Last week Republicants gave President Bush powers that no American should have. They agreed to allow the president to listen to whomever he wants under whatever circumstances he wants and to detain anyone he wants for however long he wants, as well as interrogate and try them however he wants.
It will be no surprise when, in the run-up to the November elections, the Republicant Party tries to use these votes to paint Democrats, who for the most part voted “nay” on the bills, as soft on terrorism. (Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson voted with Republicants on the detainee bill; like Lieberman, Nelson is Republicant-lite and has been a disappointment for some time.)
How can Republicants’ position on terrorism be "strong" if they are supporting efforts that began as lies and misinformation, have been grossly mismanaged from the start and have actually made terrorism worse in the world? It doesn't survive scrutiny.
They seem to be strong on cluster-fuck.
It seems they are also quite strong on helping turn the US into a dictatorship, and with an unsophisticated, unprincipled dolt in the prized position. I mean, if I am to be ruled over by an autocrat – and I’d rather not – at least let’s have someone with a clue.
A million dictators throughout history have used the rationale and techniques Bush has been using – exploiting the fears of the populace, beating down and mocking dissenters and stirring up fervent, unquestioning supporters – to consolidate their power. But some of our elected officials have apparently learned nothing, and are handing Bush absolute rule on a silver platter. “Yes sir. No sir. Whatever you want, sir. 9/11, blah blah blah...”
It’s starting to look like Republicants also handed now-resigned Florida Rep. Mark Foley handsome, young Congressional pages on a silver platter. Yummy. How else to explain that as far back as 2001 some pages were warned not to get too “friendly” with Foley? (The phrases “blue dress” and “October surprise” now come to mind for some reason.)
Before some explicit electronic communications were made public, Foley’s people had the balls to call the disclosure of strange correspondence between Foley and a teen a political attack from a Democratic rival. Initially, a few emails had shown Foley requested a picture of his correspondent. Creepy, but not criminal.
But then the IMs came out and the creepiness of the initial emails proved the worst: Foley had pedophilic proclivities. And this was a guy who had in the past sponsored tough legislation to protect children from sexual predators.
Say it with me: Fucking amazing.
By the way, fuck you, Foley, and DeLay and all your buddies who do wrong and then blame your troubles on your political opponents. Sit and spin to the elbow, all of you.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert has requested a Justice Department investigation of the Foley affair. Thankfully this is not an internal investigation, since, with people like Pat Roberts to stifle it or Arlen Specter to express outrage and then do nothing about it, any Congressional investigation into Foley’s folly would undoubtedly go nowhere.
At least, not until after the November elections. We know where our Congress’ priorities are: Above all else, self-preservation.