Cal Thomas: Democrats are liars (Ignores Bush)

This was in the Indy Star today:

Fraud: “deceit, trickery or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.”

The HBO movie “Recount” tells the story from the Democratic Party point of view that the 2000 presidential election was improperly won by George W. Bush because of the trickery of his fellow Republicans and the Supreme Court. That has been shown to be untrue by no less a source than the reliably liberal and pro-Democratic New York Times, but facts rarely influence propaganda.

Here’s a better example of fraud straight from the donkey’s mouth that you can bet will never be told on film. It comes courtesy of 12-term Congressman Paul Kanjorski. During a town meeting last August in his Pennsylvania district, Rep. Kanjorski made a remarkable statement about the 2006 election in which Democrats recaptured the majority. Rep. Kanjorski acknowledged that he and his fellow Democrats “sort of stretched the facts” about their intention to end the war in Iraq and bring American troops home.

A video of his remarks, now on YouTube, shows Kanjorski explaining that Democrats pushed the rhetoric about the war “as far as we can to the end of the fleet – didn’t say it, but we implied it – that if we won the congressional elections we could stop the war.” Democrats also promised to bring down gas prices if they won a majority. That worked out well, didn’t it?

“Now anybody who’s a good student of government,” continued Kanjorski in a condescending manner, “would know it wasn’t true.” I wonder how non-students of government felt about that insult? “But you know,” he said, “the temptation to want to win back the Congress – we sort of stretched the facts.”

Many politicians “stretch the facts” at some point in their careers, but this was more than that. While Republicans do the same thing on another level – like campaigning for spending cuts and then outspending Democrats when they become a majority – what Kanjorski has admitted to is outright fraud. Those who don’t believe in the war, which includes some Republicans, had a right to believe that if they cast their votes for Democrats in the 2006 election, a Democratic congressional majority would end the war. Instead, while huffing and puffing about it, Democrats have continued to approve funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, attaching numerous pet pork projects. Pork covers a multitude of sins.

Some Democrats have made their careers by lying about Republicans and their attempts at necessary reforms of Social Security. My Democratic friend, Bob Beckel, likes to tell the story of his mother who lived in Florida and called him after seeing campaign commercials, which he produced, that claimed Republicans were about to eliminate Social Security. Beckel says he told her, “Mom, don’t worry about it. You vote for Democrats on Tuesday and come Wednesday your Social Security will be back.”

Kanjorski has taken cynicism about Washington and politicians to a new and lower level.
No wonder the disapproval rating of Congress is higher than it is for President Bush.

In cases of fraud, the victim usually has redress in the courts. With political fraud, voters must seek redress at the polls. They should start – but not stop – with Rep. Kanjorski, who is faced with his first competitive race since 2002. But he has a lot of co-conspirators and even one who is not a “good student of government” ought to know when they’ve been duped by fraudulent political practices.

Cal Thomas attacks the Democrats for not living up to their election promise. The Democrats have the President fighting them, who vetoes every bill that tries to fulfill their election promise of getting out.

By attacking Democrats for lying, Thomas ignores the bigger, more fraudulent elephant in the room. Does Bush saying “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons” (9/26/02) sound familiar? Or maybe McCain’s claim that “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” (9/4/02) or Rumsfeld’s infamous “I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months. But it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” (11/14/02)

Kanjorski honestly admits his party lied. Bush lies about lying by blaming faulty intelligence. “Intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was.” (5/13/08) This contradicts a late September CIA testimony that found “no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike.” Is that double fraud?

Cal Thomas ignoring past 8 years

I stumbled across this gem in the Indy Star this morning…

OBAMA: SEE NO EVIL

By Cal Thomas

Tribune Media Services

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the polar opposite of John F. Kennedy.

Judging from recent comments, Obama apparently would pay no price, bear no burden, forsake any hardship, support any foe and oppose any friend that wished to pursue liberty. Kennedy understood that evil exists in the world. He saw it in World War II as his generation defeated the evil that gripped Europe and Japan. And he witnessed it as president when Nikita Khrushchev approved the building of the Berlin Wall and the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba, acts that flowed from Khrushchev’s perception that the young president was weak and inexperienced.

Obama thinks he can negotiate with evil and transform evil into something else. Initially his foreign policy platform was a naive pledge to meet “unconditionally” with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and other nations dominated by dictators. In recent days he has changed his tune somewhat. He would still meet with the heads of these mini evil empires without preconditions, but “there must be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda.”

This leads to an important question: On what basis does a free nation negotiate with nations that are not free? Does Obama expect leaders who got where they are by undemocratic, even violent means, to embrace press freedom, religious liberty, political pluralism and rights for women? What would evil leaders demand of him? Any concession given to dictators, who are not known for keeping their promises, would surely result in the United States being taken less seriously and contribute to the undermining of our national security.

In his recent speech to the Israeli Knesset, President Bush pointedly noted that evil cannot be accommodated, negotiated with, pampered, or appeased. It must be opposed and defeated.

Obama’s “strategy” for dealing with evil is the progeny of a secular age that sees everything bad as curable through counseling, good intentions masquerading as wishful thinking and/or pharmaceutical intervention. Prosperity and a sense of entitlement have dulled our senses to what evil looks like. These days, evil is the political party to which you don’t belong and the ideology to which you do not subscribe.

Evil has a definition. Dictionary.com calls it: “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.” There is a presumption contained in this definition. It is that a standard exists by which evil (and its opposite, good) may be judged. Too many of us have been taught in government schools and by contemporary culture that such notions belong to another, less sophisticated era. In the Internet age “evil” has become extinct.

Obama’s only foreign policy strategy seems to be diplomacy, not the defeat of evil. Such an approach when not supported by a credible threat of military power is bound to encourage more evil, not less. Obama debunks the value of experience, claiming the experience of President Bush and John McCain got us into the lengthy Iraq War. That war didn’t start in Iraq and it won’t end there, even if our objectives are achieved. Those objectives are closer to being realized than they were a year ago, but Obama and his fellow Democrats cannot acknowledge progress because they are preoccupied with victory at the polls more than victory over evil.

Recently, The Washington Times carried a story by Rowan Scarborough that quoted intelligence officials who believe terrorist attacks could occur in the early month’s of the next president’s administration. Terrorists attacked in February 1993 just two months after Bill Clinton’s Inauguration and again on Sept. 11, 2001, less than eight months after George W. Bush became president.

The central question for voters ought to be this: who do we want in the White House should another terrorist attack occur; one who seeks to negotiate with evil, or one who is a warrior and wants to crush it?

Ah, good old warmongering. No better way to get started in the morning.

First I’ll start off with his lack of sources. Cal Thomas follows in the paths of media pundits by attempting to analyze Obama from one quote. I still don’t see what’s wrong with talking to Iran. Of course, the Neocons might be sore after the Iran bombing option got uncovered.

Next, he says Obama blames McCain’s and Bush’s war decisions…on their experience. We don’t even get a quote for this one, Lord knows what Obama actually said. Obama usually chooses his words pretty carefully, and that doesn’t sound like something he’d say.

Next…what is evil? Well, according to Thomas, it’s “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.” That’s right, now we need to wage war on sluts, lying and obesity too. Just because the almighty US doesn’t agree with someone does not make them evil.

A government can’t fight evil. They can fight threats. Who/what are threats to the US? Bears? Iran? No.

Thomas asks if we want a president who negotiates with evil. Maybe he should ask if we want one that can recognize what’s evil and what’s actually a threat the US can deal with.

The candidate is Barack Obama and the threat is world policing and the eternal warfare state.