 |
|
|
||
Visit our sponsorsFill up our coffee fundBlogAdsBuy it!Most EmailedVisit our sponsors |
Get our Digestifs du jourNibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
culturekitchensThe Publisher Daily servings of political dissent Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers A new kind of vouyerism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. Hot Topics
Member's articles and stories
Recent reviews
| |
Google AdsThe Big Dialog
| ||
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 1432 guests online.
Online users | ||
Instant CongressUpcoming eventsWords to live byWho could have imagined that in the United States, with its independent judiciary, thousands of men could be rounded up in the night -- many only because of their Muslim religion or foreign nationality -- without recourse to a trial, without even an acknowledgment that they had been arrested? Who could have dared to suggest that there would ever be "desaparecidos" in America? And there it was as well, torture being discussed as a legitimate option to protect a community in peril, and then being used in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, and even obscenely photographed in Iraq -- yes, there they were again, the depressing echoes of my Chile. But worse perhaps than all of this was the erosion of the moral compass of America, the seeming indifference of the seeming majority to the suffering of others, the casual acceptance of "collateral damage" as an unquestioned consequence of the war on "terrorism," the demonization of an ubiquitous foe who had to be destroyed without second thoughts -- and often without first ones as well; without, in fact, any thoughtfulness at all. That was far more terrifying than the criminal attacks on New York and Washington: To realize that the Chile of strongman Augusto Pinochet was not that far away, not that difficult to imitate, that it was already hovering in the future and ready to materialize if we were not vigilant. Subscribe Buttons                    | ||
Wow
You never miss a chance to repeat Republican lies, do you? And I notice you never, ever, ever address the responses people have refuting your lies. Why is that? Do we take you beyond your script?
First off, Nixon specifically claimed what he was doing was in the interest of national security. The claim was rejected. Bush makes the same claim. Doesn't mean it has to be accepted. The situations are eerily similar. Strike one, Mr. Republican Talking Point.
Even if it is claimed that it is national security, it is STILL illegal. Truman found that out when he tried to take over steel mills during the Korean war, claiming national security. The Supreme Court rejected the claim that "national security" was adequate to suspend the Constitution. Also keep in mind that there is a LEGAL, court based mechanism IN PLACE since 1978 that allows a President to keep his little secrets, get a court's approval AND he can even get said approval up to 72 hours after issuing the wire tap order. But Bush insisted on breaking the law. Strike two, Mr. Republican Talking Point.
Finally, your claims are contrary to those of Ms. Holtzman...who was there when Nixon was impeached. She was one of the Reps. who investigated and outlined the case. She considers it a nearly identical situation. Seems to me she is far more of an expert than you, isn't she? Strike three, Mr. Republican Talking Point. Once again your statements relfect nothing but your own blindness to the law and to common sense.
One final point. Do you call yourself a "conservative" or a "Republican?" Because there is nothing either conservative nor traditional Republican about Bush's violations of the Constitution. To me your defense of Bush's violations of the rights of American citizens is distinctly unAmerican. You might be happier in North Korea or Saudi Arabia than in America.