Monday, September 17, 2007


The lesser of two evils

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer provides a nice lesson in the meaning of the phrase "lesser of two evils" in today's news, while discussing George Bush's nominee for Attorney General:
"For sure we'd want to ascertain his approach on such important and sensitive issues as wiretapping and the appointment of U.S. attorneys, but he's a lot better than some of the other names mentioned and he has the potential to become a consensus nominee."
The old "show them Attila the Hun and they'll vote for Genghis Khan every time" trick - Democrats fall for it every time.

So how good is "a lot better"? Here's some substance:

Although Mr. Mukasey backed the White House by ruling that Mr. Padilla could be held as an enemy combatant — a decision overturned on appeal — he also defied the administration by saying Mr. Padilla was entitled to legal counsel.
Wow, that is defiant. What's next? A ruling that it's ok to hood defendants, as long as you use silk cloth? Waterboarding is ok, but only if it's lemon-scented water? Let's face it, once you rule that U.S. citizens can be held indefinitely without charges as "enemy combatants," it's just one more illustration of the old joke - we know what you are, we're just deciding on the price (no offense to prostitutes, who are way more principled than Chuck Schumer, George Bush, or Judge Mukasey).

Update: Bush, announcing the nomination:

"He knows what it takes to fight this war effectively."
Is that really the role of the Attorney General?

Why stop here? There's more...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com High Class Blogs: News and Media