A Question Of Loyalty

The Bucks County Courier Times reported this morning that Dubya was “steadfast” on Iraq.

Not stubborn, clueless, living in a fantasy world consumed with his own delusions, or hopelessly out of touch.

“Steadfast.”

TheFreeDictionary.com defines “steadfast” as “1) Fixed or unchanging, steady or 2) Firmly loyal or constant, unswerving.”

“Fixed or unchanging” is something that is debatable based on administration reports that are leaked about troop draw-downs versus troop increases. “Steady” is also highly subjective as far as I’m concerned.

But “Firmly loyal”? To who, I would ask?

Not the people of this country, who now want us out of Iraq in greater numbers than ever before.

Not the people of Iraq themselves who feel the same way.

Then who would be the benefactors of Dubya’s “loyalty,” I wonder?

Could it be these individuals?

If so, then I would like to point out as strongly as I can the need to act on Rep. Louise Slaughter’s call for a modern-day Truman Commission to look into contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because, by swearing to uphold his oath of office as President, Dubya made a public declaration twice that he would honor and abide by the Constitution of the United States, which firmly dictates that his loyalty lies with the American people.

But though I believe the Courier Times is correct in assessing Dubya’s sense of loyalty, they did not expressly state where his loyalties truly lie. And since they lie not with the American people, that to me qualifies as grounds for impeachment (though I readily admit that I am not a constitutional scholar).

So let us be steadfast in our own right by continuing the call for his removal from office. Our duty as citizens requires nothing less at this point.