Monday, August 06, 2007

534 Days

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The oath that any person elected to the office of President of the United States is an important one. The oath indicates a promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The current man holding the office of President has failed to keep this promise. He has failed to preserve the Constitution with his utter contempt of the document ("It's just a god damned piece of paper!"). He has failed to protect the Constitution with his administration's consistent violation of the 4th amendment, and he has failed to defend the Constitution by attempting to circumvent the separation of powers articulated therein. Mr. Bush instead wants to be a President on the order of Pervez Musharraf, or Hugo Chavez, and have complete control of the government. He wants to be the only person who counts and that the legislative and judicial branches of government are only there to do his bidding or sanction his actions.

Never in my life have I witnessed such a flagrant disregard for our history, our law and our creed. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution, probably the most holy of documents in our collective possession says the following:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

George Walker Bush has abused, violated and failed in every aspect the intent of the people who risked their lives to create this country. The man is the most shameful example of a president this country has known.

The sadness of the situation is only compounded by the evident apathy of the population at large. We have as sacrificed liberty for security, and have retained neither.

We have only ourselves to blame. On November 4, 2008, please take your obligation to vote seriously. We can not afford another George W. Bush.

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:16 PM

    Hi Dennis, In general, I think we need a strong executive in time of war. Say what you want about his methods, or his skill at nation building, but this is serious business and Bush has the strong character and moral clarity that is needed. The terrorists try to exploit our freedoms to do us harm. We may need to accept some change in the balance to protect our basic freedoms. My father's generation did.

    I can see your points on seperations of powers, but I'm not buying the Chavez comparison or some of the other hyperbole that follows.

    Bush, of course, is not running in '08, nor is Cheney. My biggest deal is with Hilliary. She's a phony, she stands for nothing. She will not win the war on terrorism by guiding her decisions on public opinion polls. We have to do much better.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dennis6:23 AM

    Ed,

    While I agree the matter of terrorism is a serious business. I strongly disagree with your assessment on George Bush. He is extremely weak both in judgement and in moral character.

    Also, the notion that we have a "war on terrorism" is false. We have a serious problem with radical islamic fundamentalists right now who use terrorism as a tactic in their efforts. Talk about Hyperbole, the "war" on terrorism is no different than the "war" on drugs and just as successful.

    We know we need to target certain groups, (Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and others) like we've done with drug cartels. We should be killing those guys versus being in the middle of a sectarian civil war in Iraq.

    Bush has no moral clarity, he is in this for the money. His family has been entertwined with the Saudis since World War II. "Follow the money" and you'll see why he's doing what he's doing.

    He was no better when he was governor. People with strong moral clarity and character do not make fun of people they are about to execute. Bush did that repeadetly when he was the guv of Texas.

    I'm no fan of Hillary, as she represents the entire other side of politics. As Mitt Romney has done, Hillary has consistently morphed her talking points to meet the current views in the polls. However, I'd take her in a minute over any of the jokes running for the Republican nomination, except perhaps for Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:54 AM

    The War on Terrorism, it's a fundemental point in the argument. If you don't accept that this is war, your view on the constitutional, civil rights and seperation of powers issues will be fundementally different as well.

    I believe we are in a war against a very dangerous enemy. It is a different paradigm of war, but the consequences of failing to aggressively prosecute this war are no less catastrophic to this Nation and it's freedoms. This Administration has protected the US homeland from a major attack for six years. The President is upholding his oath in this area.

    What Bush does not seem to get is that the tactics in the war on terrorism need to be much broader than the use of military power. We need to also fight this war with diplomacy, intelligence, and, I'll agree with the liberals here, policies to address the root causes of discontent which feed radical Islam.

    Continuing to address this threat, and protect the United States will require strong measures. Our system provides balance of powers, but we must have a strong Commander in Chief in time of war. We can't allow politics and political correctness to constrain our response to the terrorism threat.

    That being said, The column by George Will in the 8/13 Newsweek is a good read about constitutional issues and Presidential power. He talks about the views of Presidential candidate, Sen Chris Dodd, the son of a Nuremberg prosecuter. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20121785/site/newsweek/

    --------"Nuremberg, says Dodd, was "the place where America's moral authority in the second half of the 20th century was born." That perishable resource has, he thinks, been squandered by Bush administration decisions inimical to the Constitution and international law." ------ Newsweek

    It is a good intellectual agrument although the circumstances of Nuremberg were different than what we face today.

    Will also quotes Dodd with regard to the Democratic message in the 2008 campaign.
    -----------
    "There is," Dodd says, "a hollowness to this campaign." If, however, Dodd distills his anger into a message about how a swollen presidency threatens the constitutional balance between the two political branches of government, that message might resonate. Certainly prosecuting the case against presidential aggrandizement would give the son of the Nuremberg prosecutor a distinctive theme. It also would give him a seriousness largely lacking in a campaign that is indeed hollow because its pervasive subtext—loathing of this president—is more visceral than intellectual.------ Newsweek


    Ed

    ReplyDelete