As the debates over how Obama should deal with the alleged crimes of the previous administration rage on, one can't help but notice that the right wing is quite often arguing out of two sides of their mouths. The contradictions keep coming and it makes one wonder if the right wing would be better off holding a conference to get their members onto the same page.
NO CRIMES WERE COMMITTED: A.K.A. WE DON'T TORTURE EXCEPT WHEN WE DO
The right continues to provide flailing arguments on the topic of alleged war crimes committed against prisoners at Gitmo and other military and CIA prisons worldwide, vacillating between the insistence that "we haven't tortured anyone" while at the same time demanding the future Attorney General guarantee he "won't prosecute offenders who took part in torture practices." Well, which is it? Either we didn't commit the alleged crimes or we did, but shouldn't prosecute the offenders? Several right wing bloggers have consistently made the arguments that "there is no evidence" that we broke the law, while at the very same time, in the very same thread, put forth the argument that "the terrorists don't obey the law, so why should we?"
Update: A friend pointed out to me that the wing-nuts not only argue that we don't torture, but that the torture we evidently "don't do" actually "works."
GEORGE BUSH KEPT US SAFE: BUSH-RELEASED PRISONERS RETURNING TO THE BATTLEFIELD
Another bizarre contradiction is making the rounds. We continue to hear the mantra that "Bush kept us safe," while at the same time are being told that an ever-changing number of prisoners that the Bush administration released from custody have "returned to the battlefield" and are "planning terrorist atrocities" against the Nation. Well, which is it? Certainly one can't argue that Bush has kept us safe if he released the "worst of the worst" from custody, freeing them to resume their arch-villainy, right? How does that make sense?
*of course, Bush's "keeping us safe" never extended to the Katrina disaster or the anthrax attacks, which occurred AFTER 9/11, nor the tens of thousands of Americans injured or killed in our needless war in Iraq, as well as the victims of the numerous worldwide terror attacks which resulted from backlash to Bush's aggressive "war on terror" policies. But I digress...
WE RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION, EXCEPT WHEN WE DON'T
There is a segment of the right wing thoroughly comfortable with the idea that we have violated the law by abusing "terrorists" (the word "alleged" has been stricken from the record in regard to our prisoners of war, apparently), who at the same time argue against Obama's stimulus spending plan as being "unconstitutional," based on age-old theories on federal spending limits based on the 10th Amendment and section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These strict adherences to the Constitutional principles don't extend to the following (thanks to Greenwald for providing the details:
U.S. Constitution, Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Which makes the following, the "Law of the land":
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed by the U.S. under Ronald Reagan):
Article 2
- Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
- No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 4
- Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Article 7
- The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
This selective adherences to the Constitution is obvious to any rational human being, yet we continue to see these contradictory arguments put forth time and again by the wing-nut sect.
OBAMA IS NATIONALIZING THE BANKING INDUSTRY: HEY, WHERE'S THE OVERSIGHT?
Another bizarre contradiction can be found festering throughout the blogosphere and within the halls of Congress. A socialist conspiracy is clearly underway, they argue, with the "nationalization" of the banking industry being the first step! Now, anyone who understands the concept of "nationalization" of industry, knows it requires government ownership of that industry. This means the companies within that industry are government companies and all employees within that industry are therefore government employees. This clearly hasn't happened, but that hasn't stopped the argument. It's "nationalization by any other name," they cry. Yet at the very same time, they put forth criticisms claiming there was not "sufficient oversight" by congress as to how the bailout money was spent by the banks. Well, which is it? The government is now in utter control of the banking industry? Or we have no clue as to what the baking industry is doing with our tax dollars?
The right wing is clearly in disarray and in desperate need of a collective time-out.
UPDATED:
WELFARE MOMS: WE ARE AGAINST THEM, ACCEPT WHEN WE ARE FOR THEM
As if on cue, resident wing-nut Rick on the Des Moines Register site, posts a thread critical of Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of increased spending on birth control. Her argument relies on the idea that unwanted pregnancies become a burden on the State, as they are largely found among the poor, who then rely on welfare to help pay for these children. Rick has seemingly forgotten the numerous right-wing criticisms against those same "lazy welfare moms," milking the system, and therefore their hard-earned tax dollars, with arguments remarkably similar to the ones being put forth by Nancy Pelosi.
UPDATE II:
OBAMA IS AGAINST FREE SPEECH: BUT DON'T LISTEN TO THE LIBERAL MEDIA
Rick from Des Moines has now entered yet another blog, which adds to the list. His post, titled "Obama Begins His Assault On Free Speech" argues that Obama's criticism of Rush Limbaugh constitutes an "assault" on "free speech." Yet this same argument apparently doesn't apply to Rick and the rest of the wing-nut crowd, who constantly whine about those who pay attention to the "liberal media," when forming their opinions. How is a criticism of a right-wing talk radio host an "assault on free speech," while criticisms of allegedly "liberal" news sources is not?
UPDATE III:
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES... OR DO THEY?
Wing-nuts are in an uproar over Obama's assertion that "he won" the election, which means his policies should be given priority over the views of the minority party. How "arrogant" is Obama, anyway? This ignores, of course the fact that these same critics rolled out the "elections have consequences" mantra for the first six years of the Bush Administration.
UPDATE IV:
Matt Yglesias adds his two cents:
I’ve been absolutely Gobsmacked by the nonsense the right is running with on the Guantanamo Bay issue, and the double-nonsense I’ve been hearing about it on television. The basic conservative position, as I understand it, is that the very same federal officials who can’t be trusted to prevent a breakout from a military prison in Kansas can be trusted to administer a system of indefinite detention and kangaroo courts fairly. Other arguments I’ve heard people make, apparently with a straight face:
*The fact that the Bush administration has let dangerous terrorists go free means Obama should keep innocent people detained.
*The fact that the Bush administration screwed up the paperwork on detainees shows that there was more wisdom to Bush’s policies than Obama acknowledged on the campaign trail.
*Obama’s promise of change was empty and hypocritical because it will take time to implement his executive orders.
*The “Guantanamo” issue is primarily about the physical location of the facility rather than the legal status or treatment of the detainees.
*Since many liberals live in San Francisco, anyone who thinks it would be ill-advised to transfer prisoners to a museum in the San Francisco Bay that hasn’t been a prison for decades is a hypocrite.
There’s some really out of this world stuff.