Why Can't The Left Win Gracefully?
Glenn Greenwald is a seasoned Bush critic who harps a lot about the Patriot Act. That link will take you to a page listing these titles:
Like most Leftist terrors, this one is still hiding under the bed with the dust bunnies and hasn't come into the open. But Greenwald is so certain that Bush has a sinister plot to strip America of its freedoms that he hasn't stopped to notice that Bush is actually busy protecting our fundamental freedom to keep breathing and have our head attached to our shoulders, despite the efforts of radical Islam to deprive us of those freedoms.
He's at it again today in Salon, digging way, way back to the NSA "wire tapping" (make that electronic surveillance of communication data) program.
He goes on to recount how well government sometimes works, but of course he doesn't see it that way. Early on, the NSA program was reviewed and many within the administration, including top Justice officials, said they didn't think it was legal. Greenwald apparently didn't notice that none of these critics was jailed, lost their jobs or were beheaded by people shouting Allah Akbar!
He really works up a head of steam:
The greatest presidential corruption and lawbreaking scandals were -- opinons may well vary here -- the Teapot Dome scandal, which was a money for influence affair that, if left uncorrected, would have corrupted government thoroughly, and the Watergate scandal, a political shenanigans affair that, if left uncorrected, would have corrupted the electoral process thoroughly.
The NSA matter is a split decision. Unlike Teapot or Watergate, opinions on the program's legality differed. Unlike Teapot or Watergate, it was predicated on the defense of America in time of war, not the accumulation of wealth or power.
Where is the unparalleled corruption? How many Bush officials have resigned after a public disgrace? How many of Clinton's?
Where is the complete erosion of law? The case was heard and Greenwald's side won. You'd never know it by how he rants so, showcasing perfectly a longstanding and very well-honed skill of the Left: Never, ever, ever being able to take a victory gracefully.
The other showcasing here is the Left's ability to repeat a lie long after it's been fully disproved. Here, Greenwald still says NSA "spies on our conversations." Is he admitting that he regularly converses with people in known terrorist haunts?
Of course not; that would make the lie much less compelling, his emotions much less raw.
- A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency
- How Would a Patriot Act: Defending America Values from a President Run Amok
Like most Leftist terrors, this one is still hiding under the bed with the dust bunnies and hasn't come into the open. But Greenwald is so certain that Bush has a sinister plot to strip America of its freedoms that he hasn't stopped to notice that Bush is actually busy protecting our fundamental freedom to keep breathing and have our head attached to our shoulders, despite the efforts of radical Islam to deprive us of those freedoms.
He's at it again today in Salon, digging way, way back to the NSA "wire tapping" (make that electronic surveillance of communication data) program.
The testimony yesterday from James Comey re-focuses attention on one of the long unresolved mysteries of the NSA scandal. And the new information Comey revealed, though not answering that question decisively, suggests some deeply troubling answers. Most of all, yesterday's hearing underscores how unresolved the entire NSA matter is -- how little we know (but ought to know) about what actually happened and how little accountability there has been for some of the most severe and blatant acts of presidential lawbreaking in the country's history.He might have missed it because he was hiding under the covers, but the NSA "scandal" is resolved. Bush lost and shut down the program; so unlike authoritarian peril and presidents run amok.
He goes on to recount how well government sometimes works, but of course he doesn't see it that way. Early on, the NSA program was reviewed and many within the administration, including top Justice officials, said they didn't think it was legal. Greenwald apparently didn't notice that none of these critics was jailed, lost their jobs or were beheaded by people shouting Allah Akbar!
He really works up a head of steam:
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?Small type wow.
The greatest presidential corruption and lawbreaking scandals were -- opinons may well vary here -- the Teapot Dome scandal, which was a money for influence affair that, if left uncorrected, would have corrupted government thoroughly, and the Watergate scandal, a political shenanigans affair that, if left uncorrected, would have corrupted the electoral process thoroughly.
The NSA matter is a split decision. Unlike Teapot or Watergate, opinions on the program's legality differed. Unlike Teapot or Watergate, it was predicated on the defense of America in time of war, not the accumulation of wealth or power.
Where is the unparalleled corruption? How many Bush officials have resigned after a public disgrace? How many of Clinton's?
Where is the complete erosion of law? The case was heard and Greenwald's side won. You'd never know it by how he rants so, showcasing perfectly a longstanding and very well-honed skill of the Left: Never, ever, ever being able to take a victory gracefully.
The other showcasing here is the Left's ability to repeat a lie long after it's been fully disproved. Here, Greenwald still says NSA "spies on our conversations." Is he admitting that he regularly converses with people in known terrorist haunts?
Of course not; that would make the lie much less compelling, his emotions much less raw.
posted by Laer at 11:33 AM
<< Home