How to Get Rid of a President
Twice in this blog I've mentioned that I'm not very "savvy" on the American Constitution, which means by my own standards that I shouldn't be writing about it. So I spent this morning reading it, and making notes (thanks, Word, for cut'n'paste). Of course there's the bit everyone knows about High Crimes and Misdemeanours, which is a bit weasel-worded and judging by the late Mr. Nixon they have to be pretty high (in the old sense of "high meat", i.e. stinking and rotten), and more importantly, you have to get well and truly caught. I don't for a moment suspect GWB of being as intelligent - oops, I mean corrupt - as Richard Milhouse, and besides, the Democrats are perfectly capable (and seemingly happy) to shoot their own selves in the foot nowadays. I'm certainly not suggesting that any honest politician should be making capital out of a disaster like Katrina, but if ever there was a moment to savage the President in the name of the people, this is it.
So, reading on through the Constitution, I came across a definition of "Treason" which might be applicable in this case; it's in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1, and it goes like this: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort (my italics)". It goes on to say that two witnesses are required to each or any treasonous action, which is okay because a few million of us at the very least have been watching GWB giving aid, comfort and probably (such is the unpleasantness of human nature) much hilarity to the enemies of the US by his total incompetence.
In the last week I've seen things on the BBC and CNN that will stay with me until I die. I've seen extraordinary human courage and endurance, great dignity in the face of misery and loss, acts of kindness and generosity - none of which amounted to the proverbial hill of beans, because there was nothing to eat, and more deadly still, nothing to drink. Thirst is a terrible way to die; I haven't experienced it myself, since I'm clearly alive and typing, but during chemotherapy a couple of years ago I suffered from massive dehydration almost all the time, and I can tell you that there were times when I couldn't get water for myself and I wanted to die. There must have been hundreds, thousands maybe, of people who died from thirst in that searing heat; we'll never know, of course, and maybe it's better that we don't. If you have the empathy to imagine what it must be like to have nothing to drink but your own urine, then you probably don't want to know how many people died that way.
So, reading on through the Constitution, I came across a definition of "Treason" which might be applicable in this case; it's in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1, and it goes like this: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort (my italics)". It goes on to say that two witnesses are required to each or any treasonous action, which is okay because a few million of us at the very least have been watching GWB giving aid, comfort and probably (such is the unpleasantness of human nature) much hilarity to the enemies of the US by his total incompetence.
In the last week I've seen things on the BBC and CNN that will stay with me until I die. I've seen extraordinary human courage and endurance, great dignity in the face of misery and loss, acts of kindness and generosity - none of which amounted to the proverbial hill of beans, because there was nothing to eat, and more deadly still, nothing to drink. Thirst is a terrible way to die; I haven't experienced it myself, since I'm clearly alive and typing, but during chemotherapy a couple of years ago I suffered from massive dehydration almost all the time, and I can tell you that there were times when I couldn't get water for myself and I wanted to die. There must have been hundreds, thousands maybe, of people who died from thirst in that searing heat; we'll never know, of course, and maybe it's better that we don't. If you have the empathy to imagine what it must be like to have nothing to drink but your own urine, then you probably don't want to know how many people died that way.
I feel that the clincher for Bush will be the number of people who lost their lives btween the end of Katrina herself and the arrival of the emergency services - the Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency, something like that? According to a very hacked off truck-driver, his lorry had been loaded up with water bottles in Texas on Monday, but he didn't get permission to go into New Orleans until Thursday. Watching from across the Atlantic, on the BBC's rolling news converage and through the blogosphere, it seemed that the first people to go in were SWAT teams with orders to "shoot to kill" looters - and by day 3 or 4 anyone who wanted to eat or drink was forced to become a looter. Certainly, property rights are important, but not more so than human life - any human life. And yes, I do include the young black guy with the armful of designer jeans in that; I think that clip must have been played a thousand times, every time the word "looting" was mentioned in fact.
So all in all, this President has been providing quite some aid and comfort to America's enemies, as far as I can see. It must be a huge morale-booster to any anti-American organisations, to know that the Administration is so incapable. What better incentive to mount another terrorist attack than the conviction, fostered by the FEMA debacle and the cavalier attitude of Bush and Congress (still golfing, guys?), that the US is run by incompetents for the elite? Surely all Al Qaeda need to do is wait until the next Recess, and they'll have at least a 3-day head start?
There's another article in the Constitution (Section 3), namely that "(the President) may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both (the Houses) or either of them", something which GWB signally failed to do. He didn't even convene himself! If the destruction of New Orleans was an "extraordinary occasion", I'd like to know what he's waiting for - the War of the Worlds?
Maybe, just maybe, all American citizens good and true should take another look at your Constitution, and re-read it in the light of an outsider. Maybe, because you learn it at school the way we British learn Shakespeare (we don't have a Constitution), you don't pay enough attention to what it means. Has your President been grossly negligent, and has this given "aid and comfort" to America's enemies? I think so. I think a lot of lunatic fringes all over the world will be seeing this as God's punishment for this, that or the other, and Bush's incompetence will be seen as a further chastisement, even an encouragement. It's time to get rid; how many more years can you afford to babysit a lame-duck administration? Wake up and smell the rotting bodies, America; most of us are crying with you, but a lot of people will be laughing.
So all in all, this President has been providing quite some aid and comfort to America's enemies, as far as I can see. It must be a huge morale-booster to any anti-American organisations, to know that the Administration is so incapable. What better incentive to mount another terrorist attack than the conviction, fostered by the FEMA debacle and the cavalier attitude of Bush and Congress (still golfing, guys?), that the US is run by incompetents for the elite? Surely all Al Qaeda need to do is wait until the next Recess, and they'll have at least a 3-day head start?
There's another article in the Constitution (Section 3), namely that "(the President) may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both (the Houses) or either of them", something which GWB signally failed to do. He didn't even convene himself! If the destruction of New Orleans was an "extraordinary occasion", I'd like to know what he's waiting for - the War of the Worlds?
Maybe, just maybe, all American citizens good and true should take another look at your Constitution, and re-read it in the light of an outsider. Maybe, because you learn it at school the way we British learn Shakespeare (we don't have a Constitution), you don't pay enough attention to what it means. Has your President been grossly negligent, and has this given "aid and comfort" to America's enemies? I think so. I think a lot of lunatic fringes all over the world will be seeing this as God's punishment for this, that or the other, and Bush's incompetence will be seen as a further chastisement, even an encouragement. It's time to get rid; how many more years can you afford to babysit a lame-duck administration? Wake up and smell the rotting bodies, America; most of us are crying with you, but a lot of people will be laughing.
posted by holojojo at 1:31 AM
2 Comments:
Don't forget that these Republicans called a special session to save Terry Shievo.
But Bush Cut FEMA Preperation Funding!
The Bush administration cut the funding for FEMA pre-disaster mitigation in April 2001 just after they took office. Then they gave this money to the wealthy in their tax cuts. If these Republicans can get votes because they promise to cut taxes, they should loose votes when those tax cuts kill people...
http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-09-22/cover.html
Hi Doc,
Unfortunately, this is the kind of direct linkage (tax-cuts = reduced public services = actual human suffering) which is difficult to make clear to people who aren't pundits. The people most affected in this instance probably don't have the time or money to get online and find out the "background radiation" of Bush's Republicanism. And why should he casre? They aren't going to vote for him and his ilk anyway.
The people who profited from the tax cuts you mention are the rich - the influential opinion formers who own the media and shape the public's awareness of what is happening in their own country. How many people fet their world view from, for instance, The National Enquirer? What percent of the US media is owned or influenced by Rupert Murdoch? Here in the UK he reaches a terrifying precentage of the population (I'm researching this at the moment) through satellite TV,newspapers and magazines.
The incredible rise of the blogosphere (in a scant decade, if that, it's become a source of information for, crucially perhaps, the young, literate and politically aware) is very encouraging for the future, but let's not forget that at the moment, liberal bloogers are read almost exclusively by - er - liberal bloggers.
Post a Comment
<< Home