How about we prosecute Leftist politicians for failing to protect American lives?

Only in the current political climate could jackass liberal Congressman, see Pat Leahy, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc., ponder bringing criminal charges against former Bush administration officials on trumped torture charges.

Only now, with a near unsurmountable liberal majority in Congress, enabled by the most liberal President in the history of the United States, could we actually return to a pre-9/11, Clinton-like mindset.

According to Mackubin Owens of the National Review:

What makes the Leahy-Whitehouse show trials most appalling -- and hypocritical -- is that Congress was briefed on the enhanced interrogation methods in September 2002. At the time, according to the Washington Post, members of Congress from both parties -- including current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- wanted to ensure that the interrogations were tough enough to get the necessary intelligence from the captured terrorists. As the Post reported, "there was no objecting, no hand-wringing," and according to a U.S. official present during the briefings, "the attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'" But of course, according to a source looking back on that period, "the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic."

What's further disgusting is that so many of these jackass Congressman, as Owens states in the article, KNEW AND APPROVED of these tactics, as long as it prevented further American deaths. Now, as the specter of 9/11 slowly fades away, we've come full-circle; we're returned to a pre-9/11 mentality.

In this writer's opinion, with the aforementioned return, and nauseating naivety our president and the Left has displayed, it's not a question of IF, but WHEN we'll be attacked by terrorists, er, "man-made disaster" causers, as another Leftist Obama-appointed flunkie, in this case Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, is wont to refer.

I propose that instead of prosecuting the Bush administration for war-crimes (how is that possible when an enemy 1.) doesn't fight for a country that signed the Geneva Convention, 2.) attacks civilians.?), when we're attacked by Al Qaeda again, we prosecute these jackass Congressman for not doing all they could to protect American citizens, but instead, were more willing to pander to jackass far-Left anti-war groups?

Liberal Lies: Common Sense on Nuclear Power

In ironic fashion, Minnesota politicians are working to overturn a Minnesota moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Finally.

Seriously, does it get more boneheaded than prohibiting the construction of nuclear power plants? It's one thing, albeit very lame and devoid of foresight, for liberals to oppose drilling in ANWR and off the our coasts and construction of new refineries, but to prohibit the construction of nuclear power plants? That's something altogether.

According to the Winona Daily News, "Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, and Republican Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Wabasha, have been political opposites and one-time enemies. But on the issue of nuclear power in Minnesota, the two have become unlikely allies.

Murphy and Drazkowski both back an initiative they say is gaining momentum: an effort to repeal Minnesota’s moratorium on construction of new nuclear power plants. They say Minnesota, which last year set aggressive goals to reduce carbon pollution, must join other states and countries to embrace nuclear power as a non-polluting domestic energy source."

Naturally, liberals are skeptical and obviously reticent about overturning the ban. Why? They're concerned about the toxic waste disposal and it's impact on the environment.

Sigh.

Because of their undying devotion to the Environmentalist Church, the green movement would rather place life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the backburner while misguided excuses for civil servants (see: Nancy Pelosi) wage a pathetic effort to "save the planet."

According to Barclay G. Jones, professor of nuclear, plasma, and radiological engineering at the University of Illinois, states that "nuclear energy is good for the environment."

"Understand this: For the past quarter century, nuclear energy has been the nation's most important source of clean power for avoiding airborne emissions that result from burning oil, natural gas and coal.

According to a new study by Washington-based Energy Resources International, nuclear energy - by substituting for fossil-fuel power plants - has prevented 219 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 98 million tons of nitrogen oxides from being discharged into the atmosphere since 1973.

For years it has supplied trillions of kilowatt-hours of clean electricity without earning tradable credits under the Clean Air Act. Congress must rectify this oversight by allowing utilities to receive credits for nuclear plants, thereby boosting the value of nuclear plants and helping the ensure their continued operation in a competitive, restructured electricity industry."

When a professor, such as Jones, states that nuclear power is good for the environment, why won't liberals accept such claims?

Primarily, the boneheads on the left have preconceived notions regarding nuclear power, courtesy of rare accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Furthermore, said idiots clamor that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Great idea; I think most clear-minded, lucid individuals would agree. Yet, since the Left clings to the notion that gasoline is bad, how are we supposed to achieve this end? According to the Leftist propaganda sites like "WagingPeace.com," the waste resulting from creating nuclear power will adversely affect the environment.

Sigh...again.

Who would rather listen to? Groups with a clear agenda like "Waging Peace," or a REPUTABLE group like the Scientific American, "Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste."

Furthermore, according to John McCarthy, professor at Stanford University, nuclear power plants can expect to operate for HUNDREDS of years, thus outlasting oil fields, wind generators, and solar panels.

Also, McCarthy states that the notion of nuclear waste is completely overstated:

"When fuel rods are removed from the reactor they contain large quantities of highly radioactive fission products and are generating heat at a high rate. They are then put in a large tank of water about the size of a swimming pool. There they become less radioactive as the more highly radioactive isotopes decay and also generate less and less heat. The longer the spent fuel is stored, the easier it will be to handle, but many reactors have been holding spent fuel so long that their tanks are getting full. They must either send the rods off or build more tanks."

According to a 1998 report, there has never been a release of radioactivity when it's stored in large pools of water.

" Once the fission process has slowed, the fuel rods are replaced. The spent fuel rods contain highly radioactive fission products and must be stored safely. These used fuel rods are considered high level nuclear waste. Currently all high level nuclear waste is stored in large pools of water at the power plants where it was generated. Seven to ten feet of water is enough to stop all radioactivity (Keeny, 1998). Since the late 1950's, high level nuclear waste has been stored in this form, and there has never been any release of radioactivity. There is actually a relatively small amount of high level nuclear waste. All of the waste ever produced in the history of commercial nuclear power production in the United States would cover the area of a football field four yards high (NEI: High-level waste, 1998). "

Unfortunately, we shut down our reprocessing plant during the 1970's.

In Minnesota, it's the Democrats, naturally, that oppose the construction of nuclear plants. It's not surprising.

Wisconsin Congressional Candidate: Ahmadinejad never stated that Israel should be wiped off the map

And this statement did NOT come from a Democratic appeaser, but rather from Libertarian Kevin Barrett, whom, according to OpEdNews.com," has issued a demand of Ron Kind, the Democratic incumbent, to retract his endorsement of the claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.' According to Barret, an Arabist who has taught university course on Islam and is fluent in French and Arabic, Kind's position is based upon a false atribution and represents a mistranslation."

What we have here, folks, is a good old-fashioned apologist.

Here's another sign that people in Wisconsin aren't quite right.

"The candidate's demand concerns an extremely sensitive and important claim, which has frequently been cited by the Bush Administration to support its desire to take military action against Iran. According to Barret, the origin of the alleged quote is not the President of Iran but Ayatollah Khoemeni, whom Ahmedinejad was citing rather than making an assertion of his own."

Three points: First, the Bush Administration has not expressed any desire to attack Iran. In FACT, it is exhausting every means necessary, diplomatically, to stave off the Iranian nuclear threat. Again, more lies perpetuated by the Left. Think back to 2002: the Bush Administration exhausted every possible diplomatic means before toppling Saddam's regime to continue a CEASE-FIRE that was declared after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Also, Saddam violated 12 UN sanctions that called for military reprisal. In addition to Saddam profiting from the Oil-for-Food programs, countries that opposed the 2003 war, France, Germany, and Russia, profited extensively as well.

Second, so I guess one can safely assume that the Iranian despot wishes to seek normal relations with Israel? I don't think so. Regardless of this particular claim, didn't Ahmadinejad state that the Holocaust was a myth? Furthermore, he believes that he can hasten the return the of the Mahdi (or 12th imam) by waging an apocalyptic war against Israel, as well as other non-infidels (that's you and me). According to the Christian Science Monitor,

"From redressing the gulf between rich and poor in Iran, to challenging the United States and Israel and enhancing Iran's power with nuclear programs, every issue is designed to lay the foundation for the Mahdi's return."

Someone with plans on hastening the apocalypse through nuclear conflict has to be someone with whom perhaps-President Barry Obama could negotiate? Right, appeasers?

Of course the leftist apologists will state (and have stated on numerous occasions) that fundamental Christians are just as dangerous as Muslims.

"'This kind of mentality makes you very strong,' says Amir Mohebian, political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper.

"'Bush said: 'God said to me, attack Afghanistan and attack Iraq.' The mentality of Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad is the same here - both think God tells them what to do," says Mr. Mohebian, noting that end-of-time beliefs have similar roots in Christian and Muslim theology.

'If you think these are the last days of the world, and Jesus will come [again], this idea will change all your relations,' says Mohebian. 'If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard.'"

Mohebian mistakenly believes that because Christians believe that the Lord Jesus will return as well, we will engage in open conflict and aggression.

Incorrect...in fact, if anything, Christians will attempt to "do good" in terms a moral code (no thanks to the moral relativism that the Left is pushing down our throats): good deeds, love, forgiveness, etc.

Third, many "expert" think it's the mullah who run the country. Assume for a moment that Ahmadinejad purportedly did state that Israel was a tumor that should be wiped off the map, instead it was the Ayatollah; do they (the mullahs) not hold the reins in that country?