“We don’t speak of the Clintons that way.”




“Over The Top” By Peggy Noonan

While anyone on the left would immediately discount the source because she was one of President Reagan’s speech writers, they’d be smart to at least look at this one. Whether it’s bombing a recruiting station as a demonstration of their support for peace and “the troops,” or calls on liberal websites demanding that the DNC convention “re-create 68,” or perhaps it’s the growing Dem vs Dem punditry on tv…it really doesn’t matter. The point is the same: there is a deep fracture in the Democratic Party between Senator Obama’s supporters and Senator Clinton’s supporters. This divide opened the wounds of the 1990’s using tactics that Republicans could never have dreamed of using. Those wounds-as Ms Noonan describe so perfectly-are the things that have been taboo for Democrats to talk about for ten years or more. In fact, not only have Democrats been forbidden by party partisanship and political politeness, but they’ve actually been compelled to EXCUSE them against all forms of rationality, historical fact, and patriotic responsibility.

This week the Obama campaign repeated the mass media call for her to release her present or past tax records, her Presidential library records, and/or other records (see also real-estate records) that would demonstrate her financial independence from special interests, her White House experience, and/or her financial brilliance. Rather than expedite the release of such sound substance to her political claims, the Senator compared the request to that of Ken Starr’s investigations.

Now, the words “Ken Starr” are bad words in the Democratic Party. They are those which should not be spoken without a spit to the right, a crotch grab, a sneer, and/or a flip of the finger. But…in her complaint/weak attack against Senator Obama she compelled the large and vibrant portion of Senator Obama’s supporters-youth voters-to ask, “Who is Ken Starr?” See, a lot of them were too young to remember or understand the long list of Clinton scandals, and in a moment of personal defense and political PTDS, she caused a firestorm of Google searches on “Ken Starr” and “Clinton scandals.”

My favorite part of the article (obviously) was where Ms Noonan let Democrats be Democrats.

One Obama supporter on Root.com apparently didn’t get the memo. That is the great threat to the Clintons, the number of young and independent Democrats who haven’t received the memo about how Democrats speak of the Clintons. Writer Mark Q. Sawyer: “If Obama won’t hit back, I will. Why aren’t we talking about impeachment, Whitewater and Osama?”

The answer is simple Mr Sawyer: because you were not allowed to hold your party accountable, and if you DARED point out the absolute disgrace and abject failures that went along with any successes in the 1990’s…you’d be described as a Joe Lieberman, a neocon, a conservative, etc. Now, the time has come-not to recognize that Republicans were right to complain about certain things, but to demand better of the party-not more of the same.

…and to those who would ignore this lemming-like, wide-eyed, unquestioning obedience and support of the partisan line in favor of distracting the conversation and using childish, “They do it too” styles of discussion, one need look no further for proof of being wrong that this article itself for Peggy Noonan, a conservative of stature that typically raises the hair on the back of her political opposition…has done more than her fair share of Bush-bashing (ie calls for accountability) herself. In fact, anyone who reads the article will see that she and other Republicans have at least less fear of holding their party to account. So the question isn’t do partisans on both sides of the aisle blindly follow their political dogma, but rather why are Democrats breaking out of that box now rather than when it was pertinent?

Or is now the most important time to step up and do so?

Looks like the Clintons are refusing to release the records of the pardons granted 8yrs ago as well. Gosh, why could that be? Nothing to do with money laundered through the UN-Saddam Oil For Food program, millions in income from Arab princes in the UAE that the 911 Commission claimed funneled money for the 911 attacks, or the FARC pardons (something kinda interesting given that 1/3 of South America is on the verge of war over FARC terrorists). Nah, it’s wrong to ask about such things. The Clintons are saints.


Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

That archivists’ decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton’s legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Having been born in the mid 1950’s some of us are the middle child of the boomer generation. I remember watching the 1968 Chicago convention with a familiar disgust as it reminded me of the tantrums of my older brother who was catered to and spoon fed from 1947 to the seventies. Taking a tired line from a variety show of the era “mom always liked you best”.
Now some of these favorite children of the boomer generation are attempting to revive their past experiences in an effort to prove that they matter. All this while much of the country watches their actions with disgust. Many of us now grown and remember their tantrums simply refuse to carry their water.

Now if we only had a candidate, but I digress …

I thought it was oddd that Hillary would play the “Ken Starr” card too. All that does is reinforce the negatives against Hillary.

I’m glad you put this piece up Scott. I’ve been worried that maybe we were spending too much time pointing out Obama’s dangerous faults and not enough time reminding people what a piece of work Hillary is.

But with 7 weeks until the big PA primary, it looks like Obama and Hillary will be reminding us all about the weak points of their opponent. Good stuff we can use in a the fall.

I am loving this infighting. By the time they are here in Denver, both will be reduced to bloody stumps-DREAM TICKET??? You have got to be dreaming. Obama has this Rezco trial just beginning and HRC has a closet full of skeletons-Anyone that says that God doesn’t watch over our country isn’t paying attention

They, the Republican Neo-Con’s, and some Democratic supporters are out of control. And most of the so called reasons for using the term “War with Iraq” is in it self a breach of the Resolution, worse a violation of the Constitution, Geneva Convention, United Nation Resolutions, the War Powers Act, Military code of Conduct, or the Iraq Resolution itself which specifically states rules that fall under the basics in reporting actions with consultation with Congress with respect to the Constitution. Likely no reporting was done, here we had a rubber turkey Congress all Republican controlled.

Also, serious abuse and false interpretation by the Supreme Court which is loyal friendships in the Republican Party rather than loyal to the public service and honorable reflection of whats right in the Constitution for America, all begs the question. Why Supreme Court Justices are not considered for impeachment? Here, would change the perspective in the turmoil and political fight currently going on. Face a solid truism, America will not and is not going to get the truth from Mainstream Media no matter how goody they seem to come across. It should rile a huge political circles, and the intellectual wheelers that are honest when one views an interview Brett Favre while he wheezes and cries about his about his success and wants to retire really coming across with compassion and sincerity for his work, yet when a political like Hillary Clinton gets chocked up or lightly wells gets blasted as not having the courage to move the country forward. Amazing the bias and the audience and Mainstream Media that interprets it.

The perpetrators are not only of President Bush and Cheney but this action includes many long time Republicans with support from Democrats, with a list of likely thousands of Institutions and corporation of which Mainstream Media has been a complicit key player that held control of the House and Senate before the 2006 election. A very difficult hurtle involving a huge mass of Americas public that are guilty of not only conspiring but actually carrying out the actions that are counter to the Oath and responsibility of the electorate and the Constitution.

America, looking back in history, America has sponsored, and supported through CIA and other secret Diplomacy, many such military actions around the world that involved everything from assaination of political leaders because of America’s interest not being gained. Which includes, support of tyrants and training of generals of other nations that eventually turned on America, and we simply kill them. Obama’s Indonesia home is an excellent example. Shameful and true these past fifty years have been a deceitful mix of secret corruption known and viewed by world governments, likely paid off with so called aid money, but kept from the general American public for decades through what is generally known as National Security Secrets. This is the executive pile of dirty reasons to profiteer while Middle, and Poor America pay the tax tab.
What is laughable is the tone across the Mainstream Media that it’s “Getting Ugly Out There” when in fact it always was ugly out there because the basics in public responsibility for over sight and honest reporting to the public is and has been abused for decades by Mainstream Media. Mainstream Media has not been doing its job.

The Constitution in all areas are have been abused, violated, and breached were those involved need to be held accountable were those first line Journalist of which there are many would likely be in that category of co conspirators that need to be investigated, convicted and serve terms along with others without pardons. If there is anytime in the History of our government that begs a needed a closer look at “A Unified Theory of American Government” it is obviously now. A huge topic to bring up about Obama and what he represents is more than shallow to even a disrespect for what is good leadership and decision making.

For if one reads Obama’s book “Audacity of Hope” Obama, even after eight years in the opportunity to teach the Constitution and laws at the University Of Chicago says, he, Obama, offers no ideals in the unified theory of American Government. Obama’s continuous display of harboring the ideal he, Obama was not in favor of the War in Iraq. But only after being installed without having to be under duress, encouraged by false affirmation, and lies by the administration, consciously uses the explicit ideal that after seventy percent of the Senate was actually duped into voting for the Resolution for Iraq, plainly shows me Obama’s mix of confusion and good sense, is actually irresponsible to use this leverage to position himself as presidential quality. It confounds me how the electorate can not see through Mainstream Media and how it dodges this primer example of arrogance that goes against the grain of what is right.

I have yet to hear any Democrats saying that they could not be happy to vote for either Clinton or Obama. The fact is that their positions on issues are very similar. Democrats are just looking at this as an intra squad scrimmage before the big game in Nov. Full contact?, yes, but with pads

Wow Zorro, do they give you free pot with that kool-aid?

If we strictly followed the Geneva Conventions on dealing with illegal combatants, they would have been executed, not living catored to in prisons which are better than almost all US federal prisons.

The only part where you begin to make sense is the last paragraph, though I have to say there is no “good sense” in Obama’s positions.

Barack is new blood? You have got to be kidding. Nothing new will come out of the south-side of Chicago, and the democratic machine run by Daley’s group!

, specifically the second paragraph. Uh. What? You are wrong. Flat wrong. You haven’t even taken a few minutes to check either have you? Forget it, I wouldn’t believe you if you said yes. There is absolutely nothing in the Geneva Conventions about executing anyone. There is no room for you to claim any type of defense. Period. You are just making things up. Further, unlawful combatants is just a phrase the Bush admin. came up with to try to skirt the Geneva Conventions, but no such group is defined in the Geneva Conventions. As plainly and slowly as I can explain it: There are essentially two groups, Prisoners of War, and not Prisoners of war. A person is either in one group or the other. There is no gap. And in all cases individuals are to be treated humanely. Now unless you take that last part to mean execute them. Seriously, what you are saying is made up. I encourage everyone to go read it for yourself. You’ll find that I didn’t list all of the subgroups of the non prisoner category, but that it also has no bearing on what I’ve said here. It’s not hard to figure out, you just have to have actually read it. And ChrisG hasn’t. To his credit though, that’s a pretty ballsy maneuver to just say something you haven’t taken time to research for even a minute. If only ballsiness were next to truthiness.
PS ChrisG you are the worst kind of uninformed halfwit. The kind that is brazen enough to dupe other halfwits that your lies are true.

It’s a pretty ballsy maneuver to say that D. Thanks for the inane insults. Now YOU do some research.

Unlawfull combatants are defined by both the Geneva Conventions and expanded upon in the US law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10).

From http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

Legal combatants defined:

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Since many of the terrorists we captured are paid by AQ, Iran, or others to fight, they can be defined as mercenaries. This is why the US and other Western nations have proposed making mercenary style units part of regular forces (with all the rules and regulations).

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Article 47 — Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Now from the FM 27-10 US Law of Land Warfare (which I as a Soldier follow):

Chapter 3, Section 2

73. Persons Committing Hostile
Acts Not Entitled To Be Treated
as Prisoners of War
If a person is determined by a competent tribunal, acting in conformity with Article 5, GPW (par. 71), not to fall within any of the categories listed in Article 4, GPW (par. 61), he is not entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war. He is, however, a “protected person” within the meaning of Article 4, GC (par. 247). (See paras. 247 and 248, concerning the status of such
“protected persons” who have engaged in conduct hostile to the opposing belligerent.)

74. Necessity of Uniform
Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces.

75. Spies
a Treaty Provision.
A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavors to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.
Thus, soldiers not wearing a disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of the hostile army, for the purpose of obtaining information, are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: Soldiers and civilians, carrying out their mission openly, intrusted with the delivery of despatches intended either for their own army or for the enemy’s army. To this class belong likewise persons sent in balloons for the purpose of carrying dispatches and, generally, of maintaining
communications between the different parts of an army or a territory. (HR, art. 29.)

b. American Statutory Definition. The first paragraph of the foregoing Hague Regulation has been in effect somewhat modified, as far as American practice is concerned, by the subsequently enacted Article 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (64 Stat. 138; 50 U.S.C. 700), as follows:
Art. 106. Spies.—Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces of the United States, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the United States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court- martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death.

c. Article 106 Governs. Insofar as Article 29, HR, and Article 106, Uniform Code of Military Justice, are not in conflict with each other, they will be construed and applied together. Otherwise Article 106 governs American practice.

79. Aiding the Enemy
a. American Statutory Definition.
Any person who—
(1) aids or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other thing; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct. (UCMJ, Art 104; 64 Stat. 138; 50 U.S.C. 698.)

b. Interpretation. In time of war, the rule of the above article is general in its application to all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law and without regard to citizenship or military or civil status, who give aid to an enemy government or persons adhering to it. It may be that this statute, should it be subjected to judicial interpretation, would be held to authorize the trial of civilians by military tribunals only when the offense had been committed in territory under martial law or military government, or within the zone of military operations, or within areas invaded by the United States, or within or in the vicinity of a military installation, or in a place otherwise subject to military jurisdiction. Cases occurring in the United States outside military jurisdiction are triable by the civil courts under the espionage laws mentioned above (par. 76) and laws relating to treason (18 U.S.C. (chap. 115)).

And now to the crux of the issue.

80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions pre-scribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.

81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions pre-scribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.

82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.

So please get over your pathetic and idiotic insults and do some research yourself “halfwit”.