Opinion Page
Senator Graham from Florida thinks that the House of Representatives should impeach President Bush due to the "standard" set by President Clinton during the last administration. Hmmm. We put this idiot on the Senate Intelligence Committee? It didn't work - he still doesn't have any.
What Graham has said in the past was that Bush's inclusion of the "famous" 16 words was WORSE than Clinton's affair with the hefty intern. While that may be true, it has nothing to do with impeachment against Clinton. Since Graham can't remember back to 1996, let's refresh. Clinton was impeached for committing perjury (a felony) and obstruction of justice (another felony). The fact that the elected Senators failed to convict a man who had confessed to the crimes proves only that those Senators cared NOTHING for the Rule of Law upon which our government is founded by, and instead voted PURELY along party lines. If I was in there, I would've voted to kick his sorry, white-trash ass to the curb. I don't care that you're not faithful to your "wife" - I wouldn't sleep with her either. But to lie about it UNDER OATH is a felony - and a standard the people of this Country and our elected leaders cannot afford to accept. If you love Clinton, fine - but don't break the system for our children just so you can be lied to for 4 more years. Graham hasn't figured out yet that perjury is a more serious enterprise than utilizing questionable intelligence. The words that he used, that the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein has tried to buy uranium from Africa, was a true statement. That is what they had learned. Whether or not Saddam had sought uranium there, you must agree on 2 things: one, that the world at least believed that Saddam had the desire based upon his reputation and statements, and two, that he had a nuclear weapons program. Since everyone from Clinton on down to the U.N. has already accepted the fact that Saddam HAD a nuclear weapons program, and most people believed it was still active, (or else why throw out the inspectors?) this still holds the standard that it was acceptable to believe that the possibility existed as stated. Now Graham is trying to re-write history (as the Democrats are so fond of doing these days) by claiming that Bush's claim was "absolutely" central to his arguments for deposing the murderous regime. What Graham is not telling you (dare I say lying about?) is that the U.S. Congress voted OVER TWO MONTHS PRIOR to Bush's State of the Union Address to authorize the President to use force to oust the regime by any means necessary. How can Graham say that he was convinced in November, and then deceived two months later? If Graham wants to throw politicians out for lying, perhaps he should start packing his own belongings. And this clown wants to be President? How can he be honest with us when he can't even be honest with himself? While Bush didn't know that the British Intelligence statement was false when he reported on it, how can Graham argue that he doesn't know that what he's saying is false? He was in Congress when the Articles of Impeachment were read - he knows EXACTLY what they were about. He is either (1) a horrible liar, or (2) just plain incompetent. Is this the standard that you want to occupy the most powerful position in the world?
I'm not happy with everything Bush has done - he has to stop pushing his religious views into his politics - but he has acted (in my humble opinion) in the best interests of this Country and has done his best to reduce the risk of terrorism in this Country and around the world. If he really wants to help the terrorism cause, stop giving money to the terrorists that continue to run the Palestinian Authority. They use the money we give them to build bombs, not to feed children. Every terrorist can be traced back to one man - Yassir Arafat. Stop giving him money and political clout - he is nothing but a murderer.
I've noticed that there is a disturbing trend in government to elect bigger and better liars to office. The general populace (AKA "sheep") will throw whatever idiot promises them the most "stuff", at any cost to their (or anyone else's) future. Now, whatever side of the political spectrum you inhabit, you should at the very least have someone in there who at least abides by some moral fibers, otherwise you run the risk of putting wolves in charge of the hen-house. You're already giving it a good start. Hillary Clinton bought a Senate seat, and Ralph Nader is promising everyone a "living wage" at the mere cost of the entire Country going squarely to Communism. Communism isn't bad if you're at the top, but 99.999997% of us aren't going to be that lucky. If you keep giving votes to idiots like Pat Buchanan, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Ralph Nader, you're going to get what you're asking for - and you won't like the taste it will leave in your mouth.
The time has come to once again start thinking about your vote. The major election bru-ha-ha is still some time away, but you should start thinking NOW about what you stand for. I think that most people fall into one of the following categories:
Selfish voter - what candidate promises me the most "stuff" that you can get to spend. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, who has to earn it, how it gets taken, who distributes it, or how much money is tied up with the administration of it. This voter only care about who will "show them the money", and will never worry about the giving up of any rights associated with the allocation of the money. The perceived "security" that money brings will be gotten at all costs, and any Liberty lost won't matter - as long as the checks keep coming.
Blind voter - this candidate will do whatever his party demands of him, regardless of consequences. These are the people who always get asked "if someone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it also?" For good reason, for they surely would. They answer to a "higher" authority. What the basis is for that few can answer, and those that give an answer base it on anything other than logic. They vote Green Party because they think it will help the environment (notice how Russia is routinely praised for clean living), the Democratic Party to help the poor (many of which are millionaires), or Republican Party (to do God's work). These people are "just following orders" - hey, it worked like a charm in the late 30's and early 40's!
Conscientious voter - this candidate exists in very small numbers. These are the people who know who their Congressman is, who their Senators are, and can pick out any state on a map. When you find one of these people, they will be happy to discuss any issue, because they are informed. Whatever personal prejudices they carry, they will still do what's right when push comes to shove. These people are so few in number that the politicians don't even bother catering to them with truth or honesty, not when there are so many selfish and/or blind voters to woo.
Non-voter - this person has a voter registration, but they always lose it, since they never vote. The normal rationalization is "well, what I think doesn't matter anyway" or "my vote doesn't count". They are right on both counts. This untapped source of apathy and laziness is what groups like al Qaeda count on - people to lazy/stupid to care and go after them.
If you have ideas, comments, or criticisms, please let me know.
