Is Alito Lying? Oh You Bet!

Yesterday, during the confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court, Alito said, "no person is above the law, and that means the president, and that means the Supreme Court." But he added he didn’t have enough info to say if Bush had broken the law when he ordered wiretaps of American citizens. Oh really? How much more info does he need? Alito admitted he once believed there was no constitutional right to abortion. He said he was only "a line attorney in the Department of Justice in the Reagan administration," but he vowed he would “keep an open mind” if the abortion issue came before him on the Supreme Court. We should live so long. Although Alito has said, "racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed,” he claimed he couldn’t remember being an active member in Concerned Alumni of Princeton even though he listed the group on a 1985 job application. CAP opposed affirmative action and coeducation at the University. A few Princeton alumni suggested Alito might not have been a member but that he might have put it on the 1985 job application to appeal to a personal connection in the Reagan administration. Oh, that’s great. Alito can’t be accused of being a member of CAP; he can only be accused of lying to suck up to the GOP. During yesterday’s hearing, Alito was asked to offer an opinion on the Supreme Court decision that made George W. Bush president in 2000. He said he had not given the case enough attention to give an opinion. This is a man who is so right-wing and law-and-order obsessed that he believes it’s right and proper to strip-search a ten-year-old girl, and yet he was disinterested in a Supreme Court decision that put the GOP in power in 2000? I am so sure. As willing as Alito is to dissemble and deceive, he cannot come close to the downright lies President Bush told to his audience of Veterans of Foreign Wars last night in the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. Please read this speech. A transcript is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060110-1.html “Our goal in Iraq is victory,” Bush said. “Today, I've come before you to discuss what the American people can expect to see in Iraq in the year ahead. We will see more tough fighting and we will see more sacrifice in 2006, because the enemies of freedom in Iraq continue to sow violence and destruction. We'll also see more progress toward victory. Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy. Victory will come when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens. Victory will come when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation. And when victory comes and democracy takes hold in Iraq, it will serve as a model for freedom in the broader Middle East.” There was a moment in the beginning of his rant, when Bush made a patented Bushism due to his mental disorder. He said: “You took an oath to defend our flag and our freedom, and you kept that oath underseas [sic] and under fire.” The speech had nothing to do with what is actually going on in Iraq. It was a total fabrication based on what the Bush administration would like to be occurring in Iraq. Still, there was one sentence of truth: “Dictatorships seem orderly -- when one man makes all the decisions, there is no need for negotiation or compromise. Democracies are sometimes messy and seemingly chaotic.” But the rest of the speech was pure fantasy, including this gem: “And I want to report to our fellow citizens that we've got a fantastic health care system for those who wear the uniform.” Little Adolf saved his diatribe against people who disagree with him until the end: “There is a vigorous debate about the war in Iraq today, and we should not fear the debate. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even in times of war,” Little Adolf said. “Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas. “The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right. “When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. And we have a responsibility to our men and women in uniform -- who deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm's way, our support will be with them in good days and in bad days -- and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory.” Yes indeed, dictatorships do indeed seem orderly -- when one man makes all the decisions, there is no need for negotiation or compromise.