Weird Logic (Or, WTF?)
Some people just don't get it. They can see each and every California redwood, can count them, compare them, measure them, but they cannot for the life of them understand the concept of "forest." Take the editorialist in today's NY Times (please): he or she has all the pieces right, but he/she just can't put them together to form a complete picture, even though a six-year old would've had the puzzle put together months ago.
We understand the frustration that led Senator Russell Feingold to introduce a measure that would censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless spying on Americans. It's galling to watch from the outside as the Republicans and most Democrats refuse time and again to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the lawlessness and incompetence of his administration. Actually sitting among that cowardly crew must be maddening.
Still, the censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now. They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings. Talk about censure will only distract the public from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks.
We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel to determine whether the domestic spying operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law, as it certainly seems to do. The Senate should also force the disclosure of any other spying Mr. Bush is conducting outside the law. (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has strongly hinted that is happening.)
The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees should do this, but we can't expect a real effort from Senator Pat Roberts, the Intelligence Committee chairman, or Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They're too busy trying to give legal cover to the president's trampling on the law and the Constitution. [Emphasis added]
Oh, please.
The Democrats are the minority party. They are voted down time after time, even when the Vichy Dems (yes, you, Mr. Lieberman) deign to go along with the party. The Senate Committee chairs who have jurisdiction have made it clear that they have no intention of ever investigating the Emperor, which is duly noted in the editorial ("They're too busy trying to give legal cover to the president..."). What good would proposing another committee to investigate be? Even assuming the creation of such a committee (a pretty groundless assumption), what makes the editorialist think they would actually do anything meaningful?
If nothing else, Mr. Feingold has provided the Democrats and the rest of the country a way to document the atrocities of this regime. Rep. John Conyers in the House is trying to do the same thing with his call for an investigation of the White House as a precursor to impeachment proceedings. Will either proposal succeed? Probably not, but at least this country (and the world) would see that not everyone in government is willing to stand by and watch the US Constitution used as toilet paper. In other words, some people in Congress are "willing to earn their paychecks" instead of just standing on the sidelines wringing their hands and whining. The editorialist obviously doesn't get it.
Moron.
We understand the frustration that led Senator Russell Feingold to introduce a measure that would censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless spying on Americans. It's galling to watch from the outside as the Republicans and most Democrats refuse time and again to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the lawlessness and incompetence of his administration. Actually sitting among that cowardly crew must be maddening.
Still, the censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now. They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings. Talk about censure will only distract the public from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks.
We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel to determine whether the domestic spying operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law, as it certainly seems to do. The Senate should also force the disclosure of any other spying Mr. Bush is conducting outside the law. (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has strongly hinted that is happening.)
The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees should do this, but we can't expect a real effort from Senator Pat Roberts, the Intelligence Committee chairman, or Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They're too busy trying to give legal cover to the president's trampling on the law and the Constitution. [Emphasis added]
Oh, please.
The Democrats are the minority party. They are voted down time after time, even when the Vichy Dems (yes, you, Mr. Lieberman) deign to go along with the party. The Senate Committee chairs who have jurisdiction have made it clear that they have no intention of ever investigating the Emperor, which is duly noted in the editorial ("They're too busy trying to give legal cover to the president..."). What good would proposing another committee to investigate be? Even assuming the creation of such a committee (a pretty groundless assumption), what makes the editorialist think they would actually do anything meaningful?
If nothing else, Mr. Feingold has provided the Democrats and the rest of the country a way to document the atrocities of this regime. Rep. John Conyers in the House is trying to do the same thing with his call for an investigation of the White House as a precursor to impeachment proceedings. Will either proposal succeed? Probably not, but at least this country (and the world) would see that not everyone in government is willing to stand by and watch the US Constitution used as toilet paper. In other words, some people in Congress are "willing to earn their paychecks" instead of just standing on the sidelines wringing their hands and whining. The editorialist obviously doesn't get it.
Moron.
posted by Diane at 4:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home