Hugh Hewitt believes that rule of law is ‘just cliche’

It actually seems cliche when the Right supports the rule of law only for them and not for anyone else. Like how they went nuts when Mayor Bloomburg suggested terrorist not be allowed to buy guns or supporting stripping citizenship without due process based on the people you associated with. There is a problem with that thinking.

As Instaputz points out: this is a cliche authored by John Adams. But what did he know?

BTW: Did you know they’re calling Lieberman’s new citizen strip bill the TEA act? Those Tea Party protectors of the constitution must be so proud.

But they also should worry just a little bit about this, don’t you think? After an evil socialist usurper is in the White House and a communist succubus is running the State Department, which will be given the power to decide who should and shouldn’t be stripped of citizenship and sent off to FEMA camps Gitmo. Can they really be trusted not to go after the nice law abiding tea partiers?

Rule ‘O Law — Yadda, Yadda, Yadda

You know should a “domestic” terrorist (aka white person) be stripped of their citizenship, the right would go insane. That is just as cliche.

Saddam didn’t attack the World Trade Center

Ok. One more time. There has been NO evidence that Saddam Hussein helped in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

I am gobsmacked when I continue to see polls here in the states that report people think he had something to do with the attacks. It simply has not been proven.

The idea that he did have anything to do with the attacks of 9/11 was one of the ruses used by the administration of President George Bush Jr. to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The other ruses being that Saddam was an immediate threat to the US and that he had tons of weapons of mass destruction to use or sell. Those have also not been proven.

The typical knee jerk rebuttal to my comments include “then you must have wanted Saddam to stay in power. He was an evildoer and we helped rid the Iraqi people of a ruthless dictator.” This rebuttal is a simple red-herring trying to distract one from the illogical conclusion.

I agree that Saddam was a butcher and didn’t deserve to remain in power. That doesn’t mean that taking him out with a full scale invasion based on a false premises was the correct action to take at the time.

My comments peak to the outright falsehoods spun by our President and his cabinet to mislead us into supporting his strong arm tactics.

The removal of Saddam didn’t make the US any safer nor was it a blow against terrorism. Meanwhile the Taliban (remember them) are regrouping in Afghanistan as we try to loot the commercial interests in Iraq. I argue that was the REAL reason Bush et al lied to the US people.

Bush and the neo-conservatives who dreamed up the BIG LIE have the blood of over 500 brave soldiers on their hands, most killed AFTER Saddam was removed from power. The week of Christmas the Terror Threat was raised to Orange – the 2nd highest level – and we are now safer?

When will the President stop lying to us? Maybe when he is removed in the 2004 elections. I hope the rest of the country gets a clue by then.