Gaps in the Right's "banana republic" rhetoric
After years in which the executive branch of government did basically whatever the hell it wanted, whenever the hell it wanted to, recent news about U.S. torture of detainees has finally caused conservatives in the media to be alarmed about the prospect of the United States resembling a banana republic:
- Glenn Beck: "[T]his is what banana republics do."
- Mark Steyn: "[T]hat is the sort of thing that happens in banana republics."
- Karl Rove: "[W]e're going to turn ourselves into the moral equivalent of a Latin American country run by colonels in mirrored sunglasses. ... [T]hat might be fine in some little Latin American country that's run by, you know, the latest junta -- it may be the way that they do things in Chicago -- but that's not the way we do things here in America."
- The Wall Street Journal editorial board: "This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power."
- Bill Cunningham: "It makes us look ... like a banana republic."
But, incredible as it may seem, they are not upset about an administration that wiretapped American citizens, including a member of Congress. They aren't upset about a president using "signing statements" to ignore the clear intent of the very legislation he signed into law. They aren't even upset that the United States of America tortured people to make them confess a link between Iraq and 9-11 -- despite the fact that no such link existed -- in order to obtain a pretext to invade Iraq.
No, it doesn't bother them that America engaged in conduct recognized all over the world as torture. Instead, they are upset that we might investigate that torture. They are upset that those who authorized the inhumane treatment of detainees might be exposed and perhaps even punished for their actions. It isn't the crime that they mind, or even the cover-up -- it's the end of the cover-up.
Now, it's probably obvious that it takes a pretty warped view of reality to think that we must refuse to prosecute crimes by government officials in order to avoid becoming a Third World dictatorship. But that's just what Sean Hannity argues: "[W]e don't need to investigate past administrations like they do in ... these Third World, you know, dictatorships."
Of course, Sean Hannity doesn't really believe that. Sean Hannity doesn't want to investigate Bush administration torture, because Sean Hannity likes the Bush administration and likes torture. But he doesn't actually mind investigating past administrations, and he doesn't actually think that doing so would make America like a Third World dictatorship.
In fact, Sean Hannity argues in favor of investigations and prosecutions of past administrations -- as long as the past administrations are Democratic administrations.
In April of 2000, for example, when independent counsel Robert Ray (Ken Starr's successor) suggested that he might indict Bill Clinton when Clinton left office, Hannity said he thought that should happen. On January 21, 2001 -- the day after George W. Bush replaced Clinton in office -- Hannity reiterated that position. In March of 2001, Hannity argued that there should be a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton pardons, and that Clinton attorney general Janet Reno should be indicted.
So, Sean Hannity argues that we should investigate and prosecute past presidents and members of their administrations if they don't tell the truth about consensual affairs, and if they pardon someone who may not have deserved pardoning. But if we investigate torture, we're a Third World dictatorship.
Nor has Mark Steyn always thought that prosecuting a past president would make the U.S. a "banana republic," as he argued this week. With Clinton weeks away from leaving office, Steyn noted that Ray "has been re-interviewing Monica with a view to indicting Clinton after Jan. 20." Steyn didn't denounce the idea of indicting Clinton after he left office; instead, he expressed sadness that it was unlikely.
How about The Wall Street Journal editorial board? Has it been consistent in its view that past administrations shouldn't be investigated? Of course not. In the spring of 2001, for example, then-Journal editorial board member John Fund argued that the pardon scandal was "a classic scenario for the Justice Department appointing a special counsel."
The Journal's current outrage at the prospect of investigations of Bush administration wrongdoing isn't merely inconsistent, it perversely clings to the antiseptic phrase "policy disagreements" to describe differing views on whether or not torture is acceptable:
Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.
Whether or not the federal government should shift education funding to vouchers is a policy disagreement. Nobody is talking about investigating policy disagreements. Torture is a crime. Illegal activity doesn't become legal simply because the president wants it to happen. Incidentally, according to Amnesty International, Peru, one of the countries the Journal singled out for derision, convicted former President Alberto Fujimori of torture, kidnapping, and enforced disappearances in the 1990s in an action that Amnesty International called "a crucial milestone in the struggle against impunity for human rights violations in Peru." And Argentina recently convicted members of the nation's military regime of "kidnapping, torture and disappearance" charges, according to Amnesty International. No wonder the Journal is worried we might follow their examples.
What really lends this a through-the-looking-glass quality, however, is that the conservative media who now denounce potential investigations of torture by portraying it as a mere policy disagreement previously sought investigations of a pardon. Whether or not you think all of Clinton's pardon decisions were correct, there is pretty much nobody who denies that he had the authority to make those decisions -- so investigating the pardons essentially was investigating a policy disagreement. Torture, on the other hand, is not a policy disagreement; it is a crime. Thus, the Journal's case against investigating the Bush administration better applies to investigations of the Clinton administration -- investigations the Journal supported.
That's what the conservative media consists of: partisans offering inconsistent, insincere, and nonsensical arguments on behalf of torture and the depraved thugs who authorized it.
Karl Rove talking about banana republic / Put a generals cap on and drape a bling laden military style jacket and he does look like a leader of a banana republic, much like he did with GW Bush and his flight suit. Karl Rove of all people, supposedly the brain supreme of the GOP?
Like Dick Cheney... I hope you, Karl Rove, continue to flap your gum's over and over... you know how guilty you are for your part in propagating all the illegal activity for nothing more than political gain! Of course, in your case, you have Don Seigleman's wrath to be weary of as well.
Did anyone catch Ron Reagan's suggestion on his show yesterday about the idea of offering conditional pardons to every single person involved in the illegal torture done in our names, among other charges...
His idea is that AG Holder offer a pardon to everyone they know committed a crime or was part and parcel to the torture...
and in return for the pardon, he admits his/her guilt, stands before the committees and the courts, spilling their guts completely for what they know...
Once offered and if not accepted by those that are guilty... then Holder can go publicly and say that at least he offered a pardon, they did not take it, (we know they are guilty), and then prosecute them to the fullest once they say 'no' officially to a possible pardon.
Politically... it would be a huge win-win for Obama... but the window for this is likely not going to remain open for long, as once the next election cycle gets going a little over a year from now...
Results would be necessary before then...
Don't forget that there is also an intrinsic bigotry to these constant references about banana republics. It conjures up derogatory imagery about ethnics, and that's no coincidence, coming from white people. It's a hot button term.
Exactly what I thought.
I've been thinking this too, it's a bit of a racist dog-whistle there. What animal does "banana" evoke? It's despicable.
Why is it that the GOP comes up with ridiculous "rationale" for their positions and nobody seems to be able to pin them down on how ridiculous they really are?
When questioned about torture they have distorted and lied to their mealy mouthed best. Seems to me it should be easy to corner one of them and keep him on camera long enough to leave him speechless.
Is there some sort of media (gentlemens agreement) that they would not put them on the spot like that or are they afraid to look too partisan?
Well, you have to admit. The Troglodytes are disciplined with their talking points. The speed and consistency with which they can have their toadies disseminating the same bullsh*t across the media spectrum is absolutely breathtaking... a wonder to behold.
We can grudgingly "admire" Karl Rove for that, at least. He has built the finest, most efficient propaganda machine in history.
Look at how stupid the republican party is. Look over there. Stupid!
If my party were that stupid, I'd have to change, and I'd have to vote for other people.
Pardon me, apparently I had nothing to say ;-) Or I can't get the picture to download correctly. Or I'm drunk. Pick one.......ha!
Bet that was a pic of Rove on a white sandy beach...lying through his teeth. ;-0)
Actually it was a t-shirt that said Not All Republicans are stupid, but all stupid people are Republicans and indeed it did have a pic of Rove with some other jokes............it was cute. Sorry I couldn't capture it properly. ;-)
Republicans ran witch hunts against Clinto up to 2006.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E3D7153FF93AA25752C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
I have yet to hear conservatives any think for a second that any laws might have been broken. They seem to avoid that subject entirely.
There's a reason they avoid it. As soon as they start addressing legalities, their argument instantly becomes a losing one. In order to maintain their political position, it's imparative that they stick to "it works," "it saved lives," and "the ends justified the means," no matter how dishonest it is.
yeah whenever somebody brings up anything that unveils the lies preached on fox , all the anchors and right wing guest start rambling all at once then they immediately go to commercial or change segments.
"I have yet to hear conservatives any think for a second that any laws might have been broken"
C'mon - you know that when it comes to wingnut conservatives, the law is a subjective thing {see: Scooter Libby}
.
Its funny I look at all these discredited people on fox giving their views and I relate it to the "STREET"anyone who has had a problem with the law and congregates with known felons they are only asking for trouble. So its really interesting to see these people giving their opinons on important matters,regardless what the subject is.
conservative media consists of: partisans offering inconsistent, insincere, and nonsensical arguments
Nailed it!
I always understood that a major hallmark of a banana republic was manipulated and outright stolen elections. That sounds more like 2000 and 2004 than the present.
To me, more hallmarks of a banana republic include
- extraordinary rendition for any person, at any time
- wiretapping your own citizens without a warrant
- justification of torture
Hm, who does THAT remind you of . . .
.
the republicans and a special prosecutor could investigate the clinton pardons all day and night long, to no avail. the power of the president to grant pardons is absolute, with no oversight by any other branch of the government. it can't be rovoked by congress or the courts. he/she isn't even required to vet any of the requests, he could pick and choose by throwing darts.
just a little constitutional item that (among others) the repubs conveniently ignored.
It's Projection
A political party repeatedly rigs elections and even throws opponents into prison, tortures prisoners, gets citizens to spy on each-other, launches illegal wars, loots the treasury and abandons the rule of law. Such a party accuses its opponents of leading a banana republic?
Psychologists have a name for this, it's called projection. We witnessed quite a lot of the phenomena during the dark years of the Bush administration and it seems to be continuing even though they have been tossed out on their collective ears. Democrats have to become more thick-skinned and understand they are dealing with a deranged party that is now (and hopefully for a very long time) in the minority.
It amazes me that they think these "third world dictatorships" WORST QUALITY, is prosecuting people who have committed crimes... To me, you know, these dictatorships worst qualities was the things that the trials were about. Kidnapping, torture, MURDER? Those where the things I'd say was wrong with those administrations.
But alas, I am a Godless Communist Progressive who wants everyone to become gay and live in FEMA camps on welfare. OBVIOUSLY, the crimes of those countries governments, weren't the people who ordered kidnapping torture and murder, but the ones who prosecuted these cases.
I don't know what is more embarrassing for the USA. The fact that we started the 21st century of with torture and illegitamite wars, spearheading the creation of a financial crisis... Or the role the mainstream media has played in all this...
"Conservative Media" is much to nice of a term. It should be Wacko media or maybe right wing fringe media or the reactionary media.
The defenders of torture have the holy grail of no attacks after 9/11. But nobody ever brings up the ANTHRAX attacks that completely stumped authorities and proved how unprepared they were to react to it. That happened after 9/11 and killed people and destroyed lives.In large part because of the slow reaction to closing postal facilities when congress is shut down. (class war?) Still not solved definitively either.
Is it possible that the volume of lies has been so great our journalists can only focus on certain ones? Or would putting lies to bed once and for all by calling them lies remove the value of keeping the stories alive? Or cut off access to the liars?
Exactly. We did have an attack (a biological attack) just after 9/11. The mind behind it (just like 9/11) remains out of our custody. I guess the right gets credit for only allowing 1 more attack after the worst attack on American soil. Well done.
By the way, there were no more attacks on American soil for the 7 years before 9/11 either - and that was without codifying torture into our laws.
Yeah Ok. But it 's ok for Obama to order snipers to "shoot ot kill" to save an America but the use of tuff interogations to save a thousands of American lives is condemnation. Didn't Abraham lincoln suspend habeus corpus?? Didn't FDR have concentration camps??
GOD GUNS & BORDERS
Did you just defend concentration camps? Wow.
You really do not see the difference between shooting to kill those standing armed against you and torturing those you already have in custody? I guess when you're defending concentration camps I should not be surprised.
"Didn't Abraham lincoln suspend habeus corpus??"
Yes.
Did Congress overrule Lincoln?
YES.
.
Uh, YEAH, it is ok, it is SELF DEFENSE to shoot someone in the ACT of comitting a violent crime. Is that really confusing you? Meanwhile torture is happening to people who are NOT in any way a threat to anyone at that time. No self defense motive attributable. Abraham Lincoln DID suspend Habeus Corpus and was slapped down for doing so by the Supreme Court and FDR DID have internment camps for which the US appologized AND paid reparations. So neither of which got the approval of history. I hope you didnt really think your WEAK post was anything CLOSE to a cogent argument. Really you need to raise the level of your game or go back to the minors. That weak stuff isnt going to fly HERE.
Wow. I hope you're joking and forgot to put on the sarcasm tags.
Anyone listening to the 2008 Republican candidates debate who would be the more brutal to our "enemies" could have no doubt that at least one-third of our countrymen would have no problem re-instituting the practice under the next Republican president. And if nothing is done with the clear evidence unfolding now, there will be no impediment to their doing so.
This article does a fantastic job of pointing out the absurdity of the idea that investigations and enforcement of laws is equal to dictatorship... but I think you need to call this more than just a "gap in the right's thetoric." This is hysterical rabble-rousing and outright lying, and the title ought to match the subhead!
"Banana republics":
- are dominated by narrow corporate elites, huge disparities of wealth, cycles of boom and bust
- advocate and practice torture
- use the pretext of national security to violate citizens' individual freedoms, through authorized spying and detentions without trial
- accuse its ideological adversaries of "treason," "unpatriotic attitudes"
- use vote supression, gerrymandering and redistricting schemes
- squelch internal party disagreement and moderation, stripping oversight agencies and competing power centers
Looks like the work of Banana Republicans
Field Marshall Grover Norquist:
"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship. Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."
Dsvid Horowitz, The Art of Political War: "You cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can do it only by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.'"
Everybody knows the scene in "Treasure of the Sierra Madres" where Bogart calls out to the bandito "If you guys are Federales, then show us your badges!"
And of course the bandito looks puzzled, and says back:
"Bahdjis? We don't haf no bahdjis... we don't need no stinkin' bahdjis!"
Everybody knows and loves that scene, and loves repeating what the bandito said, exactly the way he said it (like me here).
As far as this foolish "torture memo" stuff goes, I'm starting to frame it in my own mind, exactly the way that bandito thought and talked about badges...
"Memos? All this noise is about memos? We're all aflame with talk about stinkin' memos?"
The reason republicans always equate investigations with "partisan witch hunts" is because there have literally been no investigations of Democratic presidents by the gop in the past 40 years which weren't driven 100% by a partisan agenda. The Lewinsky scandal arose out of the White Water investigation when no wrong-doing could be found. Imagine investigating Bush on 9/11 and then questioning him on the abortion he paid for in the early 70's? That's teh definition of a partisan witch hunt.
Also, Karl Rove talking about "morals" is as laughable as Cheney, Bush, or any other amoral piece of filth who instituted a torture regime suddenly valueing "spirituality" and the "sanctity of life". There are upwards of one million people dead in Iraq thanks to the born-again "morals" of the last president and his devout administration.
(Coined: Objective Satire) - (C) Ronin Kannushi Attn: Free to share, not to buy.
Give me a second, drizzling melted chocolate onto bananas and strawberries.
A banana republic is a small country. What is with daily word fodder? We are not ruled by a dictaror, nor the Army. We have more than one export. We may have been lead, by a small minded minded president, whose dictator we know and the army he led. That is so, last century. Are these, looking in the mirror, with such self-loathing, they use words from mirror, to stone? The rats gnawed the hull, and it is sinking. Ever too slow. Crybaby politics is so pitiful. Cinnamon or nutmeg?
Have you noticed you can always tell what the Right are up to by the accusations they make against Democrats?
This must be "projecting your own reality." Or maybe it's a cry for help.
This is really hate-haven here. Sounds like a "Banana Republic" blog to me.
The GOP (Guardians of Privilege) and their blinkered supporters should remember, when they're throwing around accusations of the US acting as a "banana republic", that "Chimps" eat bananas!
To use an even more ludicrous comparison, after Clinton left office, the GOP initiated an investigation as to whther or not Clinton staffers trashed the White House. 150 witnesses were callen in the 9 month investigation. The charges were found to be frivolous, which angered Attorney Generaly Gonzales, who did not like the finding.
These are the same hypocrites we now see today, bemoaining allegedly vindictive democrats...and, yes...there is definitely a "through the looking glass" quality to all of this.
Argentina? A banana republic?
Pretty sure they've had a working democracy for a while now... you know, where people actually get their votes COUNTED...