Good 'ol conservative values... hypocrisy

[Sonart]

--"House Republicans demonstrated their loyalty to Majority Leader Tom DeLay yesterday, changing an 11-year-old party rule that would cost him his leadership post if he were indicted by a Texas grand jury that has charged three of his associates."--

--"The chief author of the change, Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, said it was necessary to revise the rule – adopted by Republicans in August 1993 to highlight the legal troubles of some prominent Democrats – to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" district attorneys from determining the fate of top Republicans."--

Said Tom Delay,, "They fixed the rules so that Democrats cannot use our rules against us,"

I mean, really, what good are rules if they can't only be used against Democrats? Oh yeah, the next four years are going to be tons of fun.

[PatrickHenry]

It's the same hypocrisy we see in Iraq. Nuremberg applied against the Nazi aggression, the US shouldn't have to live by the same standards.(irony)

[bullshitdetector]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,
It's the same hypocrisy we see in Iraq. Nuremberg applied against the Nazi aggression, the US shouldn't have to live by the same standards.(irony)

I don't see any hypocrisy with the war in Iraq. Clinton mandated the removal of Saddam and Bush got the job done.

[PatrickHenry]

Bush does what Clinton says. How novel. Too bad he didn't listen to Richard Clark. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595173/

At the senior policy levels in the Clinton Administration, there was an acute understanding of the terrorist threat, particularly al Qida. That understanding resulted in a vigorous program to counter al Qida including lethal covert action, but it did not include a willingness to resume bombing of Afghanistan. Events in the Balkans, Iraq, the Peace Process, and domestic politics occurring at the same time as the anti-terrorism effort played a role.

The Bush Administration saw terrorism policy as important but not urgent, prior to 9-11. The difficulty in obtaining the first Cabinet level (Principals) policy meeting on terrorism and the limited Principals' involvement sent unfortunate signals to the bureaucracy about the Administration's attitude toward the al Qida threat.

Maybe a few of Clinton's environmental directives could have been followed by his lackey, Bush, too. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/103004G.shtml

Recognizing its grave threat to our nation's health, president Bill Clinton reclassified mercury as a hazardous pollutant under the Clean Air Act, triggering a requirement that those plants remove 90 percent of their mercury discharges within three-and-a-half years - an effort that would have cleaned up America's water bodies and cost a miniscule 1 percent of plant revenues.

But this industry donated more than $100 million to this President and the Republican Party since 2000; and to return the favor, eight weeks ago, the White House announced it would scrap the Clinton EPA regulations and substituted instead regulations, written by utility lobbyists, that include loopholes designed to allow the industry to never have to clean up its mercury.

The White House has ordered the Justice Department and EPA to drop dozens of lawsuits against deadly pollution by coal-burning utilities and giant industrial hog farms. Similarly, the White House has revised the Clean Air Act to allow coal-burning plants to discharge asthma-causing ozone and particulates that were supposed to have been removed 15 years ago. That decision, according to the EPA, kills 24,000 Americans - up to eight times the number killed by the World Trade Center attacks - every year. It has opened millions of acres of public lands and national forests to destructive developers and smashed the Clean Water Act as a favor to mountaintop mining conglomerates who will now flatten an area of the Appalachians the size of Delaware.

While waging an ineffective war against foreign terrorists, the administration has allowed its industry cronies to poison America's air and waterways and to plunder our public lands. If a foreign nation committed these crimes, we would consider it an act of war, yet the White House is allowing these assaults on our national security by its corporate contributors, which include the worst polluters in America.

Bush gets no pass from anyone on aggressive war. A policy of working for regime change doesn't authorize invasion and occupation of a nation that isn't an immediate threat.

[harumscarum]

Delay is the man. :) Seems like it is "just Politics" to me. Although I do not agree with it but I do not see how the ®s will have any more integrity then the (D)s.

and yes it should be a fun 4 years.

[Osborn F Enready]

If your idea of fun is the removal of rights, the wedge of divide being driven deeper, the classisms being exploited, and the creation of more needless government agencies, then yes, I believe the next 4 years will be LOADED with "fun".

[Leebert]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It&#39;s the same hypocrisy we see in Iraq. Nuremberg applied against the Nazi aggression, the US shouldn&#39;t have to live by the same standards.(irony)[/b]

You said it in a nutshell. Although this article is pre-war it is nevertheless quite apropos: The Nuremberg Game

<!--QuoteBegin-The Nuremberg Game
It became apparent that the United States would not be beholden to established principles applied to other countries but would arrogate to herself the right to determine moral and legal justifications for war. If the same principle had applied to Nazi Germany, she could have successfully claimed she was justified in attacking Poland because of that government&#39;s mistreatment of ethnic Germans or because of the unfair boundaries — involving loss of historic German territory — established by the Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany in violation of the Wilsonian principle of "national self-determination." Similarly, if "humanitarian" principles of justification were consistently observed, Islamic states could easily justify the armed liberation of the Palestinians from Israeli control. The Palestinians are at least as opposed to Israeli domination as the Albanian Kosovars were to Serbian control. Yet, while the United States went to war to liberate the ethnic Albanians, she provides weapons to the Israelis to subjugate the Palestinians. We might note also that the United States provides weapons to Turkey that assist the subjugation of the Kurds, who strive for greater freedom from their Turkish overlords.[/quote]

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by harumscarum,
Delay is the man. :) Seems like it is "just Politics" to me. Although I do not agree with it but I do not see how the ®s will have any more integrity then the (D)s.

and yes it should be a fun 4 years.

You&#39;re right, it iS "just politics" and it stinks like a dumpster behind a seafood restaurant. Just another example of "WE make the rules and you can&#39;t do anything about it&#33;"
The heat will get turned up a little and they&#39;ll just hold a press conference to say they&#39;re against abortion and get yet another pass from the sheep, most of whom I&#39;ll wager don&#39;t even KNOW about this Delay thing.

(Impeach EVERYBODY)

[Sonart]

You&#39;re right, it iS "just politics" and it stinks like a dumpster behind a seafood restaurant. Just another example of "WE make the rules and you can&#39;t do anything about it&#33;"

Indeed. Note that the first thing the GOP did when Bush took office was outlaw special prosecutors. :rolleyes: Apparently they worked so well for the Republicans that they didn&#39;t want to face one themselves.

[OberonDOtherseid]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,
Bush does what Clinton says. How novel. Too bad he didn&#39;t listen to Richard Clark.

And if this is true, which I seriously doubt, had Bush gone in he would be damned for doing it. If acts, he&#39;s wrong. if he doesn&#39;t act, he&#39;s wrong. Why didn&#39;t Clinton do anything, then?

[PatrickHenry]

There is a way to act, RIGHT. There is a RIGHT way to act. But Bush&#39;s agenda for US hegemony in the ME has led to the present FUBAR situation.

Clinton. Not my favorite guy either. Why didn&#39;t he do ANYTHING? Is that your question? OK, he didn&#39;t start an optional war that killed 1200 US troopers. He didn&#39;t "get" Saddam. He didn&#39;t spend my BORROWED 200 BILLION dollars. Sometimes not doing anything can be a virtue. Heh.

[Sonart]

Originally posted by BSD+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BSD)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don&#39;t see any hypocrisy with the war in Iraq. Clinton mandated the removal of Saddam and Bush got the job done. [/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Oberon
And if this is true, which I seriously doubt, had Bush gone in he would be damned for doing it. If acts, he&#39;s wrong. if he doesn&#39;t act, he&#39;s wrong. Why didn&#39;t Clinton do anything, then?[/quote]He didn&#39;t do anything because containment was working just fine, thank you very much. Mandating regime change is not the same thing as mandating unprovoked invasion and occuption of a sovereign nation not threatening anyone. Kindly note that Clinton achieved regime change in Serbia, getting rid of Milosovic and trying him for war crimes, without invading Serbia and without the loss of a single American life.

Recall that Clinton was lobbied to invade Iraq by the same people who now run Bush&#39;s defense and national security, yet he refused to bite. Clinton clearly understood what Bush&#39;s father understood and what Boy George is learning at our expense... that invading and occupying a hostile nation buried deep in an even more hostile Muslim world is a really bad idea.