Posts
Did I miss something? Neil Young now wants to "impeach the President for Lyin'". Is he just a brazen hypocrite or was he too high on dope during Clinton's term to be conscious? As every American who was remotely aware of public discourse during the 90's knows, lying "doesn't rise to the level of impeachment", according to liberals. I hate to disappoint the "It's all about sex" crowd, but the actual charges against Clinton were Perjury (Lying under oath), Obstruction of Justice, etc... When did the rules of conduct change? Is Mr. Young saying that liberals can lie but conservatives can't? Does he expect a higher level of conduct from conservatives than he does from liberals? That alone speaks volumes. By the way, how does "believing" the intelligence produced by national and international agencies of several different countries constitute "lying", anyway? Shouldn't we be impeaching the President for "believing", instead? Using that logic the presidents of a dozen other nations should also be impeached, since they all believed the intelligence. Neil Young should stick to entertaining pot-heads that can't think their way out of a bag, and forget about politics.
Thomas L. Shimek
Brigham City, Utah
Recently, chronic drunk Alec Baldwin actually rebuked Bush in a HuffNPuff piece for being a reformed alcoholic. Like Teddy Kennedy, Baldwin is a committed lush who never rises far above his substance-abuse---including food to judge from his waistline---regimen except to shriek drunkenly for Henry Hyde's head on a platter. I guess Clinton's lying under oath and obstructing justice is okay because he let UbL go in Sudan when that terrorist was offered on a platter.
Oops, "no fault on the left," as the Bolshevik mantra maintains.
No comments :
Post a Comment