Reading for Thursday
The Justice Department is going to investigate the destruction of videotapes of the interrogation of prisoners in US custody that showed torture. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi keeps asking what Bush has done that is impeachable. Shredding the constitution should count, and if that doesn't then this should.
Tom Engelhardt on how Bush took us to the dark side, i.e. how he tempted us into torture.
Barnett Rubin on vote rigging in Pakistan. A fascinating dialogue is emerging on some of these issues between him and his colleagues that is a testimony to the interactive character of writing on the Web.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/03/2008 12:10:00 AM
|
Facebook
1 Comments:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is legally correct to keep asking what Bush has done that is impeachable. Most of his administration's actions have had the explicit or tacit support of Congress. The US voters also endorsed Bush in 2004, despite evidence of (take your pick) incompetence or wrongdoing.
None of the reasons cited by E. Holtsman is an offense unique to Bush or beyond plausible denial or extenuating circumstances. Much of the foreign policy establishment, whether conservative or liberal, remains dedicated to obscure our reasons for being in Iraq and to generate reasons to stay. A good share of Americans condone wire tapping and torture, since they imagine the targets are swarthy Muslims. Katrina was a potential disaster with a statistcal probability that many predecessors discounted and which neither local nor federal authorities had the guts or purse to prevent. The conservative Right has aleady concocted a zany but widely believed theory that our entire 9/11 unpreparedness had roots in the post Cold War reduction in troop and arms expenditures. The truth is that no number of feet on the ground or tanks and planes would have made Iraq more amenable to US occupation. First, the entire nation of Iraq is a more an imperial concoction than ethnic or religious reality. Second, because of casualty risks and lack of language skills, the US could never have dispersed troops into all the land's towns and neighborhoods.
Sorry to say, but it is far more slam dunk to impeach a man who denies exra-marital sex. The evidence is much more concise, and the offense is far more easy for the American public to judge in widely accepted Mosaic and tabloid terms.
Finally, even supposed military people have a propensity to lionize bold swaggerers, caring little about their true miliary effectivness (often driven by luck), or the casualty quotient of their forces. There are few medals and no political or biographic rewards for caution and discretion.
Post a Comment
<< Home