Led By The Nose, So It Goes
Apr 23, 2009 Political
You know, I must really be the last Idealist- yes, I am conservative in my core values, but I have always believed that no matter who we elected, that person would have the actual welfare of the country at heart, thus couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything that would tear the country apart at the seams.
At least, until yesterday, when I learned that the Democratic Party, allegedly led by Barama, in its most liberal, bone- headed move yet, (and that’s saying something, right there), has decided, in order to placate the foam- at the- mouth wing of liberals, to see if there is any trumped up charges they can throw at the Bush Administration regarding the detainees we still have at Gitmo.
Oh, Barama has given himself a CYA, by saying that the Attorney General would look into this, but we all know this could stop if Barry gave the word. He has not, and I do not think he will. This is most unfortunate. I guess that he wants to stay in good with John Conyers, who has some indictable back story, and Patrick Leahey, who is probably still mad that Dick Cheney told him where to go, in no uncertain terms. Don’t they know that people in glass houses do not throw stones? Apparently not.
This is a foolish move on several levels; One might be tempted to tell King Barama to keep his eye on the things he needs to get done, and not wander off like someone with ADD, looking for something new.
Also, I would remind him that this country is basically Center- right in its political makeup, and Barama didn’t so much win, as McCain lost. I mean, figure it out- the Republican brand was trashed, yet McCain actually won more states- just not the ones with the big electoral college numbers. If we had had a candidate that was serious about winning, the outcome might have been different.
But it is what it is in terms of the outcome. Barama should do well to remember what is Job One, as they used to say at Ford Motor Co., and that would be fixing the economy.
Yes, I know he is going at it bass- ackwards, but If he gets off in Lala land with the Daily Kos crowd, and MoveOn, very little will get done, and don’t care what kind of Halo you might think you have, if you aren’t getting results, don’t moveon- move over.
Add to this stew of righteous BS a cautionary note- what you do to others, so can be done to you, and is this the legacy you want? Endless hindsight hearings on who did what to whom, with shifting morals and questionable legalese- and BONUS!- this can occur every time a different party comes into power. Oh Joy.
Now, I know that the liberals say,” Oh my God, he ordered torture! I can’t believe it!” Don’t believe it. Bush ordered “Discomfort”. The big difference is, these people are still alive, and not all crippled up,(although I am sure they will play to the crowd, and the pansy libs will cry, and say how brave these “freedom fighters” were in the face of some discomfort). Look people, these terrorists (that’s right, Janet, I said the “T” word) were not randomly picked up , “driving while Al Queda”- they had to be fighting our troops. I say shoot them in their head, but the troops are better than I, and bring them in for questioning- if they are judged to be a high value detainee, then they get enhanced treatment.
Several facts here- (1)- the opinions were sought and received in the wake of 9/11, and if you do not remember how you felt then, just wait, with the Obamanators in charge, it will surely happen again- and, (2)- Medical staff were there at all times during the process, to oversee the discomfort levels. That makes it almost like going to the dentist, huh?
Now, you have to ask and answer a question honestly here- if your child was in imminent danger, and water- boarding a person would save your child’s life, would you do it? If your answer is yes, you need to cease criticism of this, because if you would save your child, would you not save your neighbors’? You absolutely cannot sanction the one, and condemn the other- that would be, let’s all say it together-hypocrisy.
See, I knew you could.
The fact that these levels of discomfort (I refuse to call this torture) even had to be argued by lawyers, says something strange about our system- I find it exceedingly bizarre that putting someone in a box with a caterpillar, in order to extract information, is called something other than “interesting”. That would be all I would think of it. The caterpillar couldn’t hurt the man, just scare him. Most of us might find that to be much milder than the visual scenes we get in horror movies today, but it worked.
Why we even have this discussion about people who cut off our heads (in real life, not movies), is probably the strangest twist in our moral confusion here. I, for example, would have no trouble ordering this menu of discomfort, not for enjoyment, but to extract information. There ARE times when the world is not shades of gray, to be debated ad nauseum, but black and white- this is one of those times.
You see, I still remember how I felt on 9/11, watching those planes fly into the towers in real time. I can sum it up in these words- No matter the color, no matter the race, you DO NOT mess with my brothers and sisters. You do not mess with my family.
Judging from Move on and the like, some of my family is vastly dysfunctional.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 9/11, Bush, investigate, Obama, terrorists, torture
Should We Believe Obama’s Granny?
Dec 3, 2008 Political
Obama’s Granny Sarah in Kenya is telling folks that Obama’s granddaddy was tortured by the British many years ago and the way he was treated caused him to despise them. She claims that grand pappy Hussein Onyango Obama (are we allowed to write Hussein) was a cook for a British officer and the officer found out that grand pappy was sympathetic to the group that wanted to oust the Brits and gain Kenyan independence. He was jailed and tortured for this.
I have two questions. Should we believe her and why is this a news story?
The first thing is, should we believe this story? The Media sure seems to since the Times UK has a two pager detailing the exploits of young pappy Hussein (as Britney would say, Oops, I did it again). It is major news as evidenced by the link at Drudge. This woman has been deemed credible by the media. After all, she is the granny of The One and when she speaks they should hang on every word.
But wait. This is the same woman who said she was at the bedside IN KENYA when Barack Obama, her grandson, was born. This is a story that never received two pages of coverage and people who mention it in reference to Obama’s qualifications to be president are singled out as nuts, haters, and worse than 9/11 truthers. We did not make it up, she said it.
So, if her memory is good enough to recount the entire story of grand pappy Hussein then why is her memory of Obama’s Kenyan birth failed? Why do the media give credence to what she said about torture but not what she said about the place of Barry’s birth?
A reporter gave this woman legitimacy and researched her story of torture and then wrote a lengthy piece about it. Seems to me that her claims of Obama’s Kenyan birth would warrant a hell of a lot more in depth research to ensure that the next President is qualified under the Constitution. Before some idiot tells me that his birth certificate has been posted, that was not a birth certifiate. It was a record of what is in a database. We need to see an original with the place of birth filled out (as well as all the other demographic data that will make it clearer). We also need to have all information from Kenya unsealed and offered for scrutiny. Why do you suppose Kenya and Hawaii have locked up Obama’s records (and what kind of record besides a birth certificate could Kenya possibly have).
Either we call granny a liar on both stories or we say she is telling the truth on both but we can’t give her credibility in one instance and say she lacks it in another.
Since Obama mentioned the story granny told in his book (and the Times UK gave her credibility by writing the story), I say we call her legitimate and investigate more deeply the claims of a Kenyan birth.
Why is this news? It is a story about something that has no impact on our country and pappy Hussein is dead. Why is this news when the story of Obama’s Kenyan birth is not? That is much more relevant to us than how a British subject was treated after WWII.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Water Boarding Tortures AG Confirmation
Nov 1, 2007 Military, Political
Many Senate Democrats have indicated they will not vote to send the nomination of Michael Mukasey to the full Senate for a confirmation vote because he refused to answer whether water boarding is a form of torture. The most recent uninformed malcontent to have a say in the matter is none other than Teddy “the Boozer” Kennedy who had this to say:
Kennedy said Mukasey’s unwillingness to give a definitive answer on the torture question [whether water boarding is torture] increased the chances that the technique could be used against U.S. troops.
“I therefore intend to oppose this nomination,” Kennedy said in the full Senate. “Judge Mukasey appears to be a careful, conscientious and intelligent lawyer and he has served our country honorably for many years. But those qualities are not enough for this critical position at this critical time.” Yahoo News
What Kennedy fails to realize is that water boarding is used against US troops and it is used against them by our own people under a program that the Congress provides money for each and every year. Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive wrote a piece about water boarding and how our troops are subjected to it as part of Survival Escape Resistance and Evasions (SERE) training. He poses a very good question when he asks why it is unacceptable to water board our enemy when Congress sanctions water boarding our own people. Additionally, only in Kennedy’s bloodshot view could the qualities of being careful, conscientious, and intelligent with honorable service not be good enough for the position of Attorney General.
I agree with Uncle Jimbo that that water boarding is not torture as it leaves no permanent injuries and the people are none the worse for wear but the issue is not whether water boarding is torture. The question is, if the Democrats believe that water boarding is torture and they will oppose Mukasey because he will not agree with them, then why do they allow it to be done to our troops? They provide the money and they know about the program so the are complicit in the torture of our troops, if they truly believe this to be torture.
Then again, they are Democrats so they probably hold the enemy in a higher regard than our troops. This would explain why they will pay for our troops to get water boarded but cry like Hillary after a bad debate when a terrorist gets the same treatment.
Against all enemies foreign and domestic.
I think we should water board Ted Kennedy until he admits he was driving drunk when he murdered Mary Jo. Hell, we should just water board all the Democrats in Congress for the fun of it.
In the same article, President Bush indicated that if Micheal Mukasey is not confirmed there will be no Attorney General.
Tags: blackfive, boozer, judge mukasey, senate democrats, sere training, torture, uncle jimbo, water board
Hillary Rodham, Arrogant Con Woman
Sep 27, 2007 Uncategorized
I have written on a number of occasions about Hillary Clinton and her insatiable appetite for power. She has lusted for power from the early days of her husband’s political career and to this day she thinks of nothing else. Of course she tells people lots of things and she verbalizes all the things that people want to hear but her goal is to get more power. Hillary Clinton will say whatever she thinks needs to be said and she will do whatever she thinks needs to be done in order to get elected. Hillary Rodham is much like politicians of a century ago who, unencumbered by the electronic age, said what people wanted to hear and often delivering different versions or opposite opinions depending upon where they were. They could always attribute any reporting of it as a misquote. It worked well in a time when people in differing states often knew little about what was going on across the country.
The age of instant communication changed all that because claims that would have passed unnoticed years ago are scrutinized and compared to other things that candidates said. This is also true for the legacy media. Dam Rather would have gotten away with his biased reporting a few decades ago. Instead, he ran into a wall of people who could instantly debunk his efforts.
Hillary continues to be a politician who will say whatever is needed regardless of what her position was at any other time. Either she has not fully grasped the power of the electronic age or she is so arrogant that she believes that she can say what she wants and get away with it. I am banking on the latter. She, and her husband for that matter, has gotten away with so much that she believes that nothing she says or does has consequences. In the event she is caught in a problem there is always the Vast Right Wing conspiracy upon which to place the blame. It looks to me like Hillary Rodham starts each day as if no one had ever heard anything she has said. She starts as if whatever she says will be fresh and accepted without question. Last night’s debate was yet another shining example.
During the debate, Tim Russert asked if it would be OK to torture a terrorist if there was an imminent threat to Americans (they always use the nuclear bomb is about to go off and this guys knows where it is). Rodham contradicted the opinion of her husband by saying that this cannot be done under any circumstances; “It cannot be American policy, period.” That is pretty clear. We cannot, according to her, torture the guy who knows where the bomb that is about to explode is located. She even indicated that she would have to talk to Bill about it, since his opinion differs (and therefore must be wrong).
She received applause for her answer and true to form there was no follow up to challenge her on her change of heart. You see, not very long ago Hillary Rodham said that it would be OK to torture under that circumstance.
Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: “If we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.”
She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.
“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said. NY Daily News
In a year’s time (and before she announced her candidacy) Hillary Rodham went from the we need to do it tough girl to the absolutely not panderer. Last October, she was preparing for her reelection to the Senate which was really just a prelude to her run for the White House. I indicated that she had those plans for a long time even though she denied such silly things. When she needed to begin convincing Americans that she can hold the office (and before an election) she was tough and would do anything to save American lives. Last night she was before a national audience and only a portion of that audience can vote for her. Hillary made sure she said what needed to be said to the liberals who will be voting in the primary. Should she succeed in winning that nomination she will be tougher on these things and, no doubt, take a number of positions. She will take whatever position she thinks will make the most people vote for her.
She voted for the war and her talk at the time was how she could support the President and how Hussein had WMD and had to go. When the going in Iraq got tough, Hillary was lied to about the WMD and George Bush messed up the war. He got us into it and it will be up to super Hill to get us out. She would not take Bill’s last name when she lived in Arkansas but when she found out that the conservative base down there did not appreciate women who did that, she miraculously changed her last name. I guess they figured if she was too ashamed of him to have his name he was not worth their vote. She traded her principle for votes. Rodham stated that if Bush would not bring the troops home she would do it when she was elected. Last night she (and most of the others) could not commit to a time when the troops would be brought home. They might be there past the next president’s watch. There are many, many examples of Hillary Rodham saying one thing one place and another thing at a different place.
Hillary Rodham is Satan in the flesh and she will say whatever it takes to get elected and then she will run this country in to the ground (and blame it on George Bush). Hillary has begun to act more like Kerry with the Flip-Flops. Though I would have thought she would have learned from his problems, it is obvious that her arrogance allows her to do what she wants and to believe Americans are stupid enough to fall for her con game.
The problem is, about half of them are…
Tags: con job, flip flop, Hillary, Iraq, Kerry, liar, Political Commentary, torture, war