About This Blog
The Akron Beacon Journal editorial staff, with consistency, has defended the lawless and unconstitutional foreign and military policies of the Bush-Cheney regime. From attacking Iraq unilaterally, to outing CIA agent Valerie Plame, to torture....the Beacon has sought to justify, in virtually every instance, the criminal actions of this hated administration.
The Beacon does so again this morning.
In a piece entitled "Accounting for torture", Beacon editors spell out why there shouldn't be any. Accounting for torture, that is.
Let's start with this....
"As careless and damaging as these actions (torture)have proved, inflicting immense harm to the American image, they are more about ''really bad policies'' than ''genuine crimes.'' Be as critical as you want of Rumsfeld and the others. Admit, too, that they genuinely believed such steps were necessary."
Hard to believe, isn't it? That someone in charge of writing about Bush and Cheney's admitted crimes of torture could call up the Nixon defense....if a president violates the law, it's not a "genuine crime", but only "really bad policy." I may have a "really bad policy", personally, of stealing other people's stuff......but that doesn't mean when I steal other people's stuff, I'm committing a "genuine crime." Provided, of course, that I "genuinely believe" stealing is "necessary."
Many of the Villagers are currently flailing about in search of legacy building material for George W. Bush. It's been so difficult finding anything of value that Bush's "personality" is now being tossed around as his legacy. No kidding. The Beacon editorial writer decides to add his penny's worth of revisionism by telling us that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al., at the very least, meant well by ordering torture.....and it is because of this well-meaning motivation that crimes are not actually crimes.....
"Recall the mentality inside the Bush team after the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax episodes. Many in the White House and elsewhere believed the next ghastly attack was imminent. The president wanted no holds barred in preventing the next strike. In that spirit, the president declared that ''enemy combatants'' were not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and John Yoo and Jay Bybee of the Justice Department wrote a memo opening the way to the use of torture. Donald Rumsfeld, as secretary of defense, authorized coercive interrogation tactics that went far beyond previous Pentagon policies.
As careless and damaging as these actions have proved, inflicting immense harm to the American image, they are more about ''really bad policies'' than ''genuine crimes.'' Be as critical as you want of Rumsfeld and the others. Admit, too, that they genuinely believed such steps were necessary. Link"
Let that 'thinking' wash over you.
The American people are supposed to "admit" that because the Bush regime "genuinely believed" lawbreaking was "necessary", it wasn't really lawbreaking at all.....only "really bad policy."
When elected leaders swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.....we're not to hold them to it.....if those elected leaders "genuinely believe" breaking that oath and violating American laws is a "necessary" "policy."
The Bushies' "mentality" must be factored in, says the Beacon. The reason that the Beacon gives for not calling criminality...umm....criminality, deserving of prosecution,.....is because the Bushies, oblivious to numerous pre-9-11 warnings, "believed the next ghastly attack was imminent", immediately AFTER 9-11. The only thing "ghastly" here is the thinking of the writer.
Bush, the Beacon explains, the same president who dismissed an early August, 2001 warning about Bin Laden by telling the briefer, "you've covered your ass now"...., AFTER 9-11, "wanted no holds barred in preventing the next attack."
Because Bush failed to protect the U.S. on 9-11, because Bush failed to protect against anthrax attacks a month later, because the Bushies felt guilty for not protecting the U.S. ....it was not lawbreaking to order illegal torture, rendition, "enemy combatants", and all the rest.....AFTER we were attacked. It was only "bad policy."
The Beacon editorial concludes by calling for a toothless "commission" to deal with the Bushies' "bad policies". Not prosecutions, as any normal citizen who willingly and admittedly broke the law would endure....oh no....that would just be too mean-spirited and vindictive towards Our Great Protector Leaders whose Dear and Patriotic Hearts were, you know, in the right place.
By Obama ordering a dog and pony show commission, the Beacon concludes....
"In that way, the country would take responsibility, helping to repair its image by identifying those who so misjudged what serves American interests."
Did you get that? The American people will "take responsibility", not the Bushies. How will we take responsibility? By adhering to principles of law and order? Don't be silly. "By identifying those who misjudged."
It would be like calling a lineup in a rape case, identifying the raper, letting him go, and calling that, "taking responsibility."
I have breaking f*cking news for the Beacon....America has already "identified" the 'misjudgers'....and they're not guilty of simply misjudging, or creating bad policies....they're guilty of breaking the law.