Persecuting the Bush Administration

Share

Not content with having spent 8 years doing everything they could possibly do to make George W. Bush’s life a living hell, the Democrats and their unchecked majority have decided to go after his administration.  Never mind that this great man has kept us safe.  He has held his head up, through-out all their vicious attacks, and never attacked them in return.  It’s all about their hatred and their determination to destroy him.  The could not ruin his Presidency, so now they are going to try and destroy the remainder of his life and destroy his legacy.

As much as the thought sickens me, my thoughts on the process are more along the line of “Make My Day”!

That is, until I realize that anything that comes out of the prevaricating mouths of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers, or even The One (elect) will be printed, annotated, and repeated by a treacherous and complicit media who is only interested in destroying the rest of GWB’s life and propping up their tin-plated dictator who has delusions of grandeur.

It is about hatred, pure and simple.

It is also about the fact that the MSM will never, ever tell the truth, ever.

The real reason this unholy group is going after the Bush Administration, which will eventually lead to the prosecution of both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is to send a thug like message to anyone who even thinks about running for POTUS as a Republican.

You run at your own risk.

You become POTUS and we WILL destroy you.

If you do something we do not like, we will RUIN YOUR LIFE.

It is that simple, and that immoral.

It is also about Al Gore and the fact that George. W. Bush “stole” the election from him.  It is a warning to any Republican who wants to run for office:  DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.

It is about the left’s abject insane hatred of GWB.  It is about Nancy Pelosi pandering to the lowest common denominator of her worst subjects.

Let’s face it, we’re dealing with a Democratic bunch of jerks who are so corrupt, and so lacking in honor and decency that they must do everything in their power to destroy a very great and honorable man – George W. Bush.

Hate eventually destroyers the hater.

Perhaps John Conyer and Nancy Pelosi should remember this.

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Allie is Wired, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Leaning Straight Up, Wingless, Democrat=Socialist, and Wingless (BBC Parody, Hilarious!), thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Share

3 thoughts on “Persecuting the Bush Administration

  1. I voted twice for GWB; he was the best choice in each of the elections in which he stood for president–by far. He has done a generally credible job as president, and I have defended him on numerous occasions against scurrilous attacks by folks suffering from BDS.

    But. He has not been by any rational measure a “great” president, and while BSD sufferers (to be more accurate, the rest of the country suffers from such persons’ presence and activities)) have expressed desire in the past to impeach him and now talk about prosecuting him for crimes they assert he committed in office, they always cherry pick only those things that do not qualify, that simply reflect their own derranged view of things.

    However. *sigh* His “war on terror”[ism!–the stupid misuse of “terror” for “terrorism” irks me; he ought to be flogged by grammar nannies for that! *heh*] is by no means a qualifier for the “great man” cognomen. If his stated intent (in September of 2001) of bringing down the sponsors of terrorism were genuine, the FIRST country to fall would have been Saudi Arabia, or if not the first, certainly the second.

    Other disqualifiers: He looked me (and you and all America) straight on and LIED about the amnesty bill he sponsored for illegal aliens. Flat out lied, and never apologized for it. Until he apologizes, he cannot be forgiven by me or any other person who gives a fig for the integrity of our borders. To cap off his lie, he has completely ignored the persecution of Ramos and Compean for doing no more or less than their duty in guarding our b orders–a job Mr Bush has himself not only failed miserably to pursue but has done everything in his power to keep from being done. For his deliberate foot-dragging and outright frustration of guarding our borders, GWB ought to have been impeached for dereliction of his sworn duty.

    He did not veto McCain-Feingold. Whimped out and left it to a none-too-strong Supreme Court to… oops! The Supreme Commies did NOT strike down the most egregious assault on free political speech ever to pass Congress! But the Supremes would never have gotten the chance to screw that one up had GWB been a “great” president with the cojones to veto an obvious assault on the First Amendment. (OK< I supported McCain *spit* in the most recent election in spite of his assinine co-sponsoreship of the bill–again: the lesser of two evils.)

    And then there’s NCLB, more properly stated as “No Child Gets Ahead”–probably the single most pernicious act sponsoring a reduction in America’s ability to compete in global competition.

    No, he’s not been the utter disaster Algore or Jean Fraud sKerry would have been, but “great” is not a word I’d use to apply to him. I’ll defend his actions where he’s been falsely accused of lies or other wrongdoing, but his failure to do his duty or his actions sponsoring harmful legislation in too many cases disqualifies him as a great man, IMO. In fact, I’d have voted for impeachment on the basis of his attempts to surrender our borders had I been in a position to do so.

    Perhaps I am derranged. I actually believe that when someone pledges to uphold and defend the US and its Constitution that when they deliberately set out to violate that pledge then they have abrogated their right to be in that office. (Of course, on that basis we ought to clear out at least 90% of Congress, too. At least. I doubt there are 43.5 *heh* decent, honorable congresscritters who know what the Constitution says and actually seek to serve within its bounds.)

    Oh. Well. On the basis of oaths of office and failure to live up to them, I’d probably have voted for impeachment of every president from Eisenhower on, save Reagan. And I have a few doubts about some of both Eisenhower’s and Reagan’s acts on Constitutional grounds…

    Still, I have little dount that when The Obamassiah utters these words,

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    …every single word will be a lie.

Comments are closed.