End vs. Means? Means the end of Bush?

[Stalwart]

The end justifies the means is the ruling policy of Bush and his administration. It is a self destructing policy regardless of how it is applied. Bush has applied it to everything he and his administration have done. In Vietnam it found its ultimate contradiction in the expression: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it". It was a clear signal that the end was near, the Apocalypse was Now.

The latest example of this policy is spying on American citizens to protect them and their civil liberties.

The following is what Bush said in his radio address but the "BUT" I have added makes it a greater responsibility to protect people. It therefore makes the end of protecting our people justify the means of doing it even if it violates the oath to defend the Constitution. I believe that is what he meant in order to justify what he has done.

"As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and (BUT) I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life."

Bush took an oath to protect the Constitution. Not an oath to me. His responsibility to me is to fulfill his oath to defend the Constitution, not circumvent it in the name of protecting me. Last week it was claimed that Bush said the Constitution was nothing more than a piece of paper.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Bush is destroying the country in order to save it. He does not even understand what his job is all about or the meaning of his oath. Our freedom and way of life is defined by the Constitution not what he thinks is best for us as his definition of freedoms and way of life.

Protect and defend the Constitution, you took an oath to do it. Being president is as simple at that and is your responsibility to me.

You fail, you are fired.

You have failed. Not being President is also very simple.

[ashling]

1. Nixon used this policy as well.

Everything was couched in terms of "national security." It lead him to use unethical and illegal means to affect the outcome of elections. Kind of like... er, scratch that, EXACTLY like Bush has done since he stumbled into the White House in 2000.

John Henry Falk, Texas humorist who was a victim of the McCarthy era, said that what Nixon got tripped up over was trivial, compared to the extent of his crimes. He said (and I won't quote, because I can't remember exactly how he put it) that Nixon had been raping, pillaging, and burning all these years, and we caught him at a stoplight.

Well, this NASA "authorization" was trivial compared to the way he has been lying right and left to do whatever the hell he wants. Using national security as an excuse to cover his crimes and demonize anyone who would have the temerity to point them out for what they are: CRIMES.

BTW, welcome to DU :hi:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Clever turn of a phrase

I have a belief, a hope, that every time he pulls a stunt like this it eats away at his support just a bit more. I wonder if we will ever erode that 30 some percent that is his base?