Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Local yokel squawks, krazee responds . . .

The local newspaper here in Victorville, CA (your typical small town, conservative rag), spittled forth a really lame, juvenile editorial defending George W. Bush's right to unilaterally spy on American citizens without Congressional or Judicial oversight.

This crayon-scribbled editorial contains your typical neo-con amateurish blatherings about Bush's right to make up laws or to defy existing laws and do whatever he damn well pleases in order to save the Brooklyn Bridge from being dismantled by some low IQ nutjob with a blow-torch. However it piqued my annoyance as it also belches out an ad-hominem attack on the patriotism and motives of the Democratic political leadership simply because they are, and rightly so, requesting a Congressional probe of King George's self-imposed divine right to unlimited executive power (by any reputable dictionary definition -- tyranny).

Here's a link to the Victorville Daily Press editorial I speaketh not fondly of: CLICK HERE.

And here is my response to the moron editorialist who had the nerve to shat this crapola opinion into the pages of a public media outlet:

Re: Steve Williams' op-ed on Dec. 20, 2005 - Our Opinion: We're the target

Once again the editor(s) of the Victorville Daily Press demonstrate what a bush-league (pardon the pun) rag they are in their deeply uncritical and quite inept attempt to shrug off the Bush Administration's newly discovered (and quite likely illegal) domestic spying activities.

Aside from the glaring level of naivete shown in the matter, I believe your blithe dismissal of the core Constitutional transgressions involved here reveals to your local readership constituency that you people are either rank cowards, unabashed Bush apologists or if my hunch is correct - both.

As you duly noted in pointing out George Will's column, a number of conservative scholars and journos are weighing in on this matter, and many of them are siding with reputable Constitutional experts in deciding that George W. Bush has some serious explaining to do to the American people.

Bruce Fein who is a constitutional scholar and a former Deputy AG in the Reagan Administration was asked on The Diane Rehm radio program yesterday "Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?" Mr. Fein answered thus:

"I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant."

Norman Ornstein is a scholar at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He was on the same radio program as Mr. Fein and was asked the same question. His answer:

"I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

So who would you think is more credible, a small-minded, small-town editorial hack like Steve Williams or a couple of conservative icons and scholars who've spent their lives studying the document which is the heart and soul of American Democracy - our noble Constitution??

Before we answer that question (and boy it sure is a tough one to contemplate), let's touch on a couple of things Mr. Williams stated in his driveling rant.

Mr. Williams -- you haughtily make the claim that "Americans and residents of America . . ." don't share in the concerns being expressed about Bush's unprecedented and secretive executive power-grab and "that a majority of Americans support safety first, and because of that will tolerate the use of tactics that help insure that safety . . ." On what evidence do you base these statements sir? Have you conducted your own scientific poll that conclusively supports these assertions? If so, could you please publish it? Somehow I doubt we'll see the results of such a poll anytime soon.

There's a quite famous political saying - "...how's it playing in Peoria?" - meaning as it always has, how does conservative, middle-America feel about the matter? Well, Mr. Williams, here's a brief excerpt from the editorial in today's (Tuesday 12/20/2005) Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star:

"Look, Sept. 11, 2001, upset all of us. No one wants a repeat. But a disturbing pattern has emerged, ranging from the administration's defense of certain torture practices to secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe, from the suggestion that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to POWs the U.S. holds to the president's ability to unilaterally declare someone an "enemy combatant." It took the White House 18 months to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens. Is this a balance of powers issue? You bet it is. Perhaps the president's heart is in the right place. He says he just wants to protect Americans. Who doesn't? It's really quite simple: The Founders were clear that threats to the republic could come from inside as well as out. No president, of any party, under any circumstance, should be permitted to act like a king. This is troubling."

Doesn't sound like the folks in Peoria are entirely thrilled with King George and his "my way or the hiway" approach to Constitutional law Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams - you also appear to question the patriotism (gee - why does that not surprise me) of the Democratic party leaders Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean, because, quite justifiably, they happen to also oppose the equally insidious and Stalinesque Patriot Act. You baselessly state, " . . .they seem to have concluded that the safety of America and Americans must take a back seat to the defeat of the President." Boy if that isn't a charge old Joe McCarthy could be proud of, I don't know what is. Pretty pathetic and quite likely copied and pasted directly from the day's GOP talking points fax.

Lastly Mr. Williams - I'll leave you with a famous quote, often attributed to a great American patriot Benjamin Franklin, which says, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And with that prescient quote drifting lazily off to the dark recesses of your timorous consciousness, I'm quite certain that if a Hillary Clinton or a Howard Dean Presidency were to ever come to pass, you'll remember that quote right quickly enough and without a doubt be one of the first screaming it from the hilltops until you were blue in the face.

Concerned Citizen (krazeeinjun)
Victorville, CA

No comments: