Security and the Republicans

Here’s a story in the New York Times: Suddenly, a Rebellion in the
G.O.P. on a Signature Issue Basically the argument is that some Repuiblicans are beginning to break ranks with the White House even on security issues, which have hitherto been seen as a place to close up ranks. They hope to separate themselves from the ever unpopular George Bush by doing this. Many want to appear more “moderate” than Bush.

That’s a joke right?

The Times itself, in an editorial, slams the decision not to investigate the illegal wiretapping program undertaken by the Administration as “breathtakingly cycnical” … so where is this breaking of ranks? Where is the “moderation”? On the Dubai ports management contract. On one issue. One. And that an issue more based upon xenophobia than on security. Hardly a moderate posityion.

These so called rebellious Republicans have stood aside while the Bush regime has executed a relentless series of assaults on American civil liberties and human rights all in the name of security. Worse: they have been complicit in this program, they have abrogated their constituional role as watchdogs in order to pursue single minded partisan politics. The entire Republican Congressional delegation has closed ranks behind Bush ever since 9/11. They made security a partisan issue. And now we are supposed to be encouraged that one or two are “breaking ranks” as Bush’s poll numbers threaten to prevent re-election for some of them this Fall?

Nuts!

Moderation was long since expelled from the Republican party. Any Republican who tries to position themselves as moderate by opposing Bush now is flat out lying … unless, of course they have opposed him in all his attacks on our liberty. None have done that. So none are moderate.