J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Double Standards’ Category

I got the following in an email last night. I thought it had a lot to make us think about for awhile:

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a “play” in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD’s, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and “potatoe” as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt in one year, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can’t think of anything?

Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 10 months — so you’ll have three years and two months to come up with an answer.

The guy’s an embarrassment along with being scary……..plain and simple!

Tweet This Post

Freedom of Speech. Those in America believe in it. We fight hard against those who challenge that right.

However, there are times when a line is crossed.

Such is the case in David Letterman’s remarks the other evening regarding Sarah Palin and her daughters.

David Letterman attacked Sarah Palin on his show last night in his Top 10 List.
Real Clear Politics reported: While reading his top ten list Monday night, “Late Show” host David Letterman said Gov. Sarah Palin bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look.

The list included Palin buying crack and keying cars.

While you may consider this “old news” already (after all, we live in an age where news travels at the speed of light), it might be worth your while to take a gander at this post by The Anchoress and follow her link to James Lileks.

The Anchoress:

If you have missed it, the old rule that you don’t go after a politicians kids (which has been strongly, and correctly, in place under all Democrat presidents, and was even sometimes practiced about the Bush-twins) does not apply to Sarah Palin, and has never applied to Sarah Palin.

Here is the ultimate question.

If Sarah Palin and her daughters were prominent Democrats, would this treatment by Letterman be deemed acceptable? No doubt he would have been ridiculed by others in the media and forced to apologize at the very least if history tells a correct story.

Double standards remain hard at work.

Tweet This Post

These artistic renditions at Mother, May I Sleep With Treacher? are very clever. Keep scrolling here for more.

Perhaps I simply missed the coverage of this (I say tongue in cheek):

On Thursday, I went to visit [my sister] at her new house in West Virginia. I changed trains in DC and had about 1/1/2 hours to kill. I walked outside Union Station and found myself in the middle of a massive right-to-life demonstration. The area around the Capitol was jammed with about a half million people. I saw crowds of Catholic clergy and lay people. But, not a TV camera or journalist with a notepad in sight.

Erick Erickson reports on the state of the race for RNC Chairman:

We can be pretty sure right now that at the end of the week we won’t see Blackwell or Saltsman in the Chairman’s office. As the week goes on and more shifts in voting occur, I’ll try to update with where things stand. Today though, pay attention to Duncan and Steele.

The most we can hope for at this point is that when the new chairman is selected he understands that Democrats are in constant campaign mode. Not only do the Republicans need to play catch up, they need to begin recruiting candidates who are willing to stand up to those in opposition and have the desire to win.

Karl Rove is still making people cry.

A fable turned reality?

Now the media are utterly dependent on President Obama’s good will because they sacrificed so much — their independence, their objectivity — to get him elected. The only way for the media to reassert their independence would be by subjecting Obama to the same level of scrutiny that used to characterize the status quo relationship between the press and the government. I’m not sure they can muster the credibility for such a bold move: too many people’s eyes have been opened to the gross malpractice the press has committed during the campaign — the mainstream media’s love-fest around candidate Obama.

Read the rest. It’s a very appropriate comparison.

Tweet This Post

Not having done enough to attempt to ruin a sitting President of the United States with their malicious words and actions, another member of Congress is now weighing in on exactly how President Bush should use his pardon power:

A departing president probably can’t help thinking about the judgment of history. At the end of eight years, President Bush likely isn’t any different. With the nation’s attention focused on his successor, it may seem as if there is little opportunity left for the current president to affect how he will be viewed. But there is one power left — the power of the pardon — that could, if it’s abused, create a controversy that both the president and the public could live without.

The power of the pardon is close to absolute. Short of interfering with their own impeachment, presidents can pardon whomever they choose. At the end of his term, however, this president should think twice before issuing pardons that call his judgment, and the integrity of the rule of law, into question.

If President Bush were to pardon key individuals involved in the misdeeds of his administration, from warrantless wiretapping to torture to the firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, the courts would be unable to address criminality, or pass judgment on the legality of some of the president’s worst abuses. Issuing such pardons now would be particularly egregious, since voters just issued such a strong condemnation of the Bush administration at the ballot box. There is nothing to prevent President Bush from using the pardon in such a short-sighted and self-serving manner — except, perhaps, public pressure that may itself be a window on the judgment of history. Everyone who can exert that pressure, from members of Congress to the press and the public, should express their views on whether it would be appropriate for President Bush to use his pardon power in this way.

I have exactly two words for you Senator Feingold..Marc Rich.

*Update: One other thing..you know that rumor that Eric Holder is in contention for the Attorney General position? Not only was he instrumental in the Marc Rich pardon but also this:

In 1999, over the objections of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and prosecuting attorneys, Holder supported Clinton’s commutation of the sentences of 16 FALN conspirators. These pardons — of terrorists who even Holder has conceded had not expressed any remorse — were issued in the months after al-Qaeda’s 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, when the Clinton administration was pretending to be the scourge of terrorism. The commutations were nakedly political, obviously designed by Clinton to assist his wife’s impending Senate campaign by appealing to New York’s substantial Puerto Rican vote.

The past has a way of coming back to haunt you when you throw too many stones. The Democrats and some Republicans have thrown their fair share at President Bush. We’ll see exactly where it lands them (and us) in the coming four years.

Tweet This Post

While speaking to the Israeli Knesset yesterday President Bush made this remark:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’

“We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history”

Remember, he was speaking to the Israelis who are the survivors and descendants of the survivors of the worst appeasement policy in history; that of Chamberlain with Hitler.

Instead of democrats agreeing this is actual history (and no democrat names were mentioned) Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi and who knows who else felt compelled to condemn the speech as a political slap in the face at them. Unless their names are Chamberlain or Hitler they were not mentioned.

I actually think the president was thinking more in the lines of Jimmy Carter, who has had his hands in every crisis since he created the one with Iran.

The argument is that the president shouldn’t go overseas and talk bad about the Congress. It’s an unwritten rule. I guess it just took effect because if that’s the case it stands to reason no politician should go overseas and criticize the President of the United States.

Let’s see, Pelosi, former President Clinton and former President Carter come to mind immediately as breaking that unwritten rule and very recently and often.

Why do you suppose they all got so touchy about the comment the President made? Do you suppose the shoe fit them and it was too close for comfort?

Tweet This Post

The Democrats seem to have a candidate for the Presidency who has a bit of a problem with being less than truthful.

For those who need a bit of a refresher course in some of Mrs. Clintons prevarications,(although I know some would call it political “spin” this should help.

As Hillary Clinton rises in the polls, her nose grows longer and longer.

To be sure, she has never had any shame about making stories up out of thin air. After 9/11, Clinton appeared on national TV and claimed that when the two airplanes hit the World Trade Center, her daughter Chelsea was going to jog at Battery Park near the towers, where she heard and saw the catastrophe unfold.

Clinton’s arrogance was so profound that she did not coordinate the story with Chelsea, who wrote an article for Talk in which she described what she had been doing that day. According to Chelsea, she was on the other side of town in a friend’s apartment on Park Avenue South. She watched the events unfold on TV.

Nor does Clinton’s hypocrisy have any limits. When asked about the recent MoveOn.org ad suggesting that Gen. David Petraeus has betrayed the country, Clinton on “Meet the Press” on Sept. 23 called for an end to such attacks. “I don’t condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country,” she said.

Yet three days earlier, Clinton had voted against a Senate resolution to condemn the MoveOn.org ad. Her closest competitor, Sen. Barack Obama, voted earlier that day but conveniently missed the vote condemning the ad.

Now that she begins to see her candidacy in the general election as a certainty, Clinton’s prevarications — largely ignored by the media — are becoming more frequent.

Funny isn’t it that those who accuse our President of being a liar and not admitting to “mistakes”, largely choose to ignore the Senator’s tendency toward adjusting the truth to fit the circumstance?

“Hillary has a keen sense of entitlement,” Bay Buchanan, author of “The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton,” has told me. “She doesn’t admit mistakes or learn from them. She believes in her own mind that she doesn’t have to take responsibility for things she’s done in the past. She can say whatever it is she wants to say today, and it’s as if the slate is clean and nothing has occurred before this.”

At a hearing on Sept. 11, Clinton told Gen. Petraeus that “the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

In making that accusation, Clinton aptly described what our own reaction should be to her serial dissembling. If any other job candidate had such a record, only a fool would hire the applicant. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, it will say as much about us as about her.

I could not agree more with that final statement.

If we as Americans choose another four or eight years of spinning and word manipulation, we deserve what we get.

I say we because if the Republicans do not hold together and support whomever may be our candidate, we will be literally handing the White House back to not only the Democrats but another co-presidency.

HT:<):) The Hillary Project

Tweet This Post

Rudy Giuliani is calling the New York Times’ bluff when they say they don’t consider the political message or affiliation when they discount ads.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said Thursday that he is asking The New York Times for the “same heavily discounted rate they gave MoveOn.org” for his campaign to run an ad in Friday’s paper.

Giuliani, calling MoveOn.org’s controversial “General Betray Us” ad “abominable,” said his campaign is asking the paper for a comparable rate for an ad to run following President Bush’s speech on Iraq.

The former mayor said his ad “will obviously take the opposite view” from MoveOn.org, which argued in its ad that Gen. David Petraeus is “cooking the books” on Iraq and cherry-picking facts that support his recommendation to keep a large number of troops in Iraq for some time. …

…“It’s time for Americans to really insist that American politicians move beyond character assassination,” Giuliani said. “And this is exactly what they tried to do with Gen. Petraeus. Well, it’s one thing when politicians do it to each other. It’s another thing when it’s done to an American general who has put his life at risk to protect us.”

Let’s see if he gets the same discount Moveon.org got when they tried to ruin the reputation of a General who has more integrity in his small fingernail than Moveon.org has in its entire membership.

Tweet This Post

Tom DeLay appeared on the Today show on Thursday and this is how some of it went:

Lauer prefaced DeLay’s Thursday morning appearance on the NBC program by reciting a litany of recent Republican problems, mentioning Rep. Mark Foley and Jack Abramoff among others.

DeLay responded: “I hate to say this Matt, but you just showed the problem, the double standard, and you just participated in it. You listed a whole lot of scandals that involve the Republicans, but you didn’t mention one Democrat…

“I think in your premise, if you had listed all the Democrats that are having problems right now, it would have been different. You see the Democrats re-elect the people with their problems. Republicans kick them out.”

DeLay mentioned several Democrats who have been afflicted by scandal, according to a transcript provided by the Media Research Center: “You have right now, Alan Mollohan, a Congressman from West Virginia, who is being investigated by the FBI, and the Democrats have kept him on as chairman of the committee that has oversight of the budget of the FBI. You have William Jefferson…”

Lauer cut in: “So, you’re saying it’s a positive thing. Is it a positive thing that the Republicans do this, they weed out immediately?”

A testy DeLay responded: “You don’t want me to finish it? Because you don’t want me to…”

LAUER: “No, no go ahead.”

DELAY: “You have William Jefferson caught with $90,000 of marked bills in a freezer. And they did put him off the Ways and Means Committee, but they put him on a highly sensitive Homeland Security Committee. You have Barney Frank, who was caught with a homosexual prostitute who was re-elected over and over again. Gerry Studds who was caught in a bathroom with an under-aged page and he was re-elected.”

Later on DeLay told Lauer: “The point here … is the Republicans handle it. They look at it, and when the evidence is right on that someone is guilty, they do something about it. On the other hand, the Democrats don’t. And the media, the double standard in the media is amazing. The feeding frenzy, the sharks in the water that’s going on right now because of a Republican. Where is the frenzy on Alan Mollohan from West Virginia or William Jefferson from Louisiana?”

LAUER: “I think you mentioned William Jefferson. There was an awful lot of coverage of William Jefferson when that story broke, Congressman.”

DELAY: “Yeah, for just a couple of days and then we went on. In the case of a Republican, believe me, I’ve experienced this, it’s day in and day out in the media, and they write this story over and over and over again. We all know the double standard in the media. It’s amazing.”

There is a double standard. Republicans push their offenders out of office while Democrats let them stand for re-election.

In the latest incident, the one with Sen. Craig, he has been told by the RNC if he runs again they will give him no funds, but will fund a Republican challenger. It’s kind of hard to run a campaign when the party refuses to support you, although Joe Lieberman was able to pull it off as an Independent.

Tweet This Post

Yesterday I wrote about John Edwards saying we should sacrifice SUV’s in order to save on fuel.

Here are the cars in his driveway at his home. Four are circled but if you look closely around the barn and in the front driveway you will notice other SUV’s there.

Looks like gas-guzzling SUV’s to me. [-x :-\

Hat Tip to Hedgehog Report for the photo.

Tweet This Post

Sister Toldjah has a horrific story of a double murder committed in January of this year in Knoxville, TN.

Why haven’t we heard about this all over the news? Was the news of Anna Nicole Smith’s death a month later more worthy of the days and weeks of coverage?

If five white people had killed anyone of any other race like this would we have read about it for days and weeks?

We’ll never know because the victims were white and their alleged murderers and torturers were black.

Why didn’t Al Sharpton have something to say about this crime? And, no, I’m not a racist, but read the story and see if your blood boils as mine did.

Tweet This Post

From The Hill we read a re-cap of what some of us have known about Dianne Feinstein’s shenanigans but has not been made public in many newspapers, if any.

Anyone who knows much about real power in Congress knows that almost every member of the House and Senate lusts after a seat on the Appropriations Committee and hopes one day to achieve the status of Cardinal. The Cardinals, of course, are the folks who chair the various Appropriations Committee subcommittees and literally control the billions of dollars that pass through their hands.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she’s also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or “Milcon”) sub-committee, where she may have directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband.

If the inferences finally coming out about what she did while on Milcon prove true, she may be on the way to morphing from a respected senior Democrat into another poster child for congressional corruption.

The problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record suggests she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.

In other words, it appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state’s senior senator.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while”there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts.”

Her chief legal adviser says he gave the information to Sen. Feinstein’s chief of staff so she could recuse herself from any conflict of interest issues. Except she didn’t recuse herself. And, more important, her chief legal adviser was a business partner of her husband’s.

During this period the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.

Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.

In spite of the blatant appearance of corruption, no major publication has picked up on the story, the Senate Ethics Committee has reportedly let her slip by, and she is now chairing the Senate Rules Committee, which puts her in charge of making sure her colleagues act ethically and avoid the sorts of conflicts of interest with which she is personally and so obviously familiar.

When do the ethics committee hearings begin on Sen. Feinstein? Will she get the Cunningham treatment or will the double standard apply and she’ll get a slap on the wrist?

I have nothing against Sen. Feinstein personally. She seems to be an intelligent woman, but if she did something crooked she should be forced to face the charges and pay the penalty, and the penalty should be severe.

If this is as solid as claimed she should be booted out of the Senate and sent to prison someplace. I take this stand whether it’s a Republican or Democrat. You break the law and use congressional chairmanships for your own personal gain, that makes you a crooked politician.

We were promised the most ethical congress in history when this congress took over. They’ve talked the talk; now let’s see them walk the walk.

Tweet This Post

This appears to have happened in Minnesota.

A Mankato jail guard has been suspended after allegedly thumping an inmate with a Bible.

James Lee Sheppard, 56, has been charged with two gross misdemeanors for allegedly swatting a Blue Earth County Jail inmate with the book, grabbing him by the throat and slamming him against steel bars on Feb. 8, according to the criminal complaint.

A video shows a guard entering the cell of inmate Jeremy Hansen, 26. The guard then takes Hansen’s Bible and strikes him in the side of the face with the book. The two exchange words as the guard walks away, said Mankato Police Officer Allen Schmidt who watched the video.

Are we going to see demonstrations by the peace activists because this man was hit in the face with his own Bible? It’s at least as holy to some of us as the Koran is to the Muslims.

Wasn’t this an insult to the prisoner too? It happened on Feb. 8 and we are just now hearing about it.

Where are the people claiming torture?

That’s what I thought.

Tweet This Post

I think a lot of people associate corrupt politicians with Louisiana from the days of Huey Long and maybe beyond that.

When Governor Blanco was encouraged not to run for re-election by the state Democrat party, the party approached former Sen. John Breaux, a fine man, to run for the governorship.

Mr. Breaux had a problem though, because by now he was a legal resident of the state of Maryland and claimed to be so. He said he wanted a ruling from the state Attorney General as to whether or not he was eligible to run because the state constitution requires the candidate to be a resident of the state for the preceding five years.

From this California Conservative post the Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles Foti (also a Democrat), has passed the decision on to the courts to decide.

Since he’s a Maryland resident, that ends that. He isn’t a Louisiana resident now, which is clearly within the 5 year window mandated for Breaux to be eligible for next year’s election. I’m no lawyer but I’d have to think that there’s some legal remedy to this insanity. If the Louisiana state Constitution says something explicitly, that should be the final word.

You don’t need the court’s assistance to figure that out.

This just means that the political fix is in. AG Foti will claim that his hands are clean, that he simply stands by the court’s ruling. Let’s just hope that the RNC will jump all over this. Let’s hope that the RNC will show the hypocrisy of the DNC by showing them arguing against taking Tom DeLay off the ballot after he’d moved to Virginia but then turning around to say that John Breaux, a Maryland resident, should be allowed to run for governor, contrary to the Louisiana Constitution.

We remember well that Sen. Lautenberg was allowed to get on the ticket to replace former Sen. Torrecelli in New Jersey after the legal time limit to be listed on the ticket had expired, because the Democratic party went to the State Supreme Court to get a ruling, which was also clearly against the state constitution.

Now, I’m not just picking on Democrats, so if someone can point out an instance where a Republican has done the same thing I will be glad to see it.

The whole point of this is political corruption. The Democrats in Louisiana know without Breaux as a candidate they have no chance of beating Bobby Jindal.

Again, by all accounts, Mr. Breaux is a very good man who just wants to serve the people of his home state again if it is legally possible. The problem to this non-lawyer is it isn’t legally possible, but from what we’ve seen in the past it is probable.

Tweet This Post

Go check out Captain Ed’s post to see a comparison of the first 100 days of the current congress compared to the 108th and 109th congresses’ (the previous two congresses) first 100 days.

Gee, I thought we replaced our ‘do nothing’ Congress. Shows you what I know. ?

Tweet This Post

As much as I love Tonto I must strongly disagree with two posts he has made today.

Since my allergies are giving me a lot of trouble I’m going to combine my thoughts into this one post and title it J’s Corner.

The first, and probably most important to me, shows the difference between a liberal and a conservative. Titled Not My Fight Tonto explains why he feels we should not be in Iraq.

Well, you know what? I don’t want to be there either, but we are there and saying we shouldn’t be is a moot point. We can’t shouldn’t do anything that has already been done.

I don’t care about Iraq or it’s people. I care about the children that we are sending over there to fight a lost cause. There are so many things that we could be spending the money on that we are pouring down the toilet over there. I think that we should stop being such cowards when it comes to terrorist, boogeymen.

This is only a lost cause if we make it a lost cause. We are now trying to force the Iraqis to learn to defend themselves and it will take time.

I don’t like losing one American life over there, but war is about killing.

Terrorism is not something I call a boogeyman. A boogeyman is something that scares a child at night. Terrorism scares this adult all day for the sake of our children living today.

These radical Islamists are out to form a world-wide caliphate and nothing will stop their desire to do so except force, and I’m not sure how long that can continue with people wanting to cut losses and run.

That’s not the America in which I grew up until the Viet Nam war.

Historians now tell us we actually won the Tet Offensive but because the major media, and Walter Cronkite, at the time said we should be out, we came out with our tails tucked between our legs. Our soldiers who fought over there were spat upon when they returned and called baby killers.

We have lost less troops in this entire war than we were losing in a week in Viet Nam. Who cries over their deaths today? Who did back then?

No one because it’s only politically expedient to say you support the troops when in fact you don’t support them or you wouldn’t be sending bad morale signals to them day in and day out.

This is my war because 19 terrorists made civilian airplanes airborne missiles on Sept. 11, 2001. We had done nothing to provoke these barbarians except be non-Muslims.

bin Laden said he could do this to us because we wouldn’t have the guts to see it out, and sadly, some are proving him to be right.

Saddam didn’t attack us, so let’s get that out of the way right now.

He did, however, harbor Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and only killed one who was a leader there for medical treatment after he figured out the president was serious about with us or against us.

He provided a place and a wrecked plane for Al Qaeda to use for training how to hijack a plane in a place called Salmon Pak.

He was daily shooting at our aircraft that were flying to enforce the no-fly zones he agreed to in 1991.

It’s not because I love the Iraqi people because I know some are sneaky and will tell you one thing to your face while stabbing you in the back.

It’s because I want to contain the rat-infestation called Al Qaeda and radical Islam to their land and not my land. This is why it’s my war.

The second post I want to comment about is called Back to the 90’s.

Go back a bit further in history, about 20 years before the 90’s and you will see the entire thing played out to its ugly end in the Nixon presidency.

I’ll comment more on that with the post titled Tony Has Flipped Flopped.

If the aides of the president are required to testify under oath in public to a Congressional Committee looking for anything they can find to impeach this president they will be open to any questions Leahy and his counterparts in the House and colleagues in the Senate want to ask them.

It won’t stop at why did you fire the US Attorneys?

I’ve seen this before and it will not stop until the president has to devote so much time to defending himself and the administration that he won’t be able to do the job he was elected to do and our country will suffer because we have a president who is distracted.

It won’t stop until the Democrats have destroyed every single decent public servant who has served this president and hung out all the dirty laundry that may be hiding about the fired US Attorneys.

The president has the right to appoint and to fire political appointees, and that’s exactly what US Attorneys are. No reason has to be given, and Congress knows it.

What if they find out the voting fraud cases involved Democrats and the US Attorneys weren’t bringing charges because who knows why? Do they really want to know the inside scoop on all of that? I doubt it.

The bigger question is: do they really want to know about the firings of the US Attorneys, or do they want to destroy George W. Bush by any means necessary?

I’m convinced the very reason Clinton had so much grief while in office was pay-back for what happened to Nixon when he was in office, and GWB is having to pay for what happened to Clinton and round and round she goes. Where she stops nobody knows.

It’s time for it to stop now! Nothing illegal was done and Leahy and Schumer and the House Judiciary Committee chaired by John Conyers know it.

Congress needs to move on and get about the job of doing the nation’s business instead of trying to hurt someone for the rest of his life.

Tonto, you know I love you and I always will, but we just disagree on certain things. It’s nice we can do it and still have love and respect for one another.

Tweet This Post