Finally Pushing Back
My excoriation of the US press yesterday nothwithstanding (scroll down to "An Astute Analysis"), there are times when the press seems to get it. Today the NY Times gave evidence of that in a news article and an editorial. First, the article on Vice Emperor Cheney's speech in which he criticizes Russia for undemocratic behavior:
"In many areas of civil society — from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties — the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people," Mr. Cheney said in a speech to European leaders in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius. "Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries."
Mr. Cheney's remarks, which officials in Washington said had been heavily vetted and therefore reflected the administration's current thinking on Russia, appeared to lay down new markers for a relationship that has become strained and could become significantly more so in the months ahead. [Emphasis added]
Pot, meet kettle.
This came from a White Palace that now promises to prosecute the press if they publish leaks from whistleblowers and which openly admits it has broken the law when it comes to domestic spying. This from a regime which has coined the term "Islamofascists" and which has waged an unprovoked war on one Muslim country and is currently preparing for a second unprovoked war in another Muslim country. The projection in the Vice Emperor's statements is glaringly clear.
While there is no direct link between this article and the lead editorial, there is still a connection.
President Bush doesn't bother with vetoes; he simply declares his intention not to enforce anything he dislikes. Charlie Savage at The Globe reported recently that Mr. Bush had issued more than 750 "presidential signing statements" declaring he wouldn't do what the laws required. Perhaps the most infamous was the one in which he stated that he did not really feel bound by the Congressional ban on the torture of prisoners.
In this area, as in so many others, Mr. Bush has decided not to take the open, forthright constitutional path. He signed some of the laws in question with great fanfare, then quietly registered his intention to ignore them. He placed his imperial vision of the presidency over the will of America's elected lawmakers. And as usual, the Republican majority in Congress simply looked the other way.
...Like many of Mr. Bush's other imperial excesses, this one serves no legitimate purpose. Congress is run by a solid and iron-fisted Republican majority. And there is actually a system for the president to object to a law: he vetoes it, and Congress then has a chance to override the veto with a two-thirds majority.
That process was good enough for 42 other presidents. But it has the disadvantage of leaving the chief executive bound by his oath of office to abide by the result. This president seems determined not to play by any rules other than the ones of his own making. And that includes the Constitution. [Emphasis added]
While it would have been nice if this kind of hard hitting analysis had been made before the 2004 election, when it might have made a huge difference, that it is being made at this time is at least a start. The fact that one of the leading newspapers in the country is finally using terms like "imperial excesses" rather than "unitary executive" is astounding. Up until this point, the only truth speakers with an audience have been satirists such as Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and Keith Olberman.
Maybe the press is finally getting with the program and doing its constitutional duty. For the sake of the Republic, I certainly hope so. I want my country back.
"In many areas of civil society — from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties — the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people," Mr. Cheney said in a speech to European leaders in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius. "Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries."
Mr. Cheney's remarks, which officials in Washington said had been heavily vetted and therefore reflected the administration's current thinking on Russia, appeared to lay down new markers for a relationship that has become strained and could become significantly more so in the months ahead. [Emphasis added]
Pot, meet kettle.
This came from a White Palace that now promises to prosecute the press if they publish leaks from whistleblowers and which openly admits it has broken the law when it comes to domestic spying. This from a regime which has coined the term "Islamofascists" and which has waged an unprovoked war on one Muslim country and is currently preparing for a second unprovoked war in another Muslim country. The projection in the Vice Emperor's statements is glaringly clear.
While there is no direct link between this article and the lead editorial, there is still a connection.
President Bush doesn't bother with vetoes; he simply declares his intention not to enforce anything he dislikes. Charlie Savage at The Globe reported recently that Mr. Bush had issued more than 750 "presidential signing statements" declaring he wouldn't do what the laws required. Perhaps the most infamous was the one in which he stated that he did not really feel bound by the Congressional ban on the torture of prisoners.
In this area, as in so many others, Mr. Bush has decided not to take the open, forthright constitutional path. He signed some of the laws in question with great fanfare, then quietly registered his intention to ignore them. He placed his imperial vision of the presidency over the will of America's elected lawmakers. And as usual, the Republican majority in Congress simply looked the other way.
...Like many of Mr. Bush's other imperial excesses, this one serves no legitimate purpose. Congress is run by a solid and iron-fisted Republican majority. And there is actually a system for the president to object to a law: he vetoes it, and Congress then has a chance to override the veto with a two-thirds majority.
That process was good enough for 42 other presidents. But it has the disadvantage of leaving the chief executive bound by his oath of office to abide by the result. This president seems determined not to play by any rules other than the ones of his own making. And that includes the Constitution. [Emphasis added]
While it would have been nice if this kind of hard hitting analysis had been made before the 2004 election, when it might have made a huge difference, that it is being made at this time is at least a start. The fact that one of the leading newspapers in the country is finally using terms like "imperial excesses" rather than "unitary executive" is astounding. Up until this point, the only truth speakers with an audience have been satirists such as Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and Keith Olberman.
Maybe the press is finally getting with the program and doing its constitutional duty. For the sake of the Republic, I certainly hope so. I want my country back.
posted by Diane at 3:58 AM
1 Comments:
That means the CIA has given Bush the 'thumbs down'. I still wouldn't trust anything they print, as all their work is advertiser-driven; not to mention Annenberg. They ACTIVELY gave us this administration, and until their houses are cleaned and disinfected, they will have no credibility with me.
Post a Comment
<< Home