I'm a conspiracy theory fan. Have been for at least 20 years. The impetus for that being the mother of all conspiracy theory cases: the assasination of John F. Kennedy.
I've read all the books. Watched all the renactments and computer simulations. Walked Dealy Plaza and stood on the Grassy Knoll. I'm invested, baby.
So, when I saw a new book on the topic in the non-fiction section of my library this week, I snapped it up. Read it cover to cover in two days.
The book? "A Simple Act of Murder" by Mark Furhman. Yeah, that Mark Furhman, of the infamous OJ case. (Another great conspiracy theory!
Furhman is, by the way, a talented homicide detective. Here, he looks at all the evidence the way a homicide detective arriving on the scene would. Analyzes it. Makes a determination about who did it and how.
Very convincing. Maybe one of the best books I've read on the case. He actually explained all of my questions quite nicely.
Case closed.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Fire the Holdovers!
George Tenet, former Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton and George Bush, has released his long-awaited tell all book about his tenure. Included is his version of the events of 9/11, with a fair amount - if reviews are right - of blame shifting and Bush administration bashing.
Just goes to prove: Bush made a huge mistake holding over some cabinet members from the Clinton administration!
All of the Democrats that Bush held over into his administration - foolishly - have left and then stabbed him in the back with tell all books. Cowards.
George Bush's major undoing has been foolish loyalty to people who didn't deserve it. Bush had all of the talent in the USA to choose from in selecting his cabinet. Many competent and outstanding Republicans, who would have been more aligned with Bush's goals. Keeping Democrats in the house was foolish, and has time has proved - damaging.
Tenet should have been dismissed as Bush took office. Failing that, he should have been fired immediately after 9/11 for massive failures in the agency he lead. Bush - prizing loyalty above performance - got what he deserved this week:
Stabbed in the back by a faithless Democrat.
Just goes to prove: Bush made a huge mistake holding over some cabinet members from the Clinton administration!
All of the Democrats that Bush held over into his administration - foolishly - have left and then stabbed him in the back with tell all books. Cowards.
George Bush's major undoing has been foolish loyalty to people who didn't deserve it. Bush had all of the talent in the USA to choose from in selecting his cabinet. Many competent and outstanding Republicans, who would have been more aligned with Bush's goals. Keeping Democrats in the house was foolish, and has time has proved - damaging.
Tenet should have been dismissed as Bush took office. Failing that, he should have been fired immediately after 9/11 for massive failures in the agency he lead. Bush - prizing loyalty above performance - got what he deserved this week:
Stabbed in the back by a faithless Democrat.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Supremes Hold the Line on Barbarity
One of the major stories in the last two weeks, somewhat lost in the coverage of the major story of the shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech - was the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on Partial Birth Abortion in the case of Carhart vs. Gonzales. It was the first time the court had allowed a prosciption on a method of abortion post-Roe.
Congress had earlier voted to ban the procedure, with overwhelming yes votes in both the House and the Senate. President Bush, signed the law banning it. Dr. Carhart challenged the law, and the Supreme Court upheld the law.
Thankfully, the court held the line allowing the banning of barbarity.
For, if we allow this procedure to take place, we are - in my opinion - no longer a civilized society.
Republican candidates for president applauded the decision. Democrat candidates, embracing barbarity and their power base of abortion advocates, decried the rollback of women's rights.
The issues surrounding this procedure have been hashed out for nearly a decade now. Just to recap - what is it that was banned?
Doctors call it DNX - dilation and extraction. The mother's cervix is Dilated (D) in a three day procedure using seaweed to swell and open the cervix. The baby is then extracted (X), feet first in a deliberate breech delivery, up to it's neck. The abortionist then inserts a forceps into the back of the skull to create an opening. Brains are sucked out. The dead baby is then "delivered" intact the rest of the way.
Why stop the delivery at the head? Why not complete the delivery? Because that results in a "live birth". That's a medical complication in a procedure entirely calculated to result in a dead child. If they were to deliver the baby two more inches, without delivering the death blow, they would be legally required to respect it's "personhood" and administer medical treatment. Again, not the result the patient and the doctor were trying to achieve. Barbarity was the plan. Not life.
Opponents of the procedure label it (accurately in my opinion) by a more layman description - partial birth abortion.
The masters-of-euphemisms (abortion rights supporters, the media, Democrat presidential candidates) attempt to obscure it by calling it "a certain type of late term abortion". Really? What kind, exactly? Let me help you clarify your vagueness - it's the infanticide type.
It comes down to this. If you can describe the procedure - plainly and dispassionately, you can understand the barbarity. This is not a procedure needed to protect the life and health of the mother. Would you choose a 3 day long procedure if the mother's life was in jeopardy? Would you deliberately induce a breech birth if her health was at risk? No. This is designed to produce a dead, intact, baby. It's infanticide and it's barbaric.
Every now and then there comes an issue that is a clear bright dividing line as you evaluate candidates for President of the United States. This Supreme Court ruling afforded us one here.
All of the Republicans applauded this stand for decency. They have my undying thanks.
All of the Democrats decried it. Which is why I could never ever ever vote for one of them. Barbarians.
Congress had earlier voted to ban the procedure, with overwhelming yes votes in both the House and the Senate. President Bush, signed the law banning it. Dr. Carhart challenged the law, and the Supreme Court upheld the law.
Thankfully, the court held the line allowing the banning of barbarity.
For, if we allow this procedure to take place, we are - in my opinion - no longer a civilized society.
Republican candidates for president applauded the decision. Democrat candidates, embracing barbarity and their power base of abortion advocates, decried the rollback of women's rights.
The issues surrounding this procedure have been hashed out for nearly a decade now. Just to recap - what is it that was banned?
Doctors call it DNX - dilation and extraction. The mother's cervix is Dilated (D) in a three day procedure using seaweed to swell and open the cervix. The baby is then extracted (X), feet first in a deliberate breech delivery, up to it's neck. The abortionist then inserts a forceps into the back of the skull to create an opening. Brains are sucked out. The dead baby is then "delivered" intact the rest of the way.
Why stop the delivery at the head? Why not complete the delivery? Because that results in a "live birth". That's a medical complication in a procedure entirely calculated to result in a dead child. If they were to deliver the baby two more inches, without delivering the death blow, they would be legally required to respect it's "personhood" and administer medical treatment. Again, not the result the patient and the doctor were trying to achieve. Barbarity was the plan. Not life.
Opponents of the procedure label it (accurately in my opinion) by a more layman description - partial birth abortion.
The masters-of-euphemisms (abortion rights supporters, the media, Democrat presidential candidates) attempt to obscure it by calling it "a certain type of late term abortion". Really? What kind, exactly? Let me help you clarify your vagueness - it's the infanticide type.
It comes down to this. If you can describe the procedure - plainly and dispassionately, you can understand the barbarity. This is not a procedure needed to protect the life and health of the mother. Would you choose a 3 day long procedure if the mother's life was in jeopardy? Would you deliberately induce a breech birth if her health was at risk? No. This is designed to produce a dead, intact, baby. It's infanticide and it's barbaric.
Every now and then there comes an issue that is a clear bright dividing line as you evaluate candidates for President of the United States. This Supreme Court ruling afforded us one here.
All of the Republicans applauded this stand for decency. They have my undying thanks.
All of the Democrats decried it. Which is why I could never ever ever vote for one of them. Barbarians.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Slowing Down on VT
I got a little ahead of myself earlier today with a post about the murder spree at the campus of Virginia Tech. I was probably jumping to some conclusions not yet justified by the evidence.
I did get to hear some of the afternoon's proceedings on the radio as I drove. One segment I heard was an interview with the Governor of Virginia, who said this: "For those of you who are making this political, who are looking to mount up your favorite political hobby horse and ride it on this tradgedy, I have nothing but loathing for you. The focus should be entirely on helping the victims and their families." Wow, strong words but needed. I decided to ratchet back my somewhat harsh observations and I deleted my earlier post.
My hobby horse is apparently looking for a jihadist connection to all acts of violence. Which may or may not be present here. I'll just cool my jets a little until we know more.
There are, however, so many questions yet unanswered. I'll suffice with listing my questions at the moment:
1. The police called the first shooting at the dorm a "domestic" violence scene. Was the man now identified as the killer (here called Mr. Cho) actually a former boyfriend of the girl killed at the scene? Had they dated?
2. Did people in the dorm witness that shooting? If so, why haven't we seen them interviewed on TV.
3. What happened in the two hours between shootings? Did Mr. Cho go back to his dorm room and arm up for the 2nd shooting? If so, the police have a serious problem on their hands for failing to pursue a gunman loose on campus.
4. How much planning did he do before hand? How many doors did he chain and lock in Norris Hall, and when did he get the chains and locks. When did he put together the arrangement of ammo clips on a vest that he was apparently wearing.
5. Who is the other asian looking man in a picture on the internet, laying on the ground being handcuffed by an officer?
6. What does "Ismail Ax", written on Mr. Cho's arm, mean? Is it a muslim reference? Did Mr. Cho have any history of attending a mosque?
7. Why did he file the serial numbers off of the two guns that he legally bought? Doesn't that suggest a pre-planned assault, and not just a lover's quarrel gone bad?
8. Did he, as some news wire stories yesterday indicated, "shoot his face off"?
9. Why was he in the country on a green card since 1992, when he was 8 years old? Don't you ever have to become a citizen or go home?
10. Why Norris hall? Why was that his target? What classes, teachers, or students were his main target?
So many questions....
I did get to hear some of the afternoon's proceedings on the radio as I drove. One segment I heard was an interview with the Governor of Virginia, who said this: "For those of you who are making this political, who are looking to mount up your favorite political hobby horse and ride it on this tradgedy, I have nothing but loathing for you. The focus should be entirely on helping the victims and their families." Wow, strong words but needed. I decided to ratchet back my somewhat harsh observations and I deleted my earlier post.
My hobby horse is apparently looking for a jihadist connection to all acts of violence. Which may or may not be present here. I'll just cool my jets a little until we know more.
There are, however, so many questions yet unanswered. I'll suffice with listing my questions at the moment:
1. The police called the first shooting at the dorm a "domestic" violence scene. Was the man now identified as the killer (here called Mr. Cho) actually a former boyfriend of the girl killed at the scene? Had they dated?
2. Did people in the dorm witness that shooting? If so, why haven't we seen them interviewed on TV.
3. What happened in the two hours between shootings? Did Mr. Cho go back to his dorm room and arm up for the 2nd shooting? If so, the police have a serious problem on their hands for failing to pursue a gunman loose on campus.
4. How much planning did he do before hand? How many doors did he chain and lock in Norris Hall, and when did he get the chains and locks. When did he put together the arrangement of ammo clips on a vest that he was apparently wearing.
5. Who is the other asian looking man in a picture on the internet, laying on the ground being handcuffed by an officer?
6. What does "Ismail Ax", written on Mr. Cho's arm, mean? Is it a muslim reference? Did Mr. Cho have any history of attending a mosque?
7. Why did he file the serial numbers off of the two guns that he legally bought? Doesn't that suggest a pre-planned assault, and not just a lover's quarrel gone bad?
8. Did he, as some news wire stories yesterday indicated, "shoot his face off"?
9. Why was he in the country on a green card since 1992, when he was 8 years old? Don't you ever have to become a citizen or go home?
10. Why Norris hall? Why was that his target? What classes, teachers, or students were his main target?
So many questions....
Monday, April 16, 2007
Massacre in Virginia
What to say after an all day news cycle covering the shooting spree on the campus of Virginia Tech? It is a sad, sad tragedy. Unfathomable. But I will share thoughts.
First, sadness for the family and friends of the deceased, who will never be the same. Ruined by this homicidal madman. I've watched - and more importantly listened to - the cell phone video that captured the sound of some of the shots. Rapid fire, one coming almost unbelievably close to the next. On and on. It's shocking to realize that each one of those distinct shot-sounds is someone dying.
Second, I was surprised by my reaction. Before I heard any information about the shooter I automatically assumed it was a Jihadi wannabe. Like the guy in North Carolina who rented an SUV a few months ago at UNC and tried to run down students in the square. But, you know what they say about assumptions.
Third, the latest word late tonight is that the shooter is probably Asian, here recently on a student visa.
Big events like this inspire big opinions, so let me unwisely opine so fresh after the event. If I was czar, I would:
1. Fire the President of the University, the Dean of Students, and the Campus Police Chief for not securing the campus after the first shooting. Just to send a message to all campus leaders. Provide security for the vunerable students in your charge. Real security.
2. Cancel all student visas from foreign students and send them back home. Now. We have enough students in the United States. We don't need to be taking the risk of inviting in all of the peoples of the world who may or may not share our values and our sense of law abiding. Send them all home. We'll survive fine without them.
3. Repeal the policy of not allowing concealed carry of firearms on campus. Virginia has a reasonable policy of concealed carry for those who go through the proper training and licensing. VT unwisely banned them from campus. The bottom line here, people, is that the police only arrive after the damage is done in these situations. You have to be able to protect yourself. It's constitutional and it's wise. There has to be a chance that someone in this awful, and even rare, situation between the assailant and the defenseless.
4. While we're at it, I would permit and even encourage every teacher at every level who can qualify to be trained and licensed for concealed carry. That's a radical statement from me, knowing that most campus teaching staff are leftist liberals who would support gun control. I don't care. Protect your charges, those entrusted to your care.
There are evil people out there, intent on doing harm. There's a lesson here.
Update: after reading more news and opinion tonight, here are more thoughts:
- Dennis Prager has an excellent column out already urging a wait on calling for "healing" for the VT community. He advocates allowing a time for anger and grief, what they would want healing from, to play out first as a natural reaction to evil. Also to call it evil, not "tragedy". Very insightful.
- I'm not sure yet that I was wrong in my original assumption of some terrorist aspect of this killing spree. I checked myself when I heard he was "Asian", but there are al Qaeda cells operating in Asian countries. And the high kill rate suggests more of a trained soldier than a spurned lover. Add to that the report tonight that the gunman was not carrying any ID and attempted to shoot his face off in his suicide. Also add that, according to the Washington Post, both of the guns he was carrying had the serial numbers obliterated. Hmmm. I'm going to wait for it all to play out.
- I'm not totally buying the "domestic" crime angle either. The preliminary story is that he went to the dorm to confront a girlfriend who dumped him. You know what, crazy people take one gun to that scenario. However, the gunman in the engineering dorm had two guns at least, and ammo clips on belts across his chest. A spurned lover does not carry this amount of gear, and chains to lock doors. The "crime of passion" scenario of the dorm shootings does not mesh with the cold, calculating, ruthless killer of the classroom shooter. Can you imagine the calm determination it takes to fire 100 shots at human beings with handguns?
Bottom line: we clearly do not know the accurate story as of tonight. What we do "know" doesn't add up.
By the way, there is a previous pattern of domestic terrorists being called crazed lone gunmen instead of people motivated by jihad in the mainstream media. Some examples:
- the SUV driver at UNC
- the guy who tried to set off a bomb at an Oklahoma football game
- the shooter at the Israeli ticket counter in LA
- the beltway sniper John Mohammed
I'm just saying. I heard an awful lot of news people throwing around the "lone gunman" phrase today, before we really know the story. I'm just sayin'.
First, sadness for the family and friends of the deceased, who will never be the same. Ruined by this homicidal madman. I've watched - and more importantly listened to - the cell phone video that captured the sound of some of the shots. Rapid fire, one coming almost unbelievably close to the next. On and on. It's shocking to realize that each one of those distinct shot-sounds is someone dying.
Second, I was surprised by my reaction. Before I heard any information about the shooter I automatically assumed it was a Jihadi wannabe. Like the guy in North Carolina who rented an SUV a few months ago at UNC and tried to run down students in the square. But, you know what they say about assumptions.
Third, the latest word late tonight is that the shooter is probably Asian, here recently on a student visa.
Big events like this inspire big opinions, so let me unwisely opine so fresh after the event. If I was czar, I would:
1. Fire the President of the University, the Dean of Students, and the Campus Police Chief for not securing the campus after the first shooting. Just to send a message to all campus leaders. Provide security for the vunerable students in your charge. Real security.
2. Cancel all student visas from foreign students and send them back home. Now. We have enough students in the United States. We don't need to be taking the risk of inviting in all of the peoples of the world who may or may not share our values and our sense of law abiding. Send them all home. We'll survive fine without them.
3. Repeal the policy of not allowing concealed carry of firearms on campus. Virginia has a reasonable policy of concealed carry for those who go through the proper training and licensing. VT unwisely banned them from campus. The bottom line here, people, is that the police only arrive after the damage is done in these situations. You have to be able to protect yourself. It's constitutional and it's wise. There has to be a chance that someone in this awful, and even rare, situation between the assailant and the defenseless.
4. While we're at it, I would permit and even encourage every teacher at every level who can qualify to be trained and licensed for concealed carry. That's a radical statement from me, knowing that most campus teaching staff are leftist liberals who would support gun control. I don't care. Protect your charges, those entrusted to your care.
There are evil people out there, intent on doing harm. There's a lesson here.
Update: after reading more news and opinion tonight, here are more thoughts:
- Dennis Prager has an excellent column out already urging a wait on calling for "healing" for the VT community. He advocates allowing a time for anger and grief, what they would want healing from, to play out first as a natural reaction to evil. Also to call it evil, not "tragedy". Very insightful.
- I'm not sure yet that I was wrong in my original assumption of some terrorist aspect of this killing spree. I checked myself when I heard he was "Asian", but there are al Qaeda cells operating in Asian countries. And the high kill rate suggests more of a trained soldier than a spurned lover. Add to that the report tonight that the gunman was not carrying any ID and attempted to shoot his face off in his suicide. Also add that, according to the Washington Post, both of the guns he was carrying had the serial numbers obliterated. Hmmm. I'm going to wait for it all to play out.
- I'm not totally buying the "domestic" crime angle either. The preliminary story is that he went to the dorm to confront a girlfriend who dumped him. You know what, crazy people take one gun to that scenario. However, the gunman in the engineering dorm had two guns at least, and ammo clips on belts across his chest. A spurned lover does not carry this amount of gear, and chains to lock doors. The "crime of passion" scenario of the dorm shootings does not mesh with the cold, calculating, ruthless killer of the classroom shooter. Can you imagine the calm determination it takes to fire 100 shots at human beings with handguns?
Bottom line: we clearly do not know the accurate story as of tonight. What we do "know" doesn't add up.
By the way, there is a previous pattern of domestic terrorists being called crazed lone gunmen instead of people motivated by jihad in the mainstream media. Some examples:
- the SUV driver at UNC
- the guy who tried to set off a bomb at an Oklahoma football game
- the shooter at the Israeli ticket counter in LA
- the beltway sniper John Mohammed
I'm just saying. I heard an awful lot of news people throwing around the "lone gunman" phrase today, before we really know the story. I'm just sayin'.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Quick Takes on the News
It's almost getting depressing reading the news lately. There are so many crazy stories, all treated by the media the exact opposite as they should be. The world has turned upside down.
Some quick takes on last weeks stories:
1. Nancy Pelosi's trip to visit the President of Syria was disgraceful, pure and simple. Syria is a sponsor of terrorists, flat out. To give them a photo op PR victory, as Pelosi did last week, is absolutely harmful to the national security of the United States. For failing to heed the President's request that she not go, she should be brought up on charges for violating the Logan Act immediately. It's a law on the books. It prohibits American citizens from meeting with foreign leaders to try to conduct a separate foreign policy. She violated it, egregiously. Charge her. Or, some Republican congressman with courage should introduce a censure resolution. Or both.
2. The non-scandal of the firing of the U.S. Attorneys continues on. I'm torn on this one. On one hand, if the President allows his AG to go down due to absurd partisan attacks he loses a lot of authority. On the other hand, he needs to fire Gonzales for handling this so ineptly. Bush should take this on directly. He should hold a press conference and remind everyone that he has the right to fire anyone on his staff for any cause. Including the U.S. Attorneys and including the AG, who is fired.
3. More tricky is the story of the 15 captured British marines. 3 thoughts:
a. I don't know the circumstances of their capture. I assume they were overwhelmed by force and surrendered. No shame in that. It happens.
b. The response of the western governments - other than the U.S. - and the international organizations (UN, EU, etc.) to an act of international piracy was disgraceful and further demonstrates the uselesness of the transnational bodies. They are anti-west debating societies, of no use in a crisis.
c. The behavior of the 15 marines in captivity was, sad to say, deplorable. To be on TV within a day renouncing the actions of your government should be anathema to soldiers in uniform. To do so in so short of period of time, and without evidence of physical abuse or torture, is shamefully weak.
Worse yet were the scenes of them looking giddy as the accepted "goody bags" from a smiling captor, President Ahmadinaded of Iran. Are you kidding me? You've been captured in uniform by a tyrant in a war zone, and you act on TV as if you're on a reality TV show shopping spree?
Woe is apparently the state of training in the British military. Disgraceful.
Some quick takes on last weeks stories:
1. Nancy Pelosi's trip to visit the President of Syria was disgraceful, pure and simple. Syria is a sponsor of terrorists, flat out. To give them a photo op PR victory, as Pelosi did last week, is absolutely harmful to the national security of the United States. For failing to heed the President's request that she not go, she should be brought up on charges for violating the Logan Act immediately. It's a law on the books. It prohibits American citizens from meeting with foreign leaders to try to conduct a separate foreign policy. She violated it, egregiously. Charge her. Or, some Republican congressman with courage should introduce a censure resolution. Or both.
2. The non-scandal of the firing of the U.S. Attorneys continues on. I'm torn on this one. On one hand, if the President allows his AG to go down due to absurd partisan attacks he loses a lot of authority. On the other hand, he needs to fire Gonzales for handling this so ineptly. Bush should take this on directly. He should hold a press conference and remind everyone that he has the right to fire anyone on his staff for any cause. Including the U.S. Attorneys and including the AG, who is fired.
3. More tricky is the story of the 15 captured British marines. 3 thoughts:
a. I don't know the circumstances of their capture. I assume they were overwhelmed by force and surrendered. No shame in that. It happens.
b. The response of the western governments - other than the U.S. - and the international organizations (UN, EU, etc.) to an act of international piracy was disgraceful and further demonstrates the uselesness of the transnational bodies. They are anti-west debating societies, of no use in a crisis.
c. The behavior of the 15 marines in captivity was, sad to say, deplorable. To be on TV within a day renouncing the actions of your government should be anathema to soldiers in uniform. To do so in so short of period of time, and without evidence of physical abuse or torture, is shamefully weak.
Worse yet were the scenes of them looking giddy as the accepted "goody bags" from a smiling captor, President Ahmadinaded of Iran. Are you kidding me? You've been captured in uniform by a tyrant in a war zone, and you act on TV as if you're on a reality TV show shopping spree?
Woe is apparently the state of training in the British military. Disgraceful.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Unseriousness Nation
You can't help but conclude, if you're paying attention to the news from Washington D.C. lately, that we are now governed by the un-serious. Cases in point:
1. The Democrats in both bodies of Congress have passed, with the slimmest of majorities, bills effectively surrendering in the War in Iraq. They can dress it up in whatever language they want, but when you publicly state your purpose to withdraw from a declared war without obtaining victory, then you are surrendering. Disgraceful.
2. The frenzy over the non-scandal of the Justice Department's firing of the 8 U.S. Attorneys. If Republicans cannot defend themselves in this nonsensical matter, then they are completely incapable of governing. The President, and his Attorney General, are entitled by policy to replace these attorneys at any time for any reason. Why can't they defend that, in the face of a full on attack from a partisan Democrat Congress? Why can't they make the case? Clearly, if Attorney General Gonzales is brought down by the Democrats over this non-scandal, President Bush's effectiveness as a leader is over.
3. Iran's aggression in the capturing of 15 British soldiers, and the violating of every international law in parading them on TV, has been met with weak-spined un-seriousness. Other than the U.S. Government, principally in the form of George W. Bush, the Western nations have said virtually nothing. Nancy Pelosi, on behalf of the Democrat majority in Congress, refused to even allow a vote on expressing condemnation of the Iraninan act of terrorism. Disgraceful.
Folks, there are people out there who are serious about the business of harming us in the West. They are training and preparing and organizing to kill us. It will take serious, vigilant, resistance on behalf of our leadership to combat that. Unfortunately, we are now lead by un-serious pacifists who are engaged in the purposeful destruction of their only perceived enemy, President Bush. We are in deep trouble.
1. The Democrats in both bodies of Congress have passed, with the slimmest of majorities, bills effectively surrendering in the War in Iraq. They can dress it up in whatever language they want, but when you publicly state your purpose to withdraw from a declared war without obtaining victory, then you are surrendering. Disgraceful.
2. The frenzy over the non-scandal of the Justice Department's firing of the 8 U.S. Attorneys. If Republicans cannot defend themselves in this nonsensical matter, then they are completely incapable of governing. The President, and his Attorney General, are entitled by policy to replace these attorneys at any time for any reason. Why can't they defend that, in the face of a full on attack from a partisan Democrat Congress? Why can't they make the case? Clearly, if Attorney General Gonzales is brought down by the Democrats over this non-scandal, President Bush's effectiveness as a leader is over.
3. Iran's aggression in the capturing of 15 British soldiers, and the violating of every international law in parading them on TV, has been met with weak-spined un-seriousness. Other than the U.S. Government, principally in the form of George W. Bush, the Western nations have said virtually nothing. Nancy Pelosi, on behalf of the Democrat majority in Congress, refused to even allow a vote on expressing condemnation of the Iraninan act of terrorism. Disgraceful.
Folks, there are people out there who are serious about the business of harming us in the West. They are training and preparing and organizing to kill us. It will take serious, vigilant, resistance on behalf of our leadership to combat that. Unfortunately, we are now lead by un-serious pacifists who are engaged in the purposeful destruction of their only perceived enemy, President Bush. We are in deep trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)