Tuesday, April 17, 2007
If you think you hear "but Clinton did it" a lot...
One of the first fallbacks for any Republican justifying whatever black eye you are discussing regarding President Bush is that Clinton did it as well. For example: Bush fires 8 U.S. Attorneys in the middle of his term... and after an uproar starts all the right wing toadies proclaim that Clinton did it too: He fired ALL of the U.S. Attorneys when he took office. Never mind that it is standard procedure for any incoming President.
A fine example of an inverse usage of the Clinton did it logic was posited by Condoleeza Rice. She (falsely) argued that the Bush administrations singular lack of action regarding terrorism early in the first term was due to the Clinton administration failure to leave a plan to deal with the threat. So if Clinton didn't do it, we should be understanding if Bush didn't do it either!
There are many other examples of the 'Clinton did it too' logic by Bush apologists, ranging from signing statements to breaking the FISA law. Invariably the Bushies logic falls apart under scrutiny.
But just think of what future generations of administration apologists will be able to justify with the simple argument that Bush did it too.
How will the loud mouthed right wing loony toons like it when they are kicked out of venues with President H.W. Clinton, because their views are not shared by her? Well, the Bush administration is "making viewpoint-based exclusionary determinations". Speaking of absurd legalisms how do you suppose the vast right wing sound machine will sound if a President Obama decides to use hyper legalistic lawyer talk to justify breaking international treaties? Somehow Al Gonzales managed to redefine torture and label the Geneva conventions quaint. Do you think Republicans are going to be happy when a Democratic President decides to attach signing statements to legislation, fundamentally altering the intent of the law beyond all constitutional principles? I rather doubt it.
Frankly, I don't believe this will actually be much of an issue with future Democratic Presidents because I for one would feel pretty weak having to base justifications for obvious wrong headed policy on the fact that someone I thought was a horrible President had done it as well. So how does that reflect on the Bushies?
A fine example of an inverse usage of the Clinton did it logic was posited by Condoleeza Rice. She (falsely) argued that the Bush administrations singular lack of action regarding terrorism early in the first term was due to the Clinton administration failure to leave a plan to deal with the threat. So if Clinton didn't do it, we should be understanding if Bush didn't do it either!
There are many other examples of the 'Clinton did it too' logic by Bush apologists, ranging from signing statements to breaking the FISA law. Invariably the Bushies logic falls apart under scrutiny.
But just think of what future generations of administration apologists will be able to justify with the simple argument that Bush did it too.
How will the loud mouthed right wing loony toons like it when they are kicked out of venues with President H.W. Clinton, because their views are not shared by her? Well, the Bush administration is "making viewpoint-based exclusionary determinations". Speaking of absurd legalisms how do you suppose the vast right wing sound machine will sound if a President Obama decides to use hyper legalistic lawyer talk to justify breaking international treaties? Somehow Al Gonzales managed to redefine torture and label the Geneva conventions quaint. Do you think Republicans are going to be happy when a Democratic President decides to attach signing statements to legislation, fundamentally altering the intent of the law beyond all constitutional principles? I rather doubt it.
Frankly, I don't believe this will actually be much of an issue with future Democratic Presidents because I for one would feel pretty weak having to base justifications for obvious wrong headed policy on the fact that someone I thought was a horrible President had done it as well. So how does that reflect on the Bushies?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
