Not Up to Code? Embellishing the Flag, Then the Web Site

[kskiska]

By Dana Milbank

Let us hope they don't put Potus in the pokey for being too patriotic.

The president of the United States -- Potus, by his official acronym -- went on a brief foray into the criminal underworld last month in Livonia, Mich., where he ran afoul of U.S. Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8 (g): "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature." The transgression occurred when President Bush, on a July 24 visit to Beaver Aerospace & Defense Inc., accepted a request to sign a well-wisher's U.S. flag.

Charges have not been filed against Bush, who after this brush with the law may be relieved that the flag desecration amendment has not been adopted.

(snip)

Few would begrudge Bush this patriotic lapse, of course. But some Democrats and government watchdog groups are charging that Bush has been playing fast-and-loose with some more important statutes: Those that govern the separation between the president's official duties and his political duties.

The main eyebrow-raiser is the posting on the official White House Web site of Bush and Cheney speeches at fundraisers for their reelection campaign. The government Web site, www.whitehouse.gov, displays, for example, Bush's speech to a Bush-Cheney luncheon last week in Oregon, in which Bush pronounced the event "a record fundraiser," and the previous week's fundraiser in California, in which he said, "We're laying the foundation for next year's campaign."

Foul, judges Larry Noble, the executive director of the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics. "It's inappropriate. It's a government Web site. It's the use of government property for political work, which is illegal. They have to be careful."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44591-2003Aug25.html

[Democat]

1. They have to be careful? Why should they?

Bush and Cheney are above the law and Democrats don't even try to do anything about it.

[kskiska]

2. Further down…

An analysis by Waxman's lawyers argued that Bush and Cheney, when they appear at fundraisers, are giving "not official speeches, bur rather political speeches." According to the U.S. Code (31 U.S.C 1301(a)), "appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made," which means only for official -- not political -- purposes. By posting campaign speeches on the Web site, White House staffers could be violating the Hatch Act, which restricts political actions by government employees. If the White House considers the fundraising speeches "official," the lawyers argue, they could be violating anti-bribery statutes.

Not that Waxman can do anything about it all by himself…

[Voltaire99]

3. Asking Dubya to autograph your American flag is like...

...asking the Taliban to bless your rocks on the way to a stoning.

[PartyPooper]

4. I remember when Bush desecrated the American flag.

It was in the last couple of months or so. There was a thread...I posted on it! I was extremely pissed! There were LOTS of photos, too! I saw it with my own eyes!

But, this dictator * gets away with murder and desecration and turning our democracy into a theocratic / dictatorship!

I'll never understand any of this madness...even if I live to be 100.

:-(

[Rose Siding]

5. Is Waxman the ONLY congressman paying attention?

The poor guy is ALWAYS quoted about what he's calling Bush out on. Soon, without a chorous behind him, he'll be completely marginalized but every bulldog grip he gets on BushCo has looked valid. It is like he's the mirror reflection of the old "contract on America" with a cast of one.