Sean Hannity was far too easy on good ol boy, Trotter. It seems the good senator from Mississippi was on a tractor and did not hear the phone ring the first time Hannity tried to get him on the phone. This is true, really.
As best as I can understand the interview, the reason that we need a new immigration amnesty is because "the government" did not enforce the laws that Congress already passed. Hannity did not pursue a logical follow-up as to who is responsible to enforce US law. Who is "the government" sworn to defend and enforce the laws of the US? That is George W. Bush.
If the President will not enforce the law, who has responsibility to bring him to task for dereliction of duty? That is Congress. They do not need new laws. They need to lawfully prosecute the president that does not do his duty, or is emotionally unprepared to do it. Congress should send a message to the president directing him to enforce the laws of the United States or step down. Short of that, Congress needs to do its duty and remove him from office.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat'd be something to see
ReplyDeleteYou get the impeachment petition up, and I'll sign it.
ReplyDeleteOne condition; you've got to promise to come visit me in jail at least once (I, already, have a little ongoing issue with the IRS.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemy oh my.
ReplyDeleteJust heard on Hewitt that House Dems are calling for states, Congress, and the EPA to approve of every foot of fence to be built BEFORE starting construction, meaning most of it will not get started in my lifetime.
ReplyDeleteQuite a Charade by the Cast of Corruption in DC.
Oh the IRS will be one law that cannot be overlooked by our masters and rulers. They can make laws to give special interests a pass, but since you were in the military, served in combat, raised a family, voted and cared, you are not deserving of anything but the stern firm hand of justice.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how different things would have been if flight 93 would have been mission accomplished? Think our masters and rulers would care a little more?
ReplyDeleteThe day when something really awful happens (and it will) because of the laxity in enforcement of our laws, and the obvious dereliction of duty, and hundreds of thousands of Americans have to die because of these arrogant elitists in Washington, I will be happy to supply the rope to hang the bastards, every last one of them. I wonder if if they will die as well as Saddam.
Of course I speak metaphorically.
Down to the Banana Republics
ReplyDeleteDown to the tropical sun
Go the expatriated American
Hopin' to find some fun
Some of them go for the sailing
Brought by the lure of the sea
Tryin' to find what is ailing
Living in the land of the free
Some of them are running to lovers
Leaving no forward address
Some of them are running tons of ganja
Some are running from the IRS
Late at night you will find them
In the cheap hotels and bars
Hustling the senoritas
While they dance beneath the stars
Spending those renegade pesos
on a bottle of rum and a lime
Singin' give me some words I can dance to
Or a melody that rhymes
live and in person by the singer songwriter Steve Goodman.
Our troops can die, but our sissy in the White House is once again Awol from his duties. Old habits and behavior does die hard.
ReplyDeleteBAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Twelve U.S. troops have been killed in attacks in expanded operations against insurgents in Iraq during the past 48 hours, according to the U.S. military.
In the deadliest attack, a roadside bomb Thursday struck a military vehicle in northeastern Baghdad, killing five U.S. soldiers, three Iraqi civilians and an Iraqi interpreter. A U.S. soldier and two civilians were wounded.
Also Thursday, a rocket-propelled grenade struck a U.S. military vehicle in northern Baghdad, killing a soldier and wounding three others.
On Wednesday, a roadside bomb killed two troops southwest of Baghdad.
In addition, two Marines were killed in combat operations in Iraq's Anbar province on Wednesday.
With the deaths, 3,538 U.S. military personnel have died in the Iraq war -- 68 of them in June. Seven civilian contractors working for the military also have been killed since the 2003 invasion
They bundle the numbers at the MNF release site, but looks like less than three score enemy KIA.
ReplyDeleteCouple of hundred captured.
FOX News announced a General said the big shot aQ commanders ...
Got away.
We're killin' 'em at a ratio of four to one.
Not nearly enough to win.
Not a "Long War"
duece, over 800 civilian employees, working in Iraq for US companies have been killed, six, maybe eignt months ago.
ReplyDeleteNumbers were tabulated from Dept of Labor statistics.
Fear not:
ReplyDeleteYon reports that we are seriously outsmarting them, as linked at BC.
My way to seriously outsmart them was to bomb the shit out of them.
Better to lose 14 of our guys and counting to show just how serious we are, I guess.
What would I know?
Say the curse!
al-Qaeda in India Declares War
ReplyDeleteI'l bet on the Indians.
ReplyDeleteI think the Indians will not be afraid to take a muzzie or two apart at the seams.
ReplyDeleteWe should put ABM's in India, then stir up enuff shit that the Indians Nuke the Pakis!
ReplyDeleteI think that day will come.
ReplyDeleteTo bad, that.
ReplyDeleteDoug:
ReplyDeleteRe:Al-Qaeda in India.
Trent Lott seems to have a problem "running his mouth" these days. First he pisses off conservatives and talk radio listeners, now the President. Of course, he's had it in for Bush ever since the Repubs abandoned him over another verbal incident. (I don't blame him for being pissed over that, though.)
ReplyDeleteBTW - It was good to hear from Bobal. I am curious about his ethanol remark.
gosh, its kinda weird seeing the rightwingers screaming impeachment. I thought it was the loonie left's role. 'tis a strange world indeed.!
ReplyDelete..to do otherwise Ash, you would have to call us wrongwingers.
ReplyDeletePerformance counts, ash, more than rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteMr Bush is not taking a "conservative" position on the border security or immigration, the two are connected but not synomonous.
He has not take the "conservative" position on Iraq and that War, at least not if I'm considered conservative. Or duece or whit or doug.
Even allen, then rufus, the hardest line GOP stalwart that has ever contributed to paying the Bar tab
What WOULD a conservative Iraq - and greater War - policy be, Rat?
ReplyDeletesure, performance counts but while impeachment is ultimately a political act this recent talk, if it were ever followed through on, certainly lowers the impeachment bar. At least Clinton lied under oath...What criminal acts has Bush done? hmmmmmm.....Did he lie while delivering the State of the Union? Does breach of international law count? How about spying on Americans without a warrant - that's criminal is it not?
ReplyDeleteoh ya, there's the indefinite detention of folk, that could be criminal but the immigration issue?
ReplyDeleteI didn't "contribute;" I "Grabbed" that Sucker. (Then borrowed a couple of dollars to finish it off. :-)
ReplyDeleteI imagine Bob just got tired of "Corn" fields. We planted 91 Million Acres of that stuff this year.
ReplyDeleteAsh, Incompetence in protecting the Nation would be the most highly impeachable offense of all. You libs gotta understand; some things ARE above the Law. Survival of the Nation is Paramount over all else.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been to raid after the aQ operatives and their allies.
ReplyDeleteUsing a lighter footprint.
Often none at all, as death would come from above.
A conservative approach would not engaged with micro-managing and rebuilding Iraqi.
Containment would have surficed, in retrospect, at much lower costs.
It could have been to drive on, into Syria, back in '03, taking the Sanctuaries and insurgent pipeline into both Iraq and Lebanon, leak.
To realize that to enter Iraq was to have entered a Regional War. That would have been "conservative", I think.
I did at the time.
Hard to tell exactly, depends upon what the real meaning of conservative is, does it not?
Doug said:
ReplyDeleteMy way to seriously outsmart them was to bomb the shit out of them.
In a "Conservative" way, of course.
"Hard to tell exactly, depends upon what the real meaning of conservative is, does it not?"
ReplyDeleteIt does, Rat.
And there is no real meaning.
Read Hayek on "Why I Am Not a Conservative."
ReplyDeleteRead Reagan on why I AM a conservative!
ReplyDeleteConservatism's like porn, Doug. You know it when you see it, right?
ReplyDeleteA conservative war would not give away advantages to an enemy. It would not use the words collateral damage. It would not put limitations to violence on an enemy. A mosque would be as good a target as any. A conservative would not have built and spent tens of billions of dollars on Guantanamo. There never would have been a need for one. Maybe not, maybe it should be expanded and used to house lawyers and politicians.
ReplyDeleteA conservative would not have woman in combat. A conservative would viciously seek out the infrastructure that supported suicide bombers and send them and their neighbors to hell. A conservative would find the forensics behind the IEDs, deystroy the factory , workers and neighborhood that built and supported them, the transportaion and roads that brought them and the politicians that sanctioned them. A conservative would scare the living shit out of his enemies and would let Islam know that it is the problem and the remedy for the problem was obvious.
Jesus Christ, none of that addresses our foreign policy. None of that addresses how we got here. And what I have occasionally appreciated about "conservatism" is the willingness to address fundamentals.
ReplyDeleteYou don't do that, you are well and truly fucked.
2164th: A conservative would find the forensics behind the IEDs, deystroy the factory , workers and neighborhood that built and supported them, the transportaion and roads that brought them and the politicians that sanctioned them.
ReplyDeleteA conservative wouldn't be occupying Iraq to engage in nationbuilding.
Colin Dueck, "Hegemony on the Cheap: Liberal Internationalism from Wilson to Bush," World Policy Journal, Vol. XX, no. 4 (Winter 2004/04)
"...the administration’s difficulties in Iraq are actually the result of an excessive reliance on classically liberal or Wilsonian assumptions regarding foreign affairs. The administration has willed the end in Iraq—and a very ambitious end—but it has not fully willed the means. In this sense, the Bush administration is heir to a long liberal internationalist tradition that runs from Woodrow Wilson, through FDR and Harry Truman, to Bill Clinton..."