0
   

The thanks we owe John Ashcroft

 
 
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:19 am
The thanks we owe John Ashcroft

Jeff Jacoby

Irrational hysteria is never pretty, and the demonizing of John Ashcroft during the past four years has been just about the ugliest spectacle in US politics. As the attorney general prepares to return to private life, he deserves thanks not only for doing an admirable job in a time of uncertainty and danger, but also for the uncomplaining dignity with which he has borne the gross abuse heaped on him by his enemies.

The lynching began as soon as he was nominated by President-elect Bush four years ago. People for the American Way compared him to the "virulent segregationists" of the Jim Crow South. Handgun Control Inc. likened his views to those of "convicted mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh." The Los Angeles Times depicted him in a cartoon as a Klansman, complete with white robe and hood. It was a contemptible pack of smears. And it was just the beginning.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, it fell to Ashcroft to lead the administration's legal fight against terrorism. He didn't flinch from the task. He made aggressive use of the powers given to him by law -- including the enhanced law-enforcement and intelligence authority provided by the new Patriot Act -- to root out terror cells, arrest suspected Al Qaeda conspirators, and freeze the assets of groups suspected of terrorist ties. Since 9/11, the Justice Department has secured 194 terror-related convictions, including those of Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh, and radical Islamist cadres in Seattle, Northern Virginia, and Lackawanna, N.Y.

But for taking the threat of terrorism seriously, Ashcroft was treated as Public Enemy No. 1. The ACLU accused him of having "led a massive assault on our most basic rights" and displaying "an open hostility to protecting civil liberties." CBS News titled him the "Minister of Fear." A song parody, "The Twelve Days of Fascism," was widely posted on the internet, including at Democrats.com (Excerpt: "On the third day of fascism, John Ashcroft gave to me / Three wiretappings / Two detained Muslims / And a Department of Homeland Security.") And on the presidential campaign trail, the candidates libeled him with gusto:

"John Ashcroft is not a patriot. John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy." (Howard Dean)

"We cannot allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights, our freedoms, and our liberties." (John Edwards)

"I look out at this audience, and there are people from every background, every creed, every color, every belief, every religion. This is indeed John Ashcroft's worst nightmare." (John Kerry)

One of the most grotesque calumnies came from the prominent columnist Anthony Lewis. "Certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right," he told The New York Times in an interview, "like Osama bin Laden and John Ashcroft." In the fever swamps of the left, there is no important difference between the man who masterminded 9/11 and the man trying to ensure that the horrors of 9/11 are never repeated.

Ashcroft's backing for the Patriot Act was a particular target of scorn. The American Library Association revved up a hysterical campaign against Section 215 of the law, claiming that it posed a dire threat to the privacy of library records. When it turned out that Section 215 (which doesn't mention libraries) had never even been invoked, the ALA was not the least bit chastened. Making war on the attorney general and the Patriot Act had turned out to be great for PR. As a gleeful editorial in Library Journal put it, "If we didn't have Attorney General Ashcroft, we would have to invent him."

Some critics, not content with mere venom, descended to actual cruelty. When Ashcroft ended up in intensive care with an excruciating attack of pancreatitis, TV host Bill Maher told his audience that doctors "think he may have picked up some sort of infection wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights."

Such loathing of Ashcroft might be understandable if he had done something truly loathsome -- ordered an attack on a religious minority in Waco, Texas, say, and caused the deaths of 70 people. But there is nothing like that in Ashcroft's record. His tenure as attorney general hasn't been marred by scandal or coverup. He has presided over a sharp drop in violent crime and an even sharper increase in federal gun crime prosecutions. The civil rights laws have been vigorously enforced, and more than 500 corporate fraud defendants have been convicted. Above all, there has been no repeat of 9/11 on his watch.

Americans have been well served by their 79th attorney general. Under daunting circumstances, he performed with decency and fortitude. The nation is safer and stronger because he served, and all of us are in his debt.

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,506 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:37 am
I agree with the sentiments expressed.

And godspeed to a true patriot...General John Ashcroft.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:41 am
No offense, McG, but that's utter bullsh*t, imho.

Do you remember when he had the statue of justice covered b/c it showed a bare breast? At a cost of several thousand dollars to the taxpayer? 8,650 dollars to be exact?

That sums up the kind of mind we're dealing with right there....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:42 am
Quote:
After the Sept. 11 attacks, it fell to Ashcroft to lead the administration's legal fight against terrorism. He didn't flinch from the task. He made aggressive use of the powers given to him by law -- including the enhanced law-enforcement and intelligence authority provided by the new Patriot Act -- to root out terror cells, arrest suspected Al Qaeda conspirators, and freeze the assets of groups suspected of terrorist ties. Since 9/11, the Justice Department has secured 194 terror-related convictions, including those of Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh, and radical Islamist cadres in Seattle, Northern Virginia, and Lackawanna, N.Y.


Exactly. He performed his job, which was enforcing an act passed by Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Ashcroft, and I hope you find peace and happiness in your retirement.

(And thanks to McG for sharing this)
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:44 am
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/ashcroft.asp

Could be the "statue" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:47 am
JustWonders wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/ashcroft.asp

Could be the "statue" thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.


Damn! You beat me to exposing that liberal BS about Ashcroft ordering the breasts being covered.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:50 am
This isn't an appropriately titled thread. The article is not about the thanks we owe John Ashcroft; it makes no positive arguments about his accomplishments. It's an article about how criticism against him has been overstated. This should be titled: Ashcroft wasn't as bad as some people thought.

Furthermore, this article adds nothing to the Ashcroft debate. The article chooses to bat down a straw man argument. It's a mystery why the author would choose to 'debunk' civil liberties claims by focusing solely on concerns about section 215 and the ALA. I personally have mixed feelings about the Patriot Act, but let's be honest about the scope of the problem and the argument--the library bit is a smokescreen . We've seen a number of circuit court cases and S. Ct. cases about various civil liberties issues pressed by the DOJ. Of these cases, the ALA claims were the least famous or contentious (nor did they arise in any suits). For an actual debate about Civil Liberties under Ashcroft, whether you agree with the outcomes or not, see e.g., Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union 535 US 564 (2002),Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 2633 (U.S., 2004); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 124 S. Ct. 2711 (U.S., 2004).

Furthermore, some of the contentious Internet restrictions have had nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and limiting our analysis of civil liberties under Ashcroft to that one law makes for a very shallow evaluation.

In short, this article doesn't make any meaningful points. Perhaps we do "owe thanks to John Ashcroft," but the above article makes absolutely no compelling arguments to that effect.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:54 am
Um, the snopes link lists it as 'true.'

What, are you implying that the reasoning was different, and it's therefore okay to spend 8k of taxpayer money to cover up a bare breast? The fact that he was offended by the sight of a bare tit is the issue here....

Quote:
After current Attorney General John Ashcroft was captured by press cameramen in similar shots, the media reported in January 2002 that Ashcroft had ordered (or approved) the Department of Justice's spending of $8,650 for drapes to hide the two statues because he didn't like being photographed in front of them (or, worse, that Ashcroft was a embarrassingly prudish Philistine who was offended by any representation of nudity). The Department of Justice spokespeople maintained that the drapes were used not to hide the statues but to "provide a nice background for television cameras" during formal events; that the purchase had been made by a DoJ staffer on her own initiative to save the $2,000 per event cost of renting them; and that "the attorney general was not even aware of the situation." Critics held that the DoJ's disputing the issue of who actually authorized the purchase of the drapes was a smoke screen (since rental drapes were already being used to cover the statues); that the drapes have been left hanging all the time and are not put in place only when televised events are being held in the Great Hall; and that even if Attorney General Ashcroft didn't know about or authorize the purchase, he certainly didn't order the drapes removed, either.


Don't fall for the smokescreen, as snopes puts it...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:57 am
"One of the most grotesque calumnies came from the prominent columnist Anthony Lewis. "Certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right," he told The New York Times in an interview, "like Osama bin Laden and John Ashcroft." In the fever swamps of the left, there is no important difference between the man who masterminded 9/11 and the man trying to ensure that the horrors of 9/11 are never repeated. "

"Some critics, not content with mere venom, descended to actual cruelty. When Ashcroft ended up in intensive care with an excruciating attack of pancreatitis, TV host Bill Maher told his audience that doctors "think he may have picked up some sort of infection wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights." "

Controversy always finds a successful target.

Agree or disagree with his actions, he was a committed servant to this nation.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:59 am
Quote:
Controversy always finds a successful target.

Agree or disagree with his actions, he was a committed servant to this nation.


A committed servant of the president would be much more accurate. A committed servant to the nation would never have advocated removing so many freedoms from it's constituents.

The problem is you have fundamentalists on one side, like Bin Laden, who are egging on and pissing off the fundamentalists on the other side, like Ashcroft and Rummy and Bush. The rest of us are just caught in the middle....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 12:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, the snopes link lists it as 'true.'

What, are you implying that the reasoning was different, and it's therefore okay to spend 8k of taxpayer money to cover up a bare breast? The fact that he was offended by the sight of a bare tit is the issue here....

Quote:
After current Attorney General John Ashcroft was captured by press cameramen in similar shots, the media reported in January 2002 that Ashcroft had ordered (or approved) the Department of Justice's spending of $8,650 for drapes to hide the two statues because he didn't like being photographed in front of them (or, worse, that Ashcroft was a embarrassingly prudish Philistine who was offended by any representation of nudity). The Department of Justice spokespeople maintained that the drapes were used not to hide the statues but to "provide a nice background for television cameras" during formal events; that the purchase had been made by a DoJ staffer on her own initiative to save the $2,000 per event cost of renting them; and that "the attorney general was not even aware of the situation." Critics held that the DoJ's disputing the issue of who actually authorized the purchase of the drapes was a smoke screen (since rental drapes were already being used to cover the statues); that the drapes have been left hanging all the time and are not put in place only when televised events are being held in the Great Hall; and that even if Attorney General Ashcroft didn't know about or authorize the purchase, he certainly didn't order the drapes removed, either.


Don't fall for the smokescreen, as snopes puts it...

Cycloptichorn


"the purchase had been made by a DoJ staffer on her own initiative to save the $2,000 per event cost of renting them".
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 02:12 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Controversy always finds a successful target.

Agree or disagree with his actions, he was a committed servant to this nation.


A committed servant of the president would be much more accurate. A committed servant to the nation would never have advocated removing so many freedoms from it's constituents.

The problem is you have fundamentalists on one side, like Bin Laden, who are egging on and pissing off the fundamentalists on the other side, like Ashcroft and Rummy and Bush. The rest of us are just caught in the middle....

Cycloptichorn


Ensuring we have the tools to catch these people is a top priority for someone is his shoes. To not have the tools in place to stop attacks would make him a poor servant to the nation. The Patriot Act if you agree with it or not has been working the way it was meant to. If it wasn't working and there were no results then I would say scrap it.

Ashcroft has done an excellent job and has done more to protect the American people then the previous AG did. She invaded people's homes and killed more people then any other AG in history. I know this isn't a comparison but there is a difference and I prefer the present AG.
0 Replies
 
Idaho
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 03:50 pm
Granted, the Patriot Act has flaws that must be fixed, but it does not appear to have been abused. BUT, Ashcroft's job is to enforce existing law, not change ite - that's up to the legislature. Also, if so many freedoms have been taken away, and people are being prosectued unfairly, where is the press? Shouldn't they be screaming about it? Wouldn't it have been an effective tool for Kerry to use in his campaign?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 04:00 pm
Re Maher's joking about Ashcroft: I find it interesting, when you guys cite examples of how the "liberal media" bash the Bush team, that you cite the likes of Maher, Leno and other late-night guys.

C'mon now. You know better than that. They're trying to be funny and make jokes about all politicians. That's not an example of bias.

My goodness...
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 04:57 pm
Idaho wrote:
Granted, the Patriot Act has flaws that must be fixed, but it does not appear to have been abused. BUT, Ashcroft's job is to enforce existing law, not change ite - that's up to the legislature. Also, if so many freedoms have been taken away, and people are being prosectued unfairly, where is the press? Shouldn't they be screaming about it? Wouldn't it have been an effective tool for Kerry to use in his campaign?


The Patriot Act was created by the legislature. They voted on it, and passed it. Ashcroft might have requested tools for use in fighting terrorism and it would have been the job of the legislature to approve or disapprove them. They chose to approve the tools and he has chosen to use the tools.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 05:01 pm
As I recall, the Patriot Act was passed in breakneck speed, soon after 9/11. Yes, I blame the legislature for that. But the fears that followed those attacks were manipulated quite effectively by the drafters of that bill...
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 05:21 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
As I recall, the Patriot Act was passed in breakneck speed, soon after 9/11. Yes, I blame the legislature for that. But the fears that followed those attacks were manipulated quite effectively by the drafters of that bill...


If 911 did not scare the Hell out of every U.S. citizen, they must be totally without fear.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:15 pm
Be that as it may, terror is not a good basis for writing legislation. Because if we let it be, then the terrorists will have won...
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 06:23 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Be that as it may, terror is not a good basis for writing legislation. Because if we let it be, then the terrorists will have won...


Legislation (law) is always written in reaction to a catastrophic stimulus. The Lindbergh Law is a good example, as well as a lot of our OSHA and envirnomental law.
0 Replies
 
Idaho
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2004 08:29 am
Quote:
Be that as it may, terror is not a good basis for writing legislation. Because if we let it be, then the terrorists will have won...


Don't let's be silly now! The primary responsibility of our government is to ensure for the defense of this nation. FAILURE to write legislation on the basis of a new threat, pretending we could just go on as if nothing had changed, would be closer to letting the terrorists win. The fact that we change some things to meat a threat means we are still fighting! The terrorists win when we quit fighting. They win when we are dead.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The thanks we owe John Ashcroft
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 01:46:30