Glenn Greenwald: Those weak losers who care about “law”

[stockholmer]

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/e/singleton/

Everyone Strong and Serious knows that only weak losers who are unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief would care about whether they are allowed under the obsolete, leftist doctrine known as “law” to attack another country or crush the Terrorists. We first learned this from George Bush, who, in a 2004 campaign speech, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2004/04/kerrys_other_war_record.html mocked John Kerry as a law-obsessed weakling this way: Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. My opponent said, and I quote, “The war on terror is less of a military operation, and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.” I disagree—strongly disagree . . . After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got.

We then learned this important lesson from Karl Rove, who in 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/ns/politics/t/white-house-defends-rove-over-remarks/#.T0d29fEgeYg explained: “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.” This same lesson was then taught to us by Sarah Palin, who derided Barack Obama in her 2008 RNC acceptance speech http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/conventions/videos/transcripts/20080903_PALIN_SPEECH.html as a law-obsessed Terrorist-coddler: “Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”

And then we heard the same thing on Wednesday night from Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager. She appeared on MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc_tv-the_last_word/#46491405 to discuss that night’s GOP debate with Lawrence O’Donnell, who subjected her to the very hard-hitting adversarial journalism for which that cable channel has become so justifiably admired when it comes to reporting on the Obama administration. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/bill-clinton-msnbc-fox_n_1214143.html After boldly challenging Cutter to explain what President Obama’s large polling lead tells us about the GOP challengers (it shows the Nation adores the leader and hates the GOP), he then invited her to act as “truth squad” and identify the biggest lie told about the President during the GOP debate. This is how she responded:

The most egregious falsehood would be the President’s position on Iran, whether it’s Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, attacking the President for not being tough enough on Iran. Ask any foreign policy expert out there, we have the toughest sanctions in place today than we’ve had in decades thanks to this President. . . . Now look at Mitt Romney. What he didn’t say on the stage tonight is that just four years ago, when asked the same question on Iran, he said he’d have to check with his lawyers. [font color=red]That does not make a Commander-in-Chief, somebody who has to check with his lawyers.[/font color]

snip

---------------

much more at top link

[JoePhilly]

1. Has Glenn been on vacation lately?

Have not heard much from him in the last few months.

[spanone]

2. there's a current interview with beck & santorum

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/santorums-bare-all-to-beck-lawmakers-have-mail-senators-dont-use-business-cards-read-this-roundup/2012/02/24/gIQA3FGnXR_blog.html

[JoePhilly]

4. God is clearly a big fan of the practical joke ...

From what I can tell, the only GOP candidates that God did NOT tell to run are Mitt, Newt and Ron Paul.

[Dokkie]

3. Glenn Glenn Glenn

Is he now trying to praise Romney for saying he would check with his lawyers before attacking Iran? Doesnt he know the kind of depraved lawyers that work for republican administrations? Everybody with a high school education knows you need to check with congress 1st and ask for a declaration of war before you can attack another country.

Ask his lawyers (most likely hardcore PNACers)? gimme a fucking break

[stockholmer]

7. Greenwald is most definitely not praising Rmoney. He is using Mitt's war-mongering modus operandi

to juxtapose the Obama administration's upping the level of threat rhetoric beyond even the 2008 version of Republithug thought.

[rhett o rick]

8. I think Dokkie was being Jokkie. nm

[sulphurdunn]

5. Conservatives are mostly

just war mongers and war profiteers. Most soldiers, whether liberal or conservative to begin with, come home liberal, especially combat soldiers, unless or until their brains are so soaked with booze and drugs from the trauma of it all that they forget reality and absorb the "hero" bullshit that conservative war mongers and war profiteers peddle along with flags and Bibles to make money and maintain power.

[gratuitous]

6. Yup, I'm a weak loser

I keep getting hung up on that quaint old document, the Constitution. Real he-men just act, they don't worry about minutiae like trials and evidence. Besides, as we've seen time and again, people that everyone knows to be guilty keep getting off on technicalities in our hopelessly hamstrung court system. I mean, when you have to prove a whole bunch of stuff, and the accused gets to look at and challenge the evidence, and ask a bunch of questions of the witnesses . . . Well, let's just say a well-placed (Or not so well-placed, does it really matter?) missile is so much more efficient and yields a far more satisfying result.

[rhett o rick]

9. The Constitution? You talk about the Constitution w/o sarcasm emoticon? Man that is soo lastcentury

And I have a bone to pick about your signature line. Are you being condescending? Do you think so little of us that you have to tell us that your are not annoying us. Let me be the judge of that. How annoying.

[gratuitous]

10. Actually, there's an almost practical reason for the sig line

I adopted it years ago after reading on DU about some trial in California or someplace, where someone had been found liable for infliction of emotional distress after posting something annoying on line. The judge's opinion included something to the effect that absent an affirmative statement that it was not the poster's intent to annoy someone, he had to conclude that the online snark was actionable. So I put it in my sig line that nothing in my posts is intended to annoy anyone. A reminder to myself that sometimes the law is an ass.

[rhett o rick]

12. So you are saying that you feel free to say whatever you want as long as you end with

"just kidding"?

During the Bush horror years I was a bit more paranoid and had a signature line that told the NSA directly that nothing in my post is intended to undercut our government and it's quest to destroy evil.

I doubt that either are worth the effort. Just sayin

[gratuitous]

14. No, that's more a Republican tactic

After they say the most heinous stuff and notice that decent people are backing away from them like they just ripped a sour owl piss fart, they'll use the weak "Hey, it was a joke! Lighten up" excuse. I'm just making a useless (I suppose) gesture of an automatic affirmative statement that nothing in my post is intended to annoy anyone. Any particular reader's personal annoyance (and there are six people who have me on their Ignore list) with something I post is more of a bonus that way.

[rhett o rick]

15. Good point.

How do you know who has you on ignore. I would love to know.

[Zalatix]

13. ACT, AND YOU WILL HAVE DINNER!!! Think, and you will BE dinner!i

[img][/img]

[tularetom]

11. There's a much simpler principle at work here

One that should be familiar to any present or former government employee who was expected to get things done within the framework of policy, guidelines and rules that are endemic to any bureaucracy.

Namely,

"It's much easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask permission"

I do not advocate using this principle in the area of national security. But it isn't hard for me to believe that some people might. Like Cheney. Especially when he pretty much knew there would be no consequences.