The Divine Authority Weighs in on Bush’s Sins
After the judges who were legally providing perfect anti-terrorist surveillance security for the US weighed in, the Lord God appeared on Fox News and thundered to millions of viewers: Bush and Cheney should repent for lying, bearing false witness against numerous neighbors, coveting their neighbors’ goods, killing and putting others before God.
The White House refuted that with a prepared statement released moments ago, that read:
“When the Lord God granted us free will, divinely ordained us to lead this nation and permitted his Son to die for our sins, He granted us blanket authority to use all means necessary to fight anyone we label as terrorists without Divine supervision. If He wants to limit our power to direct the war on terrorists and risk being known as ‘The Weenie God So Not Almighty’, we say ‘bring it on.’ And we’ll let American voters decide who’s right. ”
Republican leaders of the House and Senate immediately introduced legislation that would permit the President to overrule God without threat of eternal flames. An amendment introduced by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) to declare Dick Cheney as the new God was narrowly defeated.
Democratic leaders’ proposals to provide greater security via rational thought, competent planning, strategic choices and the innovative use of sanity were rejected by GOP lawmakers as ‘immoral’ and ‘typical for a bunch of homo-loving freaks who would reward illegal immigrants with ice cream and balloons and the minimum wage as if they were human or something.’
March 29th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Actually, God (by which you probably mean Ted Kennedy) said nothing about this.
The FISA judges, however, had the following to say:
So the guy who wrote the law sides with Bush, consistant to Sealed Case (2002). Interestingly consistent.
Eric Lichtblau, who has been slanting coverage since he was brought on to this story, has a radically different slant on the article than the “Moonie Times” segment above of Brian Debose above. So radical, in fact, it seems that someone must be misrepresenting what the judges said to a horrible degree, perhaps even lying.
Now, poltics aside, and truth as our goal, which paper has the better record? Which paper tends to hire writers that make things up?
Bush was right that he can use his Article II powers, and Spectre and Dewine can pass laws till the cows come home, becuase the new law won’t matter any more than FISA did.
Unless Congress passes a constitutional amendment, Bush will retain his constitutional Article II authority.
Game. Set. Match. Bush.
March 30th, 2006 at 3:30 am
Now, poltics aside, and truth as our goal, which paper has the better record? Which paper tends to hire writers that make things up?
Between the Post and the Times? Uh, I forget. Very few writers at either offer much I’d call objective. If I want balance, I read the Christian Science Monitor.
I’ve read the testimony of the FISA judges and I’ve read bloggers cherrypicking statements that support positions they held before that testimony.
Ultimately, I understand that Bush’s actions won’t draw Congressional action beyond pseudo-investigations while the GOP maintains its majority position there. So the only judges whose opinions really matter in this argument are the nine Supremes.
I do not claim that Bush shouldn’t spy on ’suspected international agents’ and I believe that’s a straw man argument as I know no progressives who argue he shouldn’t.
I object to him overriding the FISA rules without good cause - and the reasons offered thus far don’t hold water. More importantly, I oppose spying on ordinary Americans and political opponents. I think that’s what the FISA judges meant when they said they “could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it.”
Such a briefing would reveal who got spied on and why. Unless that gets explored and is given ongoing oversight, the possibility of a past law violation and the potential for fresh ones remain.
The info that’s leaked out thus far provides enough of a smoking gun that anti war advocates were spied on to warrant a full investigation, to determine if any legit reasons existed to suspect a potential tie to terrorists.
There’s nothing in the testimony of the FISA judges to refute the existence of that smoke, nor anything that refutes the need for more information so an objective assessment of the legal questions can be made.