Seemingly impervious to the uptake of knowledge -- Henry Rollins.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Bush Spares Libby
I believe that it's time, and past time, for a Constitutional amendment expanding the range of things for which a president and vice-president can be impeached.
I just saw the news about this. I think this Administration has given up all pretense of any kind of ethics. I guess they figure since they aren't running for re-election they can just do whatever the hell they want.
I was talking to my husband about this. Back during the first election I was just crazy adamantly opposed to Bush. When he got elected I felt sick to my stomach, seriously. My reaction to him was immediate and instantaneous and overwhelmingly negative and it pretty much has only deepened over the years. He just seemed like a bad man, flat out and pretty obviously so, I thought.
One the one hand, I'm glad the rest of the country has finally come around to what all us crazy people that are so anti-Bush have been saying for years. On the other, it boggles my mind how much has had to happen and how many people have had to die for this man to finally be exposed for what he really is. He and Cheney both.
Unfortunately, men like these two rarely if ever have to pay the price for their actions.
I think its a combination of his lame-duck status and that with Bush, friendship trumps just about everything. (There must be something he won't countenance.)
I've always thought Bush tries to do the right thing. I still think that. But I also think that his judgement on what the right thing is is skewed seriously.
He won't pay any price. Neither will Cheney. I saw a comedy routine where a fellow said that if oral sex got Clinton impeached, then what Bush and Cheney have done ought to warrant execution in the Rose Garden. I don't agree. But ritual tarring and feathering? That'd be fine with me.
As for the amendment: it won't happen in this administration, and would take a very strong independence on the part of the Congress to propose it in any administration.
I do agree he has shown fierce loyalty to his friends, which can certainly be a wonderful trait. Unfortunately in Bush's case it is often to the detriment of our country.
I also agree that he does what he thinks is right. But he also easily convinces himself, or is easily convinced, to twist actions that greatly benefit his cronies into "the right thing" if that makes sense?
When I say I think he is a bad man, it's not that I think he's evil, (he's not Cheney afterall *grins*) but I think he's a weak man, weak moral character. A weak man with a huge ego and that's a dangerous combination.
My problem with Bush (among many heh) is that he has failed at just about every endeavor he's tried and hasn't seemed to learn any humility in the process and hasn't seemed to learn that others may know better than he does. So he thinks he is doing what is right, but doesn't seemed to have learned a lifetime of lessons that what he thinks is right has often been very, very wrong.
Either way, I too would like to see some kind of fallout/amendment/whathaveyou from this whole debacle of a presidency. Not just because it's a Republican either. No political party should get away with what this Administration has been shoveling.
He unquestionably has a huge ego. In his own strange way, he's as perverse as Paris Hilton, who I understand startles and mystifies *her* parents. (I liked Bush the First. Didn't vote for him, but I liked him.) Weak moral character? I'd say malformed: he can convince himself that what he wants to do (or can be persuaded to do, pay no attention to the slack-jawed man behind the curtain) is the right thing. (I know, you said that. I agree.)
There ought to be fallout. Sure as god (I'll explain that concept to you some day (g) ) made little green apples, we'll have exactly the opposite situation some day; a Congress which is all-powerful and a weak chief executive, and the call will go out: We need a strong person in the White House! But for right now, the pendulum clearly has to swing back. Any protection that can be put in place can be undone (or ignored!), but it has to happen. I regret that the president who's affected may be one I like.
I tell you honestly: if I had heard (and of course there is still time) that Bush & Co declared the next federal election delayed 'for reasons of national security', I would not be surprised. And if I heard tht there were riots, and insurrection, I wouln't be surprised by that, either.
5 comments:
I second the motion.
All in favor?
I just saw the news about this. I think this Administration has given up all pretense of any kind of ethics. I guess they figure since they aren't running for re-election they can just do whatever the hell they want.
I was talking to my husband about this. Back during the first election I was just crazy adamantly opposed to Bush. When he got elected I felt sick to my stomach, seriously. My reaction to him was immediate and instantaneous and overwhelmingly negative and it pretty much has only deepened over the years. He just seemed like a bad man, flat out and pretty obviously so, I thought.
One the one hand, I'm glad the rest of the country has finally come around to what all us crazy people that are so anti-Bush have been saying for years. On the other, it boggles my mind how much has had to happen and how many people have had to die for this man to finally be exposed for what he really is. He and Cheney both.
Unfortunately, men like these two rarely if ever have to pay the price for their actions.
I think its a combination of his lame-duck status and that with Bush, friendship trumps just about everything. (There must be something he won't countenance.)
I've always thought Bush tries to do the right thing. I still think that. But I also think that his judgement on what the right thing is is skewed seriously.
He won't pay any price. Neither will Cheney. I saw a comedy routine where a fellow said that if oral sex got Clinton impeached, then what Bush and Cheney have done ought to warrant execution in the Rose Garden. I don't agree. But ritual tarring and feathering? That'd be fine with me.
As for the amendment: it won't happen in this administration, and would take a very strong independence on the part of the Congress to propose it in any administration.
I do agree he has shown fierce loyalty to his friends, which can certainly be a wonderful trait. Unfortunately in Bush's case it is often to the detriment of our country.
I also agree that he does what he thinks is right. But he also easily convinces himself, or is easily convinced, to twist actions that greatly benefit his cronies into "the right thing" if that makes sense?
When I say I think he is a bad man, it's not that I think he's evil, (he's not Cheney afterall *grins*) but I think he's a weak man, weak moral character. A weak man with a huge ego and that's a dangerous combination.
My problem with Bush (among many heh) is that he has failed at just about every endeavor he's tried and hasn't seemed to learn any humility in the process and hasn't seemed to learn that others may know better than he does. So he thinks he is doing what is right, but doesn't seemed to have learned a lifetime of lessons that what he thinks is right has often been very, very wrong.
Either way, I too would like to see some kind of fallout/amendment/whathaveyou from this whole debacle of a presidency. Not just because it's a Republican either. No political party should get away with what this Administration has been shoveling.
He unquestionably has a huge ego. In his own strange way, he's as perverse as Paris Hilton, who I understand startles and mystifies *her* parents. (I liked Bush the First. Didn't vote for him, but I liked him.) Weak moral character? I'd say malformed: he can convince himself that what he wants to do (or can be persuaded to do, pay no attention to the slack-jawed man behind the curtain) is the right thing. (I know, you said that. I agree.)
There ought to be fallout. Sure as god (I'll explain that concept to you some day (g) ) made little green apples, we'll have exactly the opposite situation some day; a Congress which is all-powerful and a weak chief executive, and the call will go out: We need a strong person in the White House! But for right now, the pendulum clearly has to swing back. Any protection that can be put in place can be undone (or ignored!), but it has to happen. I regret that the president who's affected may be one I like.
I tell you honestly: if I had heard (and of course there is still time) that Bush & Co declared the next federal election delayed 'for reasons of national security', I would not be surprised. And if I heard tht there were riots, and insurrection, I wouln't be surprised by that, either.
Bush: the new gold standard for incompetence.
Post a Comment