Comments-Earle, facts and fiction, awards

If I didn't want to be dragged down to this level, I wouldn't have a 'blog. Since the anonymous comments keep piling up and many won't bother clicking to see them, let's pull them onto the main page and air them out a little. (they're really starting to stink!)

First of all, I never tried "to defend Ronnie Earle" as a morally righteous dude. What I said was an article in Esquire claims that both Republicans and Democrats in Texas have said he was a morally righteous dude throughout his career. (that's at least as credible as Dereliction of Duty.) The Bush administration has made positive comments about him in the past and Texas Republicans loved him when he went after Clinton fundraisers. Now they're crying foul. So if he's coming after you he's a party zealot but when he's after your opponents, he's a good guy. That's BS and there's no disguising it. Partisan BS.

Here's a list of notable indictments, in no particular order, brought by Travis County(TX) DA Ronnie Earle:

-Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox (Democrat) convicted
-Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Gilbert Serna (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Lane Denton (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Betty Denton (Democrat) convicted
-U.S. Senator Kay Baily Hutchison (Republican) charges dropped by DA (yeah, that was Earle)
-Texas Land Commissioner Gary Mauro (Democrat) acquitted
-Texas voter registrar Marco Gomes (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Charles Staniswallis (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Treasurer Warren Harding (Democrat) convicted
-Texas Representative Mike Martin (Republican) convicted... pleaded guilty
-Texas Representative Gene Jones (Democrat) convicted
-County Commissioner Bob Honts (Democrat) convicted

You're right... the evidence is there... the facts support it... there's clearly a pattern to the people Earle goes after. They've broken the law! This is a matter of public record... ie the facts. Ignorance of them in favor of the opinion of one's party, an opinion NOT supported by facts, is the highest form of stupidity.

Re: justification for war... so we're back to the WMD's eh? Cuz when we found there were none, the President's story quickly changed to "Democratizing the Middle East," and when the futility of that was pointed out, it became "Ousting Saddam 'cuz he's an evil dictator." Nevermind the fact that there are plenty of evil dictators all over the world committing far greater crimes in larger numbers and who were not surrounded and held in check by the U.S. and our allies back when we still had allies. Regardless, we got him. Then it was "get 'em over there so they can't get us over here." But the "us" included England and the fight came to them, so that wasn't working. So now it's "The War on Terror," which, by definition is an eternal war and one that is not based in Iraq any more than it is based in Seattle or San Francisco or Cleveland. So tell me one more time one clear, rational justification? Which one of these stories is it? I agree we can't pull out now, but we shouldn't have gone in the first place without a more consistent argument. Shut up and keep reading...

Re: bipartisan support for the war from Congress - the left may have forgotten that Congress (that's a Republican majority Congress by the way) shirked their responsibility for declaring war, but I haven't. That's not the President's fault. Granted, point taken. However, the War Powers act of 1973 and the clearly intended Constitutional restraint (Article II gives the Pres no power to declare war) still apply even after Congress hands their responsibility to the President. There still has to be an imminent threat to the American people. There has to be a threat to our liberty. When referring to the President's powers regarding war, the War Powers Act says, "involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." (U.S. Code, Title 50, Ch. 30) If involvement in hostilities was that clearly indicated, half the nation wouldn't be questioning that very decision right now. The President made the final decision after being given the approval to do so by Congress. So yes, this Republican Congress, with the help of many Democrats including John Kerry and John Edwards, blew the intent of our constitution by NOT declaring war and instead giving that ability to the President, but the result of that is that the decision came down to one man - W.

Technically, since Congress approved it, this wasn't a War Powers Act situation anyway, but both that act and the Constitution clearly state the necessity for imminent threat. Passing that responsibility on to the President was a bad move on Congress's part, but its result was that it was the President's decision that sent us to war, ignoring the imminent threat requirement. This war was the President's decision. It has cost us billions of dollars, as many as 25,000 lives (see Body Count links for source info), and has left our military drastically unprepared for another major regional conflict. You can't spin that away on anyone else.

Re: Ronnie Earle's permission to record grand jury hearings - How is that any different than impeaching a sitting President on CNN?! I just don't get it. Why is it only so wrong when a Democrat does it?

Re: Ronnie Earle delivering indictments to different grand juries until he finds one that agrees with him - Tom Delay would say "that's neither illegal nor unprecedented," but I'm sure you know that already. It's not unprecedented... sort of like channeling funds through different offices until earnest attempts to track them are thwarted. Or no... it's not really like that at all. Cuz see, pursuing an indictment, which still gives the accused a day in court, is a DA's JOB whereas covering up the source of funds, which only hides the identity of who is buying a seat, is NOT the job of a Representative. In fact, it's against the law. Not unprecedented... what a great line. Kenneth Starr pursued fraudulent investment charges against the Clintons through a number of dead end venues before the Republican Congress agreed to air his concerns... so I guess "not unprecedented" is an adequate response.

Anonymous's suggestion that Earle's "only happy ending" is having Delay's face on TV with the word "indicted" under it is also not unprecedented. I recall seeing John Kerry's face on TV with words below it questioning his war record in spite of the fact that he was able to produce a DD214 - proof provided by the very government that brought him down. As I recall, that government administration was led by a man who still hasn't provided the same proof, of which every servicemember is repeatedly told to keep a safe copy, and yet that President still managed to avoid answering any further questions about his sketchy fulfillment of his cushy national guard obligations. Kerry provided the proof of his honorable discharge and his awards and was still questioned. W provided dental records?! and the questions stopped. Liberal media my rear! While we're at it, I recall seeing President Clinton's face on TV with the word "impeached" under it... the special prosecutor's happy ending... not unprecedented. Was there ever a picture of his face with the word "acquitted" under it? Liberal media my rear. Thank goodness for Tom Delay and his great quotes to put the proper spin on all of this.

And finally, comments about awards I've received per my own DD214 - The only one at the forefront of my mind right now is the small arms marksmanship award. That's right, I'm a liberal who can shoot pretty well. Well enough to get that particular award anyway. It may surprise many to know that I own and use a variety of guns. I even have one on my Christmas list this year. (I'm still undecided between the Marlin or the Winchester, but I want a 30-30. It was my first rifle, but my dad traded it for a shotgun when I was still too young to have much of a say in that so if anyone has any constructive advice on that dilemma, bring it on.) I support the right of others to own guns as well. I also support sensible legislation to prevent some of my idiot friends from owning fully automatic assault rifles because by the time they realized how stupid they're acting, the entire neighborhood could be mowed down. I don't believe the NRA's slippery slope argument that sensible gun legislation will lead to a ban on all private ownership. Furthermore, I believe anyone who subscribes to that particular fallacy should also believe that the same slippery slope exists with laws that discriminate against gays. After all, by that kind of logic if we ban gays from anything, the next logical step will be laws governing how we can or cannot have heterosexual sex. Some of those idiot friends, based on the stories I've heard, should be more concerned with that than with gun laws!

Anyhoo, keep those comments coming. They're better entertainment than the letters to the editor in my local paper. I used to be amazed at how ignorant some people are. Now what amazes me is just how MANY people are THAT ignorant!

Luth