The trial of Richard Clarke
"To the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you," he said. "Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
With a mixture of sincerity and shrewdness, Richard Clarke became the first Bush administration official to admit any level of failure in the face of the September 11 attacks.
His testimony -- and the partisan rancor that maked the panel's questions to him -- was a reminder of why the Bush administration tried so hard to see that the 9-11 commission never came into being and worked so hard to stonewall it at every juncture (and continues to do so).
The very minister of stonewalling, Condi Rice, had this to say (though, not to the commission to whom she refuses to lie...er...testify under oath), "This story has so many twists and turns now that I think he needs to get this story straight."
Of course, it's the administration that is having trouble getting its story straight.
Fred Kaplan reviews Clarke's devastating performance.
There's another great review on Slate, Dahlia Lithwick's appraisal of Michael Newdon's impassioned -- and effective -- argument to the Supreme Court yesterday.
Justice Stephen Breyer argues that neutral words like "Supreme Being" or "God" attempt to reach out and include believers in everything, and that, "maybe it even includes you." Newdow says he can't see how "under God" could mean "no God," and that the "government needs to stay out of this business altogether." Several times today Newdow seems poised to call an argument or question "stupid." You can almost feel him biting his tongue, then substituting "questionable."
Souter agrees that the pledge is an "affirmation," but wonders whether it's "so tepid, so diluted ... that it should be under the constitutional radar." He uses that wonderful phrase "ceremonial deism," a legal term of art for the "God of the Hallmark cards"—utterly devoid of spiritual significance. He says that whatever religious significance there is to "under God" in the pledge is lost, or "close to disappearing."
Newdow disagrees; for him, hearing it is like "getting slapped in the face every time." He offers this burst of fatherly pride to his daughter: "Go to church with your mother. I love the idea of her being exposed to everything. But I want my religion to be taken into account." For a guy trying singlehandedly to dismantle an American institution, it sounds almost reasonable.
Breyer says that the pledge serves the purpose of unification at the price of offending only a few. Newdow says that "for 62 years [before it was amended in 1954] the pledge did serve the purpose of unification ... it got us through two world wars and a depression." But he adds that the idea that if adding in "under God" is not divisive, why did the country go "berserk" when the 9th Circuit opinion came down? Rehnquist asks what the vote was in 1954, when it was amended. Newdow says it was unanimous. Rehnquist queries how that reveals divisiveness.
Newdow: "It doesn't sound divisive? That's only because no atheist can get elected to Congress." Here is where people actually applaud like it's a ball game. And here is where Rehnquist, who may be feeling the sting of Newdow's comeback, threatens to clear the court. Stevens asks Newdow the same question he asked Olson: whether the words "under God" have the same meaning today as they did when the pledge was amended. Newdow replies that 99 out of 99 senators stopped everything to stand on the steps of the Capitol when the 9th Circuit decision came down. He adds that the words "under God" reference the Christian God, observing that at the ceremony celebrating the addition of the words to the pledge, "Onward Christian Soldiers" was played. He closes with the words of the pledge, as originally written, without the words "under God." And I confess, it sounds pretty good.
Stay tuned. With Scalia recusing himself (Newdon having done something the Sierra Club has been unable to do), the case could result in a tie, upholding the 9th Circuit's decision. The bloviating of the president, congress, and the religious right in response will likely contribute to global warming.
With a mixture of sincerity and shrewdness, Richard Clarke became the first Bush administration official to admit any level of failure in the face of the September 11 attacks.
His testimony -- and the partisan rancor that maked the panel's questions to him -- was a reminder of why the Bush administration tried so hard to see that the 9-11 commission never came into being and worked so hard to stonewall it at every juncture (and continues to do so).
The very minister of stonewalling, Condi Rice, had this to say (though, not to the commission to whom she refuses to lie...er...testify under oath), "This story has so many twists and turns now that I think he needs to get this story straight."
Of course, it's the administration that is having trouble getting its story straight.
Fred Kaplan reviews Clarke's devastating performance.
There's another great review on Slate, Dahlia Lithwick's appraisal of Michael Newdon's impassioned -- and effective -- argument to the Supreme Court yesterday.
Justice Stephen Breyer argues that neutral words like "Supreme Being" or "God" attempt to reach out and include believers in everything, and that, "maybe it even includes you." Newdow says he can't see how "under God" could mean "no God," and that the "government needs to stay out of this business altogether." Several times today Newdow seems poised to call an argument or question "stupid." You can almost feel him biting his tongue, then substituting "questionable."
Souter agrees that the pledge is an "affirmation," but wonders whether it's "so tepid, so diluted ... that it should be under the constitutional radar." He uses that wonderful phrase "ceremonial deism," a legal term of art for the "God of the Hallmark cards"—utterly devoid of spiritual significance. He says that whatever religious significance there is to "under God" in the pledge is lost, or "close to disappearing."
Newdow disagrees; for him, hearing it is like "getting slapped in the face every time." He offers this burst of fatherly pride to his daughter: "Go to church with your mother. I love the idea of her being exposed to everything. But I want my religion to be taken into account." For a guy trying singlehandedly to dismantle an American institution, it sounds almost reasonable.
Breyer says that the pledge serves the purpose of unification at the price of offending only a few. Newdow says that "for 62 years [before it was amended in 1954] the pledge did serve the purpose of unification ... it got us through two world wars and a depression." But he adds that the idea that if adding in "under God" is not divisive, why did the country go "berserk" when the 9th Circuit opinion came down? Rehnquist asks what the vote was in 1954, when it was amended. Newdow says it was unanimous. Rehnquist queries how that reveals divisiveness.
Newdow: "It doesn't sound divisive? That's only because no atheist can get elected to Congress." Here is where people actually applaud like it's a ball game. And here is where Rehnquist, who may be feeling the sting of Newdow's comeback, threatens to clear the court. Stevens asks Newdow the same question he asked Olson: whether the words "under God" have the same meaning today as they did when the pledge was amended. Newdow replies that 99 out of 99 senators stopped everything to stand on the steps of the Capitol when the 9th Circuit decision came down. He adds that the words "under God" reference the Christian God, observing that at the ceremony celebrating the addition of the words to the pledge, "Onward Christian Soldiers" was played. He closes with the words of the pledge, as originally written, without the words "under God." And I confess, it sounds pretty good.
Stay tuned. With Scalia recusing himself (Newdon having done something the Sierra Club has been unable to do), the case could result in a tie, upholding the 9th Circuit's decision. The bloviating of the president, congress, and the religious right in response will likely contribute to global warming.
posted by John at 9:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home