The tactic of trying to turn the tables to focus on Wilson merely accentuates the weakness of Obama's position. Whatever Wilson's background or persuasion, it's not about him, it's about whether Obama lied or not.
Is Obama a liar, or isn't he? I've seen and been involved in the legislative process and statutory interpretation and enforcement by the courts. The bill, notwithstanding exhortations to the contrary, leaves plenty of room for the argument to be made.
Decades ago, my father, a lobbyist at the time, would come home and explain how when legislative language was negotiated in Congress and they reached an impasse, each side would create a legislative history and also jockey for language that they thought would be interpreted a certain way by the Courts, and then say, "Let the Courts decide." Each party, in turn, appoints judges that they believe lean toward their interpretation of things.
Judging from the loopholes in HR3200 and its short legislative history -- that already documents rejection of Republican efforts to include enforcement language to verify the immigration status of applicants -- there's a strong argument that Obama is disingenuous, at a minimum.
Here's a prohibition without consequences analogy: If a city puts up "No Parking" signs on the street, but doesn't ticket violators, who's going to pay attention to the signs? Particularly if there's a record of the city council considering and then rejecting in its entirety a proposed traffic enforcement division and schedule of fines? Wouldn't that be a joke?
Again, the issue is Obama's veracity, not Wilson. |
