Bush vs. Clinton

The Second Amendment Correspondent and I have been good friends for quite some time. While I find no fault with most of his comment about the previous post, I must take issue with its ending.

Here’s the SAC’s final paragraph. (Emphasis added by The Home Office.)

Bush's real "crime" here is once again doing things without any regard for how his office will appear to the American people. And yes, he has repeatedly said that he won't tolerate criminal behaviour in his administration. Then again so did Clinton.

This is a common Republican failing. They spent eight years vilifying Bill Clinton for everything he did. Now, no matter how egregious Bush’s actions, they immediately compare it to something Clinton did, or to Clinton’s character.

Isn’t that self-setting the bar awfully low? To say that Clinton is a low-life, bottom-feeding, son of a bitch, then continually compare your guy to him every time he’s criticized, is to admit Bush is a low-life, bottom-feeding son of a bitch, at best.

Bill Clinton is a detestable human being. I wouldn’t walk across the street to shake his hand, and I wouldn’t allow my daughter to be I the same room as him. That being said, his Administration paid for things as they went, and the Constitution wasn’t treated as something only he had the power to interpret. George Bush has been a catastrophe to the nation he swore to defend; the damage he has done to our standing and respect abroad is immeasurable and will take years to repair. The damage done to our domestic institutions may be irreparable. To compare his record of malfeasance to anyone else is not unlike comparing a swale in your backyard to the Grand Canyon.

Written on the Fourth of July

In celebration of the 231^st anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, The Home Office is printing the letter that was sent today to Senators Mikulski and Cardin, and House Majority Leader Hoyer.

Dear -----,

President Bush’s pardon of Scooter Libby shows his complete disregard for the responsibilities of the presidency, but also a lack of common sense. Anyone elected by his razor-thin margins should be painfully aware of the need to reach out to ensure he is the president of all the people, not just those who got him the job.

I suspect Scooter Libby is a fall guy. Either his lawyers declined to call Vice President Cheney as a witness in the hope that the president would express some form of clemency, or the deal had already been brokered. Libby isn’t the problem here; he’s the symptom.

George W. Bush has shown a complete disregard for mercy or clemency for many years, extending back to his tenure as governor of Texas. No execution deserved a stay under his rule. He has often expressed an opinion that all sentences should be carried out in full, and the will of a jury should never be overturned. To make a complete change of direction is one thing; to start with a personal associate is disingenuous and unconscionable.

President Bush and his supporters in and out of government often refer to the “unitary executive,” and claim it as a Constitutional principle. Anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of the Constitution’s origins knows better. The Founding Fathers had learned from the failure of the Articles of Confederation that a strong executive was necessary to hold together factions and broker compromise. Their fresh memories of living under a king, and the potential for abuse inherent in unchecked power, led them to fill the Constitution with limitations on executive power and privilege.

There is no question a president does not have many of the powers the office’s current inhabitant has claimed for himself; or, even worse, those claimed by Vice President Cheney. Congress alone has the power to rein in such abuses, and for too long has allowed executive ambition to remain unfettered. Please take this opportunity to say, “No more.” Mr. Bush is either president to all of us, or to none of us. Surely he must answer to all of us, and Congress is the only instrument the people have to exercise their will, outside of an election. Please do not fail us.

Do You Hear Me Now?

From the Washington Post’s In the Loop column of July 2, 2007, by Michael J. Fletcher

Maybe it was the school setting, but [President] Bush was leaving nothing to chance in explaining the world to the audience at the Naval War College. "Remember," he said at one point, "when I mention al-Qaeda, they're the ones who attacked the United States of America and killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001."

Oh, that al-Qaeda.