Another pillar crucial to the Republican base is crumbling before our eyes. While I think it's safe to say that George W. Bush destroyed the pillar of fiscal responsibility. The latest core principal to come under fire is the moral high ground with regards to the institution of marriage.
On June 16, 2009 at a press conference in Las Vegas Senator John Ensign(R)Nevada admitted to an extramarital affair with a campaign aide. The scandal forced Ensign to step down as chairman of the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, the party's #4 leadership spot. Political analysts in Nevada have declared Ensign has lost some serious clout within the party, and now instead of being a regular talking head on the Sunday news programs, will probably be relegated to working on the serious issues in the background.
Enter Republican firebrand and Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford. Who last week after telling staffer's he was hiking the Appalachian Trail, took a five day hiatus to Argentina to spend time with his long time mistress Maria Belen Chapur. Chapur a producer for Argentinian television has been silent since the story broke last week. Some of you may remember Governor Sanford for his attempted refusal of President Obama's stimulus money. Money that mainly would have benefited South Carolina's poorest population. Now with bigger fish to fry, the Governor has apologized to the people of South Carolina, his cabinet, and the legislature. However, despite the Governor's calls for forgiveness, he has been besieged with withering cry's for his resignation. Cry's that have fallen on a defiant Sanford who insists he will complete the remaining 18 months of his term.
Today we learn there were several women he "crossed the line with..." but that he had sex only with Maria Chapur. Professing the affair with Chapur as a real life love story. However while on trips to "blow off steam..." he admittedly "let his guard down...but didn't cross the sex line." his latest statement contradicts previous confessions with regard to the frequency of the encounters.
Sanford's wife released a statement last week that said as far as her husbands political career was concerned she could care less, stating her top priority was the welfare of their children. Jenny Sanford found out about the affair in early 2009, and went into counseling with the Governor in an attempt to save their marriage, she refused to meet with the mistress despite the Governor's insistence on doing so.
This story seems to be a recurrent and increasingly frequent dilemma for Republicans. Now I'm not so foolish as to think Democrats do not suffer similar indiscretions. However, Republicans bring upon themselves a much brighter beacon of examination when these things come to them. Why? Simple, because Republicans consistently race for the moral high ground to appeal to the evangelical element within their party. So while they throw out catch phrases like "the sanctity of marriage" or "marriage between one man and one woman" or "the holy sacrament of marriage" or "as prescribed in the Bible". They set themselves up to be examined by microscope for not practicing what they preach. Republicans certainly don't need marriage or religion to highlight their hypocrisy, but there is no question that when these scandals break they undermine the credibility of Republicans much more than Democrats. The moral vicissitude that truly represents Republican dogma is hypocrisy at it's highest form. When former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was hell bent on impeaching President Clinton for conduct unbecoming a President, he was cheating on his 2nd wife, who he later divorced to marry his current wife.
In short the island of moral high ground on which the Republicans like to stand is getting smaller, and if they don't learn how to swim or find a new position on which to stand, they are going to be swept away like a rising ocean suffering the effects of global warming.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Iranian Election A Blow To Democracy, As Well As The Middle East
After President Obama's historic speech in Cairo June 4th, A new tone of hope and mutual co-operation was presented to the Arab world by the United States. It got high marks by most, although some thought it to harsh on Israel, and that is an issue for another installment. However, the new tone seemed to produce immediate results with the latest election in Lebanon, handing Iranian & Syrian backed Hezbollah a resounding defeat in that countries latest electoral contest. This has given birth to the new term "The Cairo Effect" or "The Obama Effect", and while this contest proved not only pro western, it stirred thousands in Iran to rally in the thousands against the regime run by current President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad.
That being said, as the Iranian election began to unfold, something suspect seemed in the works. Then as the election results were tallied the nations opposition parties took to the streets in the thousands to protest the final result. President Ahmedinajad gaining 64% of the vote, while opposition leader Mir Hassein Mousavi garnished only 34%. Recent polling put Mousavi's support in urban areas at 70% shortly before the election took place, and in a country where the median age is 25 years old, he also boasted the support of that younger demographic. All that considered, the current results as they stand certainly seem suspect. People continue to take to the streets in the thousands to protest, despite a ban. Mir Hassein Mousavi declared "I'm warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade. The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardize the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny..."
Despite the national unrest the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the real power in Iran, said "Iranians should respect Ahmadinajad's victory". President Ahmadinajad has called the election "real and free" and called the current popular unrest "...not important". All this while clashes with riot police in the streets of the Capital Terhan seem to have no end in site. Now emboldened by his supposed victory, Ahmadinajad has taken steps to cut off Iran from the outside world, as well as, arrest well known and long standing opposition leaders. All with the blessing of his allies in the clerical establishment.
So should the Obama Administration continue to hold out its hand to an Iranian leader whose legitimacy is now suspect? On the heals of the successful speech in Cairo should we continue to embrace an attempt at dialogue with Iran. It certainly makes the situation much more difficult for the Obama Administration who has genuinely tried to thaw the rather cold view of the United States in the Arab world. However, in light of recent events, and providing these election results hold up, I don't know how we can now seriously engage Iran in any kind of substantive talks with a spokesman we know holds no legitimacy.
It certainly ads to the ongoing turmoil that defines the middle east. I am equally confident it has increased the tensions between Iran and Israel, as well as, the west. The question now is where does Iran go from here? Ahmadinajad will certainly see this false mandate as a boost to increase his inflammatory rhetoric, and will accordingly turn his sabre rattling up a notch. I think the bigger question is this, will Iran's younger generation allow this new government to solidify. Clearly the discontent is real, but are they willing to choose revolution to secure what the democratic process has failed to deliver. Only time will tell, but I think one thing is sure, this new generation of Iranian's are not going to be ruled by a group of old men indefinitely. It is just a question of whether they seize this opportunity, or the next.
That being said, as the Iranian election began to unfold, something suspect seemed in the works. Then as the election results were tallied the nations opposition parties took to the streets in the thousands to protest the final result. President Ahmedinajad gaining 64% of the vote, while opposition leader Mir Hassein Mousavi garnished only 34%. Recent polling put Mousavi's support in urban areas at 70% shortly before the election took place, and in a country where the median age is 25 years old, he also boasted the support of that younger demographic. All that considered, the current results as they stand certainly seem suspect. People continue to take to the streets in the thousands to protest, despite a ban. Mir Hassein Mousavi declared "I'm warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade. The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardize the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny..."
Despite the national unrest the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the real power in Iran, said "Iranians should respect Ahmadinajad's victory". President Ahmadinajad has called the election "real and free" and called the current popular unrest "...not important". All this while clashes with riot police in the streets of the Capital Terhan seem to have no end in site. Now emboldened by his supposed victory, Ahmadinajad has taken steps to cut off Iran from the outside world, as well as, arrest well known and long standing opposition leaders. All with the blessing of his allies in the clerical establishment.
So should the Obama Administration continue to hold out its hand to an Iranian leader whose legitimacy is now suspect? On the heals of the successful speech in Cairo should we continue to embrace an attempt at dialogue with Iran. It certainly makes the situation much more difficult for the Obama Administration who has genuinely tried to thaw the rather cold view of the United States in the Arab world. However, in light of recent events, and providing these election results hold up, I don't know how we can now seriously engage Iran in any kind of substantive talks with a spokesman we know holds no legitimacy.
It certainly ads to the ongoing turmoil that defines the middle east. I am equally confident it has increased the tensions between Iran and Israel, as well as, the west. The question now is where does Iran go from here? Ahmadinajad will certainly see this false mandate as a boost to increase his inflammatory rhetoric, and will accordingly turn his sabre rattling up a notch. I think the bigger question is this, will Iran's younger generation allow this new government to solidify. Clearly the discontent is real, but are they willing to choose revolution to secure what the democratic process has failed to deliver. Only time will tell, but I think one thing is sure, this new generation of Iranian's are not going to be ruled by a group of old men indefinitely. It is just a question of whether they seize this opportunity, or the next.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
President Obama Selects the First Latina Woman to Serve On The Supreme Court, As The Party Of "No" Digs In.
Tuesday May 26th, 2009 President Barack Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter, who is stepping down from the Supreme Court this Fall. She was first appointed to the Federal Court by President George H.W. Bush and later again to the Court of Appeals by President Bill Clinton. She with the help of her single mother worked her way out of Bronx housing project to become an attorney and prosecutor, and stood at the top of her classes at both Princeton & Yale Law; that combined with her 17 years of experience on the Federal Bench in my estimation make her a stellar choice for the High Court.
However, the Republican slime machine, which has been grinding it's axes for weeks now regardless of who the nominee might be, wasted no time in trying to tarnish Judge Sotomayor's outstanding career in jurisprudence. The main weapon they are bringing to bare, an excerpt from a speech she gave in 2001. I will give you the entire quote highlighting the part Republicans seem to take issue with, even if it is used out of context.
This is what she said: "I...accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. ... Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that wise old men and wise old--and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am...not so sure that I agree with the statement. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. ... Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
From the usual band of conservative standard bearers came cries of "racism", cries to "withdrawal", "reverse racism", even comparisons to David Duke. The issues raised coming from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and self appointed party leader for the airways Rush Limbaugh who unabashedly decried " ...she is a racist." I seriously doubt you would have to go back to 2001 to find any racist commentary from either Gingrich or Limbaugh.
Picking up the standard this morning on NBC's Meet the Press with David Gregory, Senator Jeff Sessions (R) Alabama and ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee echoed those sentiments. While refusing to condone the baseless rhetoric of Gingrinch & Limbaugh, he allowed their type of misinformation to become part of the discussion. It was difficult to watch Senator Sessions struggle to challenge this nominee with out shooting himself and the collective Republican party in the foot.
All this to uphold the golden standard for Supreme Court Justices as dictated by the Republicans, and that is someone who will be a neutral arbiter of the law and strictly interpret those laws without influence from one's own personal opinion or experience. A novel concept if we all lived in a box. However, the law, and those who interpret it, do not live in a box. The law is a living thing and subject to the ongoing examinations by those individuals who do bring their experiences and personal views to the table when interpreting those laws, If they didn't we would still be stoning people who steal a loaf of bread. This golden standard is hypocrisy at its highest level, and at the very least attempts to undermine the system of checks and balances as prescribed by the Constitution ...and once more we find the Republicans lining up on the side with which most Americans do not agree.
I'll close with this "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who, who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or, or because of gender. And, and I do take that into account." Republican Appointed JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO: During his confirmation hearings January 2006.
When asked about this statement made by Justice Alito by David Gregory this morning, Senator Sessions wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, ...so much for the golden standard.
However, the Republican slime machine, which has been grinding it's axes for weeks now regardless of who the nominee might be, wasted no time in trying to tarnish Judge Sotomayor's outstanding career in jurisprudence. The main weapon they are bringing to bare, an excerpt from a speech she gave in 2001. I will give you the entire quote highlighting the part Republicans seem to take issue with, even if it is used out of context.
This is what she said: "I...accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. ... Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that wise old men and wise old--and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am...not so sure that I agree with the statement. ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. ... Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
From the usual band of conservative standard bearers came cries of "racism", cries to "withdrawal", "reverse racism", even comparisons to David Duke. The issues raised coming from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and self appointed party leader for the airways Rush Limbaugh who unabashedly decried " ...she is a racist." I seriously doubt you would have to go back to 2001 to find any racist commentary from either Gingrich or Limbaugh.
Picking up the standard this morning on NBC's Meet the Press with David Gregory, Senator Jeff Sessions (R) Alabama and ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee echoed those sentiments. While refusing to condone the baseless rhetoric of Gingrinch & Limbaugh, he allowed their type of misinformation to become part of the discussion. It was difficult to watch Senator Sessions struggle to challenge this nominee with out shooting himself and the collective Republican party in the foot.
All this to uphold the golden standard for Supreme Court Justices as dictated by the Republicans, and that is someone who will be a neutral arbiter of the law and strictly interpret those laws without influence from one's own personal opinion or experience. A novel concept if we all lived in a box. However, the law, and those who interpret it, do not live in a box. The law is a living thing and subject to the ongoing examinations by those individuals who do bring their experiences and personal views to the table when interpreting those laws, If they didn't we would still be stoning people who steal a loaf of bread. This golden standard is hypocrisy at its highest level, and at the very least attempts to undermine the system of checks and balances as prescribed by the Constitution ...and once more we find the Republicans lining up on the side with which most Americans do not agree.
I'll close with this "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who, who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or, or because of gender. And, and I do take that into account." Republican Appointed JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO: During his confirmation hearings January 2006.
When asked about this statement made by Justice Alito by David Gregory this morning, Senator Sessions wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, ...so much for the golden standard.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Will The Former Vice President Please Sit Down.
Many of you might have noticed the current media blitz being carried out over the last week by former Vice President Dick Cheney. Who better than this poor self deluded puppet-master of the previous administration, to carry the standard of shame he is directly responsible for imposing on this Nation. In his ongoing diatribe to justify torture, he trudges on unabated and without remorse for the war crimes he dictated, approved of, and applied. He stated this week they were "...legal, essential, justified, successful and the right thing to do."
He did this while in his next breath, calling the soldiers who acted at Abu Ghraib "rogues" para-phrasing... an element of the military that acted sadistically and without orders from their superiors. An unfortunate but isolated act that was disgraceful and the individuals involved prosecuted. This from a man who now knows to well, those exact torture techniques were dictated in memos written by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as well as himself. Techniques employed even before the hacks at the Justice Department could come up with the legal justifications for such actions.
This all from a man who was the C.I.A.'s most ardent critic while he was Vice President , but is now it's staunchest supporter. Conservatives think they have a winner with this, something which they can use to get some traction against the Democrats. To not support terror, is to support terrorists. To publicly discredit the policies of the former administration simply to get some applause lines in Europe. They did what was needed to keep the United States free of another attack over the last seven and a half years. To torture was essential for the security of the Nation, and to disagree is to "...libel those Americans who carried those tactics out."
Mr Cheney in your vein self serving and weak attempt to re-write history remember this, 9/11 happened on YOUR WATCH! ...and the outright lies, misconceptions, deceptions, and otherwise steady flow of misinformation and fear generated by your administration following 9/11, was a deliberate attempt to scare the collective nation as a whole, and use that fear to justify your ends. My God man how do you sleep at night?
Your methods of fear, your false prophecies, your collective indifference to the American Public and the Nation they believe in have been rejected. You my good man have been rejected, your party, rejected, all that you stand for and attempt poorly to admonish is over. As you ignored the people, so they ignore you now. My apologizes to Keith Olbermann for stealing the final quote from his Special Comment of May 21st, 2009 but it is simply to fitting.
"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go! - Oliver Cromwell
See all of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30874523
He did this while in his next breath, calling the soldiers who acted at Abu Ghraib "rogues" para-phrasing... an element of the military that acted sadistically and without orders from their superiors. An unfortunate but isolated act that was disgraceful and the individuals involved prosecuted. This from a man who now knows to well, those exact torture techniques were dictated in memos written by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as well as himself. Techniques employed even before the hacks at the Justice Department could come up with the legal justifications for such actions.
This all from a man who was the C.I.A.'s most ardent critic while he was Vice President , but is now it's staunchest supporter. Conservatives think they have a winner with this, something which they can use to get some traction against the Democrats. To not support terror, is to support terrorists. To publicly discredit the policies of the former administration simply to get some applause lines in Europe. They did what was needed to keep the United States free of another attack over the last seven and a half years. To torture was essential for the security of the Nation, and to disagree is to "...libel those Americans who carried those tactics out."
Mr Cheney in your vein self serving and weak attempt to re-write history remember this, 9/11 happened on YOUR WATCH! ...and the outright lies, misconceptions, deceptions, and otherwise steady flow of misinformation and fear generated by your administration following 9/11, was a deliberate attempt to scare the collective nation as a whole, and use that fear to justify your ends. My God man how do you sleep at night?
Your methods of fear, your false prophecies, your collective indifference to the American Public and the Nation they believe in have been rejected. You my good man have been rejected, your party, rejected, all that you stand for and attempt poorly to admonish is over. As you ignored the people, so they ignore you now. My apologizes to Keith Olbermann for stealing the final quote from his Special Comment of May 21st, 2009 but it is simply to fitting.
"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go! - Oliver Cromwell
See all of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30874523
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Republican Chairman Michael Steele, The Gift That Keeps On Giving.
Yesterday, RNC Chairman Michael Steele attempted his version of a pep talk to the Republican Party faithful. In his speech he said the days of the Republican Party apologizing for past mistakes is over. The honeymoon is over, it is time to take the President head on, and the 2 party system is back, ... do you hear crickets?
Dana Milbank of The Washington Post put it best... Steele’s speech “was red meat for the party leaders … but they let many of the applause lines go without a murmur. When they did rouse themselves, about 60 percent applauded, 20 percent thumbed their BlackBerrys, and the rest were either eating dessert or daydreaming.”
He went on to call the Republican Party the party of new ideas. One of them to be addressed today, which would re brand the current Democratic Party the Democrat Socialist Party. Hey, how's that for forward thinking in addressing all the challenges that face the Nation? We're in an economic meltdown, issues like health care reform, education, energy all out there for the taking and they want to debate a new name for the Democratic Party, can you stand it!
If that isn't bad enough now the party is trying to curb, if not eliminate, his financial powers as chairman. A move which he fought vehemently when questioned on Fixed News. Paraphrasing now... so there will be no comptroller in charge of RNC funds... Steele responding ...not if I have anything to say about it. If the RNC wants a figure head, that's fine, but it won't be Michael Steele.
Is this his out? A way to end his awe inspiring tenor as RNC leader?
Well the latest Gallop Poll had this to say for his efforts. Looks like they have some serious work ahead of them.
www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx
UPDATE: The Republican Party voted down the idea to rename the Democratic Party the Democratic Socialist Party. Now that they have stopped trying to define the Democrats, maybe they should start trying to define themselves, just a thought.
Dana Milbank of The Washington Post put it best... Steele’s speech “was red meat for the party leaders … but they let many of the applause lines go without a murmur. When they did rouse themselves, about 60 percent applauded, 20 percent thumbed their BlackBerrys, and the rest were either eating dessert or daydreaming.”
He went on to call the Republican Party the party of new ideas. One of them to be addressed today, which would re brand the current Democratic Party the Democrat Socialist Party. Hey, how's that for forward thinking in addressing all the challenges that face the Nation? We're in an economic meltdown, issues like health care reform, education, energy all out there for the taking and they want to debate a new name for the Democratic Party, can you stand it!
If that isn't bad enough now the party is trying to curb, if not eliminate, his financial powers as chairman. A move which he fought vehemently when questioned on Fixed News. Paraphrasing now... so there will be no comptroller in charge of RNC funds... Steele responding ...not if I have anything to say about it. If the RNC wants a figure head, that's fine, but it won't be Michael Steele.
Is this his out? A way to end his awe inspiring tenor as RNC leader?
Well the latest Gallop Poll had this to say for his efforts. Looks like they have some serious work ahead of them.
www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx
UPDATE: The Republican Party voted down the idea to rename the Democratic Party the Democratic Socialist Party. Now that they have stopped trying to define the Democrats, maybe they should start trying to define themselves, just a thought.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Pelosi In Fact War With C.I.A. Republican's Bite Back, But Do They Have Any Teeth?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) CA. has gotten herself into a battle with Bush Administration C.I.A. officials with regards to who knew what and when. She has even gone so far as to claim the C.I.A. misled Congress by giving bogus briefings as pertained to the use of advanced interrogation techniques i.e. (Torture), specifically the water boarding of terror suspects back in 2002.
All this while revelations that Vice President Dick Cheney pushed for harsher methods used during the interrogation of Iraqi suspects, namely torture. To gather information during the nations shell shocked days following 9/11. Cheney stating current methods "to gentle" and pressing the use of enhanced interrogation namely to find a link between Al Queda and Iraq. A link becoming more and more necessary as the search for WMD in Iraq was continually coming up empty handed. C.I.A. officials replying those techniques had been approved for terror suspects only.
Turns out, during the initial briefing to Speaker Pelosi which mentioned the dynamics involved in the "prospective" use of advanced terror techniques, recent intelligence tells us terror suspect Abu Zabeda had already been water boarded 83 times! Then Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement in 2005, Bob Nelson (D) FL. claimed the C.I.A.'s records had him at 4 separate briefings in 2003 of which 3 Senator Nelson could prove otherwise. Having been called on the dates, the C.I.A. later recanted Senator Nelson's possible attendance. So could they possibly be wrong regarding Pelosi as well?
Now here comes the real killer. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R) Ohio found it hard to believe that the C.I.A. of the Bush Administration would possibly mislead Congress. "What would be their motivation..." Boehner said. WHERE DO I BEGIN? He went on to claim the Speaker had to many stories, but also added he didn't thing it should involve any kind of truth commission, that would not be in the nation's best interest.
This morning Senator Kit Bond (R) MO. ranking Republican on the current Senate Intelligence Committee, claimed it was a tragedy to attack our intelligence community, and claimed any efforts to mislead Congress "Unbelievable". UNBELIEVABLE!!!, this from one of the 40 angry white guys huddled in the corner of the Capital called the Republican Party who did nothing but lie to this country for 8 years. About the Iraq War, WMD, Al Queda, torture, spreading democracy, being viewed as liberators, The War will pay for itself, sweetheart contracts for the V.P.'s cronies at Halliburton & KBR that build facilities that electrocute our troops in the shower. The Republicans! Really??
The fact of the matter is this. The Bush Legacy has given the Republican Party no credibility. As they turned up their noses at the American people, especially in the last 3 years of the Bush Administration. When they carried a 28% approval rating and the V.P. says "So". To have blatantly shut out the voice of the people for so long and cling to failed ideals that were self deluded at best, and carried the price of over 4000 dead and 30,000 maimed and wounded, that my Republican friends is now your cross to bare. In time this burden my lessen, but right now it's all yours.
All this while revelations that Vice President Dick Cheney pushed for harsher methods used during the interrogation of Iraqi suspects, namely torture. To gather information during the nations shell shocked days following 9/11. Cheney stating current methods "to gentle" and pressing the use of enhanced interrogation namely to find a link between Al Queda and Iraq. A link becoming more and more necessary as the search for WMD in Iraq was continually coming up empty handed. C.I.A. officials replying those techniques had been approved for terror suspects only.
Turns out, during the initial briefing to Speaker Pelosi which mentioned the dynamics involved in the "prospective" use of advanced terror techniques, recent intelligence tells us terror suspect Abu Zabeda had already been water boarded 83 times! Then Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement in 2005, Bob Nelson (D) FL. claimed the C.I.A.'s records had him at 4 separate briefings in 2003 of which 3 Senator Nelson could prove otherwise. Having been called on the dates, the C.I.A. later recanted Senator Nelson's possible attendance. So could they possibly be wrong regarding Pelosi as well?
Now here comes the real killer. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R) Ohio found it hard to believe that the C.I.A. of the Bush Administration would possibly mislead Congress. "What would be their motivation..." Boehner said. WHERE DO I BEGIN? He went on to claim the Speaker had to many stories, but also added he didn't thing it should involve any kind of truth commission, that would not be in the nation's best interest.
This morning Senator Kit Bond (R) MO. ranking Republican on the current Senate Intelligence Committee, claimed it was a tragedy to attack our intelligence community, and claimed any efforts to mislead Congress "Unbelievable". UNBELIEVABLE!!!, this from one of the 40 angry white guys huddled in the corner of the Capital called the Republican Party who did nothing but lie to this country for 8 years. About the Iraq War, WMD, Al Queda, torture, spreading democracy, being viewed as liberators, The War will pay for itself, sweetheart contracts for the V.P.'s cronies at Halliburton & KBR that build facilities that electrocute our troops in the shower. The Republicans! Really??
The fact of the matter is this. The Bush Legacy has given the Republican Party no credibility. As they turned up their noses at the American people, especially in the last 3 years of the Bush Administration. When they carried a 28% approval rating and the V.P. says "So". To have blatantly shut out the voice of the people for so long and cling to failed ideals that were self deluded at best, and carried the price of over 4000 dead and 30,000 maimed and wounded, that my Republican friends is now your cross to bare. In time this burden my lessen, but right now it's all yours.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Should the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats Prosecute the Enhanced Interogation Techniques, "Torture" used by the Bush Administration?
First I would like to welcome readers to the very first post on BLUEFIELDSTARS. I hope you find my commentary both thought provoking and useful. It is a whopper of a first subject, so lets get to it.
I'm sure many of you have noticed of late that former V.P. Dick Cheney has crawled out of his bunker and happily taken to the airways of Fixed News to justify the torture techniques of the Bush Administration. How safe it made all of us for the last 7 years, and how the Obama Administration is systematically dismantling that to the peril of the free world. The release of Justice Department memos has proven without a doubt the United States of America engaged in torture during the Bush Administration. It is a fact, and while Bush, and particularly Cheney, have taken to their open mics at Fixed News to defend the merits of these techniques, it provides a very scary window into what remains of the Republican Party. I'll come to that presently,... these abuses are well documented, the DOJ hacks that tried to justify these practices are under investigation, and the new Administration and Attorney General have a very uncompromising decision to make? Should all those involved from the Congressional coat check girl to the President be prosecuted?
Richard Nixon the poster boy for abuse of power in the White House, engaged in all manner of malfeasance of office. However, he was shrewd, highly intelligent, and a very astute politician. Sadly none of these qualities can be applied to George W. Bush. and none of these qualities, in the end, saved Nixon. Yet with the stroke of Gerald Ford's pen Nixon was absolved. The Country wasn't happy about it, and ultimately it cost Ford the Presidency, and led us to another national disaster in Jimmy Carter. The national nightmare that was Watergate lasted roughly 3 years. The national nightmare that was George W. Bush lasted 8. None of Nixon's abuses survive, and he wasn't prosecuted. Obama is correcting the abuses of the Bush Administration and he shouldn't be prosecuted either.
The George W. Bush's of American History are remembered for their poor judgement, their failures, their abuses. He now joins the undistinguished class of poor Presidents who lay at the bottom of a list all cut from the same cloth. The American Ship of State always navigates her course corrections just as it should. George Bush & Dick Cheney were thrown out of office last November. They are still so deluded that they can't even put forth a cry for Mea Culpa, and as a result the Republican Party is in shambles.
The only issue I see sucking the air out of President Obama's agenda for Health Care Reform, Tax Reform, Economic Recovery, and Education is a long drawn out crusade to punish the Bush Administration for it's experiment in torture. The wrong has been righted, the king is dead, look to the future, our course is now true.
Why breath life into an imploding Republican Party by giving it an issue it can rally around. Only 20% of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans. Which brings me to a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte who once said "... never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
I'm sure many of you have noticed of late that former V.P. Dick Cheney has crawled out of his bunker and happily taken to the airways of Fixed News to justify the torture techniques of the Bush Administration. How safe it made all of us for the last 7 years, and how the Obama Administration is systematically dismantling that to the peril of the free world. The release of Justice Department memos has proven without a doubt the United States of America engaged in torture during the Bush Administration. It is a fact, and while Bush, and particularly Cheney, have taken to their open mics at Fixed News to defend the merits of these techniques, it provides a very scary window into what remains of the Republican Party. I'll come to that presently,... these abuses are well documented, the DOJ hacks that tried to justify these practices are under investigation, and the new Administration and Attorney General have a very uncompromising decision to make? Should all those involved from the Congressional coat check girl to the President be prosecuted?
Richard Nixon the poster boy for abuse of power in the White House, engaged in all manner of malfeasance of office. However, he was shrewd, highly intelligent, and a very astute politician. Sadly none of these qualities can be applied to George W. Bush. and none of these qualities, in the end, saved Nixon. Yet with the stroke of Gerald Ford's pen Nixon was absolved. The Country wasn't happy about it, and ultimately it cost Ford the Presidency, and led us to another national disaster in Jimmy Carter. The national nightmare that was Watergate lasted roughly 3 years. The national nightmare that was George W. Bush lasted 8. None of Nixon's abuses survive, and he wasn't prosecuted. Obama is correcting the abuses of the Bush Administration and he shouldn't be prosecuted either.
The George W. Bush's of American History are remembered for their poor judgement, their failures, their abuses. He now joins the undistinguished class of poor Presidents who lay at the bottom of a list all cut from the same cloth. The American Ship of State always navigates her course corrections just as it should. George Bush & Dick Cheney were thrown out of office last November. They are still so deluded that they can't even put forth a cry for Mea Culpa, and as a result the Republican Party is in shambles.
The only issue I see sucking the air out of President Obama's agenda for Health Care Reform, Tax Reform, Economic Recovery, and Education is a long drawn out crusade to punish the Bush Administration for it's experiment in torture. The wrong has been righted, the king is dead, look to the future, our course is now true.
Why breath life into an imploding Republican Party by giving it an issue it can rally around. Only 20% of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans. Which brings me to a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte who once said "... never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
