Lame
Dear Zappatero:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Feingold's resolution to censure the President concerning warrantless wiretaps.
No problem. Thanks for sending me this robot response to my well-reasoned and well-thought-out critique of your deafening silence on this important matter.
I believe that warrantless spying on Americans is extremely serious. I also believe that Congress must insist on collecting all of the facts about any warrantless spying program and thoroughly accounting for precisely what actions were taken by the Administration before considering other action.
Hey Ken! You're a member of congress. What a coincidence. I guess that means you're going to do something, right?
Censure of an American president has occurred only once in our history, back in the early days of our Republic, when Andrew Jackson was President.
I'm glad you know that Andrew Jackson was censured. Hey, it's a first step. For that I applaud your history teacher. Now, please check out the reasons for his censure here at Wikipedia. Jackson's censure was for a serious offense, yes. Bush's violations rank right up there with Jackson's. I feel they are far more pervasive and dangerous to our democracy than Jackson's actions. I hope you can see the obvious.
Thank you again for writing.
np. Let's do lunch sometime.
Sincerely,
Well, I'll take your word for it.
Ken Salazar
United States Senate
posted by Zappatero @ 6:31 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Shockingly I got that same letter.
Yeah, so did I. Ken Salazar once said before the election that he would vote pretty much like Campbell. We helped elect this piss-poor excuse for a Democrat anyway. Someone please tell me Coors would have been worse...
Got the same response too...here's my response to his response that I sent back that same day:
Sen. Salazar,
Thank you for your reply, however your seemingly "wait and see" attitude troubles me. As you say, you believe that "Congress should insist on collecting the facts about any warrantless spying program and thoroughly accounting for precisely what actions were taken by the Administration before considering other action." How exactly can that happen when Sen. Roberts has repeatedly blocked initiation, completion, and reporting of such issues time and again regardless of promises to follow through? It seems to me that the double-speak, contradictions, and clear unwillingness to answer questions on the matter from President Bush himself as well as people in his administration and intelligence agencies indicate a clear intention to mislead the American people on this matter. I want to know what is really going on and since the Senate Intelligence Committee is unable to accomplish the job they were assigned to perform, then a public rebuke is an alternative in order to get this Administration to answer for their actions.
And how exactly does the number of times an American President has been censured figure into the matter? It seems to me that Sen. Feingold's step to censure the President is a clear indication of just how serious President Bush has misled the American public, particularly when polled Americans show significant support of the censure resolution. Don't you think? And how do you figure the reasons for censure of President Bush compare with the reasons behind a resolution to censure President Clinton in December 1998? In my humble opinion, Clinton's transgressions pale in comparison.
Thank you for your time...
Post a Comment
<< Home