Thursday, October 20, 2005

Getting a little testy, are we?

After reading about him over at SMASH's, I paid a visit to this post of the Bad Blogger and let him know my thoughts ... in typical Mental Case(b0lt) fashion, just like I do at SMASH's.

Well, look what the Bad Blogger had to say about me ...

Before he deletes my comment on this ... let me post it for you ...

If that comment is evidence that I'm a "shill", it's no wonder that you thought what you did about Indepundit. This is called full-contact debate ... and is common over at SMASH's place.

While commenting on another blog, run by one of the regulars in the Indepundit comments section, I stated that I thought there was the appearance of a (sound) mind under your bluster ... kind of like an adversary of mine over at Indepundit, Chris Alemany, with whom I regularly engage in this kind of debate.

After your response, I may have to apologize to Chris for the comparison.

Notice that, unlike you, I did not stoop to the gutter to get your goat ... and I will not respond in kind, for I believe that revenge is a dish best served cold, as in cold logic, cool reasoning, and cold, hard, fact.

Read my lips ... Valerie Plame had not been a covert operator for at least five years before her alleged "outing". That makes the statute in question ... a statute designed to prevent turncoats from leaving the country and outing ACTIVE operators ... irrelevant.

How this was good for our national security?

For one, it exposed Joe Wilson for the fraud he is ... it exposed his inconsistency, between what he told the NYT, reinforced during his tenure with the Kerry campaign ... and what he actually saw?

That was far more threatening to our national security that "outing" his wife -- especially when she was already "outed" in practical terms.

Not to mention the exposure of how Joe got the job ... good ol' nepotism. I thought only conservatives engaged in that ... and that those who spend their lives in "non-profit" pursuits are totally immune to that expression of selfishness.

No, regardless of the President, I wouldn't be screaming about this.

As for Rove ... so what if he appeared four times before the grand jury? The truth will come out ... eventually. I'm not even that upset over the waste of his time ... he is a politcal operative, not a public official.

Karl Rove is not the President of the United States ... and he is not being investigated for sexual harassment, the way Mr. Clinton was.

There was far more legal grounds for the sexual-harassment investigation of President Clinton than there are for indicting Karl Rove ... because the Plame situation does NOT FIT THE STATUTE.

All that is left is "did he lie?" ... and again, Karl Rove is NOT the President. In fact, when it comes to people under the shadow of scandal, this Administration has not caught up to its predecessor in numbers, much less what they are accused, or convicted, for.

Frankly, I find it rather ironic that Clinton was hoisted on the petard of his own party's obsession with politically-correct sexual-harrassment laws.

You simply cannot equate the two ... unless you're reaching for anything you can to tar the present Administration.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?