Month: October 2007

$10 million vs $5 million. Did anyone expect Paul to raise half of Rudy’s haul in this quarter a few months ago?

To me, a surprisingly large number of former Clinton administration officials.

A toy factory worker in Guangdong Province China, as photographed by Michael Wolf. (Hat tip: Crooked Timber.)

Another instance:

If you have other examples of Clinton’s fund-raising potential for the Malkin-NRO-Limbaugh right, let me know, will you?

Max Boot urges we just get over trying to get rid of mercenaries but try to regulate them better. I’m relieved he didn’t defend Blackwater because its CEO is born again. But Mercenaries for Jesus is a pretty good advertizing slogan for what Blackwater represents. Kevin Drum adds to Boot’s argument here.

Fallows warns against an Olympics boycott:

The idea of taking a brave, clear stand on China and Burma, and waving away as mere details any thought about the consequences, is reminiscent of the [Washington] Post editorial page’s relentlessly pro-war stance in the year leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Then the editorial page, under Hiatt, was impatient with any suggestion that we should wait, that we should think hard about the consequences of an occupation, that we should be very careful before launching a discretionary war. All of that was for wimps.

I’ve learned my lesson, Jim. I do believe in economic sanctions against the junta; I do believe in pressuring China. But Burma has one thing on common with Iraq. It has long been torn apart by a variety of ethnic groups – Karen, Chin, Shan – who fear the majority Burmans. This was partly how the British retaine control (as in Iraq). Maintaining a democracy in such a diverse society is not easy. Ask the Spanish. A revolution is the beginning of a process of reform and governance, not a panacea.

It’s perhaps worth reminding some readers that my first response to reports of abuse and torture at Gitmo was to accuse the accusers of exaggeration or deliberate deception. I simply didn’t believe America would do those things. I’d also endorsed Bush in 2000, believed it necessary to give the president the benefit of the doubt in wartime, and knew Rumsfeld as a friend. It struck me as a no-brainer that this stuff was being invented by the far-left or was part of al Qaeda propaganda. After all, they train captives to lie about this stuff. Bottom line: I trusted this president in a time of war to obey the rule of law that we were and are defending. And then I was forced to confront the evidence. He betrayed all of us. He lied. He authorized torture in secret, and then, when busted after Abu Ghraib, blamed it on low-level grunts. This was not a mistake. It was a betrayal.

Jack Balkin adds:

An essential component of the rule of law is transparency. The laws must be knowable, not only so that people can structure their behavior with fair warning, but also to prevent government officials from engaging in abuses of power. The Bush Administration has used the shibboleths of terrorism and national security to violate this basic principle.

The Administration said, "Trust us." And then this is what they did in secret.

Hilzoy nails it:

The techniques in question are repugnant. But in many ways, the administration’s disregard for the law is worse. When your policies violate treaties you have signed and laws that are on the books, you are not supposed to come up with some clever way of explaining that appearances to the contrary, what you’re doing is not illegal at all. You’re supposed to stop doing it.

If you haven’t read the full NYT expose of the secret enforcement of torture and butchering of the rule of law long after Abu Ghraib, don’t miss it.

Have you noticed National Review’s pledge drive theme? It would be useful when calculating Senator Clinton’s fundraising achievements to include the amount of money she has helped raise for the GOP. Maybe someone could do the research and find how often she is included prominently on far right fund-raising materials. Lately, she’s been driving traffic to Drudge and the New York Post.

It becomes increasingly clear to me that there is only one candidate who can unite the GOP and win the coming election for the Republicans. And she’s ahead in the polls.

"There are those in our own country too who today speak of the ‘protection of country’ – of ‘survival.’ A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient – to look the other way.

Well, the answer to that is survivalas what? A country isn’t a rock. It’s not an extension of one’s self. It’s what it stands for. It’s what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being," – Judge Haywood, in the 1961 movie, "Judgment at Nuremberg."

Notice the silence today on the right-wing blogosphere. I wish it were a function of shame.