Skip to main content

View Diary: Inslee to introduce resolution to Impeach Gonzales in the House tomorrow (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Greenwald on John Yoo (36+ / 0-)

    No posting about it that I saw on dKos but Greenwald absolutely slays Yoo last week:

    In defending the President, Yoo's Op-Ed yesterday touts the grave importance of Executive Privilege and makes all the claims one would expect. He stresses the "president's right to keep internal executive discussions confidential"; proclaims that "without secrecy, the government can't function"; compares Bush's assertions to George Washington's; and concludes that by asserting Executive Privilege (nowhere mentioned in the Constitution), Bush "has the Constitution on his side."

    But this isn't the first Op-Ed Yoo has written on the topic of Executive Privilege for the Wall St. Journal. Back in 1998, when Bill Clinton was asserting the same privilege to resist Congressional demands that his closest aides testify about the President's deliberations in responding to the various Lewinsky investigations, Yoo became one of the leading spokespeople denouncing the assertion of this privilege.  On March 2, 1998, Yoo wrote an Op-Ed (sub. req'd) for the WSJ Editorial Page (which back then also opposed the privilege only now to depict it as the anchor of a Free Government). In denouncing Clinton's executive privilege assertions, Yoo began his op-ed this way:

       

    James Madison wrote that a "popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both."

    That is the same Yoo who, under the Bush presidency, has become a virtually absolute defender of presidential secrecy. Yoo continued:

       

    Reports that President Clinton may invoke executive privilege to block the investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair have elements of both. . . .

       Mindful of the extraordinary step of keeping information secret in a democratic government, presidents since Nixon have been wary of resorting to executive privilege. Presidents Ford, Carter and Bush formally raised the privilege only once each, and President Reagan three times in two full terms. In less than 1 1/2 terms, Mr. Clinton has claimed executive privilege at least six times, four times before Congress and twice in court. Like the boy crying wolf, Mr. Clinton's regular use of the privilege threatens to dilute its effectiveness for future presidents on matters of true national importance . . . .

       A decision to invoke executive privilege in this case would be yet another example of the Clinton administration's failure to understand the distinction between the office of the president and the person who happens to be the president. In democracies, we distinguish between a public office and the person who holds that office; people for whom the office and the person are one and the same are called kings.

    Yoo is a dangerous hypocrite.  How can UC Berkeley still employ him????

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site