Ivory Tower

The Chicago Tribune has made a habit out of sticking up for the Republican Party, endorsing every candidate from that party since 1872 (?!?) and they even made fun of themselves last week when they finally endorsed fictional Democrat Matthew Santos from The West Wing television show. Funny stuff, right? FDR, Truman, JFK and Bill Clinton, to name a few, all were passed over by the unimpressed Tribsters; or perhaps they were just blinded by loyalty?
They’ve also been vainly trying to justify the war in Iraq with an ongoing series analyzing what the Bush Administration said then and what we know now, which can only match up in the eyes of true believers, the Tribune Editorial Board being one of them. Give them credit for being consistent, if nothing else.
But it appears today that someone has hijacked the offices and allowed an editorial to go out today that flat-out admits, or accuses, George Bush of breaking the law: “President Bush not only defends what he’s done but vows to keep doing it, never mind the evidence that he is acting in violation of the law.”
Huh. How about that? Is the Tribune acting unpatriotically by exposing the criminal activities of the Commander-in-Chief during wartime, or have they simply lost their religion, if only for a day?
Better yet, imagine what would happen if this pertained to something really important, and a semen-stained blue dress was involved. Where would the Tribune stand?

19 Comments so far

  1. nikkos (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 12:51 pm

    Here, here Danny! Once again, welcome aboard.
    The right-wing apologists that frequent the comments section on this blog have been conspicuously silent on this issue. Gabe, Original Ben, Ben2- I’m talking to you. Haven’t yet receieved your talking points on this one?

    They have two choices: either they place party over country and continue to defend this blatant affront to Constitutional liberties, or they admit, finally, that not only is Bush wrong, but what he did is unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.

    Perhaps this incident will be the proverbial back-breaking straw that makes some of Bush’s most staunch defenders take a step back and say, even if only to themselves, “Now wait a minute…”

    One can hope.


  2. Danny Doom (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 2:01 pm

    thanks, Nikkos. you can follow the same logic he uses to defend this practice and conclude that the 2nd Amendment could be repealed at any moment, if the President deems it necessary. or any other part of the Constitution for that matter. oh well…whatever, right?

    http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/12/2nd-amendment-has-been-repealed.html


  3. nikkos (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 2:19 pm

    Yeah, that americablog argument is devastating. Don’t expect it to work on the wingers however- it’s an argument based in logic, not paranoia, fear and hatred.


  4. Ben (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 2:40 pm

    Nikkos-

    I


  5. nikkos (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 2:57 pm

    “As for this issue, I


  6. nikkos (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 3:09 pm

    Ben, from Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

    The Echelon Myth
    Prominent right-wing bloggers


  7. Ben (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 3:18 pm

    Although I believe GWB has done some heroic things, he is not my idol. Just because I agree with him sometimes does not mean I’m madly in love with him. There are many issues where I don’t think he’s doing well.

    I never said anything about impeachment proceedings.

    I know this isn’t about political correctness. I was speaking of the War on Terror, in general.

    I’m still not sure what law was broken, but I can tell that you liberals are getting really excited. It seems like liberals will be heartbroken if GWB is not impeached. It’s kind of pathetic.

    More Clinton:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp


  8. Danny Doom (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 3:34 pm

    my points in posting this were that 1) the Tribune Editorial Board is usually a reliable friend to the Bush Administration, and it appears that they believe he has broken the law; and 2) that in retrospect it is hard to believe that the “crime” Bill Clinton committed led to his impeachment proceedings while it seems George Bush can’t get arrested for committing, in my opinion, many worse crimes. In fact, it appears that “during wartime,” which we will be in perpetually as long as he is President, it allows him to do whatever he feels is necessary, laws be damned. And by that logic, none of us have any business checking and balancing anything, so we may as well shut the hell up.
    It all feels very wrong to me.


  9. nikkos (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 3:35 pm

    Yes, if it weren’t for the scourge of political correctness, we could wage this War on Terror with impunity:
    We could invade a country for no apparent reason, bomb innocent civilians, detain and hold individuals without trial, then abuse and torture them, and then lie to the American people about it. Oh, wait…

    The laws which were broken are as follows:
    4th Amendment to the United States Constitution
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

    Regarding Clinton, your point seems to be that by lying under oath, he violated the law (perjury)and should therefore be punished. Therefore, you agree that if it can be proven that Bush broke the law, he too should be punished, correct?


  10. Ben (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 3:48 pm

    Nikkos-

    You crack me up with all your banal comments. It


  11. nikkos (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 3:57 pm

    Danny, you are correct. My apologies for hijacking your post!


  12. Danny Doom (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 4:05 pm

    no apologies necessary, i was just pointing out the basic facts and wondering where the goalposts were, or why they keep changing, or if they ever even existed.

    it is funny to see those words “we operate by the rule of law,” because i don’t think they really matter much to this administration. and i don’t believe they really matter much to someone who is willing to defend Bush & Co. so blindly, or loyally.

    which is why the Trib surprised me in the first place today.


  13. Ben (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 8:36 am

    FROM BOORTZ.COM
    Whether you agree with the reasons George W. Bush gave for ordering secret wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant or not, you may be surprised to learn something: it’s nothing new. That’s right…let’s see if the mainstream media covers this one fairly. Yeah … I can see you folks holding your breath out there. Past presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have engaged in the same exact warrantless wiretapping that Bush admits to doing.

    Let’s look at a few examples, shall we? Drudge posted some examples….complete with direct evidence showing the Executive Orders. First up, Bill Clinton…the left’s favorite president. Here’s a quote from February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order.” Oh my! Searching your home…without a court order. Which is worse…listening to your phone calls, or kicking in your door and going through your personal belongings? I wonder if Congressman John Lewis contemplated calling for Clinton’s impeachment over that one? Somehow, I doubt it.

    But the Clinton administration didn’t stop there….instead of having to actually search your house…how about infrared scanning of it? According to a Clinton Justice Department official, Clinton’s authority included “places where you wouldn’t find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen… would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.” Such an invasion of privacy! Where was the howling about our civil rights 10 years ago? By the way … do you have any understanding what they could discover with infrared scanning? How about two hot intertwined bodies? Oh well, moving on ……

    The answer, of course, is simple. The mainstream media gave Clinton a pass…one they’re not giving to Bush. If there is a Democrat in the Oval Office…all is well and he can do no wrong. But since it’s a Republican…well, that’s different. They have to nail him to the wall.

    Oh..and Jimmy Carter did the same thing. He signed an executive order in 1979 saying the Attorney General had the power to do electronic surveillance without a warrant. Will we hear about these past examples from the mainstream media? You’re not still holding your breath, are you?


  14. nikkos (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 9:07 am

    So the new standard for Republicans is “it’s OK because the Democrats did it?”

    I thought the highly tuned moral values of Repuiblicans was the crucial differentiator between the GOP and the godless commie liberals of the Democratic party.

    Can you craft a defense of Bush that does not involve Clinton (Bill or Hillary)?

    I thought Bush spied on American citizens illegally for our national security- not because Clinton and Carter did it.

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that Clinton and Carter’s trangressions were akin to Bush’s. Where were the heroic Republicans then? After all, they controlled Congress throughout the Clinton era. Did they scream and shout and demand justice and impeachment? No, the Republicans at that time- and apparently now as well- were far more concerned about a blow job.

    Perhaps we can jump in a time machine and retroactively prosecute Bill and Jimmy. Until then, however, we must focus on the President with whom we are currently burdened and HIS continuing criminal acts.


  15. nikkos (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 9:36 am

    Ben-

    Once again, a little bit of research into the actual text of FISA, as well as Clinton and Carter


  16. nikkos (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 9:52 am

    Danny, to go back to your initial statement about the Tribune, I agree, it was surprising to read their editorial in opposition to the policy of warrantless eavesdropping.

    Why this, why now?

    Perhaps there is yet some semblance of intellectual honesty remaining at the Tribune? More likely, I think that as professional journalists, they are smart enough to recognize that (a) this is unconstitutional and (b) if left unchecked, these sorts of unconstitutional powers will invariably expand, and ultimately will hobble their ability as an independent news organization to do their jobs.

    So, part noble, but probably the motive of self-interest is at work here too, which is fine with me because I want an independent press as much as the editors of the Trib do.


  17. Ben (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 10:11 am

    Nikkos-

    First off, I


  18. nikkos (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 11:24 am

    Again, intellectual dishonesty from Ben. Make assertions, then when they are found to be demonstrably false, backtrack and say you didn’t say them or endorse them. Ben, just admit you were wrong and save us a lot of back and forth.

    I never said I don’t want America to win the war. I simply stated that it is already lost.


  19. Ben (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 11:40 am

    What assertions are you talking about? I specifically cited whose thoughts those were. I also specifically said that I was withholding judgement on the issue and provided information that others may not have been aware of.

    And you say I



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.