Take On Hugo, Part II

Since Part I was about an issue that is understandably heated, I figured I would take a lighter note for Part II. Sure, there will be less debate, but its fun. Some liberals accuse President Bush of being an evil mastermind, others accuse him of being a simpleton, and others still try and contend that he’s both – wrap your head around that one! Hugo’s notion is fairly simple:

“Bush a mastermind? I doubt it. He’s as dumb as a stump.”

Well, let’s get to it, shall we? I’ll reproduce a little information from the incredibly fabulous site known as Eject! Eject! Eject!:

“

This is a Convair F-102 Delta Dagger. It is a second-generation, supersonic fighter-interceptor. It cruises at 845 mph.

There were some minor aerodynamic problems with the F-102. For example, at certain power settings and angles of attack - like, say, take-off -- the jet compressor would stall and the aircraft would roll inverted. It is no picnic, skill-wise, to fly a modern F-16 with advanced avionics and fly-by-wire flight control systems. The workload on the F-102 was far higher. The F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14 occurrences per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102’s accident rate was more than three times that: 13.69 per 100,000 hours. 875 F-102A interceptors were built; 259 - almost 30% - were lost to accidents or enemy action while serving in Vietnam.

George W. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102.

Now look at this:

This is the cockpit of the F-102 Delta Dagger’s successor, the F-106 Delta Dart (I could not find an F-102 panel, but they would have been very similar)

Now, picture yourself in this chair, at 40,000 feet, traveling at one and a half times the speed of sound. Now imagine that someone has painted the windows white - you are flying on instruments. Now imagine that not only do you have to be able to fly blind, by referencing these instruments, but that you also have to stare into that orange jack-o-lantern of a radar, and interpret a squiggle that will lead you to your target. Now imagine that in addition to not hitting the ground, or your wingman, and watching the squiggle, you also have to turn those switches on the right side panel to activate weapons systems, to overcome enemy countermeasures - without looking outside, as you hurtle through air at -40 degrees F, air so thin that should you lose pressure, you have about 4-6 seconds of consciousness before you black out and die.

I maintain that the instant George W. Bush closed that canopy and took off on the first of his many solo hours in an F-102, it is quite impossible that he was either an idiot or a coward.

Here is a random question from the instrument rating exam I had to pass a few years ago.

Refer to figure 91:

What should be the approximate elapsed time from the BOSEMAN (BZN) VOR to the DUBOIS (DBS) VORTAC if the wind is 24 knots from 260 degrees and your intended True Air Speed is 185 knots? (The magnetic variation is 17deg. E)

A. 33 minutes
B. 37 minutes
C. 39 minutes

(It’s C., obviously)

If he had been a civilian rather than military pilot, Dubya would have had to have passed 60 questions like this with at least 70% correct. Questions on weather, radio communications, mechanical systems, aerodynamics, pilot physiology, airspace, navigation and a hundred other things. But, since he was military, he also had to know how to operate that primitive in-flight radar, plus weapons systems, rules of engagement, electronic warfare, hydraulics, fuel systems - it goes on and on.

People like Michael Moore and Bill Maher and Keith Olberman (and Hugo –ed.) would not be able to figure out how to close the canopy on an F-102. These people would be weeping with fear when those afterburners light up and you barrel down that runway hoping that engine doesn’t flame out and roll you inverted into the asphalt, or when you’re rocketing through the soup at 300mph watching two little needles chase each other, praying the next thing you see out the window is a runway and not a mountain goat.

George W. Bush is not stupid. It’s not possible to be a moron and fly a supersonic jet fighter, and everyone knows it.
”

Well, there you have it. Beyond that whole graduating from Harvard and Yale thing, it seems that our President might have been given a cursory glance from Hugo, most likely based on Bush’s inability to be articulate as a public speaker. Just the same, Hugo is welcome to present to me all of the following:

1) His degree from Harvard
2) His degree from Yale
3) His military authorization to fly a fighter jet

Once he does so, I will entertain his opinion of the President’s intellect.

Take On Hugo, Part I Revisited

Well, I proposed to my readers to take on Hugo’s perception of abortion, and they did. There is one little detail I wanted to make very clear. Since the comments accumulated very quickly, this one slipped through the cracks and deserves to be pointed out, highlighted, and appropriately ridiculed.

Jonathan from Crush liberalism challenged Hugo:

“If you genuinely believe that abortion is NOT the murdering of babies, then your position is believable. However, we don’t want to put words in your mouth, so please say it for yourself if you truly believe it: ‘I do not think that abortion is the killing of innocent life. I do not believe that babies are killed during an abortion.’ Go ahead, say it.”

I reiterated the call for this statement. There were plenty of other arguments from myself, Jim V and others. Hugo responded to them with more than 4,300 words, starting with:

“I’m not going to bother to respond to a lot of these arguments because I have better things to do”

Of course, this gets me to chuckling. Translation: “I’m going to respond ad nauseam, but not to things that have been argued better than me.” Fine and dandy, but in those more than 4,300 words, that statement Jonathan asked for was still missing. So, I once again asked him to put aside those “better things to do” for a few seconds and at least acknowledge the statement:

“You can copy and paste all you like from the Planned Parenthood websites, but it doesn’t change the fact that an abortion kills a baby. Acknowledge it at least.”

And, at long last we get the answer:

“Is abortion killing a baby? In some cases yes, in some cases no. That is a decision a woman and her doctor need to make, not conservative activists, not religious nuts, and not (usually male) politicians back in Washington. Its (sic) none of their business. Get your morality and the state out of private people’s lives. Or are you a nanny-state conservative?”

This in itself requires a response all of its own. In John Kerry fashion, Hugo proclaims that abortion is both killing a baby and not killing a baby. The deciding factor? Whether or not it is the killing of a baby is a decision between the woman and the doctor. Feeble. He then follows it up with the usual liberal slurs against anyone who might disagree: “activist”, “religious nut”, and my favorite “nanny-state conservative”.

I am none of those, Hugo. However, at least I acknowledge the fact that abortion stops the beating heart of a child. To say that whether or not this is true is based upon a decision between a pregnant woman and a doctor is pure nonsense. My morality has nothing to do with the argument – please note that I still have not stated my position on abortion. The argument is simply whether or not abortion kills a baby. Your response seems to illustrate how you can’t bring yourself to admit it, probably because if you did admit it then your morality would tell you that it’s wrong.

Two Things

Thanks to Crush liberalism for both items of note in this cover of Esquire:

First, does anyone else find it funny that Silky Pony might be construed from this cover as the “Sexiest Woman Alive”?

Second, notice the question posed in big letters on the cover: “Can a white man still be elected president?” Jonathan says it best:

“Let me think about that. Total white men elected president thus far: 43. Total who don’t fall into the ‘white man’ category elected president thus far: 0.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the answer to such a patently absurd question is ‘Yeah!’”

To take it one further, here is why I believe such an absurd question makes the cover of this magazine. By the polling numbers, it seems pretty much set that the democrats will either have a black man or a white woman running for president. As such, liberals pose such a question because, in their minds, a Republican simply cannot be elected.

This makes me wonder how many days (weeks) they will drag out the election results in the courts when they lose again in 2008.

“Official” Softball Debate

Let’s see, what was missing from the losercrat debate?

“Islamic terrorism”? Nothing at all. Wasn’t even mentioned once.

“Immigration”? Nope. Nothing, nada, 何も, nichts, ingenting, 沒什麼東西

“Withdraw from Iraq” - plenty on that, but nothing about the consequences of doing so. That’s OK, though: Obama already made public his opinion that genocide isn’t a good enough reason to stay in Iraq, so I guess the consequences don’t really matter.

al-Murtha Attack

Jonathan at Crush liberalism has this fine story on his site today. It’s well worth reading. Summary:

John al-Murtha on national television, May 17, 2006:

“Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

Father of Justin Sharratt (one of those Marines who is about to be exonerated from these bogus charges):

“Our Haditha Marines have not been convicted of killing innocents and are innocent until proven guilty.”

It appears that al-Murtha would just as soon disregard our pesky little rules of law in order to parrot enemy propaganda.

Fire this man.

Semantics Over And Over

OK, here’s the deal: Old Sourpuss requests that the Defense Department “prepare plans for the phased redeployment” of troops from Iraq. This is also known as “withdrawal”, but that word doesn’t poll as well as “phased redeployment”. Before I begin talking about more semantics, I want to pose this question:

Since when does the Junior Senator from New York have the authority to request anything from the Defense Department regarding procedure during wartime? This is the job of the President.

Anyway, of course we know that this is just typical grandstanding from Sourpuss because she’s gearing up to lose the 2008 Presidential election. Here is the response from Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman, and I ask you to read it twice carefully:

“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia ... Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”

Now, here’s how The New York Post describes the response:

“a blistering attack” and “forceful pummeling”

An al-AP writer description via the eeee-vil Fox News:

“a stinging rebuke”

Many other al-AP variations carry the title:

“Pentagon Slams Clinton on Iraq”

To give credit where credit is due, ABC News presented the story quite fairly in my opinion. The only description:

“The letter ... did not mince words”

Otherwise, the list goes on and on and on about how harsh this letter to Clinton was. Now, if you did as I asked, you read it twice carefully. Perhaps you might want to refer back to it one more time. I don’t see that as “blistering”, “pummeling” or “stinging” by any means. Perhaps it is because of the context. What seems to be left out of most disseminations of this story is Edelman’s further explanation to Senator Sourpuss:

“We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department.”

And there you have it. As I see it, Edelman is telling the opportunistic Presidential hopeful that the public discussion of how, where and when our troops come out of Iraq is irresponsible. It lends credibility to enemy propaganda and potentially puts lives at risk. There are plans in place for this and they, by long-standing procedure, are kept within the confines of the Defense Department.

Much like everything else democrats have done during Bush’s tenure, Clinton is trying to assume the role of Commander in Chief since she can’t bear to think of who was actually elected to that office. Regardless, the press geared up their language a little bit on this, don’t you think? Perhaps this is to create a little sympathy for the leading liberal in the race to lose ’08? It sure gives her and her cohorts ample face-time with the press to cry about it:

“I deeply resent the administration’s continuing effort to impugn the patriotism of those of us who are asking hard questions.”

Not so, but that’s a great liberal fallback – cry about having your patriotism brought into question whenever you don’t like an opposing opinion.

She also said the letter from Edelman gave her the impression “that it’s none of my business as to whether or not the Pentagon is doing what needs to be done to secure the safety of our troops.”

Bingo! None of your business whatsoever.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman’s answer “at once outrageous and dangerous,” and said the Senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Aw, isn’t that cute? I’m going to tell on you to your boss! Dangerous? No, what is dangerous is (a) telling the enemy we’re leaving and (b) telling them exactly where, when and how.

Reines also said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than “a political plan to attack those who question them.”

Uh, no. We don’t need a withdrawal plan because we’re not withdrawing. Even your little slumber-party publicity stunt showed that once again you do not have enough votes to go forward with withdrawal legislation, let alone survive the veto.

Even Lurch jumped into the fray with this: “They will say anything, do anything, and twist any truth to avoid accountability.”

Sounds like he’s talking about his own party, eh?

The Hugo Headache

Hugo: This is a duck.

The Bad: Um, actually it’s a frog. As you can see from this link, it is a frog and absolutely cannot be a duck.

Hugo: Nope, it’s a duck. Calling it anything else is conservative misinformation.

Joycelyn Elders Flashback

The former Surgeon General from the Clinton Administration had this to say on NPR’s “Wisdom Watch”:

“I truly feel that we need to start educating our children about sex from kindergarten through 12th grade.”

So, she’s still pushing for sex education for 5-year olds. It’s interesting to see who else agrees with her. While out moonbatting around, Barack Obama had this to say about sex education for children in kindergarten:

“But it’s the right thing to do, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”

Um, can anyone define age-appropriate sex education for a 5-year old?

My son is SO going to private school!

Take On Hugo, Part I

So, an interesting little debate began in the comments of an earlier article and there’s lots of stuff that requires response. Because it is literally a cornucopia of talking points, I figured it would be much easier to address them one-by-one. So, in no particular order, here’s Part I.

Hugo refers to abortion as a political distraction. I responded quite surprised by the notion. And, we begin:

“Abortion is a distraction. Most Americans and Republicans are pro-choice. The only reason Republicans pols push it is because they are trying to rev up their conservative base. I respect Rudy’s position on the issue and commend him for staying true to his position inspite of the political cost of doing so. Clinton’s position seems to be about right: ‘abortion should be safe, legal, and rare’.”

Hugo, the abortion issue is hardly a distraction. To those who oppose it, it is the seemingly endless murder of children. To those who support it, it is the fight and struggle to retain Constitutional rights. That sounds like a salient discussion more than a distraction.

Knowing your propensity to quote opinion as fact, I’m curious if you can cite anything that proves your notion: “Most Americans and Republicans are pro-choice”. I doubt it because it is patently false. According to these polling numbers, it seems to be pretty close to a half-and-half split on Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. I find it a bit funny that there are actually up to six percent of respondents on some of the polls who don’t know the difference! Most of the polls I researched show a similar result: for abortion and against abortion are about half-and-half of all Americans. I couldn’t find a poll of Republicans only – I guess that would be a foolish poll to take.

Your notion that most Republicans are pro-choice is off the deep-end, my friend. You even contradict yourself: “The only reason Republicans pols push it is because they are trying to rev up their conservative base”. Um, how could that be if they are mostly Pro-Choice? Offering your opinion is one thing, but if you are going to assert “facts” into your argument, please be prepared to reference your sources.

Finally, the big chuckler: “Clinton’s position seems to be about right: ‘abortion should be safe, legal, and rare’.” Is that his position? Why? Because he said so? I believe that about as much as I believed, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”. What he said and what he did are two vastly different things, Hugo. His veto on the bill banning partial-birth abortion says it all. Just the same, go right ahead and show me precisely what he did to help make abortions “rare”.

Looks like Hugo has some research to do. In the meantime, I invite my other readers to chime in. I want to be very certain about this: I have not weighed an opinion on abortion itself intentionally. That’s a much longer debate. Specifically, I am contradicting the following notions:

* Abortion is a political distraction.

* Most Americans are Pro-Choice.

* Most Republicans are Pro-Choice.

* Bill Clinton did anything to support his claim of working to reduce the prevalence of abortion.

Your thoughts?

P.S. To Hugo:

Here’s how you post as “Hugo” instead of anonymous.

The Illiterate From Missouri

Looks like articles from me will be temporarily sporadic. At least until Critter starts sleeping for more than 15 minutes at a time through the night. So, here’s a quick little example of how completely unhinged the losercrats have become. Rep. Ike Skelton, (Illiterate-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, had this to say after “reading” the new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the United States.

“We must responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq, handing responsibility for security over to the Iraqis and leaving only those forces required for limited missions. This will allow us to concentrate our efforts on Afghanistan and the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.”

OK, so I’m pretty sure that’s word-for-word directly out of Howard Dean’s losercrat playbook. That’s alright, though; I think most Americans have come to expect a lack of intelligent and/or original thought from those on the left who are desperate to snatch defeat from the clutches of victory. But let’s look at this empirically: does Skelton’s opinion reflect the contents of the report? You be the judge:

“Of note, we assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland.”

So, the pressing action we need to make in order to fight al-Qaida is to “redeploy” out of the area where they are “most visible and capable”? Did Skelton actually read the report or was he just following the democrat memo ordering Bush trash-talk? I’m guessing the latter. If it were the former, he might have noted this:

“(The report) says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al-Qaida’s ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.”

“Bush has made us less safe” will continue to be a liberal mantra, even though the absence of another terrorist attack since 9/11 and the findings of this report state otherwise. Also, quite clearly, the report indicates what will truly make us less safe:

“This level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge.”

In other words, listening to the MSM and allowing liberals to run the show. This one just kills me: critics have claimed the timing of the release of this report intentionally coincided with the Senate debate. Oh my – we wouldn’t want Americans to know what our intelligence reports say when debating the subject! If they knew the facts, how could they possibly agree with democrats? Well, if the democrats want to stay up all night making lots of sound-bytes for their adoring media, let them.

Just like the middle of June, the middle of July still isn’t September. You remember September, don’t you? It’s when you mandated through legislation that General Petraeus deliver a status report. Not that it will matter much – if Petraeus doesn’t give a doom-and-gloom scenario, dems will dismiss it as they did in June when he reported astonishing signs of normalcy” in Baghdad.

Facts be damned – they are going to win the war to lose the war any way they can.

Headlines: Limited Time To Write Edition

With Critter’s arrival I have limited time to dedicate to a full article today. So, instead I will provide a short smattering of Headline fun.

Clinton And Edwards Decide For Their Voters

You just have to love it when candidates start spewing what they really think when they don’t know that microphones are on them. Mr. Kucinich is a wee bit upset that Sourpus and Breck Girl have decided to exclude his candidacy before voters can chime in. I imagine that their consideration of him as “not serious” must have hurt just a little. I guess they’ll find out how “not serious” he is!

NASA Technology Apparently Missing Spell-Check

They can put man on the moon, but they can’t put the “u” in Endeavour. Yikes.

Taste Of Salmonella

I avoided Taste of Chicago when I lived there mostly because the crowds were too much for me, but there was also that nagging feeling of uncertainty about eating food from street vendors. Who would have thought eating hummus on the streets of Chicago would lead to illness? Nearly unthinkable...

Family Teaches Daughter To Sue When She Fails

Rather than teach her the lesson of working harder next time, the Fischer family secured a lawyer when their freshman daughter didn’t make the cut for the Junior Varsity Cheerleading Squad. Great example for your freshman daughter: don’t worry about success – you can just sue when you fail. I have a pretty good idea who these dullards voted for in the last election.

This Is Just Creepy

The world’s tallest man next to the world’s shortest man – I’m really scraping for words to describe this.

Dow Passes 13,900

Shh! It’s still a secret.

democrat House Wastes More Time

It seems that this Congress can only accomplish two things: one, they vote pay raises for themselves; and two, they keep passing stupid Iraq withdrawal bills. This latest one, sure to be vetoed by the President, is yet another example of how completely devoid of intellectual capital these democrats are.

Terrorist Baby?

(sarcasm on) Apparently, a flight attendant was a wee bit irritable (I’ve never seen that happen before) and decided to boot a Mother and child from their flight because the child was cooing, “Bye, bye plane”. According to the Mother, the flight attendant suggested drugging the child to quiet it. Fellow passengers spoke up in defense of the Mother, indicating to me that Continental Express (whom I’ve never had a problem with before) needs to fire a cranky old broad with too much power at her fingertips. (sarcasm off)

Well, that’s all for now. I hope to be back in full swing by Monday. I haven’t forgotten that I still have comments to respond to in previous posts – so don’t worry Hugo. I’ll explain why you’re still wrong.

Critter Arrives

Hello all! We’re back from the hospital and Critter is apparently quite happy to be in his new home. Since Critter was born a conservative, he was born intelligent and is already speaking in three languages. He asked me to delay my much-needed nap to drop in and let all the readers know that he’s home. He also wanted me to post a couple photos for your enjoyment. Since he asked me to do all this in Latin, it took me a little while to translate it all. What can I say – he’s one smart two-day old!

Of course, he wanted his sidebar picture to be first.

And, he also wanted me to post this picture of him making funny faces at all the liberals out there. He asked me to tell you lefties the following:

“Nyah, nyah – you’re all poopie heads.”

His words, not mine. Of course, translated from Latin it might have lost a little something...

Anyways, I see there have been a ton of comments posted and I don’t have time to respond tonight. I’ll be getting around to you all tomorrow and/or this weekend. Regular articles should resume next week. For more Critter details, please contact me personally at thebad@cox.net.

Cheers, all!

Let Them Eat Cake

I was fully prepared to write about Gore’s Inconvenient Failure this morning, and there’s no shortage of media articles proclaiming the hypocritical worldwide concert event as “dismal” (some were kind enough to call it “barely adequate”). However, from the articles I’ve read it seems that I’m not the only one who opted to do or watch anything else. From what I understand, it was a foul-mouthed screed with no discernable focus, lackadaisical crowd participation, and truly miserable viewer numbers. In other words, it was everything I expected it to be.

This morning, I ran across this article and found it to be much more relevant than a bunch of papered pop stars jumping up and down on stage screaming “who wants to save the planet?” only to hop back in their jet after three songs and pollute away to a posh hotel location. I think this is a very good example of what happens when you elect liberals to power:

“HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Gov. Ed Rendell late Sunday ordered a range of state government services shut down and placed about a third of the state work force on indefinite unpaid furlough after frantic last-minute negotiations failed to break a budget stalemate.”

This is liberalism at its finest hour.

“Pennsylvanians will be unable to take a driver’s license test, visit a state-run museum or place a casino bet starting Monday ... 24,000 state workers whose jobs are not deemed to be essential to health and safety will be furloughed without pay at 12:01 a.m. Monday. Critical services - such as health care, state police patrols and prisons - would still be maintained.”

So, you can’t get a driver’s license, but you can get arrested and jailed for driving without one! Super fabulous! What does the distinguished governor have to say about all of this?

“We didn't start early enough. I think everybody was at fault.”

When I hear a liberal blame “everybody”, I know who is to blame: the same one pointing at everybody. If you’re prone to liberal-defending, you might be thinking to yourself, “Self, couldn’t it be those nasty old Republicans holding up the show? Isn’t there blame enough for them too?” It’s true that we are talking about a budget stalemate, so the opposition has to be holding things up, right? Not so much:

“But disagreements remain over the governor’s other priorities, including an energy plan that Rendell has insisted the Legislature approve before he signs the budget ... ‘The budget is not the sticking point,’ (Sen. Gibson E. Armstrong) said.”

Ah, I see now. Perhaps the Almighty Governor was a bit intellectually dishonest when he blamed “everybody”. If he were to be honest with the people of his state, and with the huge group of state employees he just furloughed, he might say something to the effect that he believes his pet projects are more important than their taxpayer-funded services and jobs.

So, what exactly is this pet project that has become a sticking point? According to the article:

“Rendell’s energy plan would place a surcharge on electricity use for a fund for alternative energy programs and electricity conservation.”

So, it’s a democrat tax increase on electricity, and the increased money the Governor wants to forcibly remove from the wallets of Pennsylvanians goes directly into a black hole. Without total submission to this forced tax increase, the Governor shuts down the government and ultimately tells the people that elected him, “let them eat cake”.

Wake up, Pennsylvania. Fire this guy.

Did You Ever Hear Of A Wish Sandwich?

Lyrics courtesy of The Chips:

Mm-mh, did you ever hear
Of a wish sandwich?
Well that’s the kind of a sandwich
That is supposed to take
Two pieces of bread
And wish you had some meat

If you have some extra time, enjoy this video of the Masters: Jake and Elwood Blues performing an incredible cover of this song.

So, what does this have to do with anything? Well, this little piece of “news” immediately conjured up the memory of that song.

“The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG’s Internet site.”

The article then goes on in the usual al-AP manner, giving lip service about an “unpopular war” and “record low” public opinion polls (if Bush’s approval ratings fall any further, he might get close to the public approval rating of Congress!) Also laughable is the title of the article, “Much of US favors Bush impeachment”. I imagine that if the President had a little “d” in his political affiliation, the article would have been titled, “Less than half of US favor Dullard impeachment”.

It further mentions the two Presidents who were impeached and an “honorable mention” to Nixon who certainly would have been impeached had he not resigned. What hit me funny was this:

“The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached -- that is, formally charged by the House -- for ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ by a simple majority vote.”

Voilà: one wish sandwich. The meat that these liberals wish for is an actual crime to impeach with. There is none. If there were, impeachment proceedings would already be underway or complete by now. Perhaps that’s why the White House has seen over 300 investigations in 100 days from the unpopular democrat Congress (side-note, the al-AP always calls the war in Iraq “unpopular”, yet it has higher approval ratings than this Congress). Of course, democrats deny this claim with a cute sound-byte about faulty intelligence, but don’t bother to offer their own figures to rebut the claim.

I can sit here and quote all the politicians on why they want to impeach or why they don’t want to impeach, but it’s all just dancing around the fact that the democrats have two slices of bread and wish they had some meat.

Whaddya want for nothin’? Rubber biscuit?
(Bow-bow-oo-ooo-oo-oo)

The Biggest Hypocrite?

So, now that I have discussed the hypocrisy of both sides on the decision of the President to commute Libby’s sentence, I can concentrate on the blatant hypocrisy of the left. Thanks to Jonathan at Crush liberalism for gathering this.

The biggest hypocrite? That’s debatable. Some might suggest either of the Clintons, but this article points the attention at John Conyers.

Conyers in 1999: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that? Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency.”

Conyers in 2007: “In light of yesterday’s announcement by the President that he was commuting the prison sentence for Scooter Libby, it is imperative that Congress look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused. Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch.”

Eat it, Conyers. Your words: “Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency”. Apparently, what you meant to say was “only democrat Presidents” instead of “every”. Is there any Member that does not understand that?

When PC Becomes Deadly

The brand-new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is getting off on the wrong foot. Now, I certainly feel for the guy, having taken residence at 10 Downing Street and immediately dealing with terrorism at his front stoop. Luckily for Brown, Tony Blair had done quite a bit during his tenure to make Britain safer. So, how does the new PM deal with his first and immediate calling for leadership? He dives right into the shallow end of the PC pool.

Brown has banned his ministers from calling a spade a spade. They are not allowed to use the word “Muslim” in connection with the terrorist attempts. He has also insisted following in the steps of the Breck Girl by dropping the phrase “war on terror”. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

How in the world can you battle an enemy when you (a) refuse to articulate the battle and (b) refuse to identify the combatants? The reality of the terror attempts in the United Kingdom is that they were attempted by Muslims carrying out jihad. This is the fact, and it is undisputed. Why call it anything else?

The real news: as far as I can tell, the only American news source to even report this is the eee-vil Fox News Channel. The rest are doing as all good liberals do: stuffing their heads squarely in the sand.

Way to go, Mr. Prime Minister. You’re starting to look a little bit like another Brit we Americans laugh at:

Clowns To The Left Of Me, Jokers To The Right

Here I am, stuck in the middle with nobody. First and foremost, I wanted to wish everyone a very happy Independence Day. I was going to write something specifically for this day, but my email has been literally flooded with talk of I. Scooter Libby. So, I have to set aside my Independence Soliloquy and put all this ridiculous nonsense to rest.

I feel like I am all alone on this issue. I look around, read opinions, and I see and hear nothing but hypocrisy – from both sides. Do I think the prosecution was a sham? Sure do, but it was legal nonetheless. Do I think it was a political witch-hunt? Absolutely, but again, Libby had his day in court.

My opinion: Libby was convicted. He should do the time. Period.

Conservative Hypocrites

I know of no conservative that hasn’t complained about the Clinton pardons. Myself included. Every last one of you that complained about those should shut the hell up about demanding Libby’s pardon – or as is current, commuting his sentence. Don’t like the Presidential pardon? Me either. Let’s do away with it. Just stop demanding that Libby get the same treatment you complained about under Clinton.

liberal Hypocrites

How in the bloody hell can you feign disgust? Clinton was caught red handed for the exact same crimes that Libby was convicted of. Every last one of you that defended his impeachable actions and every last one of you that defended his lengthy list of pardons for the likes of some people who committed serious crimes – such as rape to mention just one – should shut the hell up about what Bush has done in the Libby case.

Unless your stance is either (a) the Clinton pardons and Bush commuting Libby’s sentence is acceptable or (b) the Clinton pardons and Bush commuting Libby’s sentence is unacceptable, then you are playing the same vile partisan politics that everyone else is. Make no mistake; this entire ordeal has been partisan politics of the worst kind from both sides.

Republicans and democrats alike: take a stand and stick to it. The rules apply to everyone.

More On Bumper-Sticker Politics

Neil Cavuto of the eee-vil Fox News Channel presented an excellent argument on the danger of the democrat path. I noted the same on Saturday regarding the attacks in the United Kingdom, but I thought that this was an excellent assessment:

“Indeed, if history teaches us anything, it’s that bad guys are patient.

Good guys, sometimes forgetful.

Bad guys remember their failures, like ‘not’ bringing down the World Trade Center in 1993. And good guys rejoice at those failures. Bad guys just get back to hatching bad things.”

Therein lies the problem with the democrats. Setting aside (for the moment) their general ideological shortcomings, they have become so recently engulfed in being the Opposition Party that they have forgone any attempts of creating salient policies of their own. All that they know is that they don’t want to do as their opposition. It is for this reason specifically that you hear such asinine assessments from the likes of John Edwards when he refers to the brutal reality of battling Islamic jihad as “bumper-sticker politics”.

So, when the current administration and the possible future Republican administrations lay out their plans to battle the most brutal enemy our society has ever seen, the democrats must find their opposition which is to at minimum set “timetables” for retreat and at maximum make statements that the situation doesn’t even exist (tied with declaring loss). This is nothing short of suicidal.

Cavuto rightly points out that the car-bombing attempt in London and the car-bombing of Glasgow Airport were ultimate failures. We recognize that the vigilance of society and the ineptitude of the enemy won out. However, winning the battle is not winning the war, thus we cannot return to complacency. Honestly, I don’t see our world ever being able to return to that mindset – at least until the scourge of The Religion of Peace and Tolerance™ has been completely eradicated.

I want to briefly expand on that last statement. I expressly do not contend that we must eradicate all followers of Islam. What I contend is that those who choose to concentrate on jihad as the primary element of their religion (i.e. the scourge) are no longer religious followers. They are cult members that are no better than the followers of Hitler. First, these people must be killed or captured. Then, and only then, will actual peaceful Muslim believers will feel free to step out on the public stage to denounce jihad without fear of reprisal. Muslim leaders have not done this with nearly enough amplitude or frequency. In short, Islamic jihad must be marginalized to the degree that Nazis have. Sure, there are still Nazis out there, but their impact on society is nil. When was the last time you heard about a neo-Nazi blowing up a building or killing hundreds to thousands of civilians?

Until democrats acknowledge the severity of the enemy and devise a coherent plan to combat it, they will always be the most dangerous choice on the ballot.