Newsweek on the Palace Revolt
A nice piece of journalism in the latest issue of Newsweek that will certainly give ammo to the anti-Bush crowd, and give no small amount of pause to conscientious supporters like myself. Called the Palace Revolt, it’s an insider’s look at the internal dissension to the broad expansion of presidential power espoused by, most determinedly, the Vice President.
John Yoo plays a prominent role, as does David Addington, now the VP’s Chief of Staff following the departure of Scooter Libby. It’s a detailed narrative that defies easy excerpting, but I highly recommend it, to both opponents and supporters of the Administration. I believe strongly, as I’ve often stated, that the president must have the tools he needs to wage a very aggresive war on terror, but there are limits, to be sure, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that Bush is pushing against those limits.
This is not a partisan issue, though it is being played that way by both sides…though it may not continue to garner big headlines indefinitely, I suspect this issue will occupy policymakers well into the first term of the next president, if not beyond. As I’ve stated elsewhere, the current balance between security and liberty is perhaps the preeminent domestic issue of our time.
“A nice piece of journalism”???
I beg to differ. The piece is loaded with code that screams of an inside hit.
Addington is “righteous,” “ascetic”(read religious fanatic), and appointees “quail before his volcanic temper,” and “acid sarcasm.” Addington “went behind people’s backs,” while Comey is a “straight arrow.”
On the other hand, Goldsmith(cue the soft music) is “genial,” “possessing enormous intellect,” “brilliant,” and a “graduate of Oxford,” whose family–”wife(a poet-ahhh), 3-year-old son, and newborn baby son saw him less and less often.”
Poor Goldsmith was exhausted and worn down by “hardliners” around “Prime Minister Cheney,” who wanted to give the President “virtually unlimited powers.”
And so on. Now this article might very well be accurate in describing a battle within the Administration over the legality of steps taken in the WOT–the presence of Stuart Taylor makes me take it seriously–but the hyperbole and language is suspicious. I hope the author/authors responsible for the obvious tilt to the reporting had their panty shields on.
Bad start with “Palace Revolt” and a bias tell with the “Prime Minister Cheney” reference (unless I missed some details in Cheney’s bio).
It is not a partisan issue, it is a legal issue, particularly as it relates to separation of powers in co-equal branches of government. It must be settled in the courts (Supreme Court) and cannot be settled by politics. I hope soon.
I am left with an interesting impression though: both sets of lawyers are passionate in their legal arguments and the legal standing of those arguments, yet the article clearly portrays Goldsmith and Comey (as opposed to Addington) in the hero role. I guess because the writer agrees with their point of view?
And how about the self-serving, melodramatic closing line? Ick.
Oh, no doubt it’s a biased article…still, I do think it’s a nice bit of reporting…clearly, we have some details that we didin’t have before…at least it’s not just a regurgitation of the same ol’, same ol’…