Bush's Arrogance Bypasses Saddam's
President Bush seems not to understand the deep shit he is in. If he did, he would maintain discreet silence on the extra-legal NSA domestic spying flap.
Like other arrogant criminals, Bush thinks he can talk his way out of legal jeopardy. Bush is also lashing out at the whistle-blower(s) who brought the issue to the New York Times. He is attempting to rally the unwashed masses (his base) to the view that anything goes to "protect" the nation from the terrifying "terrorists."
Today, the President gave a speech in which he actually admitted authorizing the "spying without warrants" program, and dared anybody to say it was illegal.
Mr. Bush, it was illegal! You have headed down the same path as your illustrious Republican predecessor Richard Nixon.
The excuse of "just because I say so it is legal" is not a new argument. Saddam reportedly held similar views. How's that working out for him? Signing an Executive Order (and re-authorizing it over 30 times) may make Bush feel like he is not a lawbreaker, but that will be for the courts to decide. I would feel better about justice being done in this case if the Bush Supreme Court had a better reputation for judging the law, but life is never perfect.
Using 9-11 as an excuse for every imaginable transgression on the part of this administration has long been politically and morally suspect. Now it has been exposed as legally flawed as well. Under the 9-11 rationale, Bush may have decided that it was necessary to our national security to steal the 2004 election by means of the electronic ballot. This has become a serious possibility in the light provided by the unconscionably belated revelation by the New York Times.
What will be the next shoe to drop after the theft of the election?
It will be the U.S. government sanctioned illegal drug business. The operational requirement for large sources of funds to go to the proper security related projects is the real reason that certain drugs are illegal. This is while more dangerous substances are legally dispensed to the drinkers and cigarette smokers of our country.
Mr. Bush is accustomed to assuming he can finesse the elastic boundaries between legal and illegal. The NSA "spying without warrants" case may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Like other arrogant criminals, Bush thinks he can talk his way out of legal jeopardy. Bush is also lashing out at the whistle-blower(s) who brought the issue to the New York Times. He is attempting to rally the unwashed masses (his base) to the view that anything goes to "protect" the nation from the terrifying "terrorists."
Today, the President gave a speech in which he actually admitted authorizing the "spying without warrants" program, and dared anybody to say it was illegal.
Mr. Bush, it was illegal! You have headed down the same path as your illustrious Republican predecessor Richard Nixon.
The excuse of "just because I say so it is legal" is not a new argument. Saddam reportedly held similar views. How's that working out for him? Signing an Executive Order (and re-authorizing it over 30 times) may make Bush feel like he is not a lawbreaker, but that will be for the courts to decide. I would feel better about justice being done in this case if the Bush Supreme Court had a better reputation for judging the law, but life is never perfect.
Using 9-11 as an excuse for every imaginable transgression on the part of this administration has long been politically and morally suspect. Now it has been exposed as legally flawed as well. Under the 9-11 rationale, Bush may have decided that it was necessary to our national security to steal the 2004 election by means of the electronic ballot. This has become a serious possibility in the light provided by the unconscionably belated revelation by the New York Times.
What will be the next shoe to drop after the theft of the election?
It will be the U.S. government sanctioned illegal drug business. The operational requirement for large sources of funds to go to the proper security related projects is the real reason that certain drugs are illegal. This is while more dangerous substances are legally dispensed to the drinkers and cigarette smokers of our country.
Mr. Bush is accustomed to assuming he can finesse the elastic boundaries between legal and illegal. The NSA "spying without warrants" case may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
posted by Effwit at 4:44 PM
4 Comments:
The NSA "spying without warrants" case may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
We live in hope.
Let's see Bush and the entire Cheney admin impeached. And the world will breath a collective sigh of relief that yes, America really is the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Dena, Toronto
I'll be interested to see how the administration tries to weasel its way out of this one. No doubt, they'll try their damnedest.
My fear - and this may be the conspiracy theorist in me coming out - is that a well-timed, major terrorist attack in 2006 will allow the Bush administration to say, "I told you so", regarding the Patriot Act and the warrantless spying. I certainly hope that doesn't happen, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
They've been able to use their "war on terror" efforts to date as rationale for no new attacks on U.S. soil. They'll now have an "excuse" to fall back on if another attack occurs...i.e. the Democrats and the liberal media scuttled the Patriot Act and disclosed a secretive spying program. We could have uncovered the terror plot if not for them.
Call me a conspiracy wacko, but I wouldn't put anything - ANYTHING - past these people.
Dena:
The tide seems to be turning against the administration. Thankfully.
The Bush people still may not realize it, though.
They certainly deserve their just rewards for having squandered the world-wide good will the USA had built up over the years.
Drew L:
My fear - and this may be the conspiracy theorist in me coming out - is that a well-timed, major terrorist attack in 2006 will allow the Bush administration to say, "I told you so", regarding the Patriot Act and the warrantless spying.
I will take this one level deeper. I have a person I talk to in Washington who says that the real reason that the New York Times divulged the NSA story now was that they had gotten wind of a (or another) Bush sponsored terrorist incident coming soon. The NYT's motive is to get Bush removed from power, or to at least send a message that someone is on to him.
Everyone's initial assumption that the story was to kill the PATRIOT Act may be the cover story.
I am working on confirming this somehow, I will probably be going with a story on this soon regardless.
Post a Comment
<< Home