Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Face The Nation

While I’m not a big fan of John McCain, I have always been impressed by John Warner…Lindsey Graham was a fellow I’d seen a lot from in some instances, but overall I’d have been reluctant to call myself a fan of his, although I have written positively on him in the past.  Lawyers are difficult creatures to trust in the first place, and since a great number of Senators happen to share this attribute, it’s sometimes difficult to hear their voice for even a minute without instinctively checking to make sure your wallet is still in your back pocket, which is doubly strange considering their voice is inside a radio or television.  A few times during the questioning of AG Gonzalez though, it was very easy to sense a great difference between Graham and one of his more empty-suit colleagues like Orin Hatch, as he wouldn’t simply pretend that he was addressing a talk radio convention, but actually play the role of a Senator with something at stake, and sometimes it would even come across as if what was at stake had more to do with the republic than himself.

Yesterday I was blown away by Senator Graham when he was asked by the wrinkled talking head about whether or not there was concern over how his constituency would respond to his positions.  Those being that in order for this country to retain the high ground as well as the ability to tell the world with a straight face that our democracy is something to emulate, it would be a grievous error to implement a policy that allowed the government to try, convict and possibly execute a terrorist suspect without having allowed the accused to even see the evidence being presented against them.  The talking head asked him this and in response Graham said something to the effect of, “the United States will do fine if Lindsey Graham is no longer a senator, but if we begin convicting people of crimes without providing them the evidence being used to make the case, we’ll be a worse off in the end…imagine if Iran or North Korea captured one of ours, tried, convicted and executed them without having provided an opportunity to see and dispute the evidence against them, Americans wouldn’t stand for it…so whether or not I’m reelected isn’t relevant on the level of this point in our history and what we decide to do at this point in regards to these detainees.”  I paraphrased there, but that was the crux of it, and it gave me a great feeling to hear him say it.

Plenty of politicians of all levels and stripes would never have the strength of conviction to forego their own popularity and future success for the sake of something they believed in, as was the case with Kerry in 2004, how he tiptoed around with his language on the Iraq War and the Swiftboat people, it wasn’t until there was less to lose that he finally had the nerve to talk about all of this like a man.  One example of thousands I suppose, politicians haven’t the heart or the stomach for one day having to contemplate their career and how it all seemed to slip away that time they went out there naked and stood up for something they believed in, regardless of the polling data.  Because being right and knowing that you’re right are inconsequential matters to those people whose only ambition is to someday have more power than they do today.  To these creatures the job they hold has more to do with them than it does all that lofty bullshit we learn in school about the government.

I can’t say that about Lindsey Graham.  He’s just vaulted himself up into the Chuck Hagel, Russ Feingold, John Murtha stratosphere as far as I’m concerned, and for now at least he’s made me feel proud to be an American…for a couple of days I’m going to have this good feeling and hope that he keeps it up for as long as it takes.  Because the people have to know about this…the administration has attempted to muck up the debate on this issue for quite a while now, especially Bush himself who was presented with the “if one of ours was captured by Iran or North Korea…” scenario in a news conference last week, and he basically stated that it wouldn’t matter to him, that as long as they went by our standard he’d be fine with it.  David Gregory asked him the question, and the President chided him for presenting scenarios because they didn’t mean anything to him…no, at this point it’s about getting what he wants, defeating the people who are currently standing in his way, and apparently if he doesn’t get what he wants, it’ll be “Screw you guys, I’m going home”.

He’s saying that if he doesn’t get his convictions without having to allow the defendants to see the evidence against them (probably because there isn’t any evidence to present in some cases), he’s going to shut down the interrogation program, supposedly for the sake of those tasked to carry out the interrogations, which is just perfect if you think about it.  While he says that an American captured, tried, convicted and executed by Iran without having seen the evidence they were convicted on is alright, all of a sudden he really cares about the interrogators out there trying to do their job without clear guidelines to rely on.  As if that hasn’t been a concern since day one, since Abu Gharib…well, after the supreme court told him he was wrong, I guess it was at that point he started paying attention to such things, and so now he’s responsible for the government being in possession of hundreds of suspects, some guilty of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and rather than figure out who should be there and who shouldn’t, he wants to be bailed out, allowed to just declare them guilty of something and move on.

Senator Graham isn’t going to allow that to happen by the looks of it.  And he’s right, as is Colon Powell, that if we were to allow this to happen, it would be a hindrance to our ability to claim legitimacy in the world when it comes to our wars, our laws and the fact that our will carries along with it the greatest opportunity for justice for the little people living in places where such an ideal has never existed outside of their own dreaming minds.  And so it goes this butchered piece of American history, where one minute we’re being told that Iraqis will finally benefit from the comfort of justice in their world, concepts drawn from our own great system of government, and the next it’s all about how justice is to be considered a privilege rather than a right in the case of certain little people we’d rather just exterminate…you know, for the sake of convenience.  Dyslexic to the bone – – – how it’s always been with feeble-minded leaders throughout history – – – at least in this country someone like Senator Graham can actually manage to throw a monkey wrench into the works once in a while!

This entry was posted in Words. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Face The Nation

  1. S. R. says:

    Graham is South Carolinian if I am correct. I do agree, he is one of the few Republicans I don’t outright fail to trust.

  2. Dusty says:

    There are 4 Repubes that stood against the Prez, with the Democrats, on the issue of torture and due process:

    Warner
    McCain
    Graham
    Collins

    Those are the only Repubes I respect at this point

  3. The bill is still in committee, so we can’t really judge the senators who haven’t voted on it yet…which is probably 80%(?). The political strategy is to get it to the floor somehow, so it can become an issue that talk radio and the White House can use to target specific Democrats who are vulnerable in a reelection race (Lieberman comes to mind) and not in need of bad press…they’d only need a couple to flip in order to get this voted through even w/ these four republicans voting no then as well…Lincoln Chaffe, Hagel…can’t see them voting in favor of these changes, but that’s the thing…once it gets on the floor, everybody’s got to watch out for their own heads.

    In the house you’ve got a lot of idiots who were elected by a lot more idiots, using talking points that were no longer passable a year ago in serious political discussion, such as: “if you call for withdrawal you’re a coward”, “if we don’t fight in Iraq, we’ll be fighting the terrorists in ______(add the name of the town you’re in that day)”, “dinosaurs have been proven to have walked the earth at the same time as humans, and the jury’s out on evolution”, etc…

    That bullshit still flies in the House – but to convince the Senate to “approve anything” (when the vote doesn’t tie in with corporate money) it’s not going to get done with rhetoric alone…Bush is having a hard time dealing with that fact.

    Truth is, Arlen Specter should have been a man on a number of occasions and rained on his parade over this shit, but he’s a grandmother focused heavily on the vision in his mind of a statue or building somewhere important named after him…like how Tenet got the freedom medal…he’s been busy playing both sides and caving in the end every time…

    Warner, McCain, Graham, Collins…not the same thing, thank god!

  4. But wait…maybe they’ll turn Specter in the end as well…anyone know who out of that 4 is up for reelection? If they need money from the RNC in order to win (my guess is they don’t need a lot of help, especially Warner and McCain), that could turn it on them…although, Graham’s statement on Sunday morning indicates to me that he’s not going to be bought off on this one.

    I REALLY hope that Bush has another press conference on this, and another and another…because he’s PISSED and it shows!

    Conspiracy theory today has what these detainees say about Pakistan being the reason why Bush doesn’t want real trials…here’s the link:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/18/82548/4524

    Can’t get ‘Bust A Move’ out of my head today for some reason

  5. Do I know my stuff or what…

    “GOP Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Olympia Snowe of Maine said they favor Warner’s bill, joining Warner and three others who voted for it during the committee meeting last week.”

    41 minutes ago

  6. captain_menace says:

    Do you know what feels really good right now?

    Knowing that Republicans are ripping eachothers guts out over this issue of torture, as if there were any question about whether or not we should use it. History will not reflect well on those who advocate for torture.

    I believe this is one of the more telling issues related to American politics. Many Republicans are quite adept at dredging up excuses for torturing individuals. Progressives on the other hand don’t dwell on the issue too long because they instinctively know that torture is morally wrong. Isn’t it a given that torture is wrong? Does the morality of torture change depending on who is being tortured?

    Torture will always be used by those outside the direct control of government agencies. But our country should never condone the use of it against our enemies. Personal, and for-pay use of torture is one thing (a felony I believe), but regulated use is quite another eh?

  7. You hit the nail right on the head. Right and wrong seems to be subjective always for these folks, ironic since they’ve got the market cornered on Jesus people. Always willing to let the ends justify the means. Why? Because THEY are the righteous ones, and they know that because…

  8. Dusty says:

    I saw the same article Al about the other Repube’s breaking rank with the Shrub. There is also word out that the Shrub sent down another draft of his proposal and that one too was shot down..

    I do enjoy the Repubes breaking rank with the President..it warms the cockles of my heart..whatever the hell a cockle is..

  9. He’s looking for headlines, looking to bully his way to a conclusion, but on this topic it’s not going to work.

    An executive’s ability to manage priorities is crucial, and he’s just short on that skill set. The Senate handed him legislation baning torture, and the Supreme Court handed him a decision that said the Geneva Conventions aren’t “quaint” (as AG Gonzalez described them in front of the Judiciary Committee)…

    He’s not handling this well, and honestly thinks he can game the system like he apparantly has his entire life.

  10. captain_menace says:

    Did you see the headlines Chavez is getting?

    While he calls Bush “the devil”, his country’s major oil company, Citgo is planning to give every rural (not road-connected) family in Alaska 100 gallons of free heating oil. That’s pathetic, our own state declined to increase funding for the rural heating program. And we’re a fairly rich state as states go, but then again, we’re a staunchly Republican state.

    It’s good to see Chavez at least back his socialist agenda with some real actions targeted to make life better for the poor (and the U.S. poor at that).

    The war on terror doesn’t mean much when it’s February and your heating oil tank is empty.

  11. He gave Massachusetts free heating oil as well, something that Rep. Delahunt arranged and was attacked for…this is what pisses me off about it, my natural gas bill for last winter was over $2500, I was watching the commodity prices very closely and the price has droped a great deal this year…THEY’RE CHARGING US MORE THIS WINTER EVEN THOUGH THE PRICE WENT DOWN!!!!!

    Fuckers – – – they explain it like this…because they have to purchase the gas in bulk prior to when its distributed, a movement downwards isn’t going to affect their bottom line until later on, YET, last winter they raised prices when (going by their explaination), the huge hike shouldn’t have affected customers yet.

    So they have it both ways basically…any excuse to jack it up, they go with that…then when it’s time to reduce prices they start dancing.

    You’re right, the war on terror does seem a lot less important when the tank is empty…in Alasaka it must be torturous in the winter.

    Will scandal and the pipeline turn Alaska more blue in the upcoming years? Or is the GOP too well entrenched?

  12. Kazelmdb says:

    Hi!zxsp! http://mevadzdb.com zczcd gjyja

  13. Kazeljse says:

    Hi! http://kviwwrhy.com qbzoc qykju

Comments are closed.