Impeach Gonzales

It boggles the mind.

Renowned RINO Arlen Specter is going to vote for a "no confidence" vote for Attorney General Al Gonzales, alongside his democrat buddies in the Senate. This guy, who is by any measurement an ideological liberal, is portrayed by his supporters as being strong-willed enough to stand against the Republican establishment. The problem is that Specter, like most liberals, is spineless.

You see, here's the thing. If Gonzales had done something illegal or inappropriate, congress has a built-in remedy: impeachment. The AG serves at the will of the President, and always has. But congress has the ability to impeach the AG just as they do any of the President's cabinet. So, why this charade of a "no confidence" vote? I mean, other than the fact that Gonzales hasn't done anything wrong?

It's simple: the Dems (and Specter) feel like they're in a win-win situation. On one hand, they may get Bush either have to fire Gonzales, thus admitting that there was impropriety over at Justice. Alternatively, they will pressure Bush and he will stand by Gonzales in the face of a media who have already crucified him at least twice. In their minds, they win either way.

The problem is here that the Dems (and Specter) are being as political, or even more so, than Gonzales. If the Dems (and Specter) truly believe that Specter is not the man for the job, the only true recourse is to impeach him. The option of "Bush defends a guilty Gonzales" doesn't help the country, even if it helps the Democratic party (and Specter).

The real problem with Pelosi's trip to Syria

Nancy Pelosi is at it again.

Pelosi has traveled to the middle east, met with Israeli leaders, and supposedly carried a message to Syria. She's convinced that she's played an integral part in the middle east peast process. Good for her. Except, there is a problem.

Now, the rest of the conservatives today are, of course, talking about how she's screwed up. That there was no message. That she's a complete novice when it comes to diplomacy. That she's so far out there, even Jimmy Carter supports her trip. But I have to be honest, that's not my concern.

No, my concern is this: Nancy Pelosi, by inserting herself into a diplomatic role, is attempting to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers, much as she has done with this nasty business about setting a withdrawal date for Iraq. Advise and Consent, that phrase so used by Republican and Democratic congresses alike, does not mean circumvent. It also doesn't mean that congress should fund the millitary only if a withdrawal date is set. They are to either fund it or not. If they want, they can vote to end the entire war on terror by simply cutting the purse strings. However, Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution expressly gives the President full authority in matters of foreign relations (with the exception of trade law, which does rest with congress) as well as in millitary questions, such as a withdrawal date.

This cavalier approach to our Country's most sacred of documents makes my physically ill.

Pelosi's Rhetoric

It is like the Democrats have no understanding of the English language. Or, perhaps, their command of the language is far greater than mine. In a matter of two sentences, Nancy Pelosi extends a "hand of friendship" while simultaneously extending a middle finger.

Maybe Pelosi recognizes, as have many politicians before her, that words can often be used not as a conveyance for reality, for ideas, or for truth, but rather words in context can be made to communicate something that would otherwise be inherently irrational. "There's a new congress in town" is provocative. It stirs up images of the Old West mythology, of Wyatt Earp riding into town, giving notice to the Cowboys that Tombstone was no longer their private pervue. Yet Pelosi wants us to think she's offering friendship.

Nancy Pelosi is no more offering friendship to President Bush than Earp did to Ike Clanton. And I have full faith in the American people that they won't fall for it, if they just listen to the words that she is using.

What the Brits Don't Get

Tony Blair has suffered major political fallout for his willingness to stand up against Sadaam's regime of terror. As such, we know that the UK is pulling troops out of Iraq, and won't be there much longer at all. In the minds and words of many liberal anti-war activists, being in Iraq only makes the UK a target for terror. So, if the UK pulls its troops from Iraq, terrorists will not target the Brits.

But the don't get it. Radical fundamentalist Islam is, at the end of the day, a movement that attacks based not on a demonstration of strength, but a demonstration of weakness. The Iranians capturing British soldiers, detaining them, and, one assumes trying them and eventually killing them (if London doesn't do something drastic). No, this move to take troops away from the War on Terror only makes the UK look more vulnerable.

The same thing happened with the train bombings in Madrid. It was obvious that Spain was on the edge about whether or not it would stand up against these thugs and murderers. Radical Muslim extremists blow up a train and the next thing you know Spain is out, AND they have a new shiny socialist government.

It's the same thing that Bin Laden figured would happen on 9/11. It's been well publicised that Bin Laden saw the U.S. as a "paper tiger" that would fold under pressure. But, the opposite happened, at least initially. And thank God for George W. Bush's steadfastness in the war on terror, too.

Of course, now the Democrats in the house are trying to fulfill Bin Laden's prediction, if a bit late. They are demanding we get out of Iraq, and are, like much of the rest of the world, demanding that a millitary solution to Iran's nuclear crisis be taken off of the table.

Look, appeasement didn't work when we tried it with Hitler. It didn't work with Stalin, either. These maniacs don't respond to guestures of kindness; they only respond to a show of force. If we back out of Iraq and refuse to disarm Iran of its' nuclear program, that will send a clear signal to the terrorist organizations, as well as rogue states, that we don't have the will to see it through. We will have many more 9/11's, and eventually one of them will be nuclear.

We taught the Dems a lesson

And that lesson is this: under oath, everyone is eventually going to say something that isn't true. When that happens, they are toast.

This thing with the U.S. attorney firings is laughable. I've read the supposedly damaging portions of the documents being bantered about. There is nothing in any of them that is any different from any other Washington memo. The democrats know that there is no way in hell that they are going to convict Al Gonzales or anyone else in the Bush administration on these firings. Nothing illegal was done, and it is starting to look like nothing particularly immoral was done, either.

No, the Democrats are not issuing subpoenas to get to the bottom of the firings, regarless of what Leahy the Leaker says. They want Karl Rove's head on a platter, and the lesson of Scooter Libby is that, eventually, you're bound to flub something, whether intentional or not, under oath. Doesn't matter if it is even related to the case.

Not that it hasn't happened to the Dems before. After all, lying under oath is what impeachment was all about. Still, Clinton's lie was, very obviously, a self-serving and bold-faced lie directed at the American people. Libby's perjury was, at worst, a goof on some factual details. Clinton stared directly into the camera and told the American people the same damned lie that he told under oath. Getting facts out of order is a hell of a lot different.

Why the Party is hanging Al Gonzales out to dry

I think I've figured it out. It's starting to make sense.

It's the same reason that Nixon didn't dispute the election in 1960 and Gore did 40 years later. It's the same reason that Nixon resigned and Clinton didn't. (That's an intentional comparison, by the way, for you liberal readers. I know you guys hate being compared unfavorably to Nixon).

It's the same reason that Republicans always seem to balk at defending their own from wrongdoing. And here it is: Conservatives are morally superior to liberals.

Now, I know. The liberals always lambaste conservatives for claiming to be, or feeling, morally superior. Yeah, it has a negative connotation. But, I don't think that it has to be all that bad. I think that it is all right to have a higher moral standard. I think that it is OK to call a spade a bloody shovel. If someone does something wrong, liberal or conservative, a conservative should be able to stay true to conscience and say, "you did something wrong."

Does this mean that conservatives don't have moral failings? Nope. Does this mean that they don't have just as many moral failings as liberals? Not at all. But it does mean that they have a sense of guilt. They have a sense that behaving badly is not all right, even when they do it themselves.

Just because Newt was having an affair at the same time as Clinton doesn't mean that Newt was right to do it and Clinton wasn't. Both were abhorrent. But, eight years on and Newt has said, "my affair was a moral failing on my part. It's something I've had to repent of and make up for." Bill's wife is still talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" who outed her husband's affair. Clinton has done nothing that would suggest contrition. Newt has.

Does contrition make it right? Again, no, it doesn't. Nothing makes it right, that's the point. Just like firing judges on a purely political basis, if that's what Al Gonzales did, was not right. No, it's not as bad as firing all 93 judges, including one who was investigating your business dealings. But the conservatives have this moral compass that tells them that corruption is corruption regardless of who commits it. Liberals don't.

Now, is it premature for Sununu to call for Gonzales to resign? Yeah, it is. The facts aren't all in yet. There is no reason that he should see Gonzales as red meat, at least not yet. That's at least as political and reprehensible as firing judges on political grounds.

I would love to blog about something other than Hillary

But when she declares that she'd keep troops in Iraq just weeks after telling Bush he'd better get the troops out of Iraq before he leaves office, I can't let it go.

One of two things is going on here: Either Hillary just says whatever the hell she feels like saying depending on her audience or the direction the wind is blowing, keeping her real agendas secret, or maybe 2 + 2 really does equal 5, as long as Hillary says so. In the end, the logic of her position demands it..

What the Liberal Media isn't Telling You - Part 1

Among other things...

Not everyone hates George W. Bush, especially not all Republicans.

DDT is not as dangerous as malaria.

Phil Gramm behind him.

Democrats pander to the evangelical block as much as Republicans.

Since when should any particular diplomatic option be off the table?

It amazes me, truly. What exactly is it that Blair and the democrats (minus Lieberman) in the US think that it is that will stop Amacrazynutjob? Sadaam, for all of his bravado, was more dedicated to Lenin than to Allah. If UN threats couldn't move him, they won't move Iran. Especially if there is no threat of force.

TR would have invaded Iran by now. Actually, if TR had had nukes, there probably wouldn't have been an invasion, but instead the newly liberated Iraq would have a brand new parking lot, albeit a glowing one.

Reagan bombed Lybia (Qadaffi, actually, was the target) for blowing up ONE disco. Lybia now has no problem cooperating with UN rules about WMDs.

We know now that the Iranian millitary has been supplying bombs to terrorists in Iraq on many occasions. Why is Ahmadinejad still alive? I want to see pictures of this clown on my TV either inside of a pine box, or at least with a bruise above his left eye and a blood-soaked turban on his head, just like Qadaffi in 1984.

I want to move to Texas.

I want to live in a place where they have a newspaper called the Liberty Post.

Where signs that read "we don't call 911" hang in convenience stores.

The state that used to be it's own frackin' country.

Home of Willie Nelson, George W. Bush, and the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.

Final resting place of Davy Frickin' Crocket.

Tony Blair is an interesting figure.

On the one hand, he is as left as they come in terms of British politics. As leader of Labour, he's going to naturally be to the left of most Democrats in the United States on social issues as well as economics. Yet, he has been a staunch ally of the United States and President Bush in the war on terror.

Until now.

I can't fault the man for falling to political pressure. The fact of the matter is that, if a Democrat in the US had faced the same kind of opposition that Blair has faced in the UK, we'd have been out of Iraq before you could say "fat bloated bastard."

I guess it speaks to the testicular fortitude of George W. Bush that we haven't announced a timetable.

Hillary, however, has.

If you haven't got 'em, you just haven't got 'em.