A third case that makes one wonder how seriously these Bush defenders takes their own arguments is found in a recent opinion piece in Reverend Moon's newspaper, The Washington Times. Entitled "More than Revenge Needed," this piece by Dan Thomasson castigates Democrats like John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi for their evident intention, if they gain power in November's elections, to investigate the lawlessness of this Bushite regime.
The piece warns voters: "If you are one who believes returning control of the House to the Democrats this fall would bring some civility back to Capitol Hill, perhaps you should reassess your thinking." These Democrats will not restore civility, Thomasson cries, because they are going to pursue a "vengeful strategy" that will only increase the "ferocity" of our "venomous partisanship."
Tell me, Mr. Thomasson, do you really believe that investigating whether or not an elected official has usurped power and broken the law should be understood as partisan vengefulness, or are you just trying to blow smoke in the voters' eyes?
If the call for investigation is just partisanship, Mr. Thomasson, then how do you account for the alarm being sounded by Bruce Fein, the prominent conservative jurist formerly of President Reagan's Justice Department, when he writes: "Mr. Bush has adamantly refused to acknowledge any constitutional limitations on his power to wage war indefinitely against international terrorism, other than an unelaborated assertion he is not a dictator"Congress should undertake a national inquest into his conduct and claims to determine whether impeachable usurpations are at hand."
Or the recent study from the conservative Cato Institute, which decries the "disdain for constitutional limits" manifested by this administration in what it characterizes as a "ceaseless push for power." Or former Republican Representative Bob Barr's declaring, about this president's "power grab," that: "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."
What do you imagine, Mr. Thomasson, these principled conservative Republicans are trying to "avenge."
When you so helpfully tell the Democrats that voters "don't want to hear about disruptive investigations into things that can't be changed," does this reflect your general attitude about the investigation of crimes? After all, if one ought not investigate crimes that have already been committed, and therefore cannot be changed, just what crimes should be investigated?
Do you propose we investigate only crimes that are going to be committed in the future, or is it your position that we should ignore crime altogether? Or is it just crimes committed by the most powerful person in the country that should be ignored?
And Mr. Thomasson, when you say that Americans want the Democrats to "tell them how to solve their problems at home," do you really think that saving our system of government from those who would subvert it doesn't qualify?
Isn't preserving our constitutional democracy what generations of American boys were sent off to kill and die for? Are you really unable to see fighting for that same purpose here at home can be anything but revenge? Or are you just hoping that your rhetorical sleight of hand will distract the public?
And to those Americans who are hungry for a government with values higher than partisan political advantage, can you really maintain with a straight face that they should vote for Republicans? It is the Republicans who, in order to protect a president from their party, have systematically blocked every attempt to meaningfully investigate the possible abuses of power by what millions of Americans and much of the world believe to be the most lawless presidency in American history.
Or should they vote to turn the Congress over to the Democrats, so that the people with the power to issue subpoenas and to question witnesses under oath will work to provide us, the sovereign people of these United States, a clear and credible picture of what our rulers have been doing with the power with which we entrusted them?
All the members of Congress, of whatever party, take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the heart and soul of America, our highest national value, transcending party.
And so, while one might say that a partisan agenda can be served either by protecting or by investigating a lawless presidency, the difference between the two is fundamental.
Can you Bush defenders really not see the difference? Or do you just want to keep the American people from recognizing what is at stake?
The piece warns voters: "If you are one who believes returning control of the House to the Democrats this fall would bring some civility back to Capitol Hill, perhaps you should reassess your thinking." These Democrats will not restore civility, Thomasson cries, because they are going to pursue a "vengeful strategy" that will only increase the "ferocity" of our "venomous partisanship."
Tell me, Mr. Thomasson, do you really believe that investigating whether or not an elected official has usurped power and broken the law should be understood as partisan vengefulness, or are you just trying to blow smoke in the voters' eyes?
If the call for investigation is just partisanship, Mr. Thomasson, then how do you account for the alarm being sounded by Bruce Fein, the prominent conservative jurist formerly of President Reagan's Justice Department, when he writes: "Mr. Bush has adamantly refused to acknowledge any constitutional limitations on his power to wage war indefinitely against international terrorism, other than an unelaborated assertion he is not a dictator"Congress should undertake a national inquest into his conduct and claims to determine whether impeachable usurpations are at hand."
What do you imagine, Mr. Thomasson, these principled conservative Republicans are trying to "avenge."
When you so helpfully tell the Democrats that voters "don't want to hear about disruptive investigations into things that can't be changed," does this reflect your general attitude about the investigation of crimes? After all, if one ought not investigate crimes that have already been committed, and therefore cannot be changed, just what crimes should be investigated?
Do you propose we investigate only crimes that are going to be committed in the future, or is it your position that we should ignore crime altogether? Or is it just crimes committed by the most powerful person in the country that should be ignored?
And Mr. Thomasson, when you say that Americans want the Democrats to "tell them how to solve their problems at home," do you really think that saving our system of government from those who would subvert it doesn't qualify?
Isn't preserving our constitutional democracy what generations of American boys were sent off to kill and die for? Are you really unable to see fighting for that same purpose here at home can be anything but revenge? Or are you just hoping that your rhetorical sleight of hand will distract the public?
And to those Americans who are hungry for a government with values higher than partisan political advantage, can you really maintain with a straight face that they should vote for Republicans? It is the Republicans who, in order to protect a president from their party, have systematically blocked every attempt to meaningfully investigate the possible abuses of power by what millions of Americans and much of the world believe to be the most lawless presidency in American history.
Or should they vote to turn the Congress over to the Democrats, so that the people with the power to issue subpoenas and to question witnesses under oath will work to provide us, the sovereign people of these United States, a clear and credible picture of what our rulers have been doing with the power with which we entrusted them?
All the members of Congress, of whatever party, take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the heart and soul of America, our highest national value, transcending party.
And so, while one might say that a partisan agenda can be served either by protecting or by investigating a lawless presidency, the difference between the two is fundamental.
Can you Bush defenders really not see the difference? Or do you just want to keep the American people from recognizing what is at stake?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
