Unrepentant criminal

You can't punish Dick Cheney just because he's an asshole. Everyone in America has the right to be one, although few of us achieve anything approaching the consistent assholery of Darth. But seeing such contemptible - and openly contemptuous - slime get his just desserts would certainly make any punishment of him for his proudly fascist crimes even more delightful.

Is it possible that the Dems might actually stand up to him once he's out of power? I doubt it.

Ebb and flow of historians

Duhbya's right in theory. Historians can get it wrong. Of course, when they move away from a cherished conservative myth, they're revisionists, while they're only coming to their senses if they ever (never!) learn to love Duhbya.

Darth Cheney provides a perfect example:

Vice President Cheney has also argued that history will vindicate Bush. Speaking at a Washington luncheon last week, Cheney recalled that former president Gerald R. Ford was "attacked from every conceivable angle" for pardoning Richard M. Nixon, but he said that "the consensus now is that Gerald Ford did the right thing."

If this is even numerically true, if, it's ripe for revisit and revision. Ford's pardon of Nixon led the permanent Republican apparat to conclude that they could shred the Constitution with impunity. It's a major reason we are where we are today with the lawless Bushists.

In the case of Duhbya's legacy, the contradictions and oozing bullshit of this administration are too great to overcome. Some historian someday will say of Duhbya, "Well, he wasn't the anti-Christ," and Bushist partisans will shout, "Vindication!" It'll probably be a Harvey Mansfield protégé.

Duhbya aggrandizes himself as a stalwart holding the line against an existential threat. He thinks that because Japan and Germany have become democratic allies, Iraq will be. (Why not Iran, too?) Even if one accepts the parallel arguendo, the Americans who made the post-war era so successful with respect to old adversaries planned and improvised, two ground-laying tasks that the Bushists have been unable to manage. They also knew when a real existential threat, communism, was better contained and competed with than warred against. Duhbya and his would-be successor John McCain haven't shown that degree of fine judgement.

Making up the law

Can a man who obviously doesn't believe in law over necessity remain on the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin M. Scalia echoed the administration's view when he said in a BBC Radio interview yesterday that some physical interrogation techniques could be used on a suspect in the event of an imminent threat, such as a hidden bomb about to blow up. "It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that," Scalia said. "And once you acknowledge that, we're into a different game: How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?"

Never mind Scalia prejudging the case in favor of his political cronies, he plainly shows the willingness to make up the "law" as he goes. The whole doctrine of originalism, like rigid federalism, so zealously adhered to by Scalia and his ilk, can be discarded when necessary to achieve the "right" outcome. After Bush v. Gore, this shouldn't be a surprise.

What it should be is impeachable.

Acquiescence to torture

Is there anything the Washington Democrats won't allow the Bushists to do?

Nancy: You're not tough if you cave every time someone questions your toughness.

It is possible that the Bushists are claiming consent by silence when in fact there was none. That's a completely consistent pattern, too.