/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Why are they Republicans

--posted by Tony Garcia on 11/15/2005

Senate Republicans are pushing for an exit plan. They do this for one reason and one reason only: election year.

This story comes from the New York Times so there is a fighting chance the quotes are 100% misrepresented.

The article:
In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.
What really is there to challenge? Are these thugs covered by the Geneva Convention? No. Are they Americans or LEGALIZED citizens? No. As a result these spawns of Satan should have ZERO access to our courts. ZERO.

More freightening than the enemy being offered the chance to use our judicial system to abet their murderous means is the fact that the Senate Republicans are talking about this.

I have been weighing the possibility of leaving the GOP. This type of behavior from Republican Senators just helps me walk closer to the door. This is not about any principle whatsoever. This is about ONE THING: elections.

The Chair of the Democrats basically admitted that the Democrats have no principle outside of campaigning. 'We will announce our principles when the campaigns start' tells me there is not a principle...only a strategy.

The Republicans are just as bad. What are the principles of the Republicans? I know what they SAY, but what they do is entirely different.

I say, vote 'em all out. The Congressional GOP is no different from the Congressional Dems. They all only care about one thing: next year's election.

********** UPDATE **********
Andy at Residual Forces has a great post on this topic. His basic conclusion is one that I support: "I will not be supporting the NRSC. I will support individual candidates taht I believe to be worthy, but I will not give money to the Senate Republicans as a whole, as I feel they are doing harm to the Nation. Not One More Dime!!!!!!!"

Count me in.


Blogger AAARF said...

Now that sounds kind of familiar. Only interested in elections. Hummmmm.

I wouldn't put on your coat quite yet, this is rallying the troops. Hugh is all over it. He linked to me on this one, and my traffic is off the charts.

I'm willing to bet this one comes back to bite these SOBs in the rear. They will suffer from it.

November 15, 2005  
Blogger Marty said...

I'm all for winning elections, but you need to stand for something too. Senate GOPers have failed in standing for anything.

November 15, 2005  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

When you "stand for something" you have to stand for it all the way. In other words if you have a principle there can be no equivocations on that principle.

For example, you hold to the principle that the most important thing is pro-life policy. There can be little to no deviation from that in order to call that a principle.

When you (in a generic sense) have many exceptions to a principle (e.g. the principle of small government for the GOP) it can more accurately be said there is no principles.

When the focus is ONLY on elections the individuals who change their positions become unworthy of the office as they have no principles.

This is why I was upset with a majority of the anti-Miers crowd, the DeLay knee-jerk defenders and the Libby equivocators. If there is a principle of right-vs-wrong there will be times when you have to cast aside your own.

Perhaps it is time to cast aside the incumbant GOP members for the principles of the GOP.

I will hold my membership card to see how well we clean house in the primaries.

November 16, 2005  
Blogger tom said...

"Are these thugs covered by the Geneva Convention? No. Are they Americans or LEGALIZED citizens? No. As a result these spawns of Satan should have ZERO access to our courts. ZERO."

yeah, yeah, here I am. I didn't go away.

Do you mean naturalized citizens or legal residents? Should my wife get arrested (admittedly, unlikely) she would not come under the Geneva convetions, nor is she a citizen. Does she get zero access to courts? If she's labeled an enemy combatant can she be tortured?

On the one hand, I expect you to say, "of course not..." On the other hand you're casting a wide net here.

November 16, 2005  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

A legal citizen should have access to the courts.

An illegal citizen should not.

Someone captured as a suspected terrorist does not get American Court access.

Members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations do not get coverage under the Geneva Conventions. They are, in my view, able to be tortured under the proper circumstances.

Lindsey England and her fellow morons are NOT the people that should be allowed to torture enemy combatants. The real-life versions of Mitch Rapp and Jack what's-his-name from 24 SHOULD be allowed to torture the enemy combatants.

War is hell...they should not have picked the fight.

The pity is that the supposed strong-on-defense GOP does not have the spine to fight the WAR. They are playing nasty and for keeps. So should we.

Our enemies should always know that we are both capable and willing to go a step above them to defeat them.

November 16, 2005  
Blogger tom said...

In that case you mean legal resident. My wife is not a citizen and there's no such thing as an illegal citizen (as far as I know, but I'm no lawyer)- hence the confusion.

November 17, 2005  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Boy, take a day off ill from work and the brain completely shuts down.

Yes, I meant illegal alien/resident and legal alien/resident.

November 17, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home