The terror of Bush's war on America

[CHIMO]

That began (in my free-wheeling and fallible extrapolation of his thesis) with the founding fathers. Read Madison and see. They were nervous about "distempered" democracy, about too many roughnecks rocking their elitist boat. So the constitution - far from being one man, one direct part in the action - was a cautious edifice of checks and balances: a lower house, an upper house, a president, all forced to wheel and deal and, at the end, deliver what the system ordained rather than what the voter crudely demanded.


Those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty" while criticising the Bush administration's methods of fighting terror at home and abroad provide "aid to terrorists". That's attorney general John Ashcroft testifying to the Senate after 9/11. "See how dissent terrorises democracy while political quiescence promotes peace and security," says Ivie dryly. "Democratic dissent has turned oxymoronic."


But that is exactly what George Bush says. Crisis means mute obedience. To protest is to betray the master rhetorician reading Dick Cheney's script. He is a leader definSed and protected by "war". He must not be troubled by voters protesting in Ashcroft's "free speech zones". Nuance is his enemy. He dare not stop to think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1194839,00.html


It was hard to extract three paragraps out of this.


Read it.


As for "Istria" you have to do your own search.

Spelling. As, not "ads".

[ewagner]

1. Damning article!

A must read for DUers.

A :kick: to keep it going

[Miss Authoritiva]

2. Fantastic! The title doesn't even begin to do it justice.

For me, the best section was the part about the "rhetorical presidency." Perfect.