"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." ~ William Shakespeare
Well, Karl Rove has been investigated and investigated, and investigated. He has been questioned by the Grand Jury over and over. He has been tried and convicted by both the Democrats and the Liberal news media, but not by the Federal prosecutors and not by the Grand Jury.
By the Federal Prosecutors and the Grand Jury, he has been exonerated.
By the Democrats and the news media, he is still guilty.
Guilty? Of what?
Guilty of beating the Democrats in elections. Fair and square.
While the Democrats have tried everything in their bag of tricks to reverse the results of the election and have John (cut and run) Kerry installed as our nations President. They have attempted to use the court system to nullify the votes that put President Bush in office. They have even registered dead people to vote.
All the Republicans did is get more votes. Shame, shame.
You have to give the Democrats credit for tenacity, though. They never give up.
So. What have the Democrats learned from all this? Apparently, they have learned that the way to win elections is to get more votes than the Republicans. How are they going to do that?
Change their platform to one of patriotism, Americanism, and honesty? (Like the Republicans) Back the troops in Iraq instead of undermining them? Distance themselves from people like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, George Soros, etc? Oppose illegal immigrants?
In your dreams.
I think they have discovered that what they need to do is get more votes than their opponents, so they are going about the business of procuring those votes in the same way in which they sought to win the last election. By using the courts and subterfuge.
No. They are trying their very best to have illegal aliens declared legal immigrants and making sure the aliens know it is them that are attempting to do them this favor. They believe if they can get the courts to declare illegal aliens legal citizens with all the rights citizens enjoy, that they will vote Democrat out of gratitude.
Oh, and the news media is doing all they can to broadcast this myth to the uneducated American public.
It sounds like a good strategy to me. If they can get the courts to declare amnesty for 20 million or so illegal aliens and get them the right to vote, maybe they can win the next elections.
The only problem is getting these new citizens to vote. Personally, I don't see illegal aliens being interested in anything but taking advantage of free government programs.
On second thought. Maybe the Democrats won't have any trouble getting the illegal alien vote after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Hi Mark,
Really, let the Dems be what the Dems are... and they will continue to lose. I think this is a very good thing. After all, it keeps them out of power, which they would abuse if they ever got it back, and it keeps them doing the same stupid things. I wish that it were not so... I wish that our choice was between two great and competing ideas, but alas, we really are left with no choice at all, for the Dems are generally stupid. They are like a bunch of teenagers that never matured. Hopefully, they will remain powerless.
Blessings
"Vote early and vote often" has always been my motto.
And yes, I actually *would* vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a Republican.
Shakespeare was certainly right on with that quote, and even he never would have dreamed up the things that have been happening lately.
Yes, Karl Rove has been exonerated and Democrats are on their usual crying jag, but there's nothing new about that! Strange how, when Clinton lied in court, and they fell all over themselves forgiving him; and how about forgiving Ted Kennedy for manslaughter?
The Dems are a mystery. I think their motto is "No Brain No Pain."
I mentioned Rove in my latest post as well.
I have been saying for months now that he would be exonorated. The Democrats and the MSM hate him because they cannot beat him, so they are left with no other choice than to make him a criminal.
You can believe that if he was dirty in any way, they would have found it by now.
As far a Legalizing Illegal Voters in time for the Elections, they will have to get that by the House of Representatives first, and I don't believe they will be able to do that.
If Republicans lose the House and/or Senate in November, it will be because they were not Conservative enough.
Not because the Democrats took it away from them.
These people have nothing else. They have no ideas or solutions to our problems. In fact, their policies created most of our problems. They can't debate issues because they're uninformed, wrong-headed and deceitful. So every "discussion" with them ends up with the liberal personally attacking their opponant. It's like arguing with children. But since they seem not to have any moral standards (at least none I've ever seen written anywhere) they feel perfectly free to do anything it takes to win an election -- except be worthy of winning.
I think Thomas Paine said it best, "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." When we try to discourse with socialists (who modern liberals truly are) we are "administering medicine to the dead."
Ha! That was great, Rusty!
If we want a Republican Landslide, we could Legalize Pot a couple days before the next Election.
Landslide, I tell you...
I am so not bothered by the liberal socialist left that I predict a further advancement of Reagan/Gingrich conservatism. Newt is out and about with a Contract With America message.Remember conservatives win when we stick to message. Lets work to reignite the revolution not run and hide in the face of liberal name calling. We know we are 'right' for a reason and the thought of Speaker Pelosi chills my bones.
Bruiser, you forgot to mention that John Kerry is a self-confessed war criminal. Maybe you should be contacting the Hague.
"Leagalize pot a couple of days before election day." That's brilliant, Tugboatcaptain. Absolutely brillaint! ROTFALMAO!
I read bruiser’s list twice and never saw his name on it… did I overlook it?
Bruiser, you make a point that a lot of Democrats have served in uniform; that a lot of ex-military run on Democratic tickets. The list also indicates that only one career officer (Clark [who first appealed to the GOP but was turned away – I wonder why]) has joined the ranks of elected Democrats. The list also supports my premise that that most career officers and enlisted military do not run for office – whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Independent. Thought you might like that additional analysis of your list.
Your little digs “avoided the draft” adds nothing to your attempted point. In fact it only demeans your attempt.
Now, since you brought up Bill Clinton – who “did not serve”, perhaps the following will shed some light on the reason he didn’t serve. Be sure to read it all – it’s very enlightening. It is Bill’s Dec ’69 letter to his ROTC Director, COL Eugene Holmes.
Bill’s Dec ’69 letter to his ROTC Director, COL Eugene Holmes.
”I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say.
“First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC.
“Let me try to explain. As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.
“I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine, After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans for the demonstrations Oct. 15 and Nov. 16.
“Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to "participation in war in any form."
“From my work I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war which, in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation.
“The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake. Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their countrymen and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.
“Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country (i.e. the particular policy of a particular government) right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter which I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.
“The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years. (The society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway.)
“When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School because there is nothing else I can do. In fact, I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to begin putting what I have learned to use.
“But the particulars of my personal life are not nearly as important to me as the principles involved. After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I began to think I had deceived you, not by lies because there were none but by failing to tell you all the things I'm writing now. I doubt that I had the mental coherence to articulate them then.
“At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1-D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of my self-regard and self confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on Sept. 12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.
“I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't see, in the end, how my going in the army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of this second year of my Rhodes scholarship.
“And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.
“Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Col. Jones for me."
“Merry Christmas.”
”Sincerely, Bill Clinton”
The following is COL Eugene Holmes's Sep ‘92 affidavit concerning Bill Clinton and the draft.
”There have been many unanswered questions as to the circumstances surrounding Bill Clinton's involvement with the ROTC department at the University of Arkansas. Prior to this time I have not felt the necessity for discussing the details. The reason I have not done so before is that my poor physical health (a consequence of participation in the Battan Death March and the subsequent three and a half years interment in Japanese POW camps) has precluded me from getting into what I felt was unnecessary involvement. However, present polls show that there is the imminent danger to our country of a draft dodger becoming Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. While it is true, as Mr. Clinton has stated, that there were many others who avoided serving their country in the Vietnam war, they are not aspiring to be the President of the United States.
”The tremendous implications of the possibility of his becoming Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces compels me now to comment on the facts concerning Mr. Clinton's evasion of the draft. This account would not have been imperative had Bill Clinton been completely honest with the American public concerning this matter. But as Mr. Clinton replied on a news conference this evening (September 5, 1992) after being asked another particular about his dodging the draft, "Almost everyone concerned with these incidents are dead. I have no more comments to make". Since I may be the only person living who can give a first hand account of what actually transpired, I am obligated by my love for my country and my sense of duty to divulge what actually happened and make it a matter of record.
”Bill Clinton came to see me at my home in 1969 to discuss his desire to enroll in the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. We engaged in an extensive, approximately two (2) hour interview. At no time during this long conversation about his desire to join the program did he inform me of his involvement, participation and actually organizing protests against the United States involvement in South East Asia. He was shrewd enough to realize that had I been aware of his activities, he would not have been accepted into the ROTC program as a potential officer in the United States Army.
”The next day I began to receive phone calls regarding Bill Clinton's draft status. I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fullbright's office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program. I received several such calls. The general message conveyed by the draft board to me was that Senator Fullbright's office was putting pressure on them and that they needed my help. I then made the necessary arrangements to enroll Mr. Clinton into the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas.
”I was not "saving" him from serving his country, as he erroneously thanked me for in his letter from England (dated December 3, 1969). I was making it possible for a Rhodes Scholar to serve in the military as an officer. In retrospect I see that Mr. Clinton had no intention of following through with his agreement to join the Army ROTC program at the University of Arkansas or to attend the University of Arkansas Law School. I had explained to him the necessity of enrolling at the University of Arkansas as a student in order to be eligible to take the ROTC program at the University. He never enrolled at the University of Arkansas, but instead enrolled at Yale after attending Oxford. I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification.
”The December 3rd letter written to me by Mr. Clinton, and subsequently taken from the files by Lt. Col. Clint Jones, my executive officer, was placed into the ROTC files so that a record would be available in case the applicant should again petition to enter the ROTC program. The information in that letter alone would have restricted Bill Clinton from ever qualifying to be an officer in the United States Military. Even more significant was his lack of veracity in purposefully defrauding the military by deceiving me, both in concealing his anti-military activities overseas and his counterfeit intentions for later military service. These actions cause me to question both his patriotism and his integrity.
”When I consider the calibre, the bravery, and the patriotism of the fine young soldiers whose deaths I have witnessed, and others whose funerals I have attended.... When I reflect on not only the willingness but eagerness that so many of them displayed in their earnest desire to defend and serve their country, it is untenable and incomprehensible to me that a man who was not merely unwilling to serve his country, but actually protested against its military, should ever be in the position of Commander-in-Chief of our armed Forces.
”I write this declaration not only for the living and future generations, but for those who fought and died for our country. If space and time permitted I would include the names of the ones I knew and fought with, and along with them I would mention my brother Bob, who was killed during World War II and is buried in Cambridge, England (at the age of 23, about the age Bill Clinton was when he was over in England protesting the war).
”I have agonized over whether or not to submit this statement to the American people. But, I realize that even though I served my country by being in the military for over 32 years, and having gone through the ordeal of months of combat under the worst of conditions followed by years of imprisonment by the Japanese, it is not enough. I'm writing these comments to let everyone know that I love my country more than I do my own personal security and well-being. I will go to my grave loving these United States of America and the liberty for which so many men have fought and died.
”Because of my poor physical condition this will be my final statement. I will make no further comments to any of the media regarding this issue.”
”Eugene J. Holmes, Colonel, U.S.A., Retired”
Old Soldier, thanks for your post. Very interesting, and I notice a lack of actual evidence for the colonel's assertions.
I notice that though these events supposedly occurred in 1969, and Clinton ran for public office in Arkansas and was a multi-term governor of Arkansas, yet the colonel did not see fit to "clear his conscience" until two months before the 1992 presidential election.
Sounds like an early case of "Swiftboating" to me.
Do you know of any college age boys who changed their minds about where they were going to go to college or any other such plans? Sure you do.
Holmes includes a lot of "I believe" and "he had no intention" and other statements which are based on his opinion and not fact.
It's just more Clinton smear BS. But what else have you got?
Good post, old soldier. I personally couldn't spend that much time even READING bruiser's post, much less responding to it. I confess that I just skimmed it and gave it the attention it deserved. Shallow thinking deserves a shallow response. If liberals had the capacity to change their mind in the face of facts, I might actually try to convert them. But, nope.
According to Chatterbox, bruiser's doing a cut-and-paste job, apparently from Daily Kos. So no original thoughts from bruiser. This is what I posted yesterday at Mike's America as a counter stat:
Those Who Served
Military Service in the US House of Representatives by Party
Republicans with military service: 15.2%
Democrats with military service: 9%
Independants with military service: 0%
Military Service in the United States Senate by Party
Republicans with military service: 17%
Democrats with military service: 12%
Independants with military service: 1%
Jim, the evidence is Clinton’s actual letter. How much clearer does it have to be made? The COL’s affidavit was based upon his not wanting a deceitful self-confirmed draft dodger to become the CINC (commander of the services that he [Clinton] avoided joining). His age and physical health prevented him from applying the rigors of the latter days Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (to use your reference). Clinton never hid the fact that he loathed the military. There has never been a president that gutted the military and their programs like Clinton. I know, I served through his presidency.
If you elect to believe the dung the liberals offer as porridge, that’s your choice. As for me, and many others like me, we shall fertilize our flowers with it.
So some Democrats served in the armed forces. And this is your defense for them being unpatriotic and undermining the war effort?
Please explain to me exactly how that qualifies them to be treasonous.
Actually, this is ingenious strategy for the Democrats. Choose only spokespeople whom we're not allowed to reply to. All the prominent Liberal spokesmen are people with "absolute moral authority". Democrats with a dead husband or child, a terminal illness, or a service record.
Victory goes to the most hysterical!
Need I remind you that Benedict Arnold served in the military, too? Did that justify him to be a traitor?
And Bruiser you say, "Just because there is no indictment does not clear Mr. Pig of his actions to supply the name of a CIA officer..."
Well, actually. Yes it does. Because he never outed any CIA officer. If he had, 6 years of nonstop investigation and grand jury testimony would have resulted in an indictment. And before you bring up Scooter Libby, and I know you will, he was not indicted for outing a CIA agent, either. He was indicted for lying to a Federal prosecutor. About a matter unrelated to the so-called outing of a CIA agent. (who, by the way, it has been established wasn't covert at the time so the charge is baseless anyway)
This is the reason I don't respond to your inane arguments. It doesn't make any difference. You are so blinded by the lies on the left that you wouldn't accept a truth if it was mashed into your face. If you (and all the other leftists) don't want to believe something, you just don't... in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
By the way, Bruiser, in case you missed it, you, along with Toad, ER, Jim, and Dan Trabue, are the reason I changed my voter registration from Independent to Republican.
Way to support your base!
Keep this up and the Democrats will never win another election. God job!
Now, I would vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a Democrat. Thanks for helping me see the light, Bruiser.
Well, old soldier, I had not read the letter you posted earlier. I admit, I had to scratch my head when I read it. It doesn't say much for the 23 year old.
However, a lot can change between 23 and 45 years old. Bush is an excellent example. A failure at everything he ever did since college, an alcoholic and substance abuser up until his 40's, he matured to be a commander-in-chief that you apparently respect.
Go figure!
Mark, if you were an independent, you weren't our base.
Your assertion that it has been established that Plame wasn't a covert CIA officer is shown to be patently FALSE by the statements of Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald:
"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."
So your repeated FALSE assertions that Plame wasn't covert prove that it is YOU who cannot be persuaded by facts.
"Please explain to me exactly how that qualifies them to be treasonous."
Opposing an unjust war does not make one treasonous. NOT opposing an unjust war, THAT would be treason.
"you, along with Toad, ER, Jim, and Dan Trabue, are the reason I changed my voter registration from Independent to Republican. "
And, as I've said before, folk like those representing the Right here, along with Reagan and Bush, are the reason I changed from Republican to Democrat/Green. So it all evens out in the end, I reckon.
I am only as naive to the rest of the world as you are to the US. Conservatives like me know that humanity is flawed and frail, prone to do wrong.
That is why it is difficult to trust Iran to do the right thing - they probably won't. No naivete there on my part.
But it is also why it is difficult to trust Team Bush (or Clinton) to do the right thing.
And so, conservatives like myself know that the realistic actions to take are ones that are based on a realistic view of the world, not a naive Them Bad, Us Good view.
Rusty also said:
"One day when we have all the answers from Iraq (and neighboring Counties) I doubt you will admit you where wrong."
No more so than you are apparently unwilling or unable to admit that you are wrong about WMD, in spite of Bush's admission (along with everyone else) that there are no WMD.
Some people cling so blindly to loyalty to a particular leader or group that they can never see reality. Because if there were no WMD, if Saddam was no threat to us, why, THEN we've committed war crimes by invading a country unprovoked!
But that's not acceptable to think about us so, rather than face reality, we'll hold out hope that ONE DAY, the facts will support our position. In spite of evidence to the contrary.
Chosen blindness is rather a sad thing.
"You still haven't explained why Sadam threatened us with WMDs"
Oh, he had them. We know he had them because Bush, Sr had the receipt. But the chemical weapons they had had a limited shelf life.
And I do not throw out the unprovoked argument at all. And neither do an increasing majority of US citizens. So cling to it all you want. The majority of us will disagree with you and hopefully work to undo the damage Bush has done and the boost to terrorism he's given.
It is true that the Reeps have won some in the last two elections (crushed is really a stretch) but this is primarily because the Dems haven't offered an alternative, just Republican-Lites.
The majority of the country thinks this war is a mistake. Our people are trying to lead but the leaders won't follow.
Post a Comment