* Regarding General Pace”;
WASHINGTON -AP- [1] The Pentagon’s top general said Tuesday he should not have voiced his personal view that homosexuality is immoral and should have just stated his support for the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in an interview that has drawn criticism from lawmakers and gay-rights groups. The written statement by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not apologize for his stance on homosexuality. In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
Look, gang… His opinion has earned a little respect; the man has been right all along, on a number of things that the left as been complaining about.
I suggest to you the serious possibility, given that trend, that he’s right about this one, too. Nor, I think, should he be forced into apologetics for his position…. Any more than anyone else should be. He clearly stated it is a personal opinion.
Think about this for just a moment; if he had come out strongly pro homosexual, and addressed it as his personal moral position on the matter, how would it be now, with those demanding an apology from him? My guess is, they wouldn’t be heard from.
* This business about U.S. attorneys being fired [2] is nothing more than yet another round of Democrat party political opportunism. It happens every time there is a turnover in the White House. Always has. That’s because those attorneys, server at the pleasure of the president. Indeed, Hume tonight, says:
News stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office in 1993.
The only sitting U.S. attorney Clinton did not cashier was Michael Chertoff [3], now the Bush Homeland Security Secretary. At the time Chertoff was U.S. attorney in New Jersey and then Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey intervened to save Chertoff’s job. None of this was noted, even in passing, in front-page stories today in The New York Times and Washington Post, or in the AP’s story on the subject.
By the way, the mass Clinton firings generated some news stories, some complaints from Republicans in Congress, but no Congressional investigations, and not a word from Chuck Schumer [3].
As for the charges that the firings were politically motivated? Well, what they won’t tell you is is that it was just such people who ran inquisition against Scooter Libby. Go ahead, and tell me about how that wasn’t politically motivated on the part of the lawyers in question. Fitzpatrick, for one. So now suddenly, it’s a crime? Baloney.
What’s really going on here, is that they had originally planned on blowing all of the U.S. attorney’s out of the water and starting from scratch. All of them. That, too, is not an unusual situation, happening most recently with Bill Clinton. The only exception to the “all of them” part was, as Hume says, Chertoff. Gonzalez thought that blowing them all away would be too much of an intrusion into the process. After all, these people do occasionally do some serious work that doesn’t involve politics. So he put forward a list of eight or nine people. Which, apparently, is where the Democrats started seeing they could manufacture a scandal.
You will forgive me please, if I’m less than impressed by their attempt.
* A reader passed this one along from CNN: [4]
NEW YORK (CNN) — [4] The Rev. Al Sharpton alleged Tuesday that Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign planted a story in the New York Post [5] claiming the civil-rights leader was withholding his support of the Illinois Democrat, because he is ‘jealous’ of Obama’s soaring popularity.
“It’s important to point out, they started this,” Sharpton told CNN. “I mean I wake up yesterday morning with no warning and [read] ‘is he jealous because he wont endorse?’ I’ve never heard anything like that in my life in politics.”
This is like watching two fighters that you truly despise, pounding the snap of one another. You’re not quite sure who to cheer for. Actually, I’m not cheering for either one. But it does occur to me that what we’re witnessed to is an argument over the cultural shift. This is not much as people are claiming about Sharpton’s being jealous. What this comes down to is a black representative who is not a race huckster, being popular. That’s something the race hucksters cannot tolerate.
Listen to the two of them speaking, when you get the chance. Move beyond specifically what they’re saying, (Since it’s mostly detestable from them both) and listen closely to how they’re saying it. This isn’t about color, this is about culture. And I suppose it should be pointed out that as yet Obama, as detestable as his politics are, has not managed to kill anybody, yet. Of the two, that is something reserved for Sharpton, alone.