I originally watched this partisan scuffle on CNN. GW getting out and trying to whip up fear that if he didn't get the spy on Americans without the need of a FISA court bill that we wanted, the Democrats in Congress in particular, would be responsible for horrible terrorist acts in this country. What GW was not filmed as saying, that the bill he wanted was to actually grant immunity to telecom companies for assisting the GW administration in its attempt to spy on the people who voted for him and their alleged terrorist connections... Well let's put it bluntly, that if GW had thelegal right to have acted in this manner, such a bill would never have been introduced. Had the telecom companies acted legally, they'd have no need for protection. That should say quite a lot.
It certainly says that GW is more concerned about helping businesses with the long and generous arm of the government than actually representing the people who's votes put him in office in 2004. And the people, if they are now going in droves to vote for Democrats, it is because of GW's imperial arrogance in which he decides which laws he will follow and which ones he won't. That is despite what his oath of office calls on him to do. Given his past conduct, maybe he wrote a signing statement to argue that he doesn't really have to abide by his own oath. Or that he silently vetoed the oath itself. So yeah, I can see why John McCain can't get even half the votes in election year '08 that both Democratic challengers Clinton and Obama are getting. GW cares more about business interests but not "the people" makes his constant prattle about terrorism highly deceptive.
David Sarasohn was republished in the Spokesman-Review and took a hefty note of GW's refusal to be bound by legal or constitutional constraints. Now let us compare that to the Bill and Monica show: The GOP at that time went full tilt at trying to drive a man from office for not faithfully executing the laws of the land including those of marriage. As we see 8 years of Bush finally coming to a close, to end officially in January of 2009, the GOP turned into the monkeys that see, hear and speak no evil. Even when they were watching a president go well beyond refusing to obey the laws let alone "faithfully execute" that they can't pretend they could ever hold Clinton accountable for. No, we don't know of young mistresses on the side with semen stained dresses, but we do know that GW has blatantly and over and over again, engaged in federal level felony offenses. If he doesn't get the bill he wants that allows him and his successor to spy at will on the American people in the name of "countering terrorism;" would that mean that GW and his successor could be held to account for illegal acts? McCain wants to continue GW's policies. McCain wants what he claims is the "conservative" vote. Any actual conservative would be telling McCain that yeah as a matter of fact, the U.S. Constitution matters. And if the document puts certain rule of law constraints on the executive branch, yes it matters.
Mr. Sarasohn also saw the big contradictions of GW on torture. He'd veto any bill banning torture. "We do not torture" but as McCain put it and Amy Holmes on CNN tried to justify it, such a ban would force the CIA to adopt Army field manual guides. How about adopting a moral stance that yes terrorists are criminal: they torture, behead, degrade, mistreat; but do we have to act like them? GW in wanting to veto the bill tells this nation why exactly we should fear terrorist attacks in the future. Torture publicly defended like this becomes an easy recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. The western powers are targeting Muslims... You can't easily fight and win against terrorists by handing them the tools to defeat you by. And GW has done nothing but hand tools to Al Qaeda to easily defeat us by. Shouldn't that come under the heading of impeachable offenses?
It certainly says that GW is more concerned about helping businesses with the long and generous arm of the government than actually representing the people who's votes put him in office in 2004. And the people, if they are now going in droves to vote for Democrats, it is because of GW's imperial arrogance in which he decides which laws he will follow and which ones he won't. That is despite what his oath of office calls on him to do. Given his past conduct, maybe he wrote a signing statement to argue that he doesn't really have to abide by his own oath. Or that he silently vetoed the oath itself. So yeah, I can see why John McCain can't get even half the votes in election year '08 that both Democratic challengers Clinton and Obama are getting. GW cares more about business interests but not "the people" makes his constant prattle about terrorism highly deceptive.
David Sarasohn was republished in the Spokesman-Review and took a hefty note of GW's refusal to be bound by legal or constitutional constraints. Now let us compare that to the Bill and Monica show: The GOP at that time went full tilt at trying to drive a man from office for not faithfully executing the laws of the land including those of marriage. As we see 8 years of Bush finally coming to a close, to end officially in January of 2009, the GOP turned into the monkeys that see, hear and speak no evil. Even when they were watching a president go well beyond refusing to obey the laws let alone "faithfully execute" that they can't pretend they could ever hold Clinton accountable for. No, we don't know of young mistresses on the side with semen stained dresses, but we do know that GW has blatantly and over and over again, engaged in federal level felony offenses. If he doesn't get the bill he wants that allows him and his successor to spy at will on the American people in the name of "countering terrorism;" would that mean that GW and his successor could be held to account for illegal acts? McCain wants to continue GW's policies. McCain wants what he claims is the "conservative" vote. Any actual conservative would be telling McCain that yeah as a matter of fact, the U.S. Constitution matters. And if the document puts certain rule of law constraints on the executive branch, yes it matters.Mr. Sarasohn also saw the big contradictions of GW on torture. He'd veto any bill banning torture. "We do not torture" but as McCain put it and Amy Holmes on CNN tried to justify it, such a ban would force the CIA to adopt Army field manual guides. How about adopting a moral stance that yes terrorists are criminal: they torture, behead, degrade, mistreat; but do we have to act like them? GW in wanting to veto the bill tells this nation why exactly we should fear terrorist attacks in the future. Torture publicly defended like this becomes an easy recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. The western powers are targeting Muslims... You can't easily fight and win against terrorists by handing them the tools to defeat you by. And GW has done nothing but hand tools to Al Qaeda to easily defeat us by. Shouldn't that come under the heading of impeachable offenses?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment