Friday, January 23, 2009

Bush Wasn’t Polarizing.

I quote what liberals and their elected and unelected leaders do and say in public, like vandalizing the White House, stealing top secret documents, producing plays and movies about assassinating President Bush, leaking national secrets for political gain, leaders of your party calling president Bush a liar for coming to the same conclusions they did based on their own assessments even before he took office, badmouthing the nation overseas, rampaging GOP headquarters, destroying public and private property and on and on…

This is not the understandable and normal name calling and bad mouthing that goes on among ideological peers, but a whole different level of rank immaturity, anti-Americanism and thuggery that simply doesn’t exist on the right.

We “tortured” a total of three people, which got us the intelligence to foil several plots, the airline plot which was very close to execution among them. And you can argue all you want that it wasn’t proven that Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his cohorts were terrorists, but you’ll only look like an ass. So I guess I should expect you to.

What is funny here is that BHO signed an order saying no more torture, but left himself as the sole decider on when and if it needed to be done he can authorize it. What is wild is he did not define the torture techniques he would authorize ie. waterboarding, only techniques listed by the CIA. In other words, secret stuff. Can you imagine the howling if Bush did that? The media would have picked it apart, but when the one does it, they are virtually silent. If you posters are so opposed to “torture” really want to defend the integrity of the USA, you would say something about the executive office giving themselves so much power on day one! If you really trust this president that much? You are all fools.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Ever since I started regularly reading conservative blogs sometime in 2003 or 2004, I loved the level of discourse of my favorite right-of-center sites. Or maybe, I should say non-leftist. Then, Andrew Sullivan offered a balanced perspective on President Bush, hailing him for his tenacity in the War on Terror, yet faulting him for his occasional arrogance and political short-sightedness.

Sunday, January 4, 2009

The Clintons

Once again, we see the Clintons pointing out that what they are doing meets “legal requirements,” that is suggesting that as long as something is legal, it is also ethical.

Shouldn’t they also be concerned about conflicts of interest in this unique situation where the husband of a Secretary of State (Bill Clinton is the first such husband; of the two previous female Secretaries of State, one was single, the other divorced). Had the wives of their predecessors run foundations that regularly sought large donations from international sources?

Sec of State Clinton and her husband have huge ethical problems. Thanks to Drudge and the Washington Times this explains pretty clearly the cloudy mess the Clinton Foundation is along with it’s Chinese connections.