How Can They Be Progressive If They're Focused On The Past?

I've been thinking a lot since yesterday about Glenn "the sock puppet" Greenwald and the intense anger of the anti-Bush left.

Greenwald seems to personify the rage, with so much seething inside him he's been able to fill two books [corrected] with vindictive and outrage that spewed over yesterday in his Salon piece about AG AG and the Fired Feds:

How is this not a major scandal on the level of the greatest presidential corruption and lawbreaking scandals in our country's history? Why is this only a one-day story that will focus on the hospital drama but not on what it reveals about the bulging and unparalleled corruption of this administration and the complete erosion of the rule of law in our country? And, as I've asked many times before, if we passively allow the President to simply break the law with impunity in how the government spies on our conversations, what don't we allow?

I'm not dissecting the quote again today; rather, I'm putting it in context with this, from today's WashTimes:

Samuel R. Berger, the Clinton White House national security adviser who was caught taking highly classified documents from the National Archives, has agreed to forfeit his license to practice law.

In a written statement issued by Larry Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, the former national security adviser said he pleaded guilty in the Justice Department investigation, accepted the penalties sought by the department and recognized that his law license would be affected.

"I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license," he said. "While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize."

In giving up his license, Mr. Berger avoids being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel, where he risked further disclosure of specific details of his theft. The agreement is expected to be formalized today.

Mr. Berger, national security adviser from 1997 to 2001, was convicted of removing documents from the Archives in 2005 while preparing to testify before the September 11 commission.

Fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and barred from access to classified material for three years, he also was ordered to undergo a polygraph test if asked -- although the Justice Department has declined to administer the test despite urging by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform.

Who poses the greatest risk to America, Berger and his bunch, or Bush and his? The answer is so obvious Greenwald must have to set up elegant spun sugar mental constructs to avoid reality.

You have on the one hand a president trying to gather intelligence about terrorists who are planning to strike against America. After checking the legality of NSA's proposed intercept program and getting conflicting opinions from trusted advisors, he implements the program. Someone (perhaps with Berger-like socks) leaks the program, Bush is challenged, he defends, he loses, he stops the program.

On the other side, you have a former National Security Advisor, a man cleared for the highest security clearances, pilfering secret documents to (either or both) recreate history for his former boss Bill Clinton, or further the campaign of his current boss, John Kerry.

Bush followed the rule of law perfectly in pursuit of the safety of America. Berger broke it at every turn in pursuit of protecting and aggrandizing his personal position.

If Bush were as bad as Greenwald believes, why do you suppose Justice hasn't put Berger under the polygraph? Wouldn't that sort of viciousness and vindication be the sort of thing a Greenwaldian Bush would do? But for whatever reasons (and I'm with Tom Davis on this, not Bush), Bush hasn't directed Justice to administer the test.

Angry people are always focused on the past. Positive people are much more focused on the future. The angry left is driving the Dems backwards, as shown by the endless stream of Congressional hearings into what was -- and the dearth of hearings that would answer the question "Where now?"

America is a great country because, deprived of a lengthy history, it started with a natural inclination to focus on the future, on potential, on the next great thing. The left would turn this around and subject America to a massive national navel contemplation, with the focus on the lint, not the miracle of the tied umbilical cord.

The antidote to this potential tragedy is to brush off the Greenwalds and keep moving forward. Is the GOP up to the challenge? Based on the debates so far, I'd say yes, marginally. We must do better.

Greenwald art: Ace of Spades HQ; Berger art: Hog on Ice.