Balkin on Fuguyama

Making a similar point to what I was trying to make yesterday, Jack Balkin comments on Fuguyama's article:

What struck me though, in reading it, was how many of his claims about what was wrong with the Bush Administration's policies were available in 2001, and, indeed, were stated over and over again by critics of the Administration in the run up to the Iraq war. People in power simply didn't want to listen, or if they did listen, they discounted the advice because they were completely convinced of the correctness and righteousness of their own world view. They ridiculed their critics as naive, cowards, sore losers, weak-willed conciliators, unconcerned with America's national security, and sometimes even as traitors. And much of the country, which likes strong leadership, simply went along, trusting that its leaders had the knowledge, the wisdom, and the expertise to back up their bluster.

The sad thing is that lesson has yet to be learned. To this day, anyone who dares criticize the administration are deemed weak-willed and unconcerned with national security. What was the president's response to questions about the legality of his domestic spying program? To imply that questioning him and trying to force the President of the United States to obey the law would undermine national security. (Law? We don't need no stinkin' law!) To the outrage over this administration's torture policies? Well, we're trying to protect the country. And people just lap it up.