The Ongoing Conservative Hysteria

The Bipartisan Rules, a moderate blog, writes: "I have listened closely to our president's justification for putting an end to enhanced interrogation techniques. He makes a mostly logical and articulate overarching case for his position, although it is a mistake to paint with such a broad brush and sweep a tactic like sleep deprivation into the same category as waterboarding. Conservative response to the president's statements has been reduced to 'ticking time-bomb' and 'executive power.' That's it. The president, citing Sen. McCain, Col. Wilkerson and others, has discussed the harmful effects of torturing an individual to get inaccurate information (such as was obtained from al-Libi). Not once have I heard this point addressed by a thoughtful conservative. Nor have I heard a rebuttal to Col. Wilkerson's charge -- supplemented by a story that broke earlier this week centering around Alberto Gonzales -- that the Bush administration actually approved the utilization of waterboarding not to prevent an impending terrorist attack, but rather to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. If the issue really is obtaining accurate information, don't you think this is something that must be addressed?"

The commentary continues: "Furthermore, scanning the ruins of the GOP in the wake of the Bush administration's exit, doesn't it bother you conservatives that the Bush administration effectively issued itself a constitutional carte blanche on wartime power after 9/11? Is this permissible with your conception of limited and divided government? (And no, Dr. Rice was not the only one to buy into this grandiose conception of executive power -- in fact, being one of the most politically moderate members of the Bush cabinet, one would have expected she and Gen. Powell to be the last ones to subscribe to such a theory.) Why has the alleged party of limited government allowed the likes of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to dictate such an expansive conception of executive power, virtually unhampered by checks and balances? Isn't this contrary to what Hamilton, Madison and Jay argued in the Federalist Papers, and contrary to everything conservatism stood for in the 20th century? Why was it permissible for Cheney to describe executive wartime powers as 'plenary'? Is this the only area in which it is ok for the federal government -- and particularly the executive branch -- to enjoy such wide, unbridled latitude?"