Clinton Swings from Hawk to Chicken
Feb 18, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton, who likes to take decisions based on poll results, has heard what her base is saying and has moved away from the war. Her transformation has taken several steps along the way. Originally she voted for the war and claimed to support the troops. She has voted for the spending bills for the war and made many statements indicating that she did not believe there should be a timetable for withdrawal. Of course, she has blamed the war, which she calls a mistake, on Bush but has avoided calling her vote a mistake. As I pointed out in an earlier post, she believes that the president deserves the benefit of the doubt and that Congress should not be directing the president’s actions. Except, of course, when the president is Bush.
Hillary has been avoiding calling her vote for the war a mistake so as to avoid being labeled a poll watcher, indecisive, or a flip-flopper. Her latest modification actually makes her look like all of the above. She is now indicating that the troops should begin coming home in 90 days and she is introducing legislation to limit the number of troops and to require Congressional approval for any increase. Then, she wants the troops to begin coming home within 90 days. This is nothing more than cut and run, regardless of what name they use to disguise it.
Hillary earlier stated that she believed a timetable for withdrawal would be a mistake. She has changed that position to espouse a 90 day timetable. This is a flip-flop, shows indecision and is definitely based on polls that show a lot of the Democratic base are upset with people who voted yes for the war, especially those who will not say they were wrong. It also shows that Hillary Clinton does not really care about the troops. In the past she thought a timetable would be dangerous to them and to Iraq, now she wants a timetable, danger be damned.
She indicated that her trip to Iraq only strengthened her opinion that the troops needed to come home. How many did she ask? How many places did she go? How many soldiers on this trip were forced to spend time with her against their will? Hillary is confident that she will be in the general election so she is not tilting too far tot he left, just yet. She is trying to appease the anti-war crowd so she will do well in the primaries. If she falters in any of those contests she will take a hard left turn like people have never seen. Her actions are all in accordance with those I have lain out all along. She is playing the game just as I said she would. I know her game plan.
Source:
al-Reuters
Tags: Commentary, Political
No Woman Should Be President
Feb 17, 2007 Uncategorized
Men have always been president and that should not change. There is no reason that a woman should be president regardless of what the Constitution says about the subject. The fact that a person is a woman automatically, despite any other qualifications, disqualifies her from becoming the president.
That sounds absolutely ridiculous because the sex of a person has no bearing whatsoever on ability to do the job. So why is a person’s religion such a problem? Except for the so called peaceful religion of Islam, the religion of a candidate should not matter. The fact that Islam requires people to convert or be killed eliminates that religion from consideration. No other religion requires conversion so why is it that people consider this when evaluating a candidate.
I have not made up my mind as to whom I would like to support in the next election. I have ruled out several candidates but it is way too early for me to get behind one person or another but I will say this, unless the person is a Muslim (a follower of the religion of peace), I do not care what religion that person practices. Mitt Romney is catching hell because he is a Mormon. Who really cares if he is a Mormon, Jew, Catholic, Protestant or any other religion (except, as stated, the followers of the child molester).
Perhaps folks can stop focusing on things like sex or religion and actually concentrate on things that matter.
Source:
Orlando Sentinel
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ The Virtuous Republic ♦ Right Truth ♦ Shadowscope ♦ Stuck On Stupid ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ Diva Dish – Weekly Celebrity Gossip Round UP ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ Rightlinx ♦ third world county ♦ The HILL Chronicles ♦ Woman Honor Thyself ♦ Wake Up America ♦ stikNstein… has no mercy ♦ The Uncooperative Blogger ® ♦ The Right Nation ♦ Pirate’s Cove ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Dumb Ox Daily News ♦ Right Voices ♦ Right Pundits ♦ A Blog For All ♦ 123beta ♦ Maggie’s Notebook ♦ Adam’s Blog ♦ basil’s blog ♦ Phastidio.net ♦ Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog ♦ Jo’s Cafe ♦ Conservative Thoughts ♦ Faultline USA ♦ The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns ♦ The World According to Carl ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker ♦ Gone Hollywood
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Commentary, Link Fest
Partisan Hack Hillary Suffers from BDS
Feb 17, 2007 Uncategorized
Hillary is a partisan hack and a typical Democrat. She believes that certain rules apply to Republicans (especially George Bush) and not to her, or other Democrats. Since she is running for president (a revelation I made over two years ago) it is fitting to see how Hillary is playing this game and how she affords herself luxuries that she will not give to President Bush. The NYT has an article that deals with Hillary’s strategy with regard to her vote to authorize the war. She has had a number of responses to her vote but none of them have been the words “I was wrong.” I do not think her vote was wrong but since many moonbats do it is worth looking at.
I have previously discussed her words of wisdom that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the war. I will not belabor the point but suffice it to say that many people might feel that way about a number of things. Hindsight is always 20/20 and it is easy to say that if you had this knowledge then you would not have done something. It is always easier to say what you WOULD have done because you have the benefit of knowing what the outcome is. Jeez, she could have said, if I could see into the future I would never have voted for the war, same thing.
I don’t care how Hillary answers the question. I would appreciate it if a politician just had the courage to say I voted this way or that because it was the right thing to do at the time. Hillary does not want to be labeled a flip-flopper and she wants to appear decisive. She also believes she has the nomination in the bag so she is pandering to the moderate conservatives and Independents. But three items from the article demonstrate how she operates:
Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president — her “responsibility gene,†she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority.
~snip~
Foreign policy advisers say they have made similar arguments: look to the future, not the past, and stand by a vote that was based on military intelligence that was widely accepted at the time.
~snip~
Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief. [emphasis mine] NYT
Hillary believes the President deserves the benefit of the doubt, except if the president is George Bush. Have you ever heard Hillary say, well let’s give the president the benefit of the doubt? Has she, in her anti-war mode, said that the president deserves the benefit of the doubt with regard to the intelligence? She and her fellow Democrats will tell you that they were misled into war, that Bush lied, that he manipulated the intelligence (quite an achievement for a man they all believe to be stupid). Did she ever once say, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on the intelligence? No, and that is a problem for a person who claims to believe the president deserves the benefit of the doubt. The only benefit of the doubt she gave a president was the one she gave Bill when he said he did not have sex with that woman. That happened under her nose and she gave him the benefit.
Speaking on military intelligence. Her advisers think she should stand by a vote that was based on military intelligence that was widely accepted at the time. It is amazing that she was right for her vote based on accepted intelligence but Bush misled people when using THAT VERY SAME widely accepted intelligence. Was the intelligence Hillary got different from that of the president? How was it Hillary got widely accepted intelligence and Bush lied and manipulated intelligence in order to go to war. Does it not stand to reason that if hers was widely accepted and he was manipulating it then she would have noticed the difference between her widely accepted intelligence and his manipulated version? Since she voted for it we can only conclude he gave the same widely accepted intelligence that she had or she saw the difference, remained silent, and voted for it anyway. In any event, this does not wash and is more political double speak from Hillary.
She is careful in suggesting that Congress can overrule the president. Except, of course, if that president is George Bush and he wants to send more troops to Iraq. Then, Hillary and the rest of Congress can overrule that decision. They can all vote on non-binding resolutions and they can threaten to impose all kinds of unconstitutional rules on him. They can not overrule a president unless it is based on one of Bush’s nominations. Then they can oppose the nominee and filibuster, which in effect, overrules the president. He is saying I want this person and they are saying you can not have that person. Overruled! If President Bush wants to listen to terrorists on the phone or track their money then Congress can overrule these things and he does not get the so-called benefit of the doubt. Overruled! Executive authority and Congressional deference my rear. She is full of E. coli.
It is obvious that Hillary suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. No matter what he wants or is trying to do the Democrats (and Hillary) will oppose it and there will be no deference, benefit or any other item that will provide the man with the slightest bit of success. She also suffers from Liberalism, which should be classified in the DSM IV as a mental disorder. Only someone who is mentally challenged can express a belief in these things and but only if they do not apply to anyone else.
Hillary wants people to excuse or understand her vote on the war. In doing so she is asking for privileges as a presidential candidate that she is unwilling to extend to the person who actually is the president. The do as I say and not as I do mentality is prevalent among the Democrats and is particularly abundant in partisan hack Hillary.
Tags: Commentary
Illinois Scalps Chief for More Tickets
Feb 16, 2007 Uncategorized
The University of Illinois has gotten rid of its Indian Mascot, Chief Illiniwek, in order to be eligible to host post season events and earn more money from ticket sales. The UOI gave in to the NCAA and its insane rule that forbids an institution from hosting post season events if it has a mascot that is insensitive to certain groups of people. In this case, the Chief was determined to be a negative symbol for the University and shed a bad light on Indians. I do not know how having a warrior chief as a mascot is a negative thing but evidently a bunch of feel good people felt that it was.
I do not believe that the NCAA should involve itself in politics. They should stay in their own lane and leave politics to politicians. It is not up to the NCAA to decide if an Indian or any other symbol is derogatory or not and it is certainly not up to them to sanction an institution because they do not like the mascot. How far will this go? What if people protest about the use of animals as mascots? Will they have to ban the Florida gators? What will happen if people show some sensitivity to the name the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame? Now that has got to be, on the scale of things, more offensive than an Indian chief. The fact is though, mascots are supposed to inspire people and teams want fierce mascots to demonstrate toughness. Before long the teams will be the daisies and the lilies. How inspiring is that?
Since the NCAA felt compelled to throw its weight around i would like to register my formal complaint against the entire city of Peoria in Illinois and I want action or I want all government funding cut off from the state. You see, the word Peoria comes from an Indian word meaning “place of fat beasts.” This has to be an insult to the people who live there and it needs to be ended right away.
Matter of fact they need to rename the whole state because the state is named after an Indian tribe:
The state is named for the Illinois River which was named by French explorers after the indigenous Illiniwek people, a consortium of Algonquian tribes that thrived in the area. The word Illiniwek means “tribe of superior men.”Wikipedia
And would you look at that? The name Illiniwek (the name of the mascot) means tribe of superior men. How in the name of all that is good can this possibly be an insult to anyone. Perhaps the indians and others who protest do not view these Indians as superior. Perhaps it just is no longer good to have spirit and be considered a warrior. It looks as if the pansy attitude of Congress has been passed down through the NCAA to this institution, the latest to receive an orchiectomy. We are becoming a nation of limp-wristed pansies who do not honor or praise strength and the warrior spirit.
What a waste. I hope the UOI never has an opportunity to play in the post season and anything they host involves teams other than theirs, perhaps teams with testicular fortitude.
Source:
STL Today
Tags: Commentary
Jack Murtha: Double Talking Idiot
Feb 16, 2007 Uncategorized
Jack Murtha seems to think that he is in charge of the world. He must feel pretty unstoppable because he was able to dodge that huge bullet regarding taking a bribe. Any guy who is on a film trying to find a way to take $50,000 and then avoids prosecution while his cohorts get nailed must feel a little cocky. Being an unindicted co-conspirator must be a badge of honor.
Murtha is hell bent on helping the terrorists win the war on terror in Iraq. He is drafting legislation that will keep the President from deploying troops and will place restrictions on what the President can do. It would appear that ABSCAM Murtha is trying to usurp the Constitutional authority that the President has to wage a war that Congress overwhelmingly approved.
The Bush administration “won’t be able to continue. They won’t be able to do the deployment. They won’t have the equipment. They don’t have the training and they won’t be able to do the work,” Murtha said in the post on the Democrat-friendly Web site MoveCongress.org. “This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop this surge.”
~snip~
“We need to make sure that everybody understands we’re going to support the troops. We’re going to give the troops everything they need. We’re not going to .. make any of them vulnerable,” Murtha said. “But we’re going to make darn sure that they have what they need before they go over.” Fox News
So what this jackass is saying is that his legislation will limit the administration’s ability to prosecute the war. The troops will not have equipment or training to go into combat. Murtha will also stop more troops from going to the combat zone. Then, in the next breath he says that they support the troops and the troops will have everything they need. What they need you bloviating criminal are more people to fight the war. Ideally, we need ten times what is being sent so we can crush the opposition. How can this idiot say they will have everything they need when his bill would, according to his own words, take away what they need? Additionally, this moonbat used Move On’s website to get his message out. What does it say about this man that he used an anti American organization’s website to get his message out?
This is pure double talk and smacks of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Murtha will do whatever he can to hurt President Bush regardless of how it affects our troops. Murtha is a disgrace to this country and the way he is using our military as pawns in the game of Presidential chess is nothing short of treason. In earlier times he would have been taken out back and hanged.
There is another classic line from ABSCAM Jack:
The Pennsylvania Democrat added that he is also considering language in the legislation that would close the military prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and the bill might include a provision requiring the president to get approval from Congress before taking any military action against Iran.
Murtha will close down two prisons in order to protect the poor terrorist bastards that want to kill us while screwing the brave men and women of our armed forces. This guy is truly worthless and should have been voted out of office. The people in Pennsylvania should really feel proud right about now. Interestingly, his legislation will require the President to get Congressional approval before any military action against Iran. Screecher of the House Bella Pelosi has already stated that the President does not have the authority to use the military against Iran without Congressional approval. If this is the case, why do we need that legislation?
The ace in the hole here is that any bill that they want to make a law has to be signed by the very president they are trying to screw. If George Bush does not veto any such bill that hits his desk I would have to question whether or not he has lost his mind.
Tags: Commentary