Gawker spots the D-man flicking off the preposterous notion of "the Rule of Law". The rest isn't pretty. I wonder if he will go cry now on his very large orange and unfunny fat.
Gawker 1 - Milbank 0:
Today in quintessential sentences from The Washington Post's Dana Milbank: "Legal merits aside, trying the terrorist leader in New York would be a political disaster — something everybody seems to grasp but Holder." Hah. Way to tackle the important bit.
Writing columns about complicated matters of justice and law is so easy when you can just put the essential questions "aside" to focus on what you imagine people like you will think of how the issue will eventually be spun to people like you! "Rule of law aside..." "America's Constitution aside..." "The rights of man aside..." "Habeas Corpus and two centuries of jurisprudence aside..." "Morality aside..." Now you're qualified to be a star columnist for the biggest daily newspaper in our nation's capital!
Dana has a good point, too. Why can't this dim bulb Eric Holder understand how it plays, politically, to do the right thing? He is simply not as clever and politically plugged-in as Dana Milbank, funny costume-wearing column-writer for The Washington Post!
Reading the Washington Post has become completely unbearable case in point.
I am Frank Chow and I approved this message
2 comments:
... trying the terrorist leader in New York would be a political disaster
I think this is flat wrong. I mean I think the trial should happen because that's the law but I think the politics favor this. I mean here's the thing, they bring the terrorist into a US court. The US court then has a nice legitimate trial, and then we sentence the terrorist. How is that not a political win for the administration?
If something bad happened, yes, it would be bad politically. Certainly this is not a risk-free way to go, but if it went smoothly it would go a long way towards saying, "I'm the president and I've got this on lock down". It would help energize the base and it would take away the talking points about terrorist on US soil because we'd have proven we can deal with it.
Even better question: would teh Village even have stated, "trying the terrorist leader in New York would be a political disaster" when George W were president? Think not wonder why...
Post a Comment