Monday, July 17, 2006

THE REAL PATRIOTS

The New York Times re-stirred the hornet’s nest with an excellent editorial about GWB’s continuing assault on the Constitution via abuse of power:

“The Real Agenda”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/opinion/16sun1.html?ex=1310702400&en=d38dc3c60f31985e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!

I won’t reiterate the arguments; they don’t need it. But if you cannot stand to agree with the Times even when they are 100% right, try this from FoxNews contributor Susan Estrich:

“The Arlen Specter-Dick Cheney Deal...”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203898,00.html

Same arguments, different advocate…

“The Arlen Specter-Dick Cheney Deal” SUCKS! It is an ass-kissing, servile, unconstitutional rollover to an out of control administration – and a damn good reason why we need Democratic majorities in both Houses, majorities with enough balls to lay down an ultimatum to this renegade President: Follow the law or face immediate impeachment proceedings.

I never thought I’d be calling for a return to the incompetence of Democratic control, but that’s the only choice we have, short of taking up arms. The President has decided the administration is bound by no law, and Congress won’t bind them. The Constitution, which charges Congress with creating the strictures of law and the President with “faithfully executing” them, is now therefore destroyed. All that’s left is the Court, which rightly slapped the administration down hard.

But…

I have to ask, how long before this administration - or a future one – begins ignoring the Court? It will happen unless something is done to remove the Shrub from power, or at least neuter his agenda. Power feeds on itself. We cannot let the beast grow.

A lot of people - a lot of neocon agitators, that is - have spent a lot of ink & bandwidth bashing the Times, calling them traitors, accusing them of aiding the phantom enemy in the terror un-war of unlimited duration.

I think there are a lot more patriots at the New York Times than there are in the Bush administration - where I doubt there are any left at all.



Comments:
This is what you get. This is the result of everyone that complained that the Bush Administration ignored the Richard Clarke "OBL Determined to Attack Inside the US" memo (yeah, no kidding, Dick) and did nothing to prevent 9/11. You all expect to be protected completely but cry about the methods used.

The only ones that get to complain are the ones that accept that one day there will be a mushroom cloud rising above the United States and say can live with that.
 
So you agree with both sides on this one, the NY Times and Fox News Susan Estrich (born 16 December 1952) is a lawyer, professor, author, political operative, feminist advocate and Fox News commentator.

Estrich graduated from Wellesley College in 1974, and got her JD from Harvard in 1977. Estrich is a law professor at the University of Southern California Law School and a political science professor at its affiliated undergraduate school. Before joining the USC faculty in 1989, she was Professor of Law at Harvard University. She is also on the Board of Editorial Contributors for USA Today. Estrich was also the campaign manager for Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential run. She served as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelly Wright on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. She appears frequently on Fox News as a liberal commentator and as a stand-in for Alan Colmes on the debate show Hannity & Colmes.

Once again, right down the middle of the road there P.P.
 
Please list the nations that have treated U.S. POWs in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Go ahead, take all the time you want...
Remember, it is not a crime to make war against the United States, it is a war. People too stupid to recognize the difference should conceal their ignorance.
Incidentally, that court decision was the Take No Prisoners decision.
 
You’ve sort of gone off the deep end on this one. The supreme courts decision wasn’t exactly the first time a ruling has gone against the president. Remember, just because the supreme court rules against the direction a president makes, that doesn’t mean that he has committed an impeachable offense.

Why does this decision not have any traction politically? Simple, no one gives a rip. Does anyone in their wildest dreams think that a military tribunals not ok/ court-martial ok decision means anything to the American people? It doesn’t. Like it or not, most American are not overly warm to the idea of Mirandizing prisoners on the battlefield. I think most Americans are probably smart enough to realize that more people have been killed by the press making up things, than have died at Gitmo. Remember the horrible evil torture of the supposed Koran flushing? Newsweek Lied – People Died.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?