![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More on sullied Andrew
He says he has gotten abunch of letters berating him for his stand. He has published two.
This one (the one he has on the letters page, not on the main) does a good job of summing it up, If I were you I would be wary of telling military pilots on how they should think about any mission. His statement was not some act of fear or sedition. It was just a statement of truth no one likes to get shot at - especially helicopter pilots - we tend to make good targets. As a military pilot for 15 years, I'm proud I've been in combat but if you think for one minute I wouldn't relish the opportunity to make a difference like LCDR Whitsitt, you are mistaken.
His whiney explanation of why he said that (army are for breaking things, not fixing them, and we need to remember that, well it ain't enough.
Worse (as if that mattered is his apolgia for Gonzales; Short version; Bush won, get over it.
Long version: GONZALES AND TORTURE: In my opinion, no one who has enabled and sanctioned the potential and actual use of torture should become attorney general of the United States. But I'm not the president; and he doesn't see it that way. And the people who re-elected him had plenty of opportunity to avail themselves of the fact that this administration has quietly enabled torture of inmates in American custody, and that Gonzales played a critical role in making the legal case for such previously outlawed practices. The Bush administration's use of torture - to the point of death in at least five cases and possibly 23 more - was one reason I found it impossible to support the president's re-election. But this is a democracy. And my candidate lost. Gonzales isn't being nominated to the Supreme Court; he's being nominated to become the president's chief law enforcer; and, in general, the president deserves the benefit of the doubt on his own picks.
He follows this with a weak comment that disagreements with this should be aired, but the feeling I get from it is argument is all that should happen... Bush ought to get what he wants.
This one (the one he has on the letters page, not on the main) does a good job of summing it up, If I were you I would be wary of telling military pilots on how they should think about any mission. His statement was not some act of fear or sedition. It was just a statement of truth no one likes to get shot at - especially helicopter pilots - we tend to make good targets. As a military pilot for 15 years, I'm proud I've been in combat but if you think for one minute I wouldn't relish the opportunity to make a difference like LCDR Whitsitt, you are mistaken.
His whiney explanation of why he said that (army are for breaking things, not fixing them, and we need to remember that, well it ain't enough.
Worse (as if that mattered is his apolgia for Gonzales; Short version; Bush won, get over it.
Long version: GONZALES AND TORTURE: In my opinion, no one who has enabled and sanctioned the potential and actual use of torture should become attorney general of the United States. But I'm not the president; and he doesn't see it that way. And the people who re-elected him had plenty of opportunity to avail themselves of the fact that this administration has quietly enabled torture of inmates in American custody, and that Gonzales played a critical role in making the legal case for such previously outlawed practices. The Bush administration's use of torture - to the point of death in at least five cases and possibly 23 more - was one reason I found it impossible to support the president's re-election. But this is a democracy. And my candidate lost. Gonzales isn't being nominated to the Supreme Court; he's being nominated to become the president's chief law enforcer; and, in general, the president deserves the benefit of the doubt on his own picks.
He follows this with a weak comment that disagreements with this should be aired, but the feeling I get from it is argument is all that should happen... Bush ought to get what he wants.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Time and Opportunity
I do not doubt without knowing his background that he is fully aware of who he is before this nomination and what and who he will become if appointed.
It's how he behaves all around that matters to me. If he has to guarantee each move he makes by a tenet before he hears any facts of any particular case, then I would rather put Santa Claus in the Supreme Court than this man. This man is not a man but a weapon for the conservative right. Any man appointed for those reasons would vote the same way.
It's his last name that gets him nominated and if it were any other balance of power, I would look at him and read his qualifications and hope this was a fair choice.
But with Judge Thomas and this newbie, I feel men are at war among themselves and women can only do battle in the home to stop the many things that are about to be taken from us. The freedom to choose who is our commander in our home and how soon we are either whores with no wedding ring or married women with children maybe?