Ann, your memory is so short. Why not toss Jamie Gorelick into the stew. She has blood on her hands for 9/11 because rules she helped put in place. I wonder what people were thinking when she went on the 9/11 Commission. A friend knew her from Wellesley and she was passing strange then.

You also missed a good Reno story. She at one point denied that shooting at someone at 80' with a .38 was a deadly threat because you can't hit a person at that range. Had she put her body where her mouth was, some LEO would have ended our problems then and there.

Oh, come now! Be fair! Equating the stellar record of the AG with questionable DNA composition and a proclivity for “sensible shoes” (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) with anyone with even a modicum of legal knowledge is tantamount to piling on.

(And I am not suggesting that Reno’s lifestyle – which some say sounds like an inhabitant of the capital city of Portugal – has anything to do with her performance in her job. Just because she was suggested [like the same way a ball-peen hammer suggests to a nail] to the position by a certain pant-suit wearing first lady – who some say…..)

You were kind enough to leave out the fact that under her “watch” the wall of separation between the CIA and FBI was erected, reinforced and vigorously patrolled. Not that that action might have had any bearing on putatively preventing the events of 9-11. Besides, her boss took every step not to take any steps to take the mastermind of that fateful day into custody. A few times.

One must look at Gonzo’s record in a light not in the sense of exposing the absolutely bad judgment that led to a number of egregious abuses of power as in the case of Reno but in his sins of omission.

If he had a set at least as large as Reno’s, Gonzo might have seized the opportunity to have Pinch Sulzberger and others up on a variety of charges, up to and including treason.

Under his watch, The New York Times exposed more secret and quasi-secret activities to the public in general and their pals in al Qa’ada in particular than anyone since the Rosenbergs.

The house organ of terrorism became a “Pennysaver” for advertising what “nefarious” actions the big, bad US Government was up to. They were kind enough to expose the methods used in extracting information from truly bad guys, the data mining program used to find and track terrorists, heck, they did everything short of giving a heads-up on field intel to the terrorists.

Or, did they?

While “Attila the Nun” may have earned her place in the pantheon of truly horrible AG’s, Gonzo did as great a disservice by not vigorously, even benignly, prosecuting the members of the Fourth Estate who did even more damage to the security of our country.

One can only hope that his successor has his/her eye on more than just the crossword puzzles in the Times and other traitorous rags.

God Bless and God Speed
John

(Sorry, a wee tad cranky this AM, low on coffee I suppose.)

As usual, Ann has written a fantastic article

Ann, perhaps in future you should consult with other Republicans before making these assertions, as you are all over the map with this column. I’d suggest you do this quickly, as they seem to be dropping faster than Glenn Murphy (chairman, Young Republicans) on sleeping heterosexual men. If Republicans spent half the energy routing al-Qaeda from Iraq as they do routing themselves from the closet, Dick Cheney would be free to devote his time to a ‘slam-dunk’ takeover of Iran. But one can’t be too sure with Mr. Cheney as (like his position on Iraq) he may oppose creating another ‘quagmire’, at least until he can position himself to benefit from it financially. After all, those little test-tube Cheney’s don’t come cheap.

In any event, the exact same ‘mystification’ at the violation of civil rights you claim Janet Reno exhibited in the case of Lemrick Nelson Jr. is the justification being used by Republicans in Congress to oppose including homosexuals under Hate Crimes legislation.

That’s right, folks. Should a group of angry ‘family-values’ Republicans decide to pull Senator Larry (‘I’ve never been gay’) Craig (R-ID) from his prominent position on this year’s Gay Pride Parade float and kill him while shouting, “Kill the Queer”’, Congressional Republicans say his civil rights will not have been violated. (Should the assault be lead by the Pastor Ted Haggard however, the chant will likely be the updated ‘Toilet- Stall, Toe- Tapping Morse Code’ found in this years copy of the ‘Gay Agenda Handbook.’).

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is also a vocal opponent of Hate Crimes Legislation. After campaigning on a platform of ‘family-values’, Senator Vitter has admitted to frequenting prostitutes and his pay-for-play ‘dates’ allege the Senator is an avid practitioner of Infantilism (he enjoys dressing in diapers and having his bottom spanked by Democratic Women). His ‘dates’ also allege he likes the video of Senator Larry Craig’s comments about President Bill Clinton to be played in the background, repeating over and over the phrase ‘nasty, bad, naughty boy’.

Number of ‘Family-Values’ Congressional Republicans who actually practice what they preach: 0

Flip-flop.

I would add that Senator Vitter has been overheard to remark that, due to his 'proclivities', any assault upon his person would be prosecutable under Jessica's Law.

The previous writer seems to have an eerily rich fount of knowledge of deviant behavior. One can only speculate why.

But rather than Ann needing to “consult with other Republicans” due to her being “all over the map” perhaps the writer ought to heed his/her own words.

The obtuse mini-screed seems to this reader to be even more afield of topic than Ann’s is accused.

Deviant behavior is simply that, deviant, regardless who commits it. Be it a member of congress who has sex with an underage page of the same gender, or one who lives with a male prostitute who seemed to have set up shop in the congressman’s flat, or a senator who took 10 hours to open the car door for his date as she waited patiently under a few feet of water to the “alleged” cases of rape, indecent exposure, marital infidelity and so forth by yet another high-profile politician.

Other than the deviant behavior the other main commonality is their party affiliation.

Regardless of ones orientation, when a member of the Republican Party finds himself faced with allegations of an immoral act, he is shunned quicker than a crack-smoking Amish.

The Democrats, on the other hand, re-elect their embarrassments decade after decade. But, of course, the Dems do not see it as an embarrassment. Perhaps that is the main difference.

Let’s get back to the topic, please.

God Bless and God Speed
John

LOLOL!

After your implied aspersions (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) of both Hillary and Janet Reno, your speculation about MY 'rich fount of knowledge' on this subject makes you appear quite foolish (A position I daresay you have more than a passing acquaintance with).

Use 'the google'. You can find it on 'the internets'. It provides a wealth of information.

(I will so hate myself later for doing this, but it is just too rich a target to pass up.)

First the technical, you typed: “Use 'the google'. You can find it on 'the internets'. It provides a wealth of information.”

“the google?” No, it is simply “google” (vt).

“the internets?” No, it is simply “the internet.”

“It provides?” No, “they provide.”

Your allegation that my tongue-in-cheek references made me look foolish, well, I suppose that is in the eyes of the beholder. Of course, as a member of the “victim class” you can only sling an arrow as opposed to actually providing any proof to the contrary.

Typical of the left.

I never cast any aspersions on your proclivities, one way or another. All I averred was that you knew a lot about the subject. Perhaps as a result of study for your doctorate thesis or perhaps you are a clinician of some sort who deals with these kinds of disorders. Or, something else. Anyone else care to speculate? (Why must libs always assume the worst?)

As far as my “speculations” of Reno and Hillaroo, I assure you I am not breaking any new ground here.

You usage: “a passing acquaintance with” has earned comment.

My acquaintances with things that appear foolish are typically of those of an observer, such as my dealings with you and other libs.

Lastly, it is infra dig to dangle a participle. (Pun intended, if you dare.) “(‘W)ith which you have a passing acquaintance” has a more melodious pace.

Save the response for the Daily Koz where your “comments” are more widely embraced.

J

Number of political blogging idiots who believes everything he reads on Google.. At least 1 that we know of...as supported by above his blogs..

Thanks so much dear, for your corrections regarding 'the google' and 'the internets'.

Unfortunately, the 'targets' you feel they provided weren't originated by me. They are the words of that great orator of our time, George W. Bush.

I did not state, or even imply, that you cast aspersions on MY 'proclivites', but on those of Reno and Hillary.

I do, however, thank you for you help with my participles. Unfortunately, I've never been the type of woman to be impressed by that most masculine of accoutremont, the red pencil.

I can only assume you are a former 'Young Republican'.

ROFLMAO!

...now being reported....

The Goverment Office of Professional Responsibilty, in conjunction with his OWN Justice Dept., is now investigating Gonzales for perjury before Congress.

LOL!

I wuz cheking the googles on the internets and I kudden find the new investigation for that kevind said at. By. Of. (I you are going to dangle, let it all hang out.)

What I did find was a similar story of yet another investigation and the usual suspects were mentioned: Reid, Pelosi, Leahy, and the rest of the cronies.

I think that the Republicans ought to start an investigation of their own to find out why the Democrats have some 600 investigations going on. But that will be after they finish Torquemadizing all Republicans in the D.C. area to see if there are any more closet cases. (Pssst….. that is called “sarcasm.)

But that notwithstanding, perhaps the liberals can institute some kind of an “introduction to spell check” class in their “no spinner left behind program.”

But you bore me, not because of your views, warped as they are, but your insistence on, well, lying. And blatantly so. You wrote that you did not state or imply that I cast aspersions on your proclivities. (Note the correct spelling.) But in your post previous you do in fact imply exactly that. If you did not mean to imply that then you ought avail yourself to a government program for writing clearly.

I am done with shooting fish in the barrel, kevind. If you wish to discuss the topic of the column, bring it on (where have you heard that before?) If you wish to show your butt, please, do it elsewhere. Use all the accoutrements (Note: correct spelling, variant: accouterments. NB employ of the letter “s” in either case.) at your disposal.

God Bless and God Speed
John

kevind:

Before you become smug and feel the need to remind me that I swore off responding to your insipid and jejune remarks, I will take this opportunity to advise that I am doing all this just for drill.

Should I come across a liberal who is able to articulate a contrary viewpoint with vigor and fact, I will be better prepared as a result of this little exercise. So far, that event has not happened. And it probably never will.

Why?

Despite the errors and mistakes of the Right at least they are far more consistent with their views, agenda and execution. The Left have a constant battle trying to figure out the talking point of the day and how to spin that to reconcile it with their recent antipodal opinion of the same issue. “I was for ____ before I was against it”, “I support the troops by cutting of their funding” and other Queen of Hearts-like rationale.

Good Luck
J

The articles Ann writes are great, but second best to them is scrolling down to watch kevind write some nonsensical counter-argument, then claim he is not a liberal, then watch as otherwise reasonable people get caught replying to his taunts. Thanks kevind for the entertainment and thanks to all the rest of you for taking the time to reply to him. You all put a smile on my face.

Mixina:

That is what we are here for! And without government subsidies, set-asides or quotas!

But, reasonable? Hmmmm......

God Bless and God Speed
John

I like the fuss between the people who write here too. Kevin always says that he is not a liberal but sure sounds like one to me. I need a body to help me out here. Is Kevin a woman like he says or dont I just not get it. In the heartland of America, men are men and women are women and republicans are republicans and democrats are democrats. This Kevin fellow seems to be a libersl woman who thinks he is a conservative man. That is plain fool talk. If my cat come in the house and barked that would make more sense than that.
Thank you and happy labor day y'all.

I always think it is funny when democRats refer to Republicans as homophobic. It's funny because our religious right finds the lifestyle just as abhorrent as the liberal church goin' Christians and Muslims. I always wonder what democRats think of the Log Cabin Republicans...

Regarding the gay "hate crime" issue, Republicans are trying to say that when you beat the crap out of someone, rape them and then kill them, you should rot in prison for the rest of your days regardless of what precipitated it. Assault, rape and murder ARE hate crimes regardless of the victims and who perpetrates them. It is moronic to consider crimes against minorities (or any other group of people) to be worthy of greater punishment than lets say a plain ol' murder. How asinine! But that is how democRats think. Hug the murderers if they are the right demographic! I suppose that is why most felons wholeheartedly support the democRatic party.

Kat makes some very great points. Sure the Left wants special treatment for certain groups of people (albeit unconstitutional) but the groups for which they want special favor are those who they want to join their party.

They want special and extra punishment for those who commit a crime against one of their protected groups (again, unconstitutional), like illegals, gays, etc, etc. THEN they have the nerve to have a vigil at the execution of a true reprobate like Tookie Williams (who apparently had the good sense to kill a flock of people who do not have a lot of currency with the Libs.)

But this is the same group who want to spare the life of a murderer or rapist of protected “minorities” but have no compunction about killing an innocent baby in the womb.

If the Lib/Left/Dems had any good sense at all they would openly court Craig and welcome him into their fold, thus guaranteeing his re-election as a Dem.

And I love the comment by Joe who said that if his cat came into his house and barked that would make more sense to him than the fool talk. Absolutely priceless!

God Bless and God Speed
John

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: