A week ago, an article come out on MSNBC, about McCain having a woman thrown out during a town hall meeting. While I can understand that if she was being rowdy, what about all those Republicans at those other rallies, when Democrats are talking? Why can't we get in a riot team or something and have them all thrown out? After all, it's basically the same thing. Oh right, but then that'd be a violation of Freedom of Speech, I'm sure many conservative pundits over at Fox News and such would say. After all, a Democrat did it, but if it's a Republican, then of course it's okay; it's for America!
I say that, because let's face it, that's what would happen.
Well, I'd like to give a brief look on Cheney. Now, the Bush Administration went as far as to grant special legalization on "enhanced interrogation techniques" that otherwise, well, might've been considered torture, or otherwise would have at least been ethically questionable (well, not that they aren't). But Cheney said, he is okay with cases that went beyond that. Or in other words, he is fine with breaking the law and torture. He also believes that this whole CIA investigation is political, rather than judicial. You can find it here, at the 2:50 mark, and also in this article. At the 5:00 mark, you can hear:
"I just think it's an outrageous precedent to set, to have this kind of, I think, intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration..."
Right, because there are only allegations of illegal activity during what is perhaps the most secretive Administrations, at least certainly since Nixon, political abuse of power, illegal torture, etc. It was a clusterfuck of a presidency, was in itself "intensely partisan" and politicized. But we should just forget all about that, right?
Well at around the 2:13 mark, Cheney says he is offended.
"... we had a track record of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casuality attacks from Al-Qaeda. The approach of the Obama Administration should be to come to the people involved in that policy and say "how did you do it, what were the keys to keeping us safe over that period of time?" Instead, they're out there now threatening to disbar the lawyers who gave us the legal opinions, threatening contrary to what the President originally said, they're going to go out and investigate the CIA personnel who carried out those investigations, I just, I think it's an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long term to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about the next administration is going to say about them."
You, sir, are offended by that? Offended? Well first of all, isn't it your job to defend us? You are the freaking Executive Branch. Also, you want the Obama Administration to follow your footsteps, which is the very thing that is being investigated, that if what you did was legal? If anything, NOT investigating this is an outrageous political act, and I'm happy to hear that the Obama Administration is starting to turn around on the issue. If anything, there should be even more pressure on them for this investigation. But also, worrying about what the next administration will say about someone? Isn't that pretty much every single Presidental campaign we've had? Yes, it is. What Cheney is saying, it's nothing new to the American political system. Such things have been happening since our first Presidents. So you are offended that they are investigating possible illegal activities and by the American political system?
Right after, this exchange happens, at 6:07 Chris Wallace asks Cheney:
"If the prosecutor asks to speak to you, will you speak to him?"
Cheney responds with:
"It'll depend on the circumstances, and what I think their activities are really involved in..."
Depend on the circumstances? What circumstances are those, exactly? Well now, surely, Cheney must have a reason for all of this, for so much cloak and dagger. Well, you find out at 8:21. "So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you're OK with it?" Chris Wallace asked Cheney.
"I am."
That's right. Cheney is okay with illegal "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Almost done. Next is, oh please save me, Michelle Bachmann, perhaps the most insane Representative in the House. This article reports on a speech she gave, where at some point, she said:
"What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass."
I seriously have no idea how to respond to this. She wants a conservative cult? Going to serve some Kool-Aid? Well, look further down the article, and the will link to another story that mentions this telephone'd town hall meeting.
In response to a caller from Minnesota who wanted to know if there was a plan afoot in Washington to require all medical doctors to perform abortions, Bachmann didn’t exactly shoot the suggestion down.
"Unless we explicitly restrict these items, I think we can fully expect that these radical pro-abortion individuals could very likely make those decisions,” she told the caller. "All of us who have labored tirelessly in the pro-life cause for years and years and years, we know what these people are capable of. That’s why they have to be tied down by restrictions explicitly in law."
So, I'm pro-choice myself, but DO tell me, what is it exactly we are capable of?
"That’s really where this battle will be won — on our knees in prayer and fasting," she told the listeners. "Remember: faith without works is dead. So we’re asking you to do all of it: pray, fast, believe, trust the Lord, but also act."
Well hopefully, your idea of acting is to sit there and fast and pray; I fully support that. Because while you all are busy doing that, maybe we can get actual change done. If she's busy in church praying, then maybe she'll shut the hell up with the crazy for a little while. Or maybe this is the cult she wants, eh?
Speaking on the side of theology, and my last bit for tonight, I came across this article on MSNBC: Obama hosts dinner for Islamic holy month. That holy month being Ramadan, and praised contributions of Islamic culture. This is good, and I am happy to see such. We are America, one of our founding philosophies being free religion, and yet within our country, there are those who see other religions as lesser, or even dangerous. And we have reached a time some are calling a "post-Christian America" where the influence of Christianity is waning, in favor of atheism and other religions, or non-religion-associated spirituality.
Well, that was a long one, and I'm sure something will come up that I forgot. But, for now, that's all.
After a very much long-winded post(s), -whew-, that's all I have to say for now!
No comments:
Post a Comment