Bush commutes Libby sentence

[Jester]

No, I'm talking about 25 years of the political infighting using special prosecutors to go on fishing expeditions usually indicting the cronies of the incumbents on narrow interpretations of law. Let's ignore Scooter for a moment, and reflect on the numerous Clinton era psuedo-scandals and indictments. If only *real* crime were pursued with the same zeal and resources.

I agree that it is an abuse of justice to simply throw out a special prosecutor like an attack dog, and hope he brings back a corpse. Judicial resources should be directed to where they matter, not to irrelevancies, and certainly not to ridiculous things like people's sex lives.

But that can't mean that reasonable investigations into the conduct of the government are just "fishing expeditions." If you don't mean for this to apply to the Scooter Libby case, then fine and good, but why bring it up in a thread about the communation of his sentence? If you do mean for it to apply, then I disagree with you on that point.

Yes, they are. There is a difference between alleged foreign enemies caught on a battlefield, and US citizens imprisoned for disagreeing with powerful politiical parties.

You never quite know what they'll drag out of the PATRIOT Act, so maybe there's something to that.

I fear that the political majority passes so many laws infringing on citizens liberties that it becomes impossible *not* to break the law.

While this certainly is a fearful scenario, it seems unlikely at this point. The crimes Scooter was charged with were not "bogus" crimes, designed to trap citizens by infringing on their liberties. Nor was the crime that Scooter was busted for covering up, for that matter. Some laws (the ban on marijuana, for instance) do result in ridiculously high imprisonment rates, but those are a rather different matter.

I think you have much more to fear at this juncture from administrations claiming that they are above the law than from the government using laws to restrict your liberties.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I think you have much more to fear at this juncture from administrations claiming that they are above the law than from the government using laws to restrict your liberties.

-Jester

Nope. The death of a thousand cuts is how liberty dies. Administrations are a finitie entity, getting stupid laws off of the books is rather a longer prospect.

Let's put this commuted sentence into perspective.

Bill Clinton pardoned/commuted FALN terrorists. From the apologists at Wikipedia.

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.

None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition.

Congress, however, recognized that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House. Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico.

Per my usual remark on the Pope and America's death penalty: those gutless papists need to get back into their lanes.

The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[4] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator.

Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.[6][7] The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying. President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.

And people gripe about Bush and "executive privilege.:P

So, GW Bush commuted Slimeball's Scooter's jail sentence. I don't see how the outrage compares, but then, I am disgusted with the whole lot of them.

So far, no pardon, but I'm pretty sure the Libby pardon will come after the 2008 election.)

Bill Clinton, pandering to some Puerto Rican lobbyists, and exhibit A for WJC, Prize Idiot.

Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence.

Bleeding heart rubbish, or cynical political maneuver? I say it was both.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I agree that it is an abuse of justice to simply throw out a special prosecutor like an attack dog, and hope he brings back a corpse. Judicial resources should be directed to where they matter, not to irrelevancies, and certainly not to ridiculous things like people's sex lives.

We agree then. It was stupid to pursue Mr. Clinton's sex life, and it was stupid to pursue the firing of people in the Clinton Whitehouse travel office. Justice would have been equally served by allowing the investigative reporters free license on those. But of course, without an "independant counsel" left wingers would never believe the muck on Clinton when it was revealed. Still it was a waste of US taxpayer money. Whitewater, while politically motivated was clearly an illegal fraudulent act, but luckily the Clintons convinced their friends and partners to take the fall for them. This current brewhaha about the US attorney firings is another politically motivated hachet job. While, the Clinton firing of ALL 100 of the US Attorneys (including the ones investigating him) were never questioned.

Now regarding Mr. Libby, here is another quote which is a summation of what I beleive;

The Fitzgerald indictments are an embarrassing confirmation of the old Washington rule that, when special prosecutors can't prove a crime, they indict the target for obstructing the investigation. Far from being typical behavior, indicting suspects for nothing more than false statements or perjury is a vice largely restricted to special prosecutors and independent counsels. . . He did not prosecute Bush administration officials or journalists under the rarely invoked law he was originally appointed to investigate--the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which forbids the knowing disclosure of the identity of a covert government agent. He did not invoke a broader provision that makes it a crime to disclose classified information--a statute that, if it were regularly enforced, would criminalize what most national security reporters do every day. . . . But the idea that Fitzgerald should be praised for the charges he didn't bring is absurd. "An Indefensible Indictment," The New Republic, 11/4/05)

I call shenanigans!

[Jester]

This current brewhaha about the US attorney firings is another politically motivated hachet job. While, the Clinton firing of ALL 100 of the US Attorneys (including the ones investigating him) were never questioned.

As I said earlier, justice should be done *regardless* of whose political ends it serves. Saying that "oh, well, so-and-so did this, and nobody complained" is not justice, it's an excuse. I am uncertain as to the circumstances under which Clinton removed the whole body of attorneys. If it smels bad, it should be investigated. It is the public who deserves justice here, as everywhere.

(Edit: As far as I can discern, Clinton's changing of the guard is apparently normal, the kind of thing that happens under every president at the beginning of their administration. Bush's mid-term firing of his own appointees for failing to toe the line is something quite else. The attempt to conflate appears to be the noise machine trying to drown out the scandal with "yes but".)

The existence of that case has no bearing whatsoever on the firing of specific attorneys by Gonzales for clearly political motives. Calling it a "politically motivated hatchet job" strikes me as ironic, especially given that these attorneys were fired (hatcheted) for clearly political motives. Should the public stand for administrations stacking public service with cronies, and firing competent people because they are politically opposed to the current president? Absolutely not. What possible argument could there be against that? That it is perfectly okay to turf people out of government jobs for their political beliefs?

On the Libby affair, I am entirely unsure why Fitzgerald did not pursue a broader investigation, or lay charges against anyone higher in the administration, notably Armitage and Cheney. Nor am I sure why the administration, and especially Cheney, has decided to take the tack that they are above or immune to such investigations. Smells terrible to me, reminiscent of Watergate, or Iran-Contra. The President is not a monarch, and yet the arguments in favour of executive priveledges seem to creep ever forward. I somehow doubt Jefferson would be impressed.

Given the laws in place, Scooter Libby clearly violated them, and was charged appropriately. He was convicted in a fair trial. What is your argument against this? That people should not be tried for their crimes?

-Jester

[Jester]

Nope. The death of a thousand cuts is how liberty dies. Administrations are a finitie entity, getting stupid laws off of the books is rather a longer prospect.

I cannot count the number of times, throughout history, that one person, grabbing for power, brought the whole house down, despite the "finity" of their administration. And the powers and priveledges of the executive are growing daily, apparently including the (practical) power to go to war. The number of democracies that have died slow deaths through excessive legislation, on the other hand, are few indeed. (Are there any? I can't think of one.) It seems clear to me which is the greater danger at this point. Obviously, you disagree, but I doubt we will find consensus on that.

Let's put this commuted sentence into perspective[...]

Duly noted. The communation of Libby's sentence is hardly the worst outrage even of the year, let alone of the last decade. It is merely one further example of the cronyism and contempt for justice that has come to dominate both parties, although I must argue that this administration is worse than any since Nixon, at least.

And people gripe about Bush and "executive privilege.:P

I don't see how the outrage compares, but then, I am disgusted with the whole lot of them.

I despised Clinton's politics then, and if they have come into a better light since, it is only because Bush's administration has been a disaster of epic proportions. You're not going to find much defense of either of them from me.

So far, no pardon, but I'm pretty sure the Libby pardon will come after the 2008 election.)

If this does not come to pass, colour me amazed.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Given the laws in place, Scooter Libby clearly violated them, and was charged appropriately. He was convicted in a fair trial. What is your argument against this? That people should not be tried for their crimes?

The jury was forced to decide who was telling the truth, a political crony of Dick Cheney, or two Washington journalists. Given enough time on a witness stand, I'm sure Mr. Fitzgerald would have trapped almost anyone in making false statements, perjury, and therefore obstruction of justice. Like I said before, Scooter's crime was trying to tell his side or the story and getting it wrong, rather than the patented "I do not recall" or "I'm taking the 5th". Is the US better protected from this dastardly criminal named Scooter? I think not. The charges against Libby, and even those being hurled at Gonzales are a matter of the fine splitting of hairs on interpretation. Is it wrong for the Executive to fire US Attorneys for political or any other reason?

But, I digress from my point. A better way to frame the question... What if we had devoted the same amount of money and effort into getting Osama Bin Laden? During the Clinton era, what if we had spent the 2nd Clinton administration worrying about Iraq, Iran and North Korea instead of Bill's zipper and stains on a blue dress? How about we get Congress' head out from their nether orifices and focused on something *really* important.

[Jester]

I think you have a great deal to fear from your government. If the executive comes to rise above the congress and the courts, it is no longer responsible to the people, except at election time. Four years is a long time to be above the laws of the land, and people are oh-so-gullible when it comes to charismatic candidates with shadowy advisors.

If you think the congress should ignore cronyism and focus on Osama bin Laden, then fine. I think you have as much, if not more, to worry about internally.

Zippers, on the other hand, are no threat to anyone, so we are in complete agreement that these are no business of government's.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Duly noted. The communation of Libby's sentence is hardly the worst outrage even of the year, let alone of the last decade. It is merely one further example of the cronyism and contempt for justice that has come to dominate both parties, although I must argue that this administration is worse than any since Nixon, at least.

No. If we are talking about abuse of power. Bill Clinton has been the worst, and worse than Nixon (except that Watergate thing).

On the use of Pardons and comutations...Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House

On the use of US troops in an illegal war... Accuracy In Media -- Bush Critics Ignore Clinton's Illegal Pro-Muslim War in Kosovo

I think you have a great deal to fear from your government. If the executive comes to rise above the congress and the courts, it is no longer responsible to the people, except at election time. Four years is a long time to be above the laws of the land, and people are oh-so-gullible when it comes to charismatic candidates with shadowy advisors.

I take it for granted that a person who pursues a degree in law enforcement has a predisposition for thumping skulls as needed. So you need to be vigilant in watching for brutality becoming acceptable. Similiarly I assume that politicians are enamored with power, and having issues with veracity. So, having a vigilent citizenry and media that accurately reports abuses is equally neccesary.

[Jester]

No. If we are talking about abuse of power. Bill Clinton has been the worst, and worse than Nixon (except that Watergate thing).

And I'm sure Reagan as well, except for that whole Iran-Contra thing... and everyone else, except for the very thing that would contradict the statement.

Some of Clinton's pardons were inexcusable, and that kind of cronyism cannot be tolerated. I have very little desire to apologize for Bill Clinton. But worse than Bush? Not a chance. Worse than Nixon? No way.

A pardon for slimy, well-connected lawbreakers is bad, but a pardon that reinforces the idea that administrations do not really have to cooperate with the courts is worse. Who cares if you lie under oath? Who cares if you withhold information from the very people you are elected to serve? The prez'll just throw a pardon your way, and you're done! Nixon was forgiven for his inexcusable crimes on much the same basis. It undermines the very principles of the rule of law.

The war in Kosovo hardly had my support. My rule was clear for the Iraq war, and it applies equally to Kosovo. Get the UN security council, make a real case for self-defense, or you're over the line. Again, not apologizing for Clinton, except insofar as to say he's a fair sight better than what you've got now.

However, from a less legal basis, the two wars (Kosovo and Iraq) were hardly similar. For starters, one war already existed, and massacres were a regular feature of the war. It was, in short, a humanitarian crisis. Intervention in that region was intended to stop the violence, not to start it. In Iraq, there was no war, there had been no war for over a decade, and there were obvious routes to preventing war that the US deliberately frustrated.

Blowing Kosovo to pieces was inhuman and stupid, and the resulting tragedy forms a large part of my loathing for Clinton. I would not hesitate to recommend he be brought before an international war crimes trbunal for that war, so long as we were being consistent about it, and did the same for the Iraq war. In terms of the damage it did, though, both to the US and to humanity at large, Kosovo was a much lesser thing than Iraq.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

However, from a less legal basis, the two wars (Kosovo and Iraq) were hardly similar. For starters, one war already existed, and massacres were a regular feature of the war. It was, in short, a humanitarian crisis. Intervention in that region was intended to stop the violence, not to start it. In Iraq, there was no war, there had been no war for over a decade, and there were obvious routes to preventing war that the US deliberately frustrated.

I guess Iraq was peaceful, unless you were a Kurd, or a Kuwaiti. I kind of look at the 2nd war as a result of Saddam violating the terms of Iraq's probation.

Again, not apologizing for Clinton, except insofar as to say he's a fair sight better than what you've got now.

I guess it depends on the type of stink you can tolerate. I never liked Bill Clinton, mostly due to his lack of character as evidenced by what he did to Paula Jones when he was a governor.

[--Pete]

Hi,

So, having a vigilent citizenry and media that accurately reports abuses is equally neccesary.

If that's what we need, then I am afraid. I am very afraid.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,
If that's what we need, then I am afraid. I am very afraid.

--Pete

:D Yup. Me too.

[kandrathe]

Nope. The death of a thousand cuts is how liberty dies. Administrations are a finitie entity, getting stupid laws off of the books is rather a longer prospect.

You reminded me of Mr. De Tocqueville in the Chapter "WHAT SORT OF DESPOTISM DEMOCRATIC NATIONS HAVE TO FEAR"...

It would seem that if despotism were to be established among the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them.
...
I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it.

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Alexis De Tocquville - Democracy in America, Section 4, Chapter 6.

I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy wants to be my daddy.

[Jester]

I'm pretty sure Ted Kennedy wants to be my daddy.

Not just Ted Kennedy. Does George Bush any less want this for you? The man of faith, who wants everyone to share his comforting, dogmatic belief in Jesus the savoir? Who wants you to trust him and his, who of course want only to protect the country from the evil, mean, nasty other people, if ony you trust him, do not challenge him, accept what he does as for the best?

The eternal carrot-and-stick of "I will protect you from the great Other." Is that not even more comforting, and more dangerous?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Not just Ted Kennedy. Does George Bush any less want this for you? The man of faith, who wants everyone to share his comforting, dogmatic belief in Jesus the savoir? Who wants you to trust him and his, who of course want only to protect the country from the evil, mean, nasty other people, if ony you trust him, do not challenge him, accept what he does as for the best.

I don't see any proposed laws with the government promoting religion. Do you? Actually, it is in fact the opposite with any religious references being increasingly expunged from civic life. In fact, I would guess that what pisses you off about Bush is that he does not refrain from calling on people to pray, or glorify God. As for this man of "faith" with "dogmatic belief in Jesus"... Well, that is part in parcel of his Christian religion. That would describe all past Presidents, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, and possibly Nixon, who both would go through the dogmata of being a Christian without the adherence.

According to Sahīh Bukhārī, the Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up. 1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays. 2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie. 3. Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous. 4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner."

I do see a continual storm of Bills promoting a nanny state to take care of us, along with an ever tightening grip on liberty. I could site a couple hundred examples from that past decade if you'd like, but a perusal of any of the latest news would reveal any number in the works.

The biggest thing I fear from the current Bush is him signing an amnesty bill for 12 million more low income, low skilled aliens to burden our social systems.

[Alram]

if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

In other words, the federal government shall have the power to imprison anyone who publishes material critical of the administration. This law was passed during the administration of John Adams.

When I see these sorts of discussions, I am always reminded of the Alien and Sedition laws which were more Draconian than anything we have today.

[Vandiablo]

I've been wanting to post this article. I found it ... interesting.

President Bush's favorite role model is, famously, Jesus, but Winston Churchill is close behind. The president admires the wartime British prime minister so much that he keeps what he calls "a stern-looking bust" of Churchill in the Oval Office. "He watches my every move," Bush jokes. These days, Churchill would probably not care for much of what he sees.

I've spent a great deal of time thinking about Churchill while working on my book "Troublesome Young Men," a history of the small group of Conservative members of Parliament who defied British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler, forced Chamberlain to resign in May 1940 and helped make Churchill his successor. I thought my audience would be largely limited to World War II buffs, so I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the president has been reading my book. He hasn't let me know what he thinks about it, but it's a safe bet that he's identifying with the book's portrayal of Churchill, not Chamberlain. But I think Bush's hero would be bemused, to say the least, by the president's wrapping himself in the Churchillian cloak. Indeed, the more you understand the historical record, the more the parallels leap out -- but they're between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill.

Like Bush and unlike Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he alone could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel. He surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him otherwise.

In the months leading up to World War II, Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies with which to confront Nazi Germany -- ignoring appeals from Churchill and others to fashion a "Grand Alliance" of nations to thwart the threat that Hitler posed to the continent.

Unlike Bush and Chamberlain, Churchill was never in favor of his country going it alone. Throughout the 1930s, while urging Britain to rearm, he also strongly supported using the newborn League of Nations -- the forerunner to today's United Nations -- to provide one-for-all-and-all-for-one security to smaller countries. After the League failed to stop fascism's march, Churchill was adamant that, to beat Hitler, Britain must form a true partnership with France and even reach agreement with the despised Soviet Union, neither of which Chamberlain was willing to do.

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside government. When Chamberlain arranged his face-to-face meetings with Hitler in 1938 that ended in the catastrophic Munich conference, he did so without consulting his cabinet, which, under the British system, is responsible for making policy. He also bypassed the House of Commons, leading Harold Macmillan, a future Tory prime minister who was then an anti-appeasement MP, to complain that Chamberlain was treating Parliament "like a Reichstag, to meet only to hear the orations and to register the decrees of the government of the day."

As was true of Bush and the Republicans before the 2006 midterm elections, Chamberlain and his Tories had a large majority in the Commons, and, as Macmillan noted, the prime minister tended to treat Parliament like a lapdog legislature, existing only to do his bidding. "I secretly feel he hates the House of Commons," wrote one of Chamberlain's most fervent parliamentary supporters. "Certainly he has a deep contempt for Parliamentary interference."

Churchill, on the other hand, revered Parliament and was appalled by Chamberlain's determination to dominate the Commons in the late 1930s. Churchill considered himself first and foremost "a child" and "servant" of the House of Commons and strongly believed in the legislature's constitutional role to oversee the executive (even when, after becoming prime minister, he often railed against MPs who criticized him). In August 1939, when Chamberlain rammed through a two-month parliamentary adjournment just weeks before the war began, Churchill -- then still a backbencher -- exploded with anger in the House, calling the prime minister's move "disastrous," "pathetic" and shameful." He encouraged his anti-appeasement colleagues to mount similar attacks against Chamberlain, and when one of them, Ronald Cartland, called the prime minister a dictator to his face in the same debate, Churchill congratulated Cartland with an enthusiastic, "Well done, my boy, well done!"

Likewise, Churchill almost certainly would look askance at the Bush administration's years-long campaign to shut down public debate over the "war on terror" and the conflict in Iraq -- tactics markedly similar to Chamberlain's attempts to quiet his opponents. Like Bush and his aides, Chamberlain badgered and intimidated the press, restricted journalists' access to sources and claimed that anyone who dared criticize the government was guilty of disloyalty and damaging the national interest. Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones were tapped by the prime minister's subordinates.

Churchill, by contrast, believed firmly in the sanctity of individual liberties and the need to protect them from government encroachment. That's not to say that he was never guilty of infringing on them himself. In June 1940, when a Nazi invasion of Britain seemed imminent, he ordered the internment of more than 20,000 enemy aliens living on British soil, most of them refugees from Hitler's and Mussolini's fascist regimes. But as the invasion scare abated over the next few months, the vast majority were released, also by his order. "The key word in any understanding of Winston Churchill is the simple word 'Liberty,' " wrote Eric Seal, Churchill's principal private secretary during the early years of the war. "He intensely disliked, and reacted violently against, all attempts to regiment and dictate opinion. . . . He demanded for himself freedom to follow his own star, and he stood out for a like liberty for all men."

Writing about Churchill and Chamberlain, I've discovered, is like administering a Rorschach test to one's readers. People see in Churchill and Chamberlain what they want to see. They draw parallels between the 1930s and the events of today according to their own political philosophy. I've received congratulatory letters and e-mails from people who see similarities between the current U.S. woes in Iraq and Chamberlain's disastrous conduct of the so-called phony war in 1939-40. But I've also gotten fan mail from readers who favorably compare the Tory rebels' courageous fight against Chamberlain to the Bush administration's campaign against those opposing the Iraq war. Among those who've written me in praise of the book are Bush adviser Karl Rove and Howard Wolfson, the communications director of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign.

The president no doubt has his own Churchill. "He was resolute," Bush has remarked. "He was tough. He knew what he believed." But Churchill would snort, I believe, at the administration's equation of "Islamofascism," an amorphous, ill-defined movement of killers forced to resort to terrorism by their lack of military might, to Nazi Germany, a global power that had already conquered several countries before Churchill took office in 1940. Still, key members of the Bush administration have compared critics of the wars on terrorism and in Iraq to the appeasers of the 1930s, thus implicitly equating their boss and themselves to Churchill and the "troublesome young men" who helped bring him to power. During bleak days in Iraq, the administration's hawks can be forgiven for hoping that history will show them to be as far-sighted about a gathering storm as Churchill was in the 1930s.

But history has its own ways, and we cannot make the long-dead titans we admire give us their modern blessing. As the world's two most prominent and powerful democracies, the United States and Britain had a responsibility to serve as exemplars of democracy for the rest of the world, Churchill believed. But to be fitting role models, he argued, both countries had to do their best to ensure that the "title deeds of freedom" were strongly safeguarded within their own boundaries. "Let us preach what we practice," he declared in his 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Mo. "But let us also practice what we preach."

Lynne Olson, a former White House correspondent for the Baltimore Sun, is the author or coauthor of four books of history.

[Jester]

I don't see any proposed laws with the government promoting religion. Do you? Actually, it is in fact the opposite with any religious references being increasingly expunged from civic life.

(Edit: Whoops. This is *not* the president who opined that he didn't think atheists were citizens or patriots. It was his father. Apple clearly doesn't fall that far from the tree, but my mistake.)

George W. Bush is the president of the faith-based initiative, brought to the doorstep of the Whitehouse by evangelicals in record numbers. The president opposes (veto pen in hand) stem-cell research, free access to abortions, gay marriage, and *starts wars in the middle east* on the basis that he believes god talks to him. Like, directly. Literally.

If this is religion being "increasingly expunged from civic life," I'm really not sure what president you're looking at, but it sure isn't this one.

And it's not the personal religion that is worrying. Jimmuh was an odd duck in that regard, and yet he doesn't terribly scare me. It's the public faith, the embracing sense of the faithful "us" versus the infidel "them." The idea that, as David Bowie once sang, God is an American. That faith in God and faith in the God-talking President go hand in hand.

That kind of mental lullaby seems far more likely to drug your nation into a stupor than excessive legislation. (Afterthought: Especially since the scenario of Toqueville requires a government of excrutiating competence, which is downright hiliarious in the modern context, only moreso given your own earlier arguments about the competence of government.)

That would describe all past Presidents, with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, and possibly Nixon, who both would go through the dogmata of being a Christian without the adherence.

Jefferson? Not much of a Christian, unless you count any follower of any of Jesus' teachings, in which case I myself am a strange, god-denying breed of Christian.

-Jester

Afterthought: Just because wikipedia is so much fun for this kind of thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Day

[kandrathe]

George W. Bush is the president of the faith-based initiative, brought to the doorstep of the Whitehouse by evangelicals in record numbers. The president opposes (veto pen in hand) stem-cell research, free access to abortions, gay marriage, and *starts wars in the middle east* on the basis that he believes god talks to him. Like, directly. Literally.

Republicans seem to be willing to accommodate religion in the public square and speak openly of their faith, while Democrats seem almost reflexively to insist upon separation of church and state.

The faith based initiative allows the government to be able to give grants to organizations who are helping people even though they are faith based. You know, like the YMCA and YWCA. Does that violate the establishment clause? I think the government giving to a good cause because they are doing good seem right, while giving to a religious cause because they are religious seems wrong. The President does not oppose stem cell research, and in fact has increased funding for stem cell research. He does not support human embryonic stem cell research(other than the already existing clonal population), and I would guess he doesn't support human organ harvesting and trafficking either. There are ethical issues to consider when you allow the government to sanction pregnancy for pay or human cloning for tissue harvesting. Also, science has made embryo farming irrelevant since discoveries on how adult stem cells can be reverted into pluripotency. And, yes, he is against abortion and sanctioning gay marriage, as well as at least half the nation is as well. The same banal charges were levied against Ronald Reagan, and other religious Republicans. But, I don't see the same vitriol spat at Jesse Jackson, or for example that the last Democratic Party's Radio Address was delivered by Reverend Jim Wallis. There seems to be a double standard for the left in their vehemence against religion in politics, or maybe Democrat politicians tend to stay quiet because the they are on the opposite side of those three hot button issues from the evangelicals and the Catholic church (those being abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research). John Kerry tried to infuse religion into his campaign, but it just reminded the Catholics how un-Catholic he is.

Jefferson? Not much of a Christian, unless you count any follower of any of Jesus' teachings, in which case I myself am a strange, god-denying breed of Christian.

Wow, you had to go way back... But, do you mean the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!" or "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[Jester]

Republicans seem to be willing to accommodate religion in the public square and speak openly of their faith, while Democrats seem almost reflexively to insist upon separation of church and state.

How very unreasonable of them, to insist on this fragile Jeffersonian principle.

The faith based initiative allows the government to be able to give grants to organizations who are helping people even though they are faith based. You know, like the YMCA and YWCA. Does that violate the establishment clause?

In a reasonable world? Yes. Money is fungial. Even if every dollar spent by these faith-based religious programs goes to things which are not overtly religious (and they almost invariably are anyway, with crap all for oversight, which would be expensive and impractical anyway), that just frees up more dollars elsewhere to spend on things which are religious. That would be giving government support to a religion, which to me seems like a prima facie violation of the establishment clause.

Want to do good works on the American taxpayer's dollar? Check your Bibles, Torahs, Korans and Bagavad Gitas at the door, and do it through secular organizatons. Otherwise, pass the collection plate and do it the old fashioned way.

The President does not oppose stem cell research, and in fact has increased funding for stem cell research. He does not support human embryonic stem cell research(other than the already existing clonal population), and I would guess he doesn't support human organ harvesting and trafficking either. There are ethical issues to consider when you allow the government to sanction pregnancy for pay or human cloning for tissue harvesting.

... on the basis that he believes God told him so. And people vote for him in support of his position on these things because, in the main, they believe God told *them* so.

Also, science has made embryo farming irrelevant since discoveries on how adult stem cells can be reverted into pluripotency.

Convenient, if true. But hardly something Bush knew at the time. The decision, and the support for that decision, was made out of faith. The result is, in those terms, an accident of fate.

And, yes, he is against abortion and sanctioning gay marriage, as well as at least half the nation is as well. The same banal charges were levied against Ronald Reagan, and other religious Republicans.

(Ah, well, I'm sorry that these charges are so banal. Could I perhaps point out that your stereotype of the left isn't exactly spring fresh either?)

This is my whole point. Huge swaths of the population are willing to put aside the practical republicanism of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and instead vote with their faith. Critical thinking gets checked at the door. Vote for the president because Jesus walks with him! Vote for him because he is a person of high moral character, like it says in the Bible! Ever seen that scene in Jesus Camp with the charismatic-kids-camp praying over the cardboard cutout of Dubya? Not a future the rest of the world is looking forward to.

This is the mania that sweeps your nation, and it's come a lot closer to taking over than Ted Kennedy ever will. Most people are trusting of faith. Most people are suspicious of liberals (and, Buddha forbid, Atheists). Which is more likely to lull people into complacency, honestly?

But, I don't see the same vitriol spat at Jesse Jackson, or for example that the last Democratic Party's Radio Address was delivered by Reverend Jim Wallis.

I think, on the whole, that Jesse Jackson is well and maxed out on his lifetime quota of vitriol spat at him. If you mean by me, I would be highly uncomfortable with Jesse Jackson as American president on the basis of his religion, but still not anywhere near as uncomfortable as Bush. Jesse Jackson has at least demonstrated some vague understanding that political issues must be justified on political grounds, even if religion underlies them. Not so Mr. God-told-me-to-liberate-Iraq, who apparently feels perfectly comfortable with the idea that divine voices in his head are a sound basis for public policy.

I guess that just doesn't scare you, does it?

There seems to be a double standard for the left in their vehemence against religion in politics, or maybe Democrat politicians tend to stay quiet because the they are on the opposite side of those three hot button issues from the evangelicals and the Catholic church (those being abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research). John Kerry tried to infuse religion into his campaign, but it just reminded the Catholics how un-Catholic he is.

Me, I'm against religion in politics. And I think the Democrats are weasels. But I'm sure you guessed that by now. The 'left,' that great amorphous coalition that voted against Bush? More complicated. Many are very religious, most are somewhat religious, others are non-religious. What they are almost universally against is religion being a direct driver of public policy. Formulate your beliefs how you like, but for governing, you must be secular. That's the whole spirit of the separation of church and state.

Wow, you had to go way back... But, do you mean the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote [...]

Sorry about going way back, but the American public really, really dislikes non-religious types. Yes, that is exactly the Thomas Jefferson I mean. The avowed Deist. The one who believed in an ultimate "creator," but not the divinity of Christ, which, last I checked, was the sine qua non of Christianity. Who didn't mention anything specifically Christian in that passage you just quoted. The one who, like those poor reflexive Democrats of your above quote, insisted fervently on the separation of church and state.

And, a quick google of that quote shows that the context is about slavery, that is, the liberty inherent in every person by a benevolent creator, who would be displeased at the violation of those rights. Very deistic. Not Christian in any particular way.

-Jester