Republican Hubris

Posted on Thursday 5 January 2006

What’s been going on in the American political scene is frankly disgusting to me. The Republicans seem to have a serious lack of morals and ethics, as can be seen in what is happening with the current Republican Leadership.

Former House Majority Leader, Republican Tom Delay is currently under indictment for money laundering. Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is under indictment multiple criminal charges. Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been indicted in connection to the Valerie Plame case. George W. Bush has been implicated in spying on Americans without informing Congress.

This is not to say that the Democrats are totally innocent. They’re not… but the Republicans are the party of the right, and have the backing of the Christian conservatives. For people backed by the Christian right, they seem to have a serious lack of moral values. Kind of ironic, isn’t it.

One blog I read regularly had this to say about George W. Bush and the NSA spying on Americans:

What’s the Republican defense of what seems like a clear violation of the law by President Bush? The cover attempt, led by Republican Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan merely states that Jane Harman never raised this objection before. The Republicans say this means that Jane Harman cannot raise the objection to law breaking by President Bush now.

That’s kind of weird reasoning, isn’t it? I mean, it’s like saying that a witness to a murder can’t come forward to the police with information about the crime unless they do so right away. If they wait a year or two, according to the new Republican interpretation of the law, the witness’s testimony should be thrown out of court.

That is, of course, baloney. Represenative Harman may be a little late in coming forward with this information, but she still has the right to do so. The fact that President Bush had put her under a gag order under the threat of imprisonment may have something to do with her previous silence.

The Bush administration has proven itself untrustworthy and capable of lying and worse as a means to an end. The administration has repeatedly lied about what the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda was, about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, about Iraq acquiring nuclear materials, and about threats to the United States. Much of the administration’s warnings about threats to the United States are done to manipulate the media, such as the raising of the threat level following the Democratic National Convention in 2004. They have lied about spying on Americans, even though George W. Bush clearly said that a court order is required for a wiretap.

If impeachment proceedings of President Clinton were warranted due to the Whitewater investigation—which was supposed to investigate an event that happened a decade before Bill Clinton was elected president, and yielded nothing more than a consensual affair between two consenting adultsthen aren’t impeachment proceedings clearly warranted when there are fairly blatant violations of the Constitution by George W. Bush while in the office of President of the United States?

2 Comments for 'Republican Hubris'

    January 5, 2006 | 9:35 am

    The answer to the question at the end of this post is, of course: Hell YES!

    Thanks for writing on this important story, which is getting buried under a slurry of human interest “entertainment news”.

    January 5, 2006 | 10:57 am

    Another excellent point has been made on Stephen Laniel’s blog.

    . . ask Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum: if the president defines a terrorist in whatever way suits him, and thereby defines the war on terror to begin and end when he says it begins and ends, then how long will this war last? And how long will these violations of the Constitution last?

    It’s funny — actually, not funny at all — that Democrats aren’t charging ahead and asking the very obvious next question: Mr. President, how far do you claim that your rights extend? And when does this war end? And do you see any limit at all to your powers?

    I don’t see why they can’t haul the President before a Congressional panel and question the hell out of him, under oath, on national TV. Other than the very practical matter that Republicans control Congress, that is.

    Good point… why aren’t the Democrats calling for him to explain before Congress… oh, yeah, the Republicans control Congress.

Leave a comment



Information for comment users
Line and paragraph breaks are implemented automatically. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Please consider what you're posting.

All comments are subject to review and approval
before being posted on this site.

Use the buttons below to customise your comment.

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI