Tortures R Us
Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the Republican Dream Team (oh, and President Bush) seem to have made an extraordinary calculation.
The last two weeks have seen remarkable revelations from the President: we DO have secret prisons; we DO have secret detainees; we DO torture prisoners (oops, I mean we use "alternative interrogation techniques": we don't torture, we merely euphemismize our captives to death). The President additionally asked Congress to approve torture, secret courts that may hold secret trials and may rely on evidence that is not shown to the defense. (I wonder. What are the politically correct (for republicans) eumphemisms for "Star Chamber" and "kangaroo court"?)
The intent was to emphasize the difference between the so-called tough-on-terror Republicans and the cut-and-run democrats.
Only the ploy has backfired. Some of Congress' most influential Republicans, including Senator John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as Senators John McCain,of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine, have expressed strong opposition to the President's proposals. Rebuff for Bush on Terror Trials in a Senate Test, NY Times (Sept. 15, 2006).
The President is so busy fighting with his own party that he barely has time to smear the loyal opposition (remember that term Mr. Bush?). This very public battle has made it possible for Democrats to take ringside seats and enjoy the action.
Why all of the dissent? Perhaps members of the party are starting to think that "I support torture" really isn't a very good campaign slogan. However, I believe it is more than this.
I believe that Sens. Warner, McCain, Graham and Collins are sincere in their opposition to torture and support for the Geneva Conventions.
I believe that George Bush does not represent, and never did, the mainstream of the Republican Party.
George Bush was elected because he LIED to the American People. He LIED repeatedly - about the impact of his tax cuts, about his plans for Iraq, about his support for the Powell Doctrine, about his opposition to wars for the purpose of "regime change". If he had told people this is what he intended, if he had told them he intended to approve secret prisons, secret trials, torture, unfettered wiretaps without any supervision, secret searches and secret prisoners, that he intended to launch a war against Iraq to promote democracy in the mideast - if he had told everyone that he intended to tax the poor and middle class up the wazoo while reducing the tax burden of the very wealthiest - If he had told us all this, is it at all possible that he could have been elected president? Or for that matter dog-catcher? I don't think so.
There are SMART Republicans who are sincere in their beliefs and who believe in the principles that make this country great. Everything Bush has done has been contrary to those principles and there comes a point where principle has to take a stand against party unity.
Sens. Warner, McCain, Collins and Graham seem to have reached that point. Party unity is not worth supporting torture. Party unity is not worth turning this country into a police state. That is not what Republicans stand for. The PRESIDENT may stand for torture - but America has opposed it since 1776. The Geneva Conventions may seem "quaint" to President Bush, but they represent worldwide acceptance of principles that AMERICA championed. Principles George Bush has either forgotten or never understood.
My hats off to Sens. Warner, McCain, Collins and Graham I only wish they had taken a stand sooner.
The last two weeks have seen remarkable revelations from the President: we DO have secret prisons; we DO have secret detainees; we DO torture prisoners (oops, I mean we use "alternative interrogation techniques": we don't torture, we merely euphemismize our captives to death). The President additionally asked Congress to approve torture, secret courts that may hold secret trials and may rely on evidence that is not shown to the defense. (I wonder. What are the politically correct (for republicans) eumphemisms for "Star Chamber" and "kangaroo court"?)
The intent was to emphasize the difference between the so-called tough-on-terror Republicans and the cut-and-run democrats.
Only the ploy has backfired. Some of Congress' most influential Republicans, including Senator John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as Senators John McCain,of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine, have expressed strong opposition to the President's proposals. Rebuff for Bush on Terror Trials in a Senate Test, NY Times (Sept. 15, 2006).
The President is so busy fighting with his own party that he barely has time to smear the loyal opposition (remember that term Mr. Bush?). This very public battle has made it possible for Democrats to take ringside seats and enjoy the action.
Why all of the dissent? Perhaps members of the party are starting to think that "I support torture" really isn't a very good campaign slogan. However, I believe it is more than this.
I believe that Sens. Warner, McCain, Graham and Collins are sincere in their opposition to torture and support for the Geneva Conventions.
I believe that George Bush does not represent, and never did, the mainstream of the Republican Party.
George Bush was elected because he LIED to the American People. He LIED repeatedly - about the impact of his tax cuts, about his plans for Iraq, about his support for the Powell Doctrine, about his opposition to wars for the purpose of "regime change". If he had told people this is what he intended, if he had told them he intended to approve secret prisons, secret trials, torture, unfettered wiretaps without any supervision, secret searches and secret prisoners, that he intended to launch a war against Iraq to promote democracy in the mideast - if he had told everyone that he intended to tax the poor and middle class up the wazoo while reducing the tax burden of the very wealthiest - If he had told us all this, is it at all possible that he could have been elected president? Or for that matter dog-catcher? I don't think so.
There are SMART Republicans who are sincere in their beliefs and who believe in the principles that make this country great. Everything Bush has done has been contrary to those principles and there comes a point where principle has to take a stand against party unity.
Sens. Warner, McCain, Collins and Graham seem to have reached that point. Party unity is not worth supporting torture. Party unity is not worth turning this country into a police state. That is not what Republicans stand for. The PRESIDENT may stand for torture - but America has opposed it since 1776. The Geneva Conventions may seem "quaint" to President Bush, but they represent worldwide acceptance of principles that AMERICA championed. Principles George Bush has either forgotten or never understood.
My hats off to Sens. Warner, McCain, Collins and Graham I only wish they had taken a stand sooner.
posted by BuddhistAttorney | 3:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home