4 Comments

I fail to see where you found similarities. All you’ve done is tell an historical anecdote then written a conclusory paragraph that says in essence, “That story I just told you, what’s going on today is just as silly.” Without giving any explanation as to why that is so.

You imply that investigating the Bush Administration’s prosecution of “The War on Terror” is like trying to investigate Butler’s paranoid delusions (or whatever they were) but Bush did wage a “War on Terror” and many people have questions about the decisions that were made and policies that were implemented. There is no similarity there. One was an attempt to investigate the ramblings of a mad man (or attention seeker) and the other is an attempt to look into the actual decision making process behind events that actually happened.

As if the body of your commentary wasn’t enough, you also (again, impliedly) lump the “War on Terror” in with JFK assassination, moon landing and Sept. 11 conspiracy theories, again without so much as drawing any link between conspiracy theories and the “War on Terror” or the investigation into it.

Overall, your commentary is a good exercise in propaganda by equating your target with objects of ridicule, without actually drawing a link between them. However it seems to tell us less about why Senator Leahy’s “Truth Commission” would “end up being a laughingstock for Democrats” and more about your own political leanings.

Whether you are a Bush opponent seeking answers to the questions I mention earlier, or a Bush supporter who feels his point of view would be vindicated by an investigation, I fail to see why you would not support a commission.

Nice find and connection. Within the ranks of my beloved Marine Corps, Smedley Butler is legendary, being one of only a handful of jarheads to receive the Medal of Honor – twice. Though while having this fact pounded in to my eighteen year old brain, they left out the fact that he was the WWI equivalent to Fox Moulder. Next I’ll learn that Chesty Puller (another famous Marine) was a cross-dresser…

Nice try, but in the same fashion as a bad legal brief. Is this all you got when you write:

Every Bush administration security policy was shared with the Democratic leadership in dozens of briefings.

The capital-D Devil, I expect, is in the details — including the details that were not shared with the Democratic leadership or even many at high levels in the Bush Administration leadership. (“Let them eat yellow cake,” I suppose.)
But, since you apparently think a “truth commission” would blow up in Leahy’s face, why not let that happen? Surely you would enjoy it. Or is it that, actually, you’re concerned about the truth coming out? Uh, inconvenient truth.
Truth commission, truth smisshion. What we need is to put all of this to a fair, honest and thorough test under the RULE OF LAW.
If there’s no problem, then there is no problem, depending on what you want the definition of “is” to be.

Your wacky general anecdote from long ago is one of the biggest strawmen I’ve ever seen.

Larry.
With all due respect, I believe your comment is quite “rookie” on this site. Though I don’t personally know Ted Frank and I’m far from being an overlawyered soldier, I am a daily visitor to his and Walt’s intellectual drive-in. To be sure, I’m a fan of neither party but a true believer in Churchill’s maxim about democracy being the worst form of government. I think the issue here is media promotion. If we assume that the daily media-pharmacists own stock in their employer’s agendas, then we can also safely assume that Leahy is just trying to pour some glue on America’s sofas at 6:29 PM. Brian Williams will tell us “we go now live to Chuck Todd for more details” and the lemmings will temporarily halt their suicide long enough to raise their antennae and listen in to the latest crisis of government. Forgive me for my interpretation but I think the point is, been there, done that…the usual suspect are keeping busy and being usual.