Same Crap, Different Administration?
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 12 November 2008 | 2 responses
Investor’s Business Daily reports the following:
Not many people can claim to have been at the center of arguably the greatest financial disaster and greatest national security disaster in American history. But Gorelick, said to be on the short list for attorney general by the New York Times, can. Surely that qualifies her for further government service.
Click here for the full, gruesome story.
2 Responses to “Same Crap, Different Administration?”
I hope you see the danger of labeling an editorial opinion as a “story.” Media Matters has already addressed this canard once. http://mediamatters.org/items/200508180007 Need I remind you of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” as evidence that the so called wall did not ‘make it impossible to connect the dots’ as the opinion asserts?
It was James Madison who said “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home” and “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” This wall that you are referring to was intended to prevent the executive branch from circumventing constitutional protections afforded US citizens who maay be caught up in a ‘dragnet’ investigation of foreigners (conducted under foreign intelligence authorization instead of domestic law). Harry S. Truman said “Whenever you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.” There are prices to pay for living in a free society, and if it means that my constitutional rights are protected because of this ‘wall’, I am in favor of it. I am a firm believer that a democracy is far superior to a dictatorship. I would think that small government conservatives, and particularly civil libertarians, would see these calls for ‘efficient intelligence gathering’ for what they truly mean.
As for Gorelick, I don’t know that she would be the best candidate, and have no desire to defend her. I would just prefer to see accurate criticism, or at least criticism that does not advocate running roughshod on my constitutional rights.
The proposed chief of staff also carries baggage from serving on Boards whose policies created the financial mess. Don’t look for MSM to note any of this. They are enablers.