September 20, 2007

GOP and our constitution and our troops

In our conversation yesterday, our commentator raised the issue of values. At the same time, the GOP blocked a vote that would have returned habeas review to terror suspects. Why? I have no idea. But evidently, Republicans don't think that Habeas Corpus is a value worth fighting for. With all due respect, I would suggest that our enemies also disdain such legal protections. How nice that we are following them, rather than our own principles.

But that isn't the only bill the GOP blocked. Let me say here, that I fully respect the right of the minority to play obstructionist. It is the only thing that allowed Democrats to stop Bush and Cheney from paving over the Grand Canyon or invading Canada. We should note that the Republicans complained incessantly when Democrats used this feature (fillibuster) but that is the nature of politics. They aren't complaining about that now. But they are using it in ways that I don't understand. I think our system is strong enough to allow habeas review to ensure that terror subjects actually are terror subjects. And likewise, when the GOP killed a bill that would extend leave for our soldiers, well, I just throw up my hands.

Republicans say they support the troops and accuse anyone like me of not, yet they cut their pay, extend their tours, and then kill a bill that might have at least given them as much time at home as it did in country. RNC Chair Martinez proved my point, accusing those of us who might want such legislation as actually demeaning the troops:
" I think we would demean their service if we were to say to them that there had to be a parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home. "
I think I see the trend. Anything the Republicans do--even if it is to allow war vets to be treated in sqalor or using the back-door draft to keep our struggling Army together--well, that is "supporting the troops." Anything Democrats do--even pushing for more training, or research into brain injuries, or daring to suggest that they have more time at home--we are anti-troops. Got it.

5 comments:

ubub said...

"Demean their service," hmm. As Fessick said, I do not think that word means what you think it means. A better example would be the campaign against Max Clelland.

Streak said...

Yes, as Keith Olbermann noted, the very same people who are offended by the Petraeus ad, or saying that this bill demeans the service men and women, had no problem with the Swift Boat ads against Kerry or that stunning campaign against Cleland.

steve s said...

All the stink about this ad has given it way more attention than it would have gotten. I don't read the NYT, so I am sure I never would have seen the ad, if not for the 'outrage'.

ubub said...

Yeah, Rush and Billo told me that the Dumb-O-Crats are poisoning the political discourse with this juvenile, demeaning rhetoric.

ubub said...

AND ANOTHER THING!

Where was the outrage when Ann Coulter wrote Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the Present? This might be construed as a slander on millions of Americans.

MoveOn, on the other hand, tried to use some clever wordplay to take issue with the job performance of the man in charge of the war that most of the American people (pick a recent poll) oppose. The report that he presented was by most accounts ghostwritten and cooked by political aides in the administration. The report was true to the wishes of the White House, not the American people. It's not too much of a stretch to argue that that is a betrayal of the public trust.