Letters to the Editor
-
This Disgusts Me So Much I Want to Give Up
If this is the kind of "opposition" the Democratic Party is going to give us, caving in on TORTURE. Caving in on EVERYTHING, then screw them. We're all doomed and I'm not going to enable a party that does this. Any Senator that does not vote to FILIBUSTER this AG nominee loses my vote from now on. And if they vote to filibuster and fail, I still may not vote for them, so Senators - better get on the phone to make sure that the filibuster is successful or your days in office are numbered. At least when the Republicans were in charge, it was clear who was to blame. Spineless Dems give the GOP cover while still allowing pretty much the whole GOP agenda to proceed unimpeded. UGH!!!!
-
what kind of country is this?
just when you think it can't get worse, it does.
Mukasey won't call torture.........torture
and Feinstein and Shumer lie down and let Dubya walk all over them.
this country looks less and less like the Democracy (Republic) the founding fathers envisioned.
the wall of Bush is beginning to crack, and when it goes to 'critical' he can kiss his goddamn legacy goodbye.
-
the founding fathers envisioned
this country looks less and less like the Democracy (Republic) the founding fathers envisioned.
It's worth noting that the founding fathers indeed knew enough about human nature to see this coming. What they envisioned was a system of balances to prevent power from accumulating excessively in a single person or office.
What's happening now IS what the founding fathers envisioned. They were just trying very hard to avoid it.
-
@RMP
Sure, that would be great if the Raging Grannies want the song. As Frankly has pointed out, "Camp Xray" works better than "Camp Gitmo". I think "Gitmo Bay" also works and would be more recognizable.
Enjoy.
-
sense
How many innocent men, women and children are you prepared to violated, maimed and destroyed simply for your personal sense of security?
We're at that point: where the violation of our basic humanity is considered a reasonable trade for the mere "sense" of security - not the achievement, or even the pursuit of security.
Just to make ourselves feel better.
-
@shooter242
If I thought the Constitution was naive, I wouldn't have said the system would survive us. I'm was referring to your view of humanity, and the worth of imposing your view of morality on others.
Like FDR before us, we think that being at war tilts the Constitution toward the executive
You're splitting hairs, trying to have it both ways. You want to "support" the Constitution and its views on the rule of law, but at the same time you clearly want to allow special "wiggle room" for the Executive given our current geopolitical situation. You are not alone in this. The John Yoo/David Addington position is not legally sound; it is not accepted or respected, it is merely stated. Thanks to our weak and spineless Democratic leaders it has never been seriously questioned, and is even being (as you say) implicitly supported by Schumer, Feingold etc. But that does not make it correct. John Yoo, David Addington and Dick Cheney stating that they believe in expanded Executive power does not create that power out of nothing like a conjuring trick. It's just talk. You cannot actually find it in the Constitution. As an example of the same thing, I know that Christianists believe that the Constitutionally-mandated "separation of church and state" is "a myth." They are adamant on this point. But they're wrong. Saying don't make it so.
(FDR: same remarks, same complaints. See my comments yesterday viz. the shooter242 technique of finding Demcrats who are guilty of the action UT posters are complaining about. It does not make me wrong.)
I would then have to ask why you apparently don't take solace in the upcoming change of administration. Do you think Bush is going to do a Chavez and change the terms of office? If he is merely accumulating power to himself why would he give it up next year? Sorry but that particular scenario isn't convincing.
Because I don't trust Hillary or Obama (or FDR, as I say directly above) with that power any more than I trust Bush. I fully appreciate that Hillary etc. don't mind giving Bush the candy because they understand they'll have it themselves post-2008 (if it works that way, which it surely won't; as I remember well from the Clinton regime, broad allowances made for the President's behavior tend to evaporate when a Democrat's in office). (I anticipate your rebuttal, which is that Lewinsky/"Wag the Dog" etc. was a different kind of lawbreaking because it was for goals that are personal and that you don't respect, but and constitutionally there's no difference; please don't go nuts over this specific example and throw away the rest of my argument.) The main point that you have to understand about us Liberals is that we don't want anyone to have that power; even our side.
This reminds me that we have two conflicting views of why Bush does what he does. Our side views the country as being at war and Bush as defending the country by all possible means. I believe your side views the country is NOT at war, and Bush does what he does as a power grab. Yes?
Exactly correct. I can defend this assertion at great length; I think it's really incotrovertible. It's the theory that best fits the evidence. Cheney wants the oil. Cheney wants to evesdrop. Cheney was planning the Iraqi invasion in his Energy Commission Task Force in 2001 (the meetings that he went all the way to the Supreme Court to keep secret; this was the Scalia "duck hunting" imbroglio if you remember). Bush and Rice were already getting telecom surveillance infor and were looking right at the PDB aboout "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" and did absolutely nothing; they ignored it. This isn't about "terrorism," it's about changing the Middle East, defending AIPAC's and Israel's interests, and getting the oil. 9/11 was a criminal action that was seized upon as the "Reichtag Fire" galvanizing event that could leverage the already-planned power grab. If you came at the entire scenario with cold unemotional logic, I think you would have to recognize what I'm saying as the most reasonabl explanation of what's going on. I have conservative friends who freely admit that the "9/11" rationale is horseshit but that it's necessary horseshit because the invasion is so necessary, so crucial.
How about openly gay representatives being hounded out of office for legal behavior, shady land deals by the Senate majority leader, and another Senator voting business to her husband? And that doesn't even get to the Clintons. That's not a productive line of argument.
I don't like those things either. Your approach to my postings would be dramatically simplified if you simply accepted that I am not defending Democrats. I am so disgusted by the Democratic party this year that I'm considering changing my affiliation. I'm speaking from the vantage point of my political philosophy. "Circling the wagons" (as Conservatives admit that they do; it's their admittedly effective realpolitik approach) is not what I do; it's not what the liberal posters here on UT do.
I still can't understand why innocent people should be allowed to sacrificed to protect YOUR point of view. That seems to be the height of monomaniacal arrogance. For all the sturm and drang about "torture", at least in our version the prisoner lives.
Because the damage done to the United States is so egregious, so harmful, and so damaging to our interests. That's the part you don't want to accept or understand. A "brute force," amoral approach to geopolitics is the one thing that will create more 9/11s. This is a historical lesson that Bush supporters refuse to learn. Power grabs make enemies. Hatred for the United States is far, far more harmful to our global economic and diplomatic interests, long term, than anything else.