The Democratic Party and their minions in the mainstream media are constantly talking about scandals and immoral behavior. Their scandal detection is so sensitive, that they often find scandals that are not even real. They employ selective moral outrage, convenient double-standards and deception to win political points and deceive the public. Many people buy right into it without asking questions.
Well, my liberal friends, I have a detector as well. It’s called the “BF” detector, and it can catch partisan lies and hypocrisy that smells like bovine feces. My BF detector has been going off non-stop since the Dems took control of Congress, and it is time to sift through the BF to get at the truth.
U.S. Attorney Firing Scandal
Most of you have heard about the so-called scandal regarding the “questionable” firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Let’s examine this issue first.
Myth: President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fired district attorneys for illegal or questionable reasons. This behavior is unusual and beyond the normal conduct of U.S. presidents. IT’S A SCANDAL!
Truth: U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. That has always been the case. They are usually recommended by senators from their state and given their jobs for political reasons as well as legal reasons. You may disagree with this, but it is common practice. Most presidents replace a large majority of them when they begin their administration. Clinton fired 93 of them (all except one) in one fell swoop at the outset of his term, Bush did his replacements more gradually and still has not replaced all of them. It is a little unusual for presidents to replace attorneys midterm like Bush just did, but it is not unheard of and certainly not illegal.
The only possible legal issue would be if the attorneys were fired because they were investigating a case that was of particular political interest to the administration and the president was trying to affect the outcome of the investigation by dismissing the attorney. There is no evidence that this is the case. None, whatsoever. Internal emails released by the Department of Justice state that seven of the eight were fired because they did not enforce laws in the manner the administration would prefer (for instance, one of the attorneys refused to prosecute illegal immigrants unless they had several offenses, and another refused to prosecute marijuana trafficking across the border unless it exceeded a certain amount) and the eighth was fired because the administration had someone else they wanted to give the job to. This is all perfectly legal.
President Bush is the boss. If your boss wanted you to conduct your job in a certain way that was neither illegal nor immoral, and you refuse to, you should expect to get the boot. It is that simple.
Myth: Bush is refusing to talk about the firings and refuses to allow his people to be subpoenaed to testify. The only reason he would be so stubborn is if he was covering something up.
Truth: Bush is willing to allow his people to testify before Congress, he just does not want them subpoenaed to testify in a courtroom setting. The media will tell you it is because he doesn’t want his people to have to atone for any lies they tell, and that they do not want the testimony to be on the record. This is also a lie. It is a serous crime to lie to Congress, and testimony before Congress does go on the record, just not public record. The lawmakers pursuing the inquiry would have full access to the testimony given, but the media and the public would not. If it turned out that the testimonies revealed illegal activity, then a court case would ensue and the public would have access.
You may wonder the reason for preferring the former option over the latter, but consider this: there may be sensitive issues regarding specific laws and the methods of enforcement that could potentially make it easier for criminals if it were released publicly. There is also the question of precedent to consider; if subpoenas are issued to investigate policy decisions when there is no question of legality then opposition parties will have yet another tool for distracting political smokescreens when they see fit.
What About? Among the attorneys fired by Clinton were a few who were investigating him and Hillary for their involvement in Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm scandal. That’s right, read it again slowly. Clinton fired attorneys who were investigating him and his wife for criminal wrongdoing and the investigations later led to the convictions of several close Clinton friends and business associates. Of course the Clintons never faced any legal ramifications. Would they have if some of the investigating attorneys were not replaced by loyal democrats, to include former law students of Bill Clinton? Maybe, but we shall never know, because there was no outcry over those firings.
Hmm.
Bottom Line: Bush did nothing wrong and the democrats know it. His midterm firings were peculiar at best, but the Dems insist on trying to mislead the public to score political points. Granted, the administration has done a poor job of explaining the firings, but ultimately they don’t even need to explain it. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and he can fire them for not doing their jobs the way he wants it done. There is no “scandal” unless Bush fired them while they were investigating him or one of his people for wrongdoing- like Clinton did.
Scooter Libby and the Plame Scandal
Myth: The administration illegally leaked the name of former CIA operative Valerie Plame to get revenge on her husband who had criticized the war.
Truth: This was a partisan witch hunt from the word “go,” and the initial targets were Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. Someone gave Plame’s name to a reporter who ran a story. Her husband was a former U.S. Ambassador who had criticized the war. The Dems smelled blood. The first problem that emerged was that there was no crime committed. Yep, you read it right. The Dems knew there was no crime and they went forward for partisan reasons (sound familiar?)
Here’s the deal: the “Intelligence Identities Protection Act” would have had to have been violated for there to be a crime. In order for this to have been an “illegal outing” according to the act her status as undercover must be classified and she must have been assigned to duty outside the U.S. currently or in the past five years. Plame was not on covert status and had not been in nine years. She did not qualify as a cover agent and therefore the act was not violated. This means there was no criminal activity involved in the naming of Plame, regardless of who did it. Case closed, right?
Of course not, the Dems carried on. They found out that undersecretary Richard Armitage was the one who actually named Plame, and yet they carried on. They realized they could not get Cheney or Rove on anything, but “ah-ha,” it turns out Scooter Libby misspoke while under oath. He claimed he heard about Plame’s identity from journalist Tim Russert, which turned out to be false. So Libby was prosecuted for lying about an irrelevant fact in a non-existent criminal investigation.
Hmm.
What About? Bill Clinton. He lied under oath, and the Dems accused the Republicans of partisan politics for insisting on punishment. Now, for the record, I do not necessarily agree that investigating big Willey for getting a kiss on his little Willey should have been a national priority, but considering the earlier allegations of sexual harassment and rape levied against Clinton, one can at least understand a legitimate concern.
Bottom Line: A lie is a lie, right? People on both sides of the aisle who dismiss one instance and scream for blood in the other are hypocrites, plain and simple. If Libby did lie, then he should be punished. We cannot know for sure if he lied or misspoke. We do know that Clinton lied. We know that he was asked if he had “sexual relations” with Lewinsky, then he was shown a definition of “sexual relations,” and then he stated that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Lies do not get much more bold-faced than that.
I have presented two BF alerts, but there are more. Since I am running out of space, how about you research Gerry “Pedophile” Studds, Ted “Killer” Kennedy, Roger “The Addict” Clinton, or Sandy “Sticky Fingers” Berger and see the circumstances behind their scandals. Then sit and ask yourself, “Where was the outrage?”
The degree of hypocrisy in the Democratic Party is unprecedented. I implore you to look past the media diversions and find out the truth for yourself. The Dems are suckering much of America with their selective moral outrage and God help us if we allow this type of hypocrisy and immoral behavior to continue. If they could win elections with ideas and honesty they would not need to resort to such tactics, but since they cannot win the fair way they are employing the equivalent of “guerilla” tactics to steal power and push their personal agendas.
They will continue to protect themselves and live above the laws of the land while keeping much of America ignorant through their personal propaganda machines in the mainstream media and concepts of right and wrong in this nation will become more blurred. The only defense to this onslaught is a good bovine feces detector, so make sure to get yours before it’s too late.
