Fancy that: Even before any amendments are offered - by leading conservative Senators of the President's own party - and therefore before the White House has even seen what the statutory language might be, the President categorically concludes that the legislation necessarily "would interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism . . . by restricting the President's ability to conduct the war effectively under existing law."
-- Martin Lederman
Yes, fancy that. This sort of thing leads some of us on my side of the political divide to start foaming at the mouth. And, for good reason: this cannot stand. Some mention is made that there are pictures out there that the administration does not want revealed, court decision notwithstanding, that underline the horrible nature of the treatment of detainees. But, even post hoc regulations by political friendlies are too much for the Bush Administration.
Okay, how much will it take for his party to say "enough?" I'd add that I am waiting for the likes of Sen. Graham and others who joined the brigade that wanted to remove Clinton from office from lying and such about sex to go after President Bush in respect to the Valerie Plame affair. You know, those not supporting newspapers that are upset about Doonesbury using the word "turd blossom." No, instead, the likes of Sen. Roberts claim the opposition to outing, lying about it, and simply doing nothing to deal with those known to be involved are full of themselves because you know Plame really is just a desk jockey.
This warrants as much disdain as one can bring forth. The fact is that Republicans as whole negligentlyly has let this Administration pervert its constitutional role to faithfully uphold the office. The moves of some parts of the Democratic Party to complain various Dems are too passionate in opposition is aggravating, of course, but hypocrisy should be attacked wherever it is found. To the degree that some parts of the Republican Party, including sometime Democrat pin-up boy Sen. McCain, should know better, it is in many ways worse.
Instead, some want Dems to play extra fair. Yeah right. Let's take the John Roberts nomination. We are supposed to believe his advocacy should not be taken into account that much, since hey advocacy isn't the same thing as personal beliefs. As if Bush doesn't firmly require loyalty (Rice, for instance, is a loyalist, even if not as quite bad on policy as some). Should we ignore his role in Bush v. Gore, or his apparent inability to remember ties to the Federalist Society?* Ties that are not surprising with memoranda materials such as this.
Yeah, he will be confirmed, but people have every right to be suspicious. What has this administration done to temper such suspicion? When will the other side say "enough" when any truly neutral person would suggest impeachment is fully appropriate? If the answer is "never," I have no respect for the lot of them.
---
* The FS is not akin to the Klan, though the claims by some that it is some kind of ideologically neutral association with no influence in the Bush Administration is ridiculous. Likewise, it is telling how the Washington Post and others were ridiculed for suggesting such ties. Darn the media for telling the truth!