PELOSI PUPOSELY UNDERMINING WAR EFFORT

That’s what you’d have to say after her accusations against the President. Here’s how Reuters is reporting the war of words:

Intensifying a war of words over a U.S. troop buildup in Iraq, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused President George W. Bush on Friday of playing politics with soldiers’ lives, a charge the White House called “poisonous.”

“The president knows that because the troops are in harm’s way that we won’t cut off the resources,” Pelosi, head of the Democratic-led House, told ABC’s “Good Morning America. “That’s why he’s moving so quickly to put them in harm’s way.”

I’ve always understood that Ms. Pelosi is a back-stabbing lowlife but I never thought she’d go this far to lose this war. She’s the person playing politics with the war. She’s playing to the pacifist/loser wing of her party. Where else would she have gotten the audacity of accusing President Bush of putting soldiers into the line of fire for political gain? That accusation is both disgusting and illogical. It isn’t logical because the easiest way for President Bush to play politics with this situation is by pulling a Murtha, the definition of which is quitting without winning.

There isn’t a place in American politics for Pelosi’s disgusting behavior. Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan would’ve chastised her and sent her packing for undercutting the war effort.

Another thing that shouldn’t be forgotten in all this is the role purist conservatives played in handing power to Ms. Pelosi. Let’s remember that they cast ‘protest votes’ because President Bush wasn’t conservative enough for them. Shame on them for putting power in the hands of someone like Ms. Pelosi. I wasn’t happy with spending habits or his stance on illegal immigration but there’s a war to be won, for God’s sake. Until that war is won, all the other issues take a secondary role. PERIOD.

These same holier-than-thou conservatives better not stay home in 2008 because if they do, Hillary wins, which means losing ground in the GWOT and other significant setbacks. Among the other setbacks would be to lose the judiciary for another decade. America can’t tolerate that.

RELATED:
Nancy Pelosi Tells America: The President
Wants Our Troops “In Harm’s Way”

A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

Do you want to be a Border Patrol agent and do your job to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country? Do you want to prevent drug smugglers from bringing drugs across the border?

If you do your job diligently there is a good chance you may wind up in jail. That’s what has happened to Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.

In February 2005, the agents tried to stop a van driven by drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila near the Mexico border. After a scuffle with Compean, Aldrete-Davila fled on foot. Ramos says he believes that he saw a gun — which the smuggler denies. Both agents fired at Aldrete-Davila, who fell, then continued his escape across the border. After he got away, Ramos and Compean filed a report on the 743 pounds of marijuana they found in the van, but not on the gunfire. As it turns out, Ramos had shot Aldrete-Davila in the butt.

Returning to Mexico, Aldrete-Davila related his misfortunes to his mother, who contacted the mother-in-law of Border Patrol agent Rene Sanchez. Sanchez in turn tipped off a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who went to Mexico to offer immunity if Osbaldo would act as a state’s witness against Ramos and Compean: the feds wanted to prosecute the agents shooting the alien narcotics supplier.

To sweeten the immunity deal, the feds paid for Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila’s medical treatment of his ailing backside – a taxpayer-funded recuperation at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas. He showed his gratitude by breaking his immunity agreement in October 2005, when officers say he attempted to smuggle 1,000 pounds of marijuana into America. The prosecution further extended its immunity to this felony and sealed the indictment from jurors. Aldrete-Davila repaid this new shower of grace by suing the federal government for $5 million, alleging the shooting violated his civil rights. However, he agreed to help in their criminal prosecution, as well, and the feds are apparently happy to collaborate with the pusher as long as he helped put effective lawmen behind bars.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, a Bush appointee, prosecuted the agents. In March, a jury found them guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon, discharge of a firearm during a violent crime, obstructing justice, lying about the incident and willfully violating Aldrete-Davila’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure.

Because there was gunfire, the mandatory-minimum prison sentence the agents will serve is 10 years. As for Aldrete-Davila, he faces no charges for the 743 pounds of pot. That leaves him free to carry out his plan to sue the Border Patrol — that is, U.S. taxpayers — for $5 million because his civil rights were violated. What a country.

Ramos, who was nominated Border Patrol Agent of the year in 2005, told the San Bernardino County Sun, “There’s murderers and child rapists that are looking at less time than me.”

At the heart of the prosecution is a vehicle-pursuit policy that makes absolutely no sense. As Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof explained to the Sun, “It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing.” It’s like a no-arrest policy.

No surprise, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore the regs. As Ramos responded to Kanof: “How are we supposed to follow the Border Patrol strategy of apprehending terrorists or drug smugglers if we are not supposed to pursue fleeing people? Everybody who’s breaking the law flees from us. What are we supposed to do? Do they want us to catch them or not?”

I will answer that question. No, they do not want you to catch them. It is one of the things I do not understand about this Administration. There is no will to enforce the border, protect our sovereignty and prevent the admission of illegal immigrants or substances.

Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the case, as she fears this prosecution may represent “a serious miscarriage of justice.” It definitely does.

Sutton’s office cannot comment on the case until sentencing, but referred me to a statement, that explains, “They were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender, but, while his open hands were held in the air, Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of his shotgun.” Later, the agents picked up shell casings and failed to file a gunfire report.

Sutton’s best point: A jury found the two agents guilty of all charges except attempted murder. As Bonner sees it, the most punishment the agents deserve is a five-day suspension for not reporting the shooting. Say, for argument’s sake, that the agents were wrong to shoot at Aldrete-Davila. They were wrong to not file a report. Discipline them. Fire them, even. But don’t send them to prison for decades for a bad split-second decision and failure to file a report.

If they were crooks, they would serve shorter time. Last month, a Border Patrol agent, who admitted to smuggling 100 illegal immigrants while he served on the Border Patrol, got five years. (Prosecutors had recommended three years, but in San Diego, U.S. District Judge John Houston hiked the sentence, telling the man: “You violated the sacred trust of your comrades. As a link in the chain, they depended on you.”)

Compean’s attorney, Maria Ramirez, told me that her client, a first-generation American, served honorably in the U.S. Navy, then worked for the Border Patrol. He had a home, now sold, a wife and two children. Another child is on the way. But in the 15 minutes after the agents saw that van, after one split-second judgment call, his life melted away: “In 15 minutes it’s gone, just gone.”

The two U.S. Border Patrol agents were sentenced to prison terms of 11 years and 12 years for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks as he fled across the U.S.-Mexico border.

U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case, the Washington Times reported.

Phyllis Schafly writes in Eagle Forum that we need compassion for our Border Guards. She states

President George W. Bush pardoned 16 criminals including five drug dealers at Christmastime, but so far has refused to pardon the two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend Americans against drug smugglers. It makes us wonder which side the self-proclaimed “compassionate” President is on.

Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso on February 17, 2005 when they intercepted a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. For what happened next, they were convicted and sentenced under a statute that was designed to impose heavy punishment on criminal drug smugglers caught in the commission of a crime.

The two agents are scheduled to start 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, on January 17, for the crime of putting one bullet in the buttocks of the admitted drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and failing to report the discharge of their firearms. The non-fatal bullet didn’t stop the smuggler from running to escape in a van waiting for him on the Mexican side of the border.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher called the two agents heroes. “Because of their actions, more than a million dollars in illegal drugs were stopped from being sold to our children. Bringing felony charges against them is a travesty of justice beyond description.”

The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice are stonewalling requests for a presidential pardon from 55 Members of Congress and U.S. citizens who have sent at least 160,000 petitions and 15,000 faxes. When the Bush Administration deigns to respond at all, the official line is that the Border Patrol agents got a fair trial.

But that’s not true; they didn’t get a fair trial. They were convicted because the Justice Department sent investigators into Mexico, tracked down the drug smuggler, and gave him immunity from all prosecution for his drug smuggling crimes if he would please come back and testify against Ramos and Compean.

It was massively unfair to give immunity to an illegal alien narcotics trafficker while destroying the lives and families of two Border Patrol agents who risked their lives to stop him. Ramos and Compean were convicted mainly on the testimony of the immunity-sheltered drug smuggler, whose integrity should have been called into question, but Ramos and Compean were forbidden to do that during the trial.

Ramos and Compean were doing what they thought was their job – preventing a drug dealer from illegally crossing the border with illegal substances. Yes, they failed to report the fact that they fired their weapon. Yes, they gave chase to the illegal, which they were told they shouldn’t do. Ok, they broke some rules. Give them six months in jail – but to sentence them to 11 and 12 years is a gross miscarriage of justice.

I understand the the judge had no choice because the mandatory Federal sentence for this is 10 years. Fine, but where is the Presidential pardon?

According to Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) in House Resolution 1030:

To say that Ramos and Compean have been treated unjustly and unfairly is an understatement. Adding insult to injury, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has granted immunity to the Mexican drug dealer, the smuggler who these two officers intercepted. This criminal alien was caught with 743 pounds of marijuana, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office has treated this criminal as if he were a victim.

At the same time, the book was thrown at our border patrol agents. I will submit for the RECORD, Mr. Speaker, my letter to the Attorney General regarding this outrageous case. The brutal treatment of the two border guards has demoralized our Border Patrol agents. I hope as we sing our praises today, that we understand that we are, yes, grateful to all of these people who protect us at the border, including the two Border Patrol agents that are now under attack.

In the meantime, let the case of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean be revisited and the outrageous criminal charges against them dropped.

The Washington Times on January 10, 2007 reports,

Republican House members yesterday asked President Bush to keep two U.S. Border Patrol agents out of prison pending their appeal of convictions for shooting a suspected drug smuggler in the buttocks as he fled into Mexico.

“Several discrepancies in the government’s case strongly question whether justice has been served, and permitting these men to be incarcerated in the interim puts their lives at risk,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California said at a Capitol Hill press conference.

“We’re going to find out whose side you’re on … the American people or the side of our enemies,” Mr. Rohrabacher said in a reference to Mr. Bush. “If you let these two men go to jail for defending us, then we’ll know you’re on the side of our enemies.”

He was joined by Reps. Duncan Hunter of California, Ted Poe of Texas, Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, Joe Wilson of South Carolina and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

In lieu of a pardon, a letter petitioning Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was presented during the press conference asking the Justice Department to direct federal prosecutors not to oppose a motion filed in a Texas court to keep the agents free on bond during the appeals process.

This is an outrageous miscarriage of justice. These men were protecting their country and doing what they were hired to do. I suggest that everyone who agrees with that statement do two things that will make a difference:

1) Phone the White House and let them know how you feel. The phone number is: (202) 456-1111.

2) Write to President Bush asking him to pardon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. A letter sent by U.S. mail is more effective than a fax, an email or any other form of communication.

If we have enough people contacting the White House, it will make a difference. Do it now. And while you are at it, you might ask the President why he is not willing to enforce our borders.

WEATHER CHANNEL ABSURDITY

Perhaps the most bizarre story of the week comes from Weather Channel Meteobabe Heidi Cullen. Apparently she hosts a show called "The Climate Code."

Let's all bask for a moment in the extremely clever play on "The DaVinci Code" popularity.

OK .. That's enough. Back to Hysterical Heidi. Cullen wants the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the group that certifies TV weathermen, to decertify any weatherman who dares to question the "fact" that man is causing catastrophic global climate change.

Note, please, that the phrase "Global warming" is no longer really in vogue. After all ... ice just destroyed much of California's citrus crop. So the word now is "climate change."

Here's what Cullen had to say on her blog:

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement."

To Cullen the "fundamental science of climate change" is that global warming is being caused by man. She completely discounts cyclical weather patterns which have been proven by science. The earth has been this warm in the past .. warmer .. many times. Cullen doesn't explain why. By the way ... it has been pointed out that hurricanes do rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere -- but why be picky.

Here's another blog you might be interested in. The Weather Blog. This is from AMC certified Meteorologist James Spann. He says that he does not know of a single TV Meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. There are some excellent comments posted to Spann's blog. A good read.

Don't you just love a good juicy controversy?

PELOSI OPENS GLOBAL WARMING PANEL AS SNOW BLANKETS MALIBU, TEXAS, OKLAHOMA

I don’t know of a politician who is more tone deaf than Nancy Pelosi. I cite as proof of my claim Ms. Pelosi’s seeking to create a special committee dealing with global warming. While Ms. Pelosi was doing this, this headline jumped out at me:

Motorists Stranded Near Grapevine Spend Night In Vehicles
Snow Falls In West L.A., Malibu

Here’s what the AP is reporting about this ’special’ committee:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to create a special committee Thursday in an effort to jump-start long-delayed government efforts to deal with global warming and produce a bill by Independence Day.
—————
“I promise to do everything in my power to achieve energy independence…and to stop global warming,” Pelosi said.

Here’s what NBC is reporting about the snows of Malibu:

Motorists stranded on the Golden State (5) Freeway overnight near the Grapevine continued their journeys Thursday morning when the California Highway Patrol began escorting drivers on the icy stretch of road.
—————
In the Malibu area, part of Kanan Dume Road remained closed Thursday morning as crews worked to clear snow from the roadway. Kanan Road was closed from Mulholland Highway to Triunfo Canyon Road, north of Malibu, says CHP Officer Francisco Villalobos.

Ms. Pelosi doesn’t have a bit of credibility when it comes to energy policy because it’s stunningly obvious that she’s totally in the hip pocket of the environmental extremists. Before anyone other than the most rabid ideologues believes her on this issue, she’ll need to pick a better time to announce her ‘global warming initiative’.

If these examples aren’t enough proof of her tone deafness, here’s more proof:

SAN ANTONIO (AP) - A bone-rattling blast of sleet and snow kept Texas and Oklahoma residents shivering in its icy grip, while a blizzard north of Los Angeles caused big-rigs to jackknife.

At least 65 storm-related deaths have been reported in nine states since Friday, including 10 in Texas and 23 in Oklahoma. The Alamo was closed Wednesday, as was a 300-mile stretch of Interstate 10 in Texas from Fort Stockton to San Antonio.

Finally, I’d add this cautionary note from Michael Crichton’s testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid-and merits universal acceptance-only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It’s verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don’t.

Thus, when adhered to, the scientific method can transcend politics. And the converse may also be true: when politics takes precedent over content, it is often because the primacy of independent verification has been overwhelmed by competing interests.

That’s why I’m totally skeptical of Ms. Pelosi’s claims about global warming. Understand that I’m not discounting the notion that Earth’s climate is changing. I just don’t buy into the notion that the polar ice caps melting is inevitable because the people touting that belief have suspect political motivations.

CLINTON SIGNED 'IRAQ LIBERATION ACT' INTO LAW 1998

Bottom Line Up Front: The war in Iraq is not “Bush’s war”, it is America’s war and it has been since the early 1990’s. In 1998, then President Bill Clinton on the eve of presidential impeachment hearings signed into law The Iraq Liberation Act which committed U.S. money to supporting the overthrow of a dangerous Saddam Hussein and laid out U.S. policy as supporting a free Iraq.

The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

Well, whaddya know! It looks like this isn’t “Bush’s war” after all. Democratic opposition is simply a political concoction. This is America’s war and has been for 15 years. The Bush administration promotes the identical agenda in Iraq from regime change to halting Saddam’s WMD program to promoting democracy and freedom in the Middle East. Clinton even dismissed the excuse Democrats use today that sectarian strife in Iraq has been going on for too long and cannot be reconciled saying he ”categorically reject[ed] arguments that this [freedom within Iraq] is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.” Sound familiar?

Then on December 16, 1998, Pres. Bill Clinton ordered a U.S. strike on Iraqi military and security targets partnered with British forces. Pres. Clinton offered a lengthy explanation in defense of the strikes. The full transcript of Clinton’s remarks can be read HERE. The highlights are:

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish…..

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

In short, the (U.N.) inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community — led by the United States — has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday — make no mistake — he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.”

BRAVO! Do yourself a favor and read the entire transcript of Pres. Clinton’s explanation justifying strikes on Iraq by US and British forces. He gave a more coherent description than Pres. Bush has in the last 6 years.

Now the U.S. military strike against Iraq occurred on the eve of Clinton’s impeachment hearings resulting in their postponement. The four articles of impeachment charged Clinton with perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power in the Monica Lewinsky affair. The timing of military action in Iraq appeared to be a tactical maneuver by Pres. Clinton to avoid the humiliating proposition of becoming the first President in U.S. history to be impeached (which is what later happened), under such embarrassing circumstances. Republicans criticized the move for that reason, although most still supported the action against Iraq.

Congressman Gerald Solomon (R-NY) wrote:

“Bombs Away — Save Impeachment for Another Day?”

“It is obvious that they’re (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it.”

Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State under Bush Sr. said:

“While I approve the action, I think the timing stinks, frankly.”

Then House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said:

“…(the strikes were an example of) the U.S. leading the world by exercising its military power in an appropriate way.”

At the time, Democrats reacted angrily to the criticism of Clinton’s motives. For example, Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) said:

“(The GOP reaction is) as close to a betrayal of the interests of the United States as I’ve ever witnessed in the United States Congress. It’s unforgivable and reprehensible.”

Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD):

“This is a time for our country to be united, even though we’re divided on other matters.”

Daschle and Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri) issued a joint statement defending the timing, saying:

“Any delay would have given (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein time to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and undermine international support for our efforts.”

Where are these Democrats today, and why are they opposing the Clinton law and initiatives that they so vehemently supported in 1998? In fairness to Bill Clinton, despite the timing (which very well may have come from ulterior motives), it was the right thing to do. His mission in Haiti was right, his mission in Bosnia was right, and his mission in Iraq was right.

Should Bill Clinton arrested on war crimes for civilian deaths suffered by the strikes in Iraq and Bosnia? If not, how can liberals so hypocritically demand that action for Bush? And how could the U.S. bomb ”Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs” in 1998 if there were no WMD? And if there weren’t WMD (which there were), doesn’t Clinton share the same culpability that Democrats claim for Pres. Bush? Clinton was right no matter what his motive, President Bush is right, and if Democrats would stop pretending to be bi-partisan and actually be bi-partisan, America might work toward unity. As former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle said,

“This is a time for our country to be united, even though we’re divided on other matters.”

Amen.

DON'T JUST STAND THERE! DO NOTHING!

The virtue of gridlock

On January 4th, Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and tenuous control of the Senate. With the change of power comes the possibility of something big government types dread.

Having to beg Ted Kennedy for political favors. Heck, the last lobbyist who asked Kennedy for a favor when he was in the majority broke his back carrying the portable wetbar around the Kennedy compound.

But there is something even more frightening than being Kennedy’s liquor boy. That something is gridlock. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, gridlock refers to when Congress can’t do its Constitutionally-mandated job of passing bills because the two major parties can’t agree on what needs to be done. Why does this bother big government types? Well, when you consider their veins run red with the bureaucratic tape of the same hue, having Congress unable to pass more laws makes them edgy. Think crack addicts with fashions by Brooks Brothers.

Gridlock also tends to force the two major parties to work together to pass bills that will pass muster with their constituents. That’s something we haven’t had a lot of in at least 12 years because one party has held Congress and the White House. With the Democrats taking control, some of the right’s favorite pet projects will have to take a back seat or be altered somewhat to bring it more to the center. In short, funding for faith-based programs designed to teach the 14-toed sloth of the Upper Lower Middle Amazon River basin how to speak in tongues is going to have to wait a bit.

However, it’s not just Republicans who will have to count their nickels and dimes. Democrats are in the same boat because their pet projects will be held under the same scrutiny. In short, funding for a refuge for gay 14-toed sloth of the Upper Lower Middle Amazon River basin who were taught to speak in tongues will also have to wait. Instead, we might have more sensible spending, like a study on why we’re spending so much money on 14-toed sloth in the first place.

Even though the House controls spending bills, and Democrats hold a decent-sized majority in the House, there’s a possibility that gridlock in the Senate could curtail any wild ideas from the House. In the Senate, the split is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents who plan to caucus with the Democrats. Then, factor into this situation the fact that South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson (who just happens to be a Democrat) has been sidelined by a medical condition. That reduces the vote count to 99 instead of 100. Democrats would have to get both Independents to vote for anything they propose, or else they don’t get what they want, and that’s if votes are along strict party lines to begin with. Given some of the squirrelly Democrats and Republicans there, it’s not a lock by any means, but for the sake of argument (and since it’s my column), let’s say it happens.

Even if Senator Johnson comes back and votes, the ever-unpredictable Joe Lieberman could break ranks with the Democrats, leaving a 50-50 tie. And guess who gets to break the tie. Vice President Dick Cheney. Oops. That alone may make Senate Democrats more willing to either work with Republicans or not work at all. You know, just like John Kerry does.

There is one downside to gridlock. If there’s a highly charged bill, those who want to see it defeated can easily get it bogged down in Congress to the point that whoever proposed the bill will withdraw it instead of watching it get voted down. With some bills, like the PATRIOT Act or appropriations bills for the war on terrorism, gridlock can doom even the best bills if the political fortunes don’t shine upon it. But, like I said earlier, it also guarantees horrible bills may go the way of Britney Spears’s chances of being Mother of the Year, so you have a tradeoff to consider.

As a big believer in small government, I’m enamored with gridlock. I think it’s the greatest manmade political concept since the Electoral College (who, once again, was snubbed by the BCS for a bowl game). Sure, if gridlock happens, we’ll be paying Congress for not doing their jobs, but how exactly is that different from the way things are right now?