Honestly, Senator Arlen Specter was one of the few Republican Senators that I like. Not that I like everything he did or said, but he was the more reasonable Republican in the Senate, relatively speaking. I am a reasonable person, really!
As a Democrat, I love to see him leaving the dark side and joining the good guys. No kidding. But his reasoning for switching party was, well, let's say very very weak, at best. What? The Republican Party left him. Mr. Specter, you can do better than that. No question. It is for you political survival, but you can try to give a little better reason than that, right? Let me help you.
First, refer to the recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, which showed the number of Americans identified themselves as Republicans have shrank from 29% a year ago to only 21% today. While those identified themselves as Independent grew from 28% in March 2008 to 38% today. What is that mean? Clearly, Senator Specter was a moderate Senator within the Republican party. The poll clearly suggested those supported him (that 10% or so) have left the GOP party and now called themselves Independent. So, it only makes sense for him to go with the people whom represented.
I don't know about you. It is still political survival but at least, it sounds better.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Condi Rice: "By definition, if it was authorized by the President, it didn't violate our obligation under the Geneva Convention"
If you haven't seen the video posted by Stanford Student Reyna Garcia and his friends, who cornered Condoleezza Rice to question her on the Bush Administration usage of torture. Here is the link
First of all, you got to give credit to Reyna and his friends for confronting who was and is a Stanford Professor, former National Security Advisor, and former Secretary of State. It took some guts. I hope these students wouldn't need to take one of her classes, otherwise, they would guarantee an 'F' for sure.
If you listen to Condi Rice's defensive argument, it was one of those Dick Cheney argument that " well, only if you have seen the facts that we saw, you would have understand, but then we can't show you the fact because you aren't high enough in the government." It is an effective way to shutdown the other person's argument, yet they don't need to produce any REAL evidents to justify their perspectives. It was difficult for Reyna and his friends for a comeback but it did wish they would request on camera a follow-up interview after they have a chance to prepare. Now, I do wonder if Professor Rice would agree to such an interview.
The other shocking argument by the former Secretary was (start at time 6:05):
"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that the violates our obligation under the convention against torture. By definition, if it was authorized by the President, it didn't violate our obligation under the Geneva Convention."
There are 2 serious flaws in her argument. One, I wish that student would follow up with this simple question, "You were authorized by who, again?"
Consider this: If my brain told my hands to kill someone, would that not violate the law and not a murder then? Trust me, my brain is totally convince that it is right and totally justified. I know, I know. You'll say that the brain and the hands are part of the same person. Well, just like the White House and the Justice Department are the same Administration.
Two, I am sure you have seen this clip from 32 years ago, of the former President Nixon which he said, "When the president does it, that means that is not illegal." And remember, Nixon was impeached and resigned in disgrace. Bush and Cheney should have too.
Now, imagine if you were able to ask Saddam Hussein: "President Hussein, what gave you the right to torture and killed thousands of Iraqi". His answer probably would be , "Since I am the President (of Iraq), that means there were not illegal."
If these are the best argument the Bush Gang can come up with, that is a slippery slope.
First of all, you got to give credit to Reyna and his friends for confronting who was and is a Stanford Professor, former National Security Advisor, and former Secretary of State. It took some guts. I hope these students wouldn't need to take one of her classes, otherwise, they would guarantee an 'F' for sure.
If you listen to Condi Rice's defensive argument, it was one of those Dick Cheney argument that " well, only if you have seen the facts that we saw, you would have understand, but then we can't show you the fact because you aren't high enough in the government." It is an effective way to shutdown the other person's argument, yet they don't need to produce any REAL evidents to justify their perspectives. It was difficult for Reyna and his friends for a comeback but it did wish they would request on camera a follow-up interview after they have a chance to prepare. Now, I do wonder if Professor Rice would agree to such an interview.
The other shocking argument by the former Secretary was (start at time 6:05):
"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that the violates our obligation under the convention against torture. By definition, if it was authorized by the President, it didn't violate our obligation under the Geneva Convention."
There are 2 serious flaws in her argument. One, I wish that student would follow up with this simple question, "You were authorized by who, again?"
Consider this: If my brain told my hands to kill someone, would that not violate the law and not a murder then? Trust me, my brain is totally convince that it is right and totally justified. I know, I know. You'll say that the brain and the hands are part of the same person. Well, just like the White House and the Justice Department are the same Administration.
Two, I am sure you have seen this clip from 32 years ago, of the former President Nixon which he said, "When the president does it, that means that is not illegal." And remember, Nixon was impeached and resigned in disgrace. Bush and Cheney should have too.
Now, imagine if you were able to ask Saddam Hussein: "President Hussein, what gave you the right to torture and killed thousands of Iraqi". His answer probably would be , "Since I am the President (of Iraq), that means there were not illegal."
If these are the best argument the Bush Gang can come up with, that is a slippery slope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)