I'm not a Bush apologist, and there's almost no way to spin the quiet signing of a bill as anything but sneaky. But your ire is directed at the wrong target. Before the bill ever reached the President's desk, it was passed by both houses of Congress. Passage in the House was a foregone conclusion; there's nothing a minority can do. In the Senate, however, the same Democrats who can muster forty-something votes to keep a judge from getting a floor vote wouldn't do a thing to stop this.
Hate Bush all you like, but try not to squirm too much. He's your president for the next five years, regardless. But he's the last stop on the legislative line; he can't sign a bill that doesn't reach his desk.
There are no Bush apologists, because his ilk are too righteous to ever apologize for anything.
That said, I do agree that Congress deserves some significan blame here (with the note that Congress is currently controlled by Bush's party, and has its metaphoric lips attached firmly to Dubya's nether regions).
I don't think so. The President and I disagree on a fair number of social and economic issues (no surprise; I'm a radical libertarian). However, I do believe that he is quite intelligent, and has some strong core beliefs. He listens to his advisors, but they're not his puppet masters. Whatever his problems, I don't think listening to the wrong people is one of the more serious ones.
Maybe you're just not using the right value of "patriot". I thought ehe Congressional dictionary defined a "patriot" as someone who worships the very ground that any member of Congress or the Presidential administration has trod on, has no greater ambition than to spend the remainder of their life accompanying their Congressman on their hands and knees licking clean the ground he or she is about to step on, and will gladly throw themselves down into puddles of toxic waste rather than allow one of these gods in human form to get their Manolo Blahnik shoes soiled.
Why, a true Patriot KNOWS that when his elected (for some values of "elected") representative (for some values of "represent") votes in favor of some legislation on a voice vote in order that there be no record of who actually cast the votes in favor, it's merely to protect this paragon of virtue and integrity's constituents from the necessity of selling their firstborn children into slavery in order to raise sufficient funds for a suitable honorarium to truly show their appreciation of how their Divine Manifestation In Human Form is serving their needs even if they don't realize they need to be so served.
After all, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that the slimy ratfinks aren't willing to go on the public record as having knowingly voted for legislation that's a blatant and obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, could it?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Hate Bush all you like, but try not to squirm too much. He's your president for the next five years, regardless. But he's the last stop on the legislative line; he can't sign a bill that doesn't reach his desk.
no subject
That said, I do agree that Congress deserves some significan blame here (with the note that Congress is currently controlled by Bush's party, and has its metaphoric lips attached firmly to Dubya's nether regions).
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Why, a true Patriot KNOWS that when his elected (for some values of "elected") representative (for some values of "represent") votes in favor of some legislation on a voice vote in order that there be no record of who actually cast the votes in favor, it's merely to protect this paragon of virtue and integrity's constituents from the necessity of selling their firstborn children into slavery in order to raise sufficient funds for a suitable honorarium to truly show their appreciation of how their Divine Manifestation In Human Form is serving their needs even if they don't realize they need to be so served.
After all, it couldn't POSSIBLY be that the slimy ratfinks aren't willing to go on the public record as having knowingly voted for legislation that's a blatant and obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment, could it?