You know, based upon your entire post, I think we feel basically the same way. I became concerned with the above quoted remark, that I had been too harsh or perhaps relayed a feeling of contempt more than my "utter bewilderment". So with the help of the Robinson's great search tools I took the opportunity to go back and re-read my comments on the topic as they specifically pertained to the President. This thread has been about beat to death more than necessary anyway so I will post them below.
I stated: "I am just extremely disappointed in his apparent willingness to abrogate his responsibility and, in my and quite apparently others views, violate The Oath of Office, required by that same Constitution he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend."
Followed by: "But I really don't understand all the hyperbole in your attacks upon people, whose posts I have read that are quite honestly, as I, in a deep quandary concerning GW's principled integrity, based upon HIS actions and statements."
Finally: "There may be some that can justify this action by the congress and then GW, while apparently there are many who feel absolutely abandoned. It is not a bright day for the Republic. The cruelest cut for many it seems was our absolute exuberance in supporting and voting for GW. While he is a great deal better CINC than the "draft dodger" we endured for the previous eight years, he seems, alas to be a politician first and foremost."
I really attempted to choose my words quite carefully with terms like "he seems, "deep quandary concerning GW's principled integrity, based upon HIS actions and statements", and ""I am just extremely disappointed in his apparent willingness to abrogate his responsibility ..."
I sit here typing this with an autographed picture of GW at my left shoulder, in appreciation for financial support I gave the man directly, not through the GOP. I want to "reserve judgement". But does that mean I have to ignore my concerns and disappointment? Or more to the point muzzle my political speech right to question our elected leaders when, by most any translation they are violating both the Consitution and their Oaths of office? I'm sorry, but if walking in muzzled lock step is what you mean by "reserving judgement", I can't do that. I don't think that is what you said or meant to suggest. So, I sincerely would like you or anyone to give me a "principled" reason not to voice my concerns. I really won't buy into the "political" gains argument. It smacks of the Trent Lottian/Stevensian view "that since we can't get enough votes to convict, we will forego a "real trial" with "real live witnesses". There has to be a point where pricipled fidelity to the Constitution and Oath's of Office have to trump political risk or gain. If we continue to be willing to look the other way, there will soon be no other way to look.
You're responding to the wrong post. I wrote"The attitude I am taking is that he is prosecuted and not convicted." Hardly a directive to muzzle free speech. W has not defended himself. His actions before this bill and in promising to sign it are utterly incongruent. I'm still open to an explanation