Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   6 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Crawling Out from Under the Rocks

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 4/29/09

Become a Fan
  (32 fans)
With respect to the Bushite crimes, it is far from clear where as a nation are heading.  Will there be extensive further investigations of the regime's wrong-doing?  Will there be prosecutions?  Will the nation choose instead to "look forward" and leave the dark crimes of this unprecedently lawless administration behind?

As I wrote in the piece on "Obama and Transparency," it is not even clear where the president wants them to go:  at the implicit level, he gives impetus to the movement to deal with this past by turning over the rocks and showing us what crawls out while at the same time, at the explicit level, he declares that he's not in favor of looking backward.

There are many forces now swirling and eddying, and what kind of current will issue forth out of this interplay is something that we'll know only with time.  This appears to me to be one of those things in which most of the actors are having to assess their positions and dispositions on an ongoing basis, as the climate of opinion and the areas of political opportunity and danger become clear.

How will the American people react?  That is probably as important a determinant of the outcome as any other single factor.  And the more deeply the American people are shocked and offended by what they learn, the greater will be the political force to look more deeply and repudiate or punish more fully.

Many people here on NSB expressed lately --on "What to Think about 9/11"-- that the traumatic events of that day be re-opened to investigation.  Many here believe that an honest investigation will expose the darkest and deepest level of evil of all the Bushite crimes:  i.e., that behind the attacks were, ultimately, the American administration itself, wanting a provocation that would justify the wars and the police-state arrogations of presidential power that in fact did follow from the 9/11 disaster.

Whether or not the attacks of 9/11 are to be included among the Bushite crimes, the American people are far less prepared to contemplate that possibility --still "unthinkable" to most Americans-- than they are to recognize the wrong-doing of those things that have already become common knowledge from the documentation and statements already made:  torture and warrantless wiretapping.

On both of these, we have come to a point where important questions can now be asked that --depending on the answers-- might provide the basis for a whole new level of discrediting, disgracing, and repudiating the Bushites.

In each case, the apparent crimes have generally been understood by the American people to have been committed as part of the effort by the Bushites to "protect" the American people.  But in pursuing these questions it is possible that this justification can be demolished.

And that's important:  a high proportion of the American people seem inclined to accept presidential crimes motivated by some over-eagerness to prevent terrorists from making attacks against Americans in the "homeland."  This priority of fear over any commitment to the supposedly canonical American dedication to "the rule of law" is how the Bushites maintained as much credibility as it did as their lawlessness became ever clearer during the second term.

But if the investigation of these practices were to lead to a clear conclusion that the purpose of the crimes was not to protect the people but rather that they were part and parcel of the whole criminal enterprise that WAS the Bushite regime, then American attitudes would shift across a whole continental divide of public opinion.  If the crimes were not to protect the people, but part of the regime's ongoing victimization and exploitation of the people, all the gloves (I would predict) would come off.

(Then, I would guess, even the idea that 9/11 was an inside job could become widely "thinkable.")

Here are the two directions for the questioning to go.


The question about the warrantless wiretapping issue --now the more quiescent of the two-- has been in front of our eyes for years already:  on whom did the administration do its warrantless spying, and why did it not bother to get the warrants required by law?

With the Jane Harman wiretap it looked for a few days as if perhaps the time was becoming ripe for pursuing this question.  Now, however, it appears that in that case, the wiretapping was done by the FBI with a warrant and not by the NSA without a warrant.  So once again remains to be seen how and when this question of the warrantless surveillance will be energetically pursued.

But the matter remains a mystery. 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia's 6th District. He is the author of various books including The Parable of the Tribes: The (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why Do Conservatives Like Colbert? Article Plus Critique

Mel Gibson's Rant as Profound Clue

To Anti-Obamite Lefties: It Doesn't Matter If You're Right

How Important is the Loss of Friendship?

The Mystery of Obama's Relationship with Power

Power and Corruption: Just What Is Their Relationship?

Trending on the Web


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always) this point means little or nothing.  Mo... by waldopaper on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:25:35 PM
I can't tell: are you suggesting that the analysi... by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:36:40 PM
"Authoritarianism," as I understand Altemeyer, run... by waldopaper on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:37:35 PM
Whether or not "faith in the American people&... by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:41:14 PM
One must always be careful applying a general rule... by waldopaper on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:01:23 PM
Excellent analysis. Very well written and construc... by William Whitten on Friday, May 1, 2009 at 8:59:33 AM