"'President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency,' Senator Edward Kennedy said in a statement Friday. 'Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world.'"And that is a long list--most shameful of this presidency. But it is truly mind boggling that we are here at this place in time.
The Democratic primary is wearing on all of us, I think. I wanted to like Hilary, I really did. But her scorched earth tactics against Obama make that harder and harder. At this point, if she were to win, I would vote for her against McCain--simply because I cannot vote for another Republican until there is some reckoning of the damage the GOP has done to our country. Just look at item one in this post. McCain urged Bush to veto this bill not because he supports torture, but because he knows the GOP base loves torture and wants more. Enough said.
But Hilary is making the case for more of the same. More of the politics of Rove and division. More of the self-centered President. If I ever had any doubts about Obama, they have been erased in the last few weeks. Hilary trying to change the rules of the Democratic primary during the contest, etc.
Obama really is a departure from the past.
I am looking for a new bumper sticker. Actually, I want a magnet. When this president is gone, I don't want to display anything about him on my car. The magnet I found so far is from here and I like their stuff, but the one that comes closest what I want is this one.
A good one, don't get me wrong. But I really just want one that says "1-20-09," or "1-20-09 can't get here soon enough."
As usual, Obsidian Wings has a great take on this:
"The torture debate has two parts that often get conflated – (1) the morality/legality of the act itself, and (2) administrability (i.e., how do we know these powers won’t be abused?). Bush’s supporters tend to ignore the second point altogether, although it’s arguably the strongest – and most Burkean – argument against “coercive interrogation.”"Publius connects this very well to the death penalty in a way that I have argued before. To support the death penalty you have to believe it is moral in some cases, but that isn't enough. You also have to believe that it can be administered fairly and effectively. Most people stop with the first question and never bother to check if it is implemented correctly. What is more, they don't seem to care. The correlation to torture is telling. And, I might add, that logical fallacy seems to underscore a great many failed policies, from supply side economics to abstinence only. People stop with the theoretical and then never even check to see if they actually work. And academics are divorced from the real world?