Monday, September 19, 2005
Lowering The Bar
With few notable exceptions, Democrats and their leftist pals have in recent years continuously lowered the bar of behavior whenever it has suited their goals, ignoring political convention and often even simple human decency for personal and/or political gain. The result has been considerable downward pressure on the honorable traditions that serve as the foundation for maintaining a functioning democracy. Even written laws are not enough to restrain these assholes, so it's no surprise that they ignore matters of ethos and unwritten rules. Personal honor? Forget it.
These transgressions against convention and decency have run the gamut, from Bill Clinton's use of the Oval Office to cheat on his wife and forever brand his daughter with that legacy, to Sandy Berger's brazen theft of classified 9/11 documents, to the fillibustering of President Bush's judicial appointments, to the left's ugly cultural convention of lying about supporting the troops while demanding rights for terrorists and advocating Bush's assassination. There are countless more examples, most recently leftist racebaiting in the wake of Katrina, but you get the picture.
Now Clinton is at it again, this time busting the tradition of former Presidents refraining from criticizing their successors (and in Clinton's case his better). As usual with Democrats and leftists, Clinton is either wrong or lying (mostly lying) about almost every point he makes, and Power Line's John Hindraker calls him to account:
This attack was false in every respect. The invasion of Iraq had the support of dozens of nations. The UN's inspections could never be "completed," but the UN itself had reported that large quantities of WMDs remained unaccounted for. On the other hand, Clinton's suggestion that there was "no real urgency" about the situation in Iraq was probably sincere, as it typified Clinton's approach to terrorism: he perceived no urgency after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or after al Qaeda's attempt to simultaneously destroy a dozen American airplanes over the Pacific in 1995; or after the attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998; or after Saddam's attempt to assassinate former President Bush; or after Saddam repeatedly tried to shoot down American aircraft; or after the Cole bombing in 2000; or after the Taliban took over Afghanistan and converted it into a training ground for anti-American mass murderers; or after any number of other provocations. So, naturally, Clinton saw no urgency with respect to dealing with Saddam's regime. Of course, had Saddam facilitated a post-9/11 attack on the U.S. using chemical or biological weapons, you can imagine how harshly Clinton would have criticized Bush for his lack of foresight.
Read it all.
These transgressions against convention and decency have run the gamut, from Bill Clinton's use of the Oval Office to cheat on his wife and forever brand his daughter with that legacy, to Sandy Berger's brazen theft of classified 9/11 documents, to the fillibustering of President Bush's judicial appointments, to the left's ugly cultural convention of lying about supporting the troops while demanding rights for terrorists and advocating Bush's assassination. There are countless more examples, most recently leftist racebaiting in the wake of Katrina, but you get the picture.
Now Clinton is at it again, this time busting the tradition of former Presidents refraining from criticizing their successors (and in Clinton's case his better). As usual with Democrats and leftists, Clinton is either wrong or lying (mostly lying) about almost every point he makes, and Power Line's John Hindraker calls him to account:
This attack was false in every respect. The invasion of Iraq had the support of dozens of nations. The UN's inspections could never be "completed," but the UN itself had reported that large quantities of WMDs remained unaccounted for. On the other hand, Clinton's suggestion that there was "no real urgency" about the situation in Iraq was probably sincere, as it typified Clinton's approach to terrorism: he perceived no urgency after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or after al Qaeda's attempt to simultaneously destroy a dozen American airplanes over the Pacific in 1995; or after the attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998; or after Saddam's attempt to assassinate former President Bush; or after Saddam repeatedly tried to shoot down American aircraft; or after the Cole bombing in 2000; or after the Taliban took over Afghanistan and converted it into a training ground for anti-American mass murderers; or after any number of other provocations. So, naturally, Clinton saw no urgency with respect to dealing with Saddam's regime. Of course, had Saddam facilitated a post-9/11 attack on the U.S. using chemical or biological weapons, you can imagine how harshly Clinton would have criticized Bush for his lack of foresight.
Read it all.
