Originally Posted By gadzuux This past week in congress has once again offered up a sharp contrast between democrats and republicans. First up, mccain voting AGAINST a bill authorizing a uniform standard of interrogation methods - essentially banning 'cruel and unusual methods' including waterboarding and torture. There has been no politician more outspoken about our use of torture than senator mccain, who said as recently as november `07 that the army field manual guidelines are the acceptable standard. Yet three months later, when he's given an opportunity to walk the walk (thanks to the bill authored by dianne feinstein) he opposes it. Why would he do this? One reason - to capitulate to the interests of the GOP over his own clearly stated principles. McCain will compromise his own integrity to suck up to the party's interests. And we already know what the partie's interests are - to avoid incrimination for their own deeds and that of their president. As if to underscore this, the justice dept this very week also declared ... >> "The [interrogation] program as it is authorized today does not include waterboarding," Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, told the House subcommittee on the Constitution. "There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding under any circumstances would be lawful under current law." << This comes directly on the heels of cheney admitting publicly that the administration authorized the use of waterboarding on numerous occasions. So the administration authorizes torture - knowing that it's illegal - and admits it after the fact. They also purposefully destroy video taped evidence AFTER being specifically instructed by at least two and possibly three separate courts not to. And the cavalcade of corruption continues - it's been a busy week. Bush stands up in front of the microphones over several days with his now standard boogeyman speech about how the terrorists are coming to get us and that he needs a renewal by congress of the wiretaps. BUT - he threatens to veto any legislation that does not contain retroactive immunity for private corporations. And then says that congress is endangering america. So which is it - is this legislation absolutely necessary to keep up safe? Or is it absolutely necessary that we indemnify his co-conspirators in a grossly unconstitutional example of "unreasonable search"? This one's easy - they're scooping up every phone call and every email that they can get their grubby mitts on. YOUR phone calls. YOUR emails. Every last blessed one of them. They'll tell you that it's a matter of "national security" when they say anything at all - they'd rather not talk about it. And they certainly don't want any oversight or accountability, such as the type that the constitution demands. Ironically, they 'could' do everything they're doing now, and do so legally. They've had several opportunities to amend the FISA laws governing the court that's "supposed to" authorize the searches. They don't want to do it that way. They actively WANT to conduct their activities in ways that violates our rights and protections. Small details such as "probable cause" get swept away, presumeably because they know they could never meet the standards necessary to obtain valid warrants. This is the executive branch showing contempt for the entire judicial branch of government. But back to the legislative branch for a moment. For nearly a year, there have been congressional subpeonas outstanding for josh bolton and harriet meyers. Both have been ignored. So congress decides to issue contempt citations for both of them. The GOP walks off the floor en masse and heads straight for a press conference on the steps of the white house. Even though they are members of congress, they're opposing their own body by encouraging the executive branch to ignore their own subpeonas. They're fighting to maintain internal corruption. Their allegience is greater to their party than it is to their role as congress. They even have the temerity to criticize congress for 'wasting time' on these congressional subpeonas after spending the previous day on public hearings over baseball players shooting drugs. Proving once again they'll say anything without a hint of irony and hope that most people won't notice. What's it all mean? That in order to be a "good republican" you must be pro-torture, pro-corruption and oppose the rights and privileges guaranteed to us in the constitution. Failing that - as in mccain's example, you must be willing to put your own integrity and values aside and compromise yourself to support the party's actions - no matter what.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Rather than title this thread the week in GOP politics, you should call it this week in Democrat talking points - your post is all spin and half-truths.
Originally Posted By planodisney I am so thankful we have a party that stands up against the party of feel good non-sense. This generation of liberals seem to have no grasp on reality, except for the fact that he is right that this absolutely shows the difference between the 2 parties. The democrats in congress know we need this legislation, but they are stuck. They used the issue to scare there constituency, and now we all pay the price for it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux All spin and half-truths. Right. If you'd like to stand up and deliver the GOP talking points about these issues, feel free. I'd like to see them. But here's the straight facts and full-truths ... in late november, less than three months ago, senator mccain clearly and publicly said - >> I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said, the techniques under the Army field manual are working and working effectively and he didn‘t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue. << Since his comment, the white house has come out with a definitive statement that said they authorized waterboarding on numerous occasions. Cheney also sneered and said that they "save it for the tough customers". They also said that they can do so because of the "way they look at the law" and that it's completely legal. In response, the democratically controlled congress introduced a bill that says actually, clearly, plainly, obviously - this is illegal. If you didn‘t think it was illegal before, let us make it more obvious for you. And that‘s what mccain voted against. So, in context and logically, it is a vote for waterboarding. And torture. Now why do you suppose he would do that? How is this not him compromising his core values - supposedly deeply held because of his unique history? Sorry - there's no spin or half-truths here, just a lack of integrity. On the immunity for telecoms issue, bush said ... >> "American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's still a threat on the homeland. There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," Bush said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need, to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it." "By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," he said. << That's a flat-out lie. No other way to interpret it. It's just not true and he knows it. But he values cheap fear-mongering rhetoric over facts. We've seen it too many times before. What expires are liability protections for the telecoms, not for the ability of intelligence agencies to continue the wiretaps to their heart's content. Bush also states that "congress is putting the US in danger". This goes beyond cheap lies and all the way to offensive. First, the danger isn't any greater or lesser with or without this bill because the surveillance can continue full steam. But IF we accept the president's characterization of this bill, then HE is putting the country in danger by his refusal to sign it without indemnity for the private corporations. Are these his priorities? AT&T and verizon's interests come before the safety of the american public? Even his lies don't make sense. And finally, senator craig. He's been "admonished" by the ethics committee - not so much for cruising for anonymous gay sex in public restrooms, but for trying (unsuccessfully and stupidly) to reverse his guilty plea. That's the big offense for his wrist slap. And now he's free to continue to represent the people of idaho in our nation's capitol. More GOP hypocrisy. But they'd rather nobody noticed.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Are these his priorities? AT&T and verizon's interests come before the safety of the american public?>> This is why I am about to re-register as an independent. The GOP is about government by, for and about big business.
Originally Posted By DAR <<you must be willing to put your own integrity and values aside and compromise yourself to support the party's actions - no matter what. >> So all the Democrats promised an end to the war, how's that working out? Where are the hearings? The criminal trials?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The GOP is about government by, for and about big business. << Which comes perilously close to fascism. I know that's a big scary word for a lot of people, but the parallels are ominous.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So all the Democrats promised an end to the war, how's that working out? Where are the hearings? The criminal trials?<< Let's see, it's been vetoed several times by Bush. And, as Gad noted elsewhere, there's been outstanding subpoenas for Bolton and Harriet Miers for over a year. So when the Democratic congress decided to hold them in contempt, the GOP walked out and went to the White House to denounce the Democrats for upholding the law. Are those the things you're referring to, DAR?
Originally Posted By DAR But wasn't there a vote last year where instead of ending the war the Democrats pushed through their minimum wage proposal instead?
Originally Posted By ecdc DAR, there have been several bills to set a timeline to end the war, and Bush has vetoed them all. And of course, if they stopped funding for the war, people like you would say they don't support the troops (and Bush would cut spending somewhere else and say it was sad but necessary since congress hates the troops). And what about those ignored subpoenas? What else would you like the Democrats to do when the GOP walks out of Congress to support the White House breaking the law?
Originally Posted By gadzuux They could (and should) honor the subpeonas and them come and plead the fifth, if that's what they're inclined to do. But to ignore the subpeonas entirely ... Congress has no choice but to set an enforcement mechanism for their own subpeonas. The crux of the problem here is that the GOP doesn't want these questions asked, let alone answered, about the actions of this administration, and in this example, the US dept of justice under alberto gonzales. They already know they cannot stand up to the cold light of inquiry, and the GOP members of congress would rather subvert the purpose of congress than either of the other options - perjure themselves, incriminate themselves, or plead the fifth amendment.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What expires are liability protections for the telecoms, not for the ability of intelligence agencies to continue the wiretaps to their heart's content. Bush also states that "congress is putting the US in danger". This goes beyond cheap lies and all the way to offensive. First, the danger isn't any greater or lesser with or without this bill because the surveillance can continue full steam. But IF we accept the president's characterization of this bill, then HE is putting the country in danger by his refusal to sign it without indemnity for the private corporations.> This is exactly right. Bush is intentionally misleading us again by pretending that the ability to wiretap is expiring - actually, it's just the immunity for the telecoms. But it's not just being friendly towards AT&T and Verizon; they're worried that if lawsuits are allowed against the telecoms that some ugly truths could come out about these programs and just who is being wiretapped and having their emails intercepted. Some people want to believe it's just "the terrorists." It isn't.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Some people want to believe it's just "the terrorists." It isn't." From what the ex CEO of Verizon said, its everybody. You, me, Hillary, and Barack. These republicans never learn.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> But it's not just being friendly towards AT&T and Verizon; they're worried << As usual, they're more worried about their own sorry butts over anybody elses. If the telecoms are indicted, the first thing they're going to say is that the president told them to do it. If it's illegal for them, it's illegal for the government too. But their efforts to conceal their own crimes and misdeeds is probably for naught - if the dems get the white house (and maybe even 67 in the senate) the investigations will be conducted with thoroughness. And the GOP will cry "witchhunt!" even as administration high crimes and misdemeanors are uncovered left and right. And they'll even bring up monica again - as if there's any comparison. Just you watch.
