| Author |
Message |
    
cheetah
Citizen
Username: Cheetah
Post Number: 71
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 1:38 pm: | 
|
http://www.theangryliberal.blogspot.com/
This Cheney-shooting sideshow, which is wrought with troublesome questions and poses larger problematic examples of what's wrong with this administration, has served to distract the nation from a recent bombshell news release that merits close scrutiny. According to Scooter Libby, Cheney authorized a treasonous act to be committed.
Where's the so-called leftist media to go ape-sh*t over this eye-opening revelation? (crickets)
----------------------------------------------------------
This story is absolutely stunning and a perfect example of what this Congress represents and stands for.
At one point, there was bipartisan support for an investigation into Bush's secretive -- and illegal, according to most expert opinions -- warrantless eavesdropping. That unsurprisingly has been watered down to a laughable charade.
However, rather than the GOP putting together some highly partisan group of clowns to seemingly review the program only to later (much later) offer some lukewarm, meaningless and toothless opinion that amounts to nothing, instead they've decided to investigate the FISA law itself. In other words, they're going to spend time reviewing not the controversy that sparked the need for an investigation in the first place, but rather to instead take a good, hard look at the law Bush broke. By doing so, they'll no doubt conclude they need to change the FISA law and presto magico, Bush no longer is in trouble.
Yup, when the King circumvents the law of the land, what do you do? Why of course, you ultimately just change the law.
If originally there was something wrong with FISA, that suggestion should've come up prior to the King simply running roughshod right over it. But that's the rub and why it was wrong to begin with: these guys just do as they please and don't take the time to consider that they, like us, must follow the laws of this country. Such trivial things apparently only apply to the peasants.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 760
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 2:24 pm: |
|
snore.... |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4378
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 4:01 pm: |
|
somebody please give these guys blowjobs already, so conservatives like Scrotis will pay attention. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2605
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 4:29 pm: |
|
You really think that they don't get blowjobs?  |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1558
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 5:10 pm: |
|
What do you think it is that puts that happy smirk on GWB's face each time you see his picture? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4381
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 6:13 pm: |
|
well then all we need is someone like Linda Tripp. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2611
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 6:43 pm: |
|
No, first you need a Paula Jones to file a law suit. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 39
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 8:28 am: |
|
Joe Sobran always makes me smile.
Cheers
The Reactionary Utopian
December 20, 2005
NONE DARE CALL IT HYPOTHETICAL
by Joe Sobran
In Washington, D.C., a local talk-radio host poses a
provocative question: What if international terrorists
were plotting a Super 9/11 that would kill not just 3,000
Americans -- mere child's play for these nuts -- but
might wipe 30,000, 300,000, or even "a city of 3,000,000
off the face of the planet"? Would the president then be
justified in a few technically illegal wiretaps to detect
them in time? The question practically answers itself.
Come to think of it, what if a bunch of raghead
Islamofascist suicide bombers got hold of a bomb that
would destroy the entire world, blasting the planet into
four or five huge chunks? And suppose the details of
their plot were known only to a few long-haired,
reefer-crazed, unpatriotic hippies who hated our way of
life and weren't talking. Wouldn't the president, in that
case, be duty-bound to use interrogation techniques
frowned on by the ACLU?
As Abraham Lincoln said, it may be necessary to
sacrifice one provision of the Constitution in order to
preserve the whole of it. The problem of saving the Union
becomes even more urgent when you face the chance that
various sections of the Union may wind up in different
parts of the solar system. (But there's always a silver
lining: The media would have to stop whining about global
warming.)
In the unhappy event that our Mother Earth were
violently sundered because President Bush didn't have
time to get court authorization to rough up a few hippies
-- for want of a nail, a horseshoe was lost, et cetera --
a few of the survivors, stranded on the wrong chunk,
would still have to live under a Republican
administration, listening to talk radio. And no doubt the
president would continue to insist that it was still
quite feasible to bring democracy to the Muslim world,
even if this now required an interplanetary mission. He
might also point out, with some justification, that
withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, as the cut-and-run
Democrats want to do, had just become an even greater
logistical difficulty than before.
Or, to think outside the box for a moment, consider
an even more chilling possibility: What if we had an
arrogant moron in the White House who neither understood
nor cared what the laws and the Constitution said, with
his party controlling both houses of Congress? I admit
this is a far-fetched example, but these are not normal
times. Just try to imagine it. We can't be too careful.
Such are the stakes in the current debate over
whether President Bush has acted ultra vires -- beyond
his legal powers, even in violation of the Constitution
he swore to uphold -- in ordering surveillance for what
is called national security. His defenders appeal to the
president's "implied powers," the right-wing answer to
liberalism's "penumbras formed by emanations" as a device
for infinitely elastic interpretations of plain words,
words their authors mistakenly assumed anyone could
understand, even an ordinary Yale graduate.
When the U.S. Constitution was written, Yale and
Harvard were still little Christian colleges, not yet big
universities; Benjamin Franklin was puttering with
electricity, which nobody foresaw would transform home
life, communication, and everything else; air travel was
hardly even a dream; modern weapons of mass murder
weren't even imagined; and the first version of KING KONG
hadn't yet been filmed.
How could this quaint document have relevance to our
world today? A fair question. Without treating it as Holy
Writ, we can recognize that it embodied a sound
principle: the division of power. Like an even older and
quainter document, the Magna Carta, its distant ancestor,
it recognized the danger of concentrating arbitrary power
in the hands of too few men, especially one man. The
narrow specifics differ, which is why each generation's
passions sound quaint to the next; but the principle is
always the same.
In a word, the Constitution is anti-monarchical.
This is why it provides for things like elections, which
we still have, and impeachments, which, though essential
protections, are all too rare. Elections without the real
threat of impeachment invite the abuse of power.
Monarchism -- which might be called political
idolatry or hero-worship -- is a perennial temptation,
even under the forms of a republic, as Bush and his
supporters illustrate, with their bizarre claims,
demands, and excuses for concentrated power. And the
temptation is most acute in time of war. This isn't just
an occasional case of "history repeating itself"; it's
the never-ending story of all politics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051220.shtml".
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page