Anyone who has bothered traveling to the United Kingdom or the European heartland and talked with informed individuals without ties to the New World Order, knows what the conventional wisdom is regarding George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Why do you suppose there has been such a continuing full court press to demonize intelligent opinion in other nations with absurdist and childish comments, such as “They really hate us!” as well as childish freedom fry campaigns?
In those nations they actually pay attention to the United Nations, along with the Geneva and Nuremberg codes. American leadership helped establish all of the aforementioned. They have been brutally sacked by a tyrannical regime that the incoming president, who promised substantive change, appears ready to let off the hook in the interest of “moving on” to the present and the future.
In that Barack Obama was once president of the Harvard Law Review, it should not be necessary to inform him of the necessity of a nation presumably existent under the United States Constitution to carry out the laws as mandated by that instrument adopted at the beginning of America.
Let us presuppose that Lawyer A walks into court to defend a client charged with a brutal and premeditated murder committed one year earlier. Lawyer A delivers the foregoing defense on the client’s behalf:
“This crime was committed one year, I repeat, one full year earlier! Is this relevant today? Will this city be rendered one scintilla safer today, tomorrow, next year based on punishing someone for an act committed one year ago? Let me ask this vital question: Isn’t it time to move on? Isn’t it time to face the present and the future?”
If the circumstances just described actually occurred in a criminal court in any city in the land, this would be far more than a case of punishing the attorney delivering such a specious argument. The question would be asked if such an attorney was in possession of his or her faculties.
The trick about politics is that circumstances are adjusted to a point where many can be tricked into thinking that the question is not logically akin to the example just stated. Hence certain progressives have echoed the same fallacious argument that Bush-Cheney apologists have stated. In short, your public servants in Washington cannot walk and chew gum at the same time!
The message is clear. If we do not let Bush and Cheney off and bury the past, both houses of Congress will lack the time to pass a stimulus passage. The entire government will be shut down. This is the same fallacious argument that Nixon apologists raised over three decades ago.
Another question should be asked: Was the Newt Gingrich anti-Clinton posse fearful of trying a president who then stood at a better than 60 percent approval figure because the entire government would be shut down in the process?
In that arrogance is the companion of tyranny should we be surprised over the current responses of Bush and Cheney? Bush has stated that he and his colleagues remained “light-hearted” as Iraq lay in flames and lives were lost while Halliburton and Bechtel prospered. Those must be comforting words to the families and loved ones of dead and seriously wounded U.S. service personnel. Iraqis will not find them comforting either.
Dick Cheney has also spoken out. Guantanamo should continue to operate because it has been maintained as a clean place. It is only kooks from the left who are complaining. Waterboarding was needed to fight terrorism, and, as far as all the suffering on the part of Iraqis, that was the result of tragic mismanagement beforehand by Saddam Hussein.
For those in the progressive movement who find the latest comments from Bush and Cheney loathsome, just see to it that you support proceeding full speed ahead in the realm of pursuing criminal violations and not oppose such action under the untenable position of avoiding same due to the need to “move on.”
1
1
1
