cherydactyl: (tired)
[personal profile] cherydactyl
As a follow up to my recent post (which was reposted from [livejournal.com profile] djinnthespazz) about President Bush's quote saying that wiretaps need a court order while apparently ordering warrantless wiretaps...

moveon.org is currently gathering electronic signatures for a petition on this very issue. If you are as concerned as I about the actions of the Bush administration, please consider signing this petition!!! Here is information from moveon:

Subject: The President Broke the Law

President Bush admitted to personally authorizing thousands of allegedly illegal wiretaps, and he doesn't plan to stop. Circumventing the Constitution is serious business. This is a big moment. People from across the political spectrum are standing together to protect the rule of law and the principles that are core to our identity as Americans.

Can you sign this petition to show Congress that Americans want a thorough investigation of the president's secret wiretapping program?

http://political.moveon.org/ruleoflaw/

Date: 2006-01-18 07:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pegasus-99.livejournal.com
I signed, but asking Alberto Gonzalez to investigate Bush is like telling the Wolf to make the Fox stop raiding the chickenhouse.

Date: 2006-01-18 08:11 pm (UTC)
ext_202578: (Default)
From: [identity profile] cherydactyl.livejournal.com
I agree. This is chiefly for Congress, IMO, because they at least have some kind of reason to care what actual people think. Well, more than administration officials. The thought that we could actually shame someone in the Bush administration first requires you to think they pay attention to what anybody outside their own circle says. Riiight.

Date: 2006-01-18 08:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nicegeek.livejournal.com
Unfortunately, any campaign by MoveOn.org calling for action against the President is likely to get as much attention as Rush Limbaugh slamming John Kerry; it's just not news. It becomes a story when Independents and Republicans also join in denouncing it. I'd keep an eye on Arlan Specter and John McCain, and lobby any other Republicans who profess to be against intrusive government.

Date: 2006-01-18 09:27 pm (UTC)
ext_202578: (Default)
From: [identity profile] cherydactyl.livejournal.com
If they got a lot of signatures...I mean a lot...they could get somebody to pay attention. It's worth a shot, AFAIAC.

Bushism...

Date: 2006-01-19 12:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beginnermind.livejournal.com
But, the administration doesn't break the law, therefore they aren't illegal wiretaps.*grin*

I might not find it funny in a week. We're about to elect someone who seems to have his head lodged somewhere up Bush's nether regions, I fear. But still, people bent this far from straight, sometimes a good mocking is all you can do.

Re: Bushism...

Date: 2006-01-24 01:27 am (UTC)
ext_202578: (Default)
From: [identity profile] cherydactyl.livejournal.com
you are so right. Mocking, and patience. Mocking to fill the time. bleah.

Re: Bushism...

Date: 2006-01-24 07:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] beginnermind.livejournal.com
Dunno that you're following at all, but we did elect the Conservative Party in Canada, which I was sort of worried about. Still am, but it's mitigated by the fact that it's a minority government, so thank goodness for that.:)

Minority Government in a non-two-party system, in case you're not familiar with the idea, means that the Government can't pass bills without working things out with at least one of the other parties because they've less than half the seats; failure passing a required vote and the government resigns, too, so they have to play nice. So, all in all, not as bad as it could have been.

The up side is that our satirists (if that's a real word) can look forward to a lot of material in the near future, I suppose.

Re: Bushism...

Date: 2006-01-24 09:22 pm (UTC)
ext_202578: (Default)
From: [identity profile] cherydactyl.livejournal.com
I had heard about this morning on NPR. Teh Dian Rhiem show had somebody on talking about the fact that this is a fairly weak government, due to only winning a plurality, and about some implications of this. I remember then saying the new governent won't be able to make big changes because of that frailty. The example cited was messing with the CBC.

I have passing familiarity with Parlimentary government...mainly from having Canadian friends over the years, watching and hearing BBC (our local NPR station has an hour of BBC World News every morning and the PBS station here has BBC TV news in the evening, though I hardly ever watch that), and the references in cultural stuff such as Dr. Who. Living in SE Michigan means I even watch CBC sometimes...much better Olympics coverage than US networks, Saturday am curling when I was a kid, etc.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure 'satirists' IS a real word.

Profile

cherydactyl: (Default)
cherydactyl

September 2010

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26 27282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 12th, 2025 11:24 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios