This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Historical

  • Links for a busy day

    I’m a little backed up workwise so I found a bunch of people with my opinion on various subjects – since they all write better than I write, anyway, you’ll enjoy hearing it from them a lot more than if I repeated their thoughts.

    Blackfive reminds us that today is National Airborne Day-so all ya’all nasty Legs give thanks that we sacrificed our leg joints for you.

    The Gentle Cricket and Crotchety Old Bastard discuss the draft (and the Democrats)

    Invincible Armor points and laughs at the New York Legislature’s latest attempt at being everyone’s nanny.

    Israel Matzav tells us that UN troops are scared of actually doing anything to keep peace in Lebanon.

    Todd Anthony at Flopping Aces discusses the consequences of withdrawing from Iraq, and Aunt Agatha at Bloodthirsty Liberal gives us a historical perspective on the withdrawal from Viet Nam.

    Gateway Pundit has round up of links on the Peruvian earthquake.

    Hot Air has all the links you need to find out about Flat Fatima and Her Magic Bullets. (Sounds like a Harry Potter book doesn’t it?)

    And Kamangir, a blog I’ve only recently become acquainted with, has so much good stuff today on the condition of the Iranian people and the utter garbage theey’re subjected to in the way of news everyday, there’s no way I can point to a single post. His blog is so good on the subject, just go and read it all.

    Jeff at Protein Wisdom gets into the spirit of the Dutch clergy.

    Soldier’s Dad, my drinking/smoking buddy from the MilBlog Convention, catches the Iranians in yet another lie.

    Mark Masferrer tells a tale from Cuba that sounds more like a storyline from The Sopranos

    And from Doctor Helen (h/t Ace)- all ya’all men 35 – 44 are most miserable. I’m here to tell ya that by 52 it’ll all be over with. I’m the happiest I’ve ever been – mostly because there are no more teenagers in my house, and because I have friends like my readers.

  • Eugene Robinson; hyperpartisan bitter hack

    I’ve never hidden my disdain for Eugene Robinson, probably the worst columnist ever hired by any media outlet in the history of western civilization, and today will not be any different. His unmitigated drivel appears every week in the Washington Post  – it’s poorly researched and poorly written. And entirely partisan – right down to the punctuation.

    Today he tried to formulate a case against Karl Rove. Besides beginning the piece with childish bitterness and what he probably thought was a down-home witticism about the door hitting Rove in his behind (which came off like playground taunt more than witty), Robinson couldn’t help but play to the ignorant Democrat stereotypes of Republicans;

    Rove’s reputation as the great political thinker of his era took a severe beating in November, when, despite his confident predictions of a Republican victory, Democrats took control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

    But let’s give the man his due. Karl Rove managed to get George Walker Bush elected president of the United States, not once but twice. Okay, you’re right, the first time he needed big assists from Katherine Harris (speaking of lipstick) and the U.S. Supreme Court, but still. Honesty requires the acknowledgment that Rove was very good at what he did.

    Yeah, that pesky Supreme Court always ruling with the law instead of with the Democrats, and so what if Katherine Harris followed procedures – she should have just done what Robinson wanted her to do. How dare that woman wear lipstick!

    For crying out loud. Did hack Robinson have to troll through Democratic Underground archives to rekindle his misbegotten anger at the rule of law?

    The problem, of course, is that what Rove did and how he did it were awful for the nation.

    Rove announced he was quitting as White House deputy chief of staff in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying that while he knew some people would claim he was just trying to elude congressional investigators, “I’m not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob.” That’s the man, right there in that quote: Benighted fools who don’t blindly trust his honesty or fully appreciate his genius are nothing more than “the mob.”

    Hey, Eugene, notice how awkward that first sentence sounds? Was your editor taking the day off?

    And if you ever took the time to look at the Left from a nonpartisan perspective (that’ll be the day, huh, Genie) you’d see they look like a mob. They want to investigate legal activity by the Republicans, they want to impeach a President for doing his job within the confines of the law, they want to subpeona law abiding citizens to appear in front of their kangaroo committee hearings for no other reason than to please goofballs in pink boas – and goofball columnists at the Post. They waiting in drooling anticipation for Scooter Libby to go to jail and whine like two-year-olds when he doesn’t.

    When the same Constitution that has served us so well for more than 200 years gets in their way, they declare that we should rewrite it to suit them. When the Supreme Court rules against their nefarious sidestepping of the rule of law, we have to change the Court. Have you seen the weirdos and goofballs that show up at these leftist “rallies”? They’re a fricken’ mob, Genie.

    Rove didn’t invent “wedge” politics, but he was an adept practitioner of that sordid art. When Bush was campaigning in 2000, he proclaimed himself “a uniter, not a divider.” But the Bush-Rove theory of politics and governance has been divide, divide, divide — either you’re “with us” or “against us,” either you’re right or you’re wrong, either you should be embraced or attacked without quarter.

    No he didn’t invent wedge politics – that was your boys that did that. When Republicans won the 1994 midterms, it was the Left that was screaming that children were going to starve to death in their school seats, that Black churches were going to be burned in the South, that old people were going to be cast out into the street and forced to live on cat food.

    And I remember a time when George Bush tried to be a uniter – I remember him and Teddy Kennedy smiling while he signed the “No Child Left Behind Act” – and within days Kennedy was condemning the very same act he’d written himself. I remember nearly every Democrat in Congress voted for the PATRIOT Act, and then condemned it. I remember when every Democrat thought Hussein had weapons of mass destruction – but how many admit it now?

    Don’t hand me that crap, Genie. If Rove did anything, he made it politically costly for Democrats to propagate their lies. Grow the hell up, Junior.

    Yesterday, in remarks on the White House lawn, Rove praised Bush for putting the nation “on a war footing” after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But that’s precisely what Bush failed to do. Rather than try to foster a spirit of national solidarity and shared sacrifice, he persisted with tax cuts designed to please his wealthiest supporters. Rather than engage critics of the war in any meaningful dialogue, Bush accused them of wanting to “cut and run.” Rather than actually practicing the bipartisanship he disingenuously preached, Bush governed with a hyperpartisan political agenda.

    A hyperpartisan agenda? I guess the word partisan has lost it’s currency with overuse so we have resort to fabricated superlatives now. Since when is letting working Americans keep their own money dividing America. And how is Democrats wanting to protect Iraqis from Diego Garcia not cutting and running? How is “Bring the troops home now” not cutting and running? What is there to discuss about that? Other than just caving into partisan hacks like yourself. 

    Let me tell you, you half-witted buffoon, if its at all possible for anything to be “hyperpartisan”, it’s policizing the war, it’s placing our national security, our standing in the world in jeopardy for a few votes, and a few kudos from the pink boa-wearing hags. It’s refusing to believe that there is a danger in the world that’s greater than the opposing political party.

    Hyperpartisanship could probably be personified by three Democrat Congressmen standing on the roof of Saddam Hussein’s palace and declaring that Saddam Hussein is a more honest broker than the President of the United States. Hyperpartisan, indeed.

    Rove’s new job will be to put lipstick on Bush’s hideous legacy — and, in the process, freshen up his own.

    History will do that, without Rove’s help. However, you and your ignorant, ranting shit-for-brains friends might want to ask Bill Clinton if he knows anyone at Revlon that can get you a deal on lipstick in bulk.

  • Paranoid…or just cautious

    I read with interest the Wall Street Journal online opinion piece by Ion Mihai Pacepa this morning. I was going to comment on it here, but as I looked around, I noticed it was being covered broadly. I’ve always been a Cold War buff, having spent time on the bayonet point of Western Democracy in the old West Germany and spent some time studying and writing about the US foreign policy of those days.

    This evening I stumbled onto Gateway Pundit (one of my favorites, by the way) and read his take on it. Of course, it focused on John Kerry’s shameful performance in Congress back when I was 16 years old. GP noted the stunning similarities between Pacepa’s piece and Kerry’s testimony.

    But at the bottom of GP’s post there was a link to somewhere I’d never been – Maggie’s Farm. Maggie wondered aloud in her post “Paranoid” that in light of GP’s highlighted text, perhaps we should be concerned about Bill Clinton and his trip through the Iron Curtain countries of the era. Well, I’ve always thought that was suspicious.

    But then I remembered the foreward of a book I read a few years back. The book was The Haunted Wood, by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev. I met Weinstein lately, but I wasn’t able to bring up the question that had plagued me since I read the book the first time in 1999.

    Weinstein wrote the book directly from research he conducted personally in the Soviet KGB archives in the years immediately following the collapse of our old enemy. He had intended to clear Alger Hiss’ name by proving he wasn’t on the Soviet payroll – unfortunately for the life-long Democrat, he couldn’t infact he found records that proved that the Soviet Union was paying not only Hiss but also other employees of the Federal government, congressmen and actors.

    Being a rare type of researcher, Weinstein wrote the book the way the research led him. Of course, there was quite a bit of furor in academia.

    His research was dismissed – not because of the lack of proof, but because when Weinstein reached the part of the archives that stored the records of the 1960s and forward, Weinstein was abruptly banned from the archives and the archives was closed to western researchers. With no explanation from Russian officials. With the archives closed, no one could verify Weinstein’s research, so it was largely dismissed by the Left.

    But, I’ve always wondered what other secrets remain in the KGB archives and what caused them to suddenly curtail Weinstein’s research. And who’s skeletons are buried there. Of course, there’s plenty of room for speculation and I’ll just keep my speculation to myself.

  • Image vs. substance

    When the Clinton campagn found traction attacking President Bush’s “no new taxes” broken pledge in the 1992 Presidential campaign, they decided that they’d better promise a middleclass tax cut. After that pledge won them the election, the Clinton team turned around and levied the largest tax increase in history on the middleclass. They even made their tax increase retroactive so that people who’d died in the first half of the year had their taxes raised.

    Retirees saw their meager social security benefits dwindle as the taxable amount went from 50% to 85% – despite the fact that they’d paid income taxes on their social security contributions when it was earned. Married couples saw their taxable income increase 25% as Democrats searched for ways to tax single income families.

    Six years went by with no tax relief for the middleclass. Finally, in 1998, the Clintons gave a $500 per child tax credit. That works out to a whopping $75/year per child per year in the then-lowest tax bracket (15%). So that was it for the Clinton era middleclass tax cuts.

    Now President Bush promised tax cuts in the 2000 campaign, and he got them passed in 2001 – tax cuts that put real money in people’s pockets. People in the lowest bracket got their taxes cut at least 33% when their taxes were slashed from 15% to 10%. Some saw their income taxes disappear completely. Married couples got their taxable incomes decreased 25% over five years.

    Pretax contributions to retirement plans were tripled and quadrupled to amounts that would actually allow people to save enough money for their retirement. IRA contributions will be $6000/year next year. 401k contributions are 20% of annual income plus an over-50 catch up for workers who weren’t able to contribute while they were raising their kids. That’s substance.

    When we were attacked in 1993 by al Qaida, the Clinton crew counter-attacked with lawyers. They approached a war situation with legal solutions – punishing the direct participants but ignoring the base of operations of these animals. As al Qaida attacked US property outside of the US, they used the FBI and CIA to investigate instead of using the USMC to eradicate the threat. Aside from a few missile launches into an asprin factory and some empty tents in Afghanistan, direct military action was avoided. All image, no substance.

    In the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns, we heard so much about  the Democrat candidates having to “reinvent” their campaigns. Al Gore had become more animated and he had to wear brown suits instead of the dark blue to attract voters. John Kerry had to be less “intellectual” (how that was even possible I’ll never know) and more nuanced. Democrats had to hire image consultants while George W. Bush just had to be himself – a guy who is straight-forward and does what he says he’ll do. George Bush hasn’t changed a whit since he was governor of Texas. WHy shoould he? He’s a leader, not a poll follower.

    Democrats had to change their message, while George Bush never budged from what he believed. Even in the recent immigration debate, we all knew it was coming, the President said it was coming. Whether you liked the immigration reform or not, Bush said that was what he believed and we knew what he believed from the get-go. Whe the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked, we all knew what George Bush’s response would be. Even Gaddafi knew – he voluntarily surrendered his weapons of mass destruction before he was next on the list.

    In this campaign, we get watch the spectacle of Democrats trying to get to each others’ Left. They reinvent themselves depending on the audience. Code Pink has put pressure on Hillary to go against our national security – and there [s]he goes off to the Left. John Edwards is trying to use the internet to energize his flailing and faultering campaign, since the internet is jam-packed with Leftist anti-war-at-any-cost whackos and he up-and-announces that the war is just a bumpersticker slogan. To the thunderous applause of the anti-war-at-any-cost crowd.

    Democrats promised to end the war in the last election, ignoring that it’s just not feasible to jerk our troops out of Iraq in the middle of a battle. The anti-war-at-any-cost crowd jumped up and down with glee, until they discovered that Democrats couldn’t end the war. They get giddy every time Democrats make intellectually vacant statements about ending the war, when Harry Reid drags out the cots for an “all-night debate”, when John Murtha calls our troops cold-blooded murderers, when Dick Durbin calls for the closing of Guantanamo.

    The Democrats are even discussing the possibilty of a debate over “gay rights” (whatever gay rights mean) as if any of them are going to stand up and condemn the idea that any candidate might support special rights for people based on their activities in their bedrooms. What will Democrats debate about gays? Everyone knows that anything deviant is fine with Democrats – while folks who believe in God and His Word should be beheaded in public.

    But it’s all theater. It’s meaningless – but Democrats love the theater. They don’t care about substance – just so long as they can feel good about themselves and their vote. Their useless, pointless and meaningless vote.

    Give me a candidate who means what he says, a candidate with whom I don’t necessarily agree 100% of the time, but someone I know will act in the best interest of the country in every situation – without regard for political fallout. I don’t care what color his/her suit is or how much hair he/she has – or what color his/her hair is. I don’t care if he/she is able to discuss the issues involved in our policy with some unknown tyrannt in some dark corner of the Third World, just so long as I know what he/she’d do if that tyrannt decided to kill or imprison some US citizens in their country.

    My ideal candidate would present an image based on substance – not an image based on more images. Given the history of recent candidates of the Democrat Party, I don’t think they’ll meet my litmus test. Lord knows, most of the Republican candidates don’t meet the criteria, either.

  • Bird…and fools; paratrooper memories

    This Associated Press story brought back some memories;

    Military officials said 25 heavily armed parachutists who landed in a cornfield on the grounds of a Colorado prison last week were on a training mission but landed about 3 miles off target.

    “Those were Special Operations Command forces conducting routine training,” Army Col. Hans Bush, a spokesman for the command at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., said Monday. He declined to identify the units that landed at Fremont Correctional Facility but said the target was Fremont County Airport.

    […]

    “We don’t know who they were and I’m not sure we’ll ever know who they were,” [spokeswoman Katherine Sanguinetti] said. “Everyone acted appropriately.”

    The parachute troops were armed only with rubber training bullets.

    “The good news is everyone was able to quickly assess the situation,” Bush said.

    I’m glad the whole thing turned out OK – it could’ve gone bad fast with a jittery trigger finger or two. 

    There’s a drop zone in Alaska I still haven’t seen – and I was first out the door of our aircraft. In Panama, the first three or four guys out the door over Venado Drop Zone went in the ocean everytime – but even if you hit the drop zone, you were in 10-foot elephant grass and inevitably lost.

    In Germany they dropped on a farmer’s sugar beet field at night and even our battalion commander (the late then-LTC Arthur Stang) broke his ankle when he drifted into a stone wall.  

    One time we flew to Panama for jungle training before I was stationed there. We were to jump into Gatun DZ on the Atlantic side where the school was, but when we were rigging up in Homestead AFB, the pilot held the Miami Herald headline up so we could all see it – “Elite US troops to invade Panama” it said. We looked at each other and the blank adapters on our weapons and wondered how’d we’d invade anyone with near-toys.

    Luckily it was just Omar Torrijos being blustery like Hugo Chavez does now. We landed in Panama instead of jumping and bussed across the Isthmus from Howard AFB. Still , it’s a funny story. I have plenty more if prodded and cajoled properly.

  • “History will judge us, my friend”

    Apparently, Senator from Virginia and turncoat Reaganite, opportunist extraordinaire Jim Webb, possibly the largest cranium in the US Senate, faced off with Momma’s boy Lindsey Graham on Meet the Press yesterday. I dunno, I haven’t watched Russert’s Democrat-lovefest since he had useless-ass John Kerry on the show to talk about different the world would be if we’d only had foresight to elect Kerry two years earlier instead of someone who could do the job without advice from Jabba the Kennedy.

    Anyway, according to the Associated Press writer Calvin Woodward, Webb found it particularly easy to be the cool one for a change when his opponent is linguine-spined Lindsey Graham;

    “Just wash your hands of Iraq,” an animated Graham said to the war critics, including the Democrat seated to his immediate right. “History will judge us, my friend.”

    “It’s been a hard month, Lindsey,” Webb commiserated, wearing a tight smile. “You need to calm down, my friend.”

    “Lindsey’s had a hard month,” Webb repeated.

    “It ain’t about Lindsey having a hard month,” Graham snapped.

    “History will judge us, my friend”. Just like History has judged the anti-Vietnam crowd of being wrong in the thirty-plus years since the end of that war. The dominos did fall in Southeast Asia, just like it was predicted – but it only cost a couple of million asian lives. As long as it’s only brown people, it doesn’t matter that much to the Democrats like Webb, I suppose.

    Of course Associated Press couldn’t help but throw in a reference to Webb’s Vietnam service (while at the same time ignoring the fact that Graham is currently in the Army Reserves). And Graham, to his credit, confronted Webb on his observations and decision-making from his Ivory Tower;

    “Have you been to Iraq?” Graham demanded.

    “I’ve covered two wars as a correspondent,” Webb said. “I have been to Afghanistan as a journalist.”

    Graham: “Have you been to Iraq and talked to the soldiers?”

    Webb: “You know, you’ve never been to Iraq, Lindsey.”

    The Republican pointed out he’s been there seven times.

    “You know,” Webb said dismissively, “you can see the dog and pony shows. That’s what congressman do.

    Dismissively. As if there was nothing to see in Iraq, that relying on the AP is probably a better idea than going to see for Webb’s self. Especially since Webb can’t seem to believe his lyin’ eyes anyway.

    Graham tried to ease the tension. It didn’t work.

    “Let’s—something we can agree on,” he said, placing his hand on Webb’s arm. “We both admire the men and the women in uniform. ”

    “Don’t put political words in their mouth,” Webb interrupted.

    The exchange ended with Graham praising the troops: “God bless them and let’s make sure they can win because they can.”

    And Webb getting the final, combative word:

    “I’ll let them judge what you said.”

    The implication, of course, is that Webb speaks for the troops better than Graham. Webb references polls and history as if he reads either. History has always judged anti-war activists hashly. From the Civil War-era draft riots, through today’s misguided misfits of the anti-war, History has proven time-and-again that war is a necessary evil, and that avoiding war only leads to greater, more destructive wars.

    The anti-war movement, and apparently the naive and unread James Webb, is simply an opportunistic movement to elect otherwise unelectable candidates to office. Someone as ignorant of history, and unwilling to seek his own answers to complex problems as Webb appears, never would have been elected to his office by a responsible constituency.

  • It’s all about Vietnam, except when it’s about Vietnam

    Democrats can’t let go of the 60s. They think they actually won something when the US began pulling combat troops out of Vietnam in 1972. They forget the bloodbath that happened when Saigon fell in 1975, they forget the Vietnamese incursions into Laos during the Carter Administration (that were halted by the Chinese), they forget Pol Pot’s killing fields. All they care about is regaining their former bloodstained glory on the front pages of “their” media”. 

    In light of the reports coming out of Iraq by alternate means, like Michael Yon Online, since we can’t trust the media to tell us what’s happening over there, Jon Ward of the Washington Times reports that the President pleaded with Americans from Cleveland yesterday;

    “I believe that its in this nations interests to give the commander a chance to fully implement his operations,” Mr. Bush said, speaking at a downtown hotel to a local business group.

    Mr. Bush did not reveal any changes to his strategy or thinking on Iraq and did not talk about his hopes for withdrawing troops, despite reports that conversations on the topic are intensifying inside his administration.

    Instead, Mr. Bush said, “Congress ought to wait for General Petraeus to come back and give us assessment of the strategy that he’s putting in place before they make any decisions.”

    It sounds reasonable, but fairly unrealistic given the political backbiting that’s happening eve in the President’s own party. But, the Democrats, the party of Insanity (doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results each time), plan on running through the same bill they ran through a scant few weeks ago, hoping for different results. From Sean Lengell, Washington Times;

    Senate Democrats yesterday called for withdrawing most U.S. troops from Iraq by April 30 — less than two months after a similar measure was soundly defeated — as the White House dispatched its top war advisers to Capitol Hill to embolden Republican allies.

    Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said setting a troop withdrawal timetable will force Iraqi political leaders to take responsibility for their own country.

    “The legislation that we are proposing … would give commanders the flexibility to the pace of reductions and the units to be reduced, and I think it’s the appropriate way to go,” said Sen. Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat, who co-sponsored the measure with Mr. Levin.

    Republicans leaders called the maneuver premature, saying that President Bush’s surge strategy is starting to pay dividends and that any major changes shouldn’t occur before Gen. David H. Petraeus provides his September report on the state of the war.

    Well, we just can’t let the troops win too many battles, can we? So it’s time for the Democrats to do the sabateur work that al Qaeda can’t seem to do these days. With Cindy Sheehan breathing down her botoxed and stretched neckflaps, Nancy Pelosi is planning an entire month of intellectually bankrupt votes to undermine the troops’ victories in Iraq;

    House Democrats are planning a series of votes this month on Iraq that they hope will ratchet up pressure on the White House and congressional Republicans to change course on the unpopular war or suffer political consequences.

    Sensing that additional GOP members might follow the more skeptical path taken recently by Sens. Richard Lugar (Ind.) and Pete Domenici (N.M.) and Rep. John Doolittle (Calif.), Democratic leaders have decided to ignore White House requests that lawmakers wait until September to see how President Bush’s surge works.

    “I think you’re seeing signs that the dam’s about to bust,” said Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), tapped as leadership’s coordinator for Iraq strategy. “Someone on the Republican side has to be like Fulbright during the Vietnam War.”

    Just like Vietnam, huh Larson – the anti-US Left wants to relive their golden days. It doesn’t matter that history has proven them wrong then, or that history will prove them wrong on this one, too. just so long as they get to see their name in the paper.

    The Washington Post still claims there’s a large defection of Republicans from the President’s war plans – but they can only name a few, oddly;

    Facing crumbling support for the war among their own members, Senate Republican leaders yesterday sought to block bipartisan efforts to force a change in the American military mission in Iraq.

    But the GOP leadership’s use of a parliamentary tactic requiring at least 60 votes to pass any war legislation only encouraged the growing number of Republican dissenters to rally and seek new ways to force President Bush’s hand. They are weighing a series of proposals that would change the troops’ mission from combat to counterterrorism, border protection and the training of Iraqi security forces.
     
    “I think we should continue to ratchet up the pressure — in addition to our words — to let the White House know we are very sincere,” said Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), who broke with the president last month.

    Voinovich and Snowe are the only two defectors in the article. Add in Domenici and Spector, that’s four. It’s hardly a defection, it’s barely newsworthy – cetainly not enough to write a whole column. But there’s the Post spending bandwidth on a stupid subject while they could write stories about the troops’ several victories this week, or the horror that al Qaeda has inflicted on Iraqis.  The Post could actually report on the war rather than those idiot conversations they have with useless politicians.

    In the meantime, Cindy Sheehan is zeroing in on the old SanFran Hag;

     Cindy Sheehan bid farewell to her former “peace camp” near President Bush’s ranch and began a nearly two-week trek Tuesday toward Washington, D.C., with her sights set on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
    Sheehan, a Californian, officially announced that she intends to run as an independent against Pelosi in 2008 if the San Francisco congresswoman doesn’t move to impeach Bush by July 23, the day she expects to reach Washington.

    “I know what Californians care about,” Sheehan said. “They don’t care about the ruling power elite.”

    Yeah, Cindy, you probably know about as much about what Americans care about as Nancy – but I wouldn’t embarrass myself by saying it aloud in public if I were you. I guess we can’t count on you to keep your promises, either. Promises like leaving the stage and letting the adults run the country. If ever there was someone less worthy of my attention, I don’t know who that would be.

    So I guess we peg our foreign policy to the whims of gutless coward and crazed dingbats.

    From yesterday’s Day By Day;

     

     

  • Treason

    Apparently, US Congressmen standing on Saddam Hussein’s terrace declaring that Hussein is a more rational actor and more trustworthy than President Bush on the eve of our invasion of Hussein’s Iraq is not treason.

    The US Speaker of the House meeting with terrorist governments and transmitting false messages from other governments against the advice of the Executive Branch is not treason. Facilitating the sales of space and missile technology to our economic and military rival, China, in return for political campaign donations is not treason. Turning a blind eye to North Korea’s nuclear program is not treason.

    Calling our soldiers murderers and SS concentration camp guards is not treason. Demanding the release from Guantanamo of dangerous terrorists bent on our destruction is not treason. Facilitating the immigration invasion from our South is not treason.

    So what is treason these days? Ask Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.;

    “Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy’s son, who grew hoarse from shouting. “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”

    Yep, global warming deniers are treasonous. People who question the Flat Earth Society of Global Warming Nuts are treasonous. If you don’t run around behind Chicken Little Manbearpig and screech that the sky is falling, you’re a traitor.

    Yet let’s be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn’d upside down.