Monday, February 20, 2006

 

Sue's hypocritical words...

As this blog notes, Sue has gone on the record and taken a strong stand about how the very fabric of our Democracy comes unraveled when the President lies. Here's what Sue had to say on the floor of the House:

Perhaps we would all best be guided by the words of Edmund Burke who, in a speech to the Electors of Bristol on November 3, 1774 said,

`Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'

Certainly, the President has the same right as everyone else to the equal and unfettered protection of our judicial system. This process we undergo today is about whether we will ever again be able to honestly say to ourselves and to our children that we live in a country where no one is above the law.

I still believe in that country. It's not a perfect country. Unfortunately, there is hypocrisy, there is dishonesty, there is evasion of laws. These things surely exist in that country I believe in.

But if by our actions today we sanction hypocrisy, if by our vote we ratify dishonesty, if by our vote we permit evasion of laws at the very highest level of our Government, then we will have forevermore surrendered the thing that makes us uniquely American--a free, yet legal, society.


Unfortunately, these words date back to December 1998, when the House was voting to impeach Bill Clinton. But now that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot and now that we're talking about something much more serious than a married man lying about an affair, like lying about the reasons for going to war and spying on US citizens, what does Sue have to say? Absolutely nothing!

Isn't it time for the people of the 19th to fire Sue Kelly? Indeed, why not tell the folks in your local community how you really feel about Sue? You can now order a t-shirt or get a bumper sticker with "Fire Sue Kelly" here.

Comments:
Sue was dead on withn her words about Bill Clinton.

I certainly dohn't see how those same words can be used against George Bush. President Bush has protected his office, our government and our nation.

Daily new news in coming out about tapes from Iraq as well as the fact that the WMDs might have left the country before we invaded. You don't hear that on the nightly news do you.

You guys can spin all you want but the citizens of the 19th district are smarter and better informed about the real issues that face the 19th District and our nation as a whole.
 
I think the "lie" referred to might be the whopper President Bush told on April 20, 2004. This was long after the NSA folks started tapping American citizen's phones without warrants:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
 
So uninformed, Presidents have been doing it for years. Including Carter and Clinton. Where was the public out cry when they did it?

Fair is fair and Dems are never questioned like the Republicans.
 
Hey, everybody,

It seems we are very lucky...we have our very own pet wingnut.

What's a wingnut? Well, if we take a look at the species, we can see some interesting genetic traits.

First, they have only one deeply held belief: that single belief is that George Bush is GOD. Everything else...logic, principles, common sense, the truth, GOP incompetence, Dick Cheney, etc...is secondary to this one dear belief.

They also go to great lengths to repeat GOP talking points and the propaganda spewed by FAUX News. A perfect example is the WMD Found! story above.

As we continue this spring, you'll begin to note other interesting aspects to their personality.

As we continue to tell the truth and repeat facts, watch how more ourlandish he becomes. We MUST be hitting a nerve, because the wingnut usually pays no attention to others unsless their power and fictions are challenged.

So, sit back and have some fun. If we simply ignore him, we'll get a rare opportunity to see him in all his raging glory.
 
nybri- Try to insult me all you want. However I will enlighten you to what I am and what I believe.

I am a conservative republican who believes in GOD and believes that He needs to be part of our society today as He was when our country was founded. Much unlike you liberals who are against Christmas trees and the ten commandments.

I believe that a strong national defense is useless unless you are willing to use it to defend your country.

I believe that public officials are no better or worse than you or I. Just because they are more public, does not mean that they are superior. Thus, we must accept them as human, prone to make mistakes just like us.

I believe in personal responsibility and that those who make mistakes should stop pointing the finger at those who are trying to solve the problem.

Last but not least I believe in open and intelligent debate. Something you obviously can't do with out name calling and insults.

By the way,in today's society a WINGNUT is a fan of the popular show West Wing. I am, so you hit that one right on the head.
 
Mr. GOP says it all when he says
"I certainly don't see".

No he doesn't. That's his problem in a nutshell. He doesn't see, because he's in denial. This, by the way, is a kind of pathology that is pretty well explained by Lakoff's Moral Politics. Unlike liberals, who tend to be pluralistic, and therefore tolerant even of the opinions of boneheaded wingnuts, the True Believers of the Right cannot handle uncertainty or ambiguity. It is essential to their sense of self that there be One True Way, and that all other ways be rejected out of hand.

Poor, poor ossified wingnut.
 
Um, maybe we're missing something here, but if "presidents have been doing this for years" as Mr. GOP claims, do you really think Jimmy Carter would have criticized Bush the way he did at Coretta Scott King's funeral?
 
Look at the 4 years Jimmy spent in the White House, should he really say anything.

If Jimmy had acted like a President Iran would not be such an issue today.
 
To get back to the terrific original post:
Ms. Kelly's comments highlight what every Republican die-hard, wingnut and otherwise, flunk - the political "other shoe" test.
If a Democratic president had led the country to war on deeply flawed intelligence (I'm being generous here), allowed the country's balance sheet to erode to an historic degree, slept or chain sawed or golfed thru national disasters and tragedies (among the popular list - don't forget the President's response to the tsunami), foisted unqualified / unprepared political hacks into critical administration positions...I could go on and on and on...with the latest insult being the President's insistance that we are addicted to oil and need to look for alternative energy sources and conserve (my wife almost threw her coffee cup thru the TV on that one)...all these Republican die-hards would be clamouring for the president's head, as they demonstrated they were ready, willing and able to do with President Clinton over a matter of much less national significance. Sue Kelly's words in 1998(quoting Edmund Burke to really dress it up!)now rest heavily around her neck. Statesman or party hack? You decide.
But remembering that all politics are local, sort of... Sue Kelly is doing what successful 19th district congressmen have done for decades: taking care of the small business base of the district. She is good at it and she is consistent. Don't underestimate her.
What is different this year is her president's catastrophic standing in the polls. And the more he does to politically rectify it, the worse it gets. No matter how good Ms. Kelly's local service is, the fact of her belonging to the party of Frist and Delay and Rumsfeld and Chenney and all the Abramoff-compromised Republican legislators, and her enthusiastic embrace of the presidential desk weight - these will sink her. She's the president's girl. But he, and her party, will sink her, no matter what she does locally.
Her fate rises and falls with her party's and the president's.
Good in year's past. Not good this year. Not good at all.
"Fellow Citizen"
 
Mr. Gop is right when he says that Bush has protected his office, most of us would characterize it as CYA, or deflecting blame. But, as much as he will probably be in denial about it, 9/11 happened on W's watch. He'll probably blame it on Clinton, but at least Mr. Clinton tried to do something about al Qaeda, even during his scandal, while the GOP'ers all screamed "No War For Monica." Bush did not even hold one meeting about terrorism before 9/11. He hasn't managed to track down a 6'5" Arab who needs dialysis regularly, and has publicly stated the he doesn't spend much time on him.

Yes, Mr. GOP is right when he says that Carter and Clinton did wiretaps, but leaves out the part that they did them legally, with court orders, as did Bush I and Reagan (Another part he left out...)

Yeah, Bill Clinton lied under oath about oral sex, and he still didn't get thrown out over it, because it was BS that had nothing to do with anything else. On the other hand, Mr. Bush has publically admitted to breaking the FISA law. He says the Justice Department said it was OK, and that it was covered under the Iraq War resolution, but there are MANY more differing legal opinions that say what Mr. Bush refuses to hear.

So, yeah, pardon us if we dare to point out hypocrisy...oh yeah, and ignorance.
 
Oh, yeah, one more thing...

Sue said this- "then we will have forevermore surrendered the thing that makes us uniquely American--a free, yet legal, society."

In spite of what Karl Rove says, not one Democrat has EVER said that we shouldn't do wiretaps on terrorists. What we do demand is that it be done legally, with a court order. There's that pesky "free, yet legal" stuff again.
 
John Hall was profiled on the front page of the New York Times Westchester section.

Not available online but can be viewed here:

http://www.johnhallforcongress.com/images/NYT.pdf
 
This is all ridiculous. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees were both briefed on the NSA wiretap program from the day of its conception. Never mind that Congress was receiving updates on the program every 30 days. Let us not forget that terrorists are evolving and adapting to our nation's surveillance techniques. Currently, the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Department of Justice questioning the legality of this program, not to mention that the Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on the issue. Rubber stamping? I think not. I would also say that a number of Democrat Members of Congress have recently come out to say that they approve of the program, such as Sen. Boxer and Rep. Harman, both who have been rather vocal critics of the Administration.

But I can understand how certain commentators, reminiscent of the Nixon administration, have issues with this current administration.

I would just like to point out that none of the surveillance being done is for anyone's personal benefit. While I am wary of giving the government any more power than is absolutely necessary, especially when that power comes dangerously close to infringing on certain constitutional protections, I beleive that it is important to be patient before jumping on the administration-hating bandwagon. I would read the Department of Justice's letter the Senate and House Intelligence Committees regarding the President's legal authority to monitor communications of terrorists.
 
As that loudmouth on the right says, this is a no spin zone. Those Democrats stated they support the program so long as it conforms to the legal provisions that have been set up under FISA. Namely that a court order needs to be obtained. It's actually fairly cut and try- no illegal search and seizures.

Amazing how the Republican Party throws out its principals whenever it's politically advantageous. Small government my ass. You're all about peeping into people's bedrooms, listening in on their phone calls, and denying access to the courts. The Republican Party is dead, there is no such thing anymore, it's reminiscent of Stalinism. They looking in your home, they are hearing what you say and they are taking you off to the secret prisons where you have no access to a legal defense.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?