For all I can see, to CNN, Jack Cafferty is like that 140 year-old oak tree that’s about to fall over on your car parked in the driveway. It makes all the sense in the world to get rid of him, but you tolerate his presence because you know it just wouldn’t be the same with him gone.

But you and your friends still sit on the porch on a Saturday with a few beers. And it never fapils, you always talk about the oak tree that’s about to make useless scrap metal out of your ride. “Tree’s still there, huh?”. “Yup.”

From Thursday’s Situation Room… 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ&eurl=

“…Buried deep inside this legislation is a provision that will pardon President Bush and all the members of his administration of any possible crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of detainees dated all the way back to September 11, 2001.”

It’s buried not-so-deep in the U.S. Constitution, too. But more on that in a minute.

“Here’s the deal. Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies. In some cases, punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They had been working these prisoners over pretty good.”

Alright, now here is the deal. When the Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, it, in all fact, may well have saved President Bush’s skin.

What Jack didn’t disclose, but I will, is that the eventuality of both his insinuated scenario and the one I’m about to present cannot be defined by anyone except the U.S. Supreme Court. But you can make up your mind for yourself on how you would rule.

Jack’s thinking is, because the Geneva Convention now applies to U.S. practices of interrogating prisoners of war, Bush may be liable. And thus, may be prosecuted.

Well, Jack misled you just a little. The Supreme Court did not just “rule Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees”, but more to the point it ratified the sections of the Geneva Convention which were deemed to have pertained to terrorists to the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, the Supreme Court made Article 3 of the Geneva Convention U.S. law under the Constitution. The key: it tied torture to the Constitution.

Now, nearly everyone agrees that the President of the United States can’t be prosecuted for anything as it stands now. Not war crimes or a parking ticket. I say ‘nearly everyone’, because the Constitution really isn’t clear on this issue.

“…shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and midemeanors.”  

We all learned from Clintongate that we don’t really know what ‘high crimes and midemeanors’ really means. But that may be the way the framers meant it.

The Justice Department and many legal scholars have concluded that because the Constitution provides the remedy of impeachment, and because the President has a unique role at the head of the executive branch, impeachment is the only criminal proceeding that can be brought against the President while in office.

Basically, Bush can’t be hauled up in a courtroom like you and I. He can’t be sued either. He can be impeached. Under the rules set out in the Constitution, the House can pass an impeachment resolution, with accompanying articles of impeachment, by a majority vote. The Senate then holds a trial presided over by the chief justice of the United States. A two-thirds majority for conviction on any article of impeachment results in removal from office. With our checks and balances philosophy, the framers thought that to be enough to hold the President accountable while still protecting him from those seeking to remove him on baseless grounds.

What is Cafferty talking about, then? Well, fact is President Bush has some pretty darn good lawyers. Lawyers who know that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention is about as easy to apply to a war crimes of a sitting President as is the Constitution’s meaning on this topic. So the answer is: insurance. It would take an awful lot for somehow the Supreme Court to rule the Bush administration’s Iraq policy an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ not bound by the Constitution. In fact, it really wouldn’t happen. Either way, Bush’s lawyers solved the problem for us.

“But Scott, that’s not fair. This is just more of King George and the Bush Nazi Reich. How can this be possible in a Democracy?”

Well, I wouldn’t know, I’ve never lived in one. I do, however, live in a Democratic Republic. We don’t go home every night and all vote for how much funding should be granted to explore bean growth in the Nappa Valley like Congress does. Apparently, we’d rather watch television. So, once every four years, we grant executive authority to one American to serve as an entire branch of the U.S. government all by his or her-self. We gave such executive authority to Bush… twice, actually. And what he did to get to Cafferty wasn’t illegal any more than what Cafferty thought Bush was trying to cover up.

Via www.scottfuller.net

...I’m shocked I had enough time to even make my picks this week with all the sexually-suggestive messages I’ve been sending to young republican girls lately. Here’s one:

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen:   Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen:  tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen:   A little.
Maf54: Cool.

…oh… wait a minute, that wasn’t me. It was Florida congressman Mark Foley. And that’s among the tamer of the exchanges he shared with a congressional ‘page’ (high school students working on capitol hill under 18 years old) in an instant message exchange. And it wasn’t a female page, either.

He’s resigned in disgrace. And if he’s smart, he’s running long and far from congressional Republicans, who care infinitely more about the loss of his seat in Congress than Foley violating any of the kiddy-laws he himself helped to pass in Florida. Republicans will lose his seat in November because, while Foley can no longer run in the election, his name will most likely remain on the ballot.

So, the newest congressman from Florida, thanks to Foley having a brain which doesn’t fire along with the rest of society…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv_prz5xdTI&eurl

For the record, I’d like to say at this time, that if I’m ever heard uttering the following to anyone after I’m 50 years of age, I’d like to ask one of you to kindly step in and kill me please:

• “How (is) my favorite young stud doing?”
• “Did you spank it this weekend yourself?”
• “Cute butt bouncing in the air”
• “I always use lotion and the hand”
• “Just kinda slow rubbing”
• “But it must be great spirting on the towel”
• “Is your little guy limp… or growing”
• “So, you got a stiff one now?”
• “And grab the one eyed handshake”

And those are just the few I could stand to read without losing my breakfast.

Regardless, onward to the bigger picture:

Darn that Clinton and that Fox News Sunday; darn them both. I don’t suppose it’s very likely that, with Clinton having finger-pointed himself back into the news, we’d heard something like this from the left:

“Some of us have always recognized the hypocricy of the Republicans - especially surrounding the impeachment of President Bill Clinton…. and now what do we have? Seems only sexual encounters between consenting adults who also happen to be Democrats are offensive to the sensibilities of the Republicans.”

That’s the only thing that offends our sensibilities? Really? Is that why Foley is about to be hung by the same kiddy-violating legislation which put him into office? I also surmise that Clinton would be very offended himself (and saying something that Bill Clinton finds offensive seems easy enough to do these days) that his… what did he call it?… “personal mistake”… is being likened to that of a pedophile. Are male Democrats so enticed by young boys themselves that they see no difference between the actions of Foley and Clinton?

Of course not, but that last part was fun to write all the same.

Could I, as President of the United States find myself attracted to a 20-something female intern? Yes (and, for the record, that likelihood becomes much greater if I’d at one point in my life become the husband of Hillary Clinton). Could I, as a congressman from Florida, find myself attracted to a male high school lacrosse player? No.

Ah, so there is a difference between having an affair and being a pedophile.

I say we hang the guy by the same thing which was apparently so ‘rock hard’ in the instant message exchange.

Having said that, though, pay attention to this: the only people whose motivations I question more than those in political office, are 18 year-old kids who are so compelled to go to Washington and work for those in political office.

Kiddy sex abuse laws should to be focused on kids; a six year-old molested by a stepfather, or a 12 year old felt up by a preist. I don’t believe it’s right to assume that every young adult is so blind to morality (or doesn’t have the capacity to say ‘no’) that they should automatically be protected by child molestation laws simply because they can’t walk into a 7-11 and buy cigarettes for another four months.

Oh, yes the world was big and scary when I was in high school too. Heck, were it not for the legislation Foley’s about to be fried on… the same, by the way, which says it’s ’rape’ for an 18 year-old girl to fool around with her 17 year-old boyfriend… I might not have been able to go out and land jobs at ESPN Radio and FOX Spots all before I graduated. I would have been too busy being molested I’m sure. Thank God the government was there to save me from a 50-something congressman from Florida finding me online, because without that law I sure wouldn’t have known to say ‘no’, or, you know, turn off the computer.

6 year olds are victims. 8, and 9 year-olds, maybe some 12 or or even 16 years-olds, in the right circumstances. But read it… read what just got Foley kicked out of Congress. And you tell me where in this exchange you’re led to believe that this kid’s parents ever taught him the word ‘no’.