Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kabar
You can be right legally and process-wise and wrong about the bottomline--saving lives.

I agree with you. BUT what you are arguing for is essentially that President Bush should have FORCIBLY seized authority from "Governor" Blank-0. Instead, he tried to negotiate it.

Can you imagine the uproar from the media and feminsists and the Left (sorry, redundant) if he had done "seized the day," as you put it?

We'd be hearing hysterical cries of "CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS" and "BUSH IS SHREDDING OUR CONSTITUTION" again and again and again.

So Bush is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

Yes, you're right that he should've erred on the side of saving lives. But there would've been huge political cost.

53 posted on 09/06/2005 6:40:08 AM PDT by shhrubbery! (The 'right to choose' = The right to choose death --for somebody else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: shhrubbery!
Yes, you're right that he should've erred on the side of saving lives. But there would've been huge political cost.

It's called principle and character. If there would be a huge political cost, I think the Dems would have borne most of it if they attacked the President for taking action. The Governor and Mayor are extremely vulnerable for their role (read lack of action and preparedness) in this crisis.

59 posted on 09/06/2005 6:47:05 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson