Letter to the Editor Moonbats About Bush
Sometimes, one never knows where one will find idiocy. Today I found it in the letters to the editor of the Saginaw News.
The White House, Congress and the Supreme Court have a checks and balance system that gives them equal powers. Our forefathers designed it so we no longer could be ruled by a single person like King George III. President George is putting this system to the test and trying to turn back the hands of time.
First of, there three branches of the Federal government were not given equal powers. They were given different powers to serve as checks and balances. Congress was set up with two chambers in order to for legislation and to prevent the Executive branch from wielding too much power. For instance, all tax bills begin in the House of Representatives while the Senate as the power to advise and consent on various Presidential appointments, which helps subdivide the powers within Congress. The President, as the executive, signs into law the various bills that originate and pass through Congress. The Supreme Court is set up to interpret the law and resolve Constitutional conflicts, sometimes even getting it right, but not always (like it blew it with eminent domain). The original purpose of the Senate, lost since the 17th amendment, was to serve as a check against the Federal government seizing too much power from many States.
I also don't like the way they say "President George," associating him King George. This is improper and disrespectful; it shows a certain level of contempt for the President as it is intended to be an insult.
Most of the info the White House has given us in the past has been lies, and now they don't want us to know the truth. This doesn't seem to be a fair check- and-balance system.
Either they are referring to the false claims that Bush lied about the reasons for going into Iraq, or they are referring to Bill Clinton lying about getting Presidentials from Monica Lewinski. In the former, on every claim of lies, from WMDs in Iraq to involvement with various terrorist groups, Bush and the Administration have been proven right, while the chickendoves have been proven to be full of nothing but chickensh*t.
Did the hawks worry about the 3,640-plus military lives lost or the tens of thousands maimed and injured? Did they care about the 900 government contractors killed or the reporters who have lost their lives trying to get us the truth about the war? Some reports have said that President George has killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein.
More so than the chickendoves who voted against the $86 billion to provide body armor to the troops in the field. (Need a better term to cover moonbats like Kerry who at least served in the Armed Forces, even though they are wrong on every issue in Washington.)
Although there are some sites that "claim" the war in Iraq has resulted in half a million deaths, it is closer to 60,000. That's still a lot of people, however it is known that Hussein murdered about half a million people during is reign of terror. Further, the vast majority of those killed in Iraq died at the hands of foreign terrorists (al-Qaeda) and sectarian death squads (like those operated by Muqtada al-Sadr), not by U.S. and coalition forces.
In May, Bush said "if the Iraqi government were to say leave, we would leave." Well, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq told us to leave. But why change now? Why would you take the $12 billion spent on the war each month and help the poor or improve education or improve our health care system or save Social Security?
Although the Iraqi government has discussed a U.S. pull-out, the government has not ordered it. We're still there at their invitation.
As for the $12 billion spent each month, if we were to end the war today and save that money, it should be returned to the people who pay it: cut taxes. Sure, helping the poor is a good idea, but it is best accomplished through charitable organizations, not through government handouts which is subject to tremendous waste and abuse. Yes, education needs to be improved, and so far the Democrats have blocked all attempts to reform education and allowing school choice (vouchers) rather than taking a progressive stance and letting Americans choose where and how their children are educated. Competition will force the public schools to improve. Health care is and always will be a hotbed topic. We have the best health care system in the world. Yet the whackos on the left want Hillarycare and force Americans onto a Cuba-like system where only those with power get the best care and everyone else gets third-world treatment. As for saving Social Security, the liberals and Democrats have blocked every attempt to reform the Social Security system and allowing working Americans to control their "contributions" to a system that is doomed to insolvency.
Bush keeps pointing fingers at Iran as a threat, but more than half of the extremists in Iraq are Saudis, not Iranian. Bush and Cheney can't go after their friends that make them money or are militarily strong. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates all have ties to al-Qaida and terrorism, but are kept under the radar by this administration.
Now this guy shows what a Moonbat he truly is. He has bought the Obama "get tough on terrorism" line of invading our allies. Yes, many of the extremists are not from Iran. However, Iran has been supplying them with arms, money and training. Iran has infiltrated into Iraq, and even taken British sailors and Marines hostage. Yes, many of the al-Qaeda terrorists are from Saudi Arabia and other places. Yes, bin Ladin may be hiding out in Pakistan. The government of Pakistan is in a somewhat precarious situation because of the terrorists, the Taliban, and other extremist forces, including domestic groups. If Pakistan were to let the U.S. in to go after bin Ladin (and I bet they would like to) they would have a revolution on their hands and an extremist government would come to power and have immediate access to nuclear weapons.
The governments sited in this editorial are working with us to solve the al-Qaeda problem. They may not be doing as much as we would like them to. But the alternative would be far worse, and would bring further destabilize the region with radical Islam.
The piece concludes with one line:
We just want the truth.
Quite frankly, dude, I don't think you'd know the truth if it jumped up and bit you on the nose.