stuffed down the memory hole.
Cranky
April 5th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Of course I wouldn’t
Well, no, you wouldn’t. Because you have one set of standards for Bush and another set for Obama. It’s all part of your political pathology, joe.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
What’s Spanish for habeas corpus?
Or, maybe because it’s a dumbass standard, and I don’t use it for Bush, Clinton, or Obama.
Don’t project your idiocies onto me, chief. I didn’t bring up this moronic standard; I abjured it, and mocked you for using it.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
He was talking about Clinton’s term, Einstein.
Poor joe is just so shockingly ignorant he doesn’t even realize that Clinton was president in 1993.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Or, maybe because it’s a dumbass standard, and I don’t use it for Bush, Clinton, or Obama.
What was that statement you made? Oh yes: “The United States went longer without a terror attack under Clinton and Gore than under Bush and Cheney.”
April 5th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
But since you DO endorse that standard for judging the success of a counter-terror program, would it be safe to say that you will proclaim Obama to be a better, more responsible president than Bush if there isn’t a 9/11-scale terror attack on American soil by mid-September?
I don’t expect you’ll answer, but that’s ok. I’m more interested in exposing you as a fraud and a hack anyway.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
gary–joe explained that it was YOU who introduced that standard, and he invoked it to show how being even your own moronic standards, you are wrong.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
OMG.
Here, chuckles, let me walk you through this:
The United States went longer without a terror attack under Clinton and Gore than under Bush and Cheney.
followed by:
And when a major attack DID come, it was perpetrated by two midwestern white-bread US Army veterans.
He was talking about the Murrah bombing happening on Clinton’s watch, genius. I made a statement about how long Clinton served without a major terror attack (hint: think early 90s), and then “elfgoldman” pointed out that when a terror attack did come, it was carried out by white American veterans.
Just stop. You’re making yourself look like an idiot.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Yes, once you brought up the standard, I pointed out that your boy Cheney fails even under that standard.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“being even” = “by even”
April 5th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Anthony, you are such a moron you don’t even realize what the standard is.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Now that is an intelligent reply, he-of-man-generic-names.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Yes, once you brought up the standard, I pointed out that your boy Cheney fails even under that standard.
No, you didn’t. You announced your own standard, and then falsely claimed that Clinton and Gore did better under that standard than Bush and Cheney.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
you’d have to be pretty dumb to actually think it makes sense to take advice from a guy with Cheney’s record.
Huh? Why’s that? What’s the record of terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11.
What’s the proper criterion for judging Cheney’s record, something verifiable, quantifiable, or something not? Only an idiot (or liar) like ‘charles’ would choose the latter as the sole criterion. Cheney’s record is patently horrible. He was wrong about so many things, it would be much easier to list things he was right about.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Perhaps Chuckles is a Laurie Mylroie fan, rather than just a garden-variety twit who’s gotten himself tangled up his argument, and his 9:14 comment is meant to indicate that that the OKC bombing was carried out by Muslim fundamentalists with links to al Qaeda?
Chuckles, are you a Laurie Mylroie fan? Of should we just assume the other thing?
April 5th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
He was talking about the Murrah bombing happening on Clinton’s watch, genius.
No, he said “when a major attack did come” on Clinton’s watch. There was a major attack in February 1993. But of course you probably don’t even know that because you’re so ignorant.
Seriously joe, you’re not only stupid and ignorant. You’re stupid, ignorant and illiterate.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Let’s go to the tape:
charles Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
And even though I tend not to agree with Cheney on the merits of issues, there’s no denying that he’s been able to look at these things up close so if he thinks it’s important for him to speak out I have no procedural objection to that.
Good.
It’s just that you’d have to be pretty dumb to actually think it makes sense to take advice from a guy with Cheney’s record.
Huh? Why’s that? What’s the record of terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11. Oh, yes, that’s right: zero. Gee, maybe Cheney’s record isn’t so bad after all.
Why, look at that. Chuckles, using the length of time without a terror attack to make a judgement about Dick Cheney’s record, 38 minutes before I even mentioned the subject of Dick Cheney’s record on terror attacks.
Why do you do this, Chuckles? Do you think people can’t scroll back up and read the thread? Or look at the time code that appears under every commenter’s name?
April 5th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
…immediately after quoting my reply to your comment about how long the United States went without a terror attack AFTER the major terror attack on each president’s watch.
Once again, Chuckles, what do you think this is going to accomplish? Everyone who reads your comment will have read through the thread, remember what you’re responding to, and immediately realize you’re wrong.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Why, look at that. Chuckles, using the length of time without a terror attack to make a judgement about Dick Cheney’s record,
Why, look at that. Josephine thinks “length of time since 9/11″ means the same thing as “length of time without a terror attack.”
But then, since Josephine is stupid, ignorant and illiterate, that isn’t terribly surprising.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
And you’re just getting all wound up, aren’t you?
You know, some people claim that wingnut torture apologists are cold, heartless people, but not you, Chuckles. You’re really quite emotional, aren’t you?
April 5th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Everyone can read the thread, Chuckles. You’re just drawing attention to yourself.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
immediately after quoting my reply to your comment about how long the United States went without a terror attack AFTER the major terror attack on each president’s watch.
Nice try, Josephine, but you don’t get to pretend you said something else. You wrote “longer without a terror attack.” Not “longer without a second terror attack after the first one.”
April 5th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Once again, though it’s obvious to anyone reading the thread, you raised the issue – the length of time without a second terror attack – and I used your standard.
Which, once again, is a standard by which Clinton is a better president than Bush – though that’s not the biggest reason why it was idiotic of you to bring it up. The biggest reason is that it’s a moronic standard.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Uh, Chuckles? The words that appear indented in my comments, the ones that are quotes from your comment, are what’s known as a “blockquote.” When a “blockquote” appears in a comment, immediately followed by a statement addressing the issue raised in the “blockquote,” that means that the statement is, in fact, addressing the assertion made in the quoted passage.
No no, don’t thank me. This one is for free.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
charles, I’d really enjoy an answer to Joe’s question. It is so easy to look over the thread and see your lying and obfuscating and pretending to read parts of replies in isolation. It was the same thing back when you were “gary”. Why do you do this? I don’t think you’re doing your side any favours. (And “Anthony is not doing his side any favours” really isn’t an answer.)
April 5th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Everyone can read the thread, Chuckles. You’re just drawing attention to yourself.
One of the things I love about you, joe, is that you’re pathologically incapable of admitting when you’ve been caught making a stupid blunder. You and your namesake “efgoldman” obviously either didn’t know about the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center or had just forgotten about it and falsely believed that the Oklahoma City bombing was the first major terrorist attack under Clinton. It wasn’t. You screwed up, joe. You’re always screwing up, joe, because you’re so stupid.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
But beating you up over this idiocy grows boring; you mouthed a much larger idiocy earlier that is much more important to bury. Now, pay attention: I’m going to use that “blockquote” thingy. I’m going to quote what you wrote, then the words that follow will be on the subject of the quoted passage. Ready?
In fact, Clinton/Gore took an number of unprecedented steps to fight terrorism during their term in office, many of which Bush/Cheney reversed when they came to power. For example, Clinton elevated the Director of Counter-Terrorism to cabinet-level, while Bush demoted that position back down to subcabinet-level when he took office. Said Director of Counter-Terrorism, Richard Clarke, reported that he was “running around with his hair on fire” trying to get someone in the Bush White House to pay attention to the terrorism threat. Under Bush/Cheney, John Ashcroft reassigned dozens of FBI agents from counter-terrorism in order to free up manpower for obscenity investigations. Clinton gave the farewell speech noted upthread, in which he stressed the important of terrorism as a security issue. Clinton/Gore pushed issues like limits on encryption technology, back in the 1990s, because of the needs of anti-terror investigators. Clinton had the White House hardened, closing Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street in the vicinity of the White House compound, because of the threat of a terror attack. Clinton famously struck at al Qaeda sites in Sudan and Afghanistan with cruise missiles. George Bush, on the other hand, never launched a single counter-terror operation before 9/11, and famously told his CIA briefer “OK, you’re covered your ass” after being give a PDB titled “Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States.”
The Bush/Cheney takeover in January 2001 resulted in a significant downgrading of terrorism as a national security priority. These people didn’t, and still don’t, understand that terrorism is a more important issue that geopolitical jousting between nation-states.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Wow, now “elfgoldman” is my namesake.
Projection, thy name is Mixner. And gary. And charles.
Apparently, I have trouble admitting when I’ve become tangled up in my argument, too. What an astounding coincidence – that’s exactly what several of us have noticed that you’ve done!
Face it, you’ve been pwned. Anthony sees it. Everyone reading the thread sees it. Really, just stop. You raised the issue of the length of time without a terror attack after 9/11, and I replied to you. Everybody can read the thread. What do you think this is going to accomplish, to keep banging on with these silly assertions that anyone reading your comments will already know to be false?
April 5th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Yeah gary—we don’t use a cycle of fake names. That would be….someone else.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
So…are you taking the fifth on the Laurie Mylroie thing?
April 5th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
As funny as this line is, it’s even funnier if you picture Chuckles as a little girl with pigtails, holding a lollipop, tangled up in an overturned tricycle, as the viewer/target tries to stifle laughter.
You’re tho thtupid! You’re always thcrewing up, becauthe you’re tho THTUPID THTUPID THTUPID! Thith is YOUR fault!
April 5th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I think charles uses this periods of radio silence to hunt for a sentence he can isolate, then pretend not to see the rest of the paragraph or the broader context, then say “gotcha”!
April 5th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
How about a betting pool on multi-socked Mixner’s real name?
I’ll throw a nickel on “Dwight’. He has the air of Schrute about him.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:37 am
@ 65 After out boxing and out classing his opponent over the first few rounds, Joe from Lowell grew tired of toying with his quarry and knocked him out with a thunderous combination.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Why should it should be any more reprehensible for Cheney to criticize Obama than Obama to criticize Bushit?
There is after all a long history of presidents and their administrations blaming previous for their problems along with the obverse of course.
Let’s face it, if you were looking at the prospect of your name, deservedly or not, going down in infamy I’d bet we’d get a bit of pushback from you as well.
I just hope Dick doesn’t have anything on that Spanish judge…
April 6th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I’m putting my money on a first-name initial.
J. Woodward Robertson.
F. Richard Mumbletits.
Something like that.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am
The thing is though, that Republicans, when they are in power, treat *any* criticism at all as “unpatriotic” and worse – we’ve seen GOP water-carriers in the past 8 years make a huge deal about “traitors” and suggesting incarceration or even execution of those who publicly disagree with the “party line”.
Yet when Cheney and others very publicly criticize a Democratic administration, funny how you don’t hear talk of “traitor” and “unpatriotic”, etc. It’s definitely a different standard used against Repubs and Democrats.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am
@ 76 Not only that, but if you flip the situation, Republicans taking over from a criminal Democratic administration, there would be reprisals. An endless parade of special prosecutors and sub-committees.
Republicans would ruthlessly seize the opportunity to bury the Democratic party, once and for all.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
@ 78 Not everyone Jeffrey. You and I remember, and so do some, if not most, progressives. The Clintons no doubt remember. I would venture to guess that Bill and Hillary, along with loyal members of their reduced but still considerable machine, want a certain measure of revenge.
It comes down to political will. Can Democrats summon the courage for such a grueling fight. They should. Not only do they command the legal and moral high ground, but they stand to profit immeasurably from aggressive action and so does our country.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Читателям статьи повезло!