Defending Democratic complicity
i was deeply angry yesterday to learn of the dems' five-year conspiracy of silence in covering up the bush administration's endemic violations of our constitution and the rule of law...
today, i read this from glenn...
that was shortly after i read this by john aravosis...
sigh... i am terribly disappointed to read john's perspective... hell yes, pelosi has the right to object now, but she didn't when she should have and that fact cannot be excused... would it have destroyed her career...? very possibly... would it have marked her publicly as a traitor...? quite likely... but sorry, john, i don't give a rat's ass... she took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, she chose not to do that, and THAT is the REAL treason she is guilty of...
on another note... while i completely understand that, in the bigger picture of things, what i think about anything matters little, i must say that i am liking what i am seeing of john aravosis' perspectives less and less every day... in many, many ways, i admire and respect john, but his determined blindness in the face of our nation's constitutional crisis is disappointing, disturbing, and puzzling in equal measure... while it's certainly his prerogative to form and express his own opinions, this defense of nancy pelosi is another nail in his coffin, as far as i'm concerned... ah, well...
Tweet
today, i read this from glenn...
If someone wants to defend these Democrats' complicit behavior (on the craven ground that what they did was understandable because it was politically wise), then they should make that argument. But nobody should pretend that these Senators and Representatives were "helpless" and had no options for putting a stop to Bush's torture programs and other lawbreaking if they were actually interested in doing so.
that was shortly after i read this by john aravosis...
It's also clear that had Pelosi raised any private objections during the meeting - remember, it took place in the first year after September 11 - Bush and the Republicans would have leaked that fact to the public (like they just did) and destroyed her career and marked her publicly as a traitor. No member of Congress, no American, could have spoken up about anything in the months after September 11 and survived. It's patently unfair to suggest that somehow because Pelosi didn't object then that she doesn't have the right to object now.
sigh... i am terribly disappointed to read john's perspective... hell yes, pelosi has the right to object now, but she didn't when she should have and that fact cannot be excused... would it have destroyed her career...? very possibly... would it have marked her publicly as a traitor...? quite likely... but sorry, john, i don't give a rat's ass... she took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, she chose not to do that, and THAT is the REAL treason she is guilty of...
on another note... while i completely understand that, in the bigger picture of things, what i think about anything matters little, i must say that i am liking what i am seeing of john aravosis' perspectives less and less every day... in many, many ways, i admire and respect john, but his determined blindness in the face of our nation's constitutional crisis is disappointing, disturbing, and puzzling in equal measure... while it's certainly his prerogative to form and express his own opinions, this defense of nancy pelosi is another nail in his coffin, as far as i'm concerned... ah, well...
Labels: 9/11, Americablog, Congress, constitutional crisis, criminal Democrats, George Bush, John Aravosis, Nancy Pelosi, torture, Treason, U.S. Constitution
Submit To PropellerTweet
posted by profmarcus at
12/10/2007
