Ron Howard was in the news recently, talking politics. Commenting on the release of his new "Frost/Nixon" film, Howard alleged that the crimes of Nixon pale in comparison to the crimes of Bush and Cheney. This kind of outrageous rhetoric is not surprising, but what are these "crimes?"

The left has built up this myth that the Bush presidency has committed outrageous and illegal offenses, but if that were the case, why don't they state what these "crimes" are? Nixon committed actual crimes, crimes that he was convicted of and would have served time in prison for, had Ford not pardoned him. Bush and Cheney are alleged to have committed crimes, but no one explicitly states these crimes or offers any tangible evidence that any crimes have been committed. It's an Orwellian double-speak, like the monkeys in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book: "We all say so, and so it must be true."

If anyone believes Bush or Cheney has committed a crime while serving as president and vice president, why are there no charges filed against them? The reason is that, to my knowledge, no actual crimes have been committed. Just because you don't agree with someone does not mean they have committed a crime.

Oh, of course the liberals will call out Guantanamo water-boarding, Abu Ghraib, etc. But there is no evidence that any laws have been broken by Bush or Cheney. The Iraq war has been called an "illegal" war by the left, but that's a ridiculous charge not backed up by the facts. The Abu Ghraib incident was committed by individuals who were charged for their offenses. Water-boarding as torture? Give me a break. The only thing Bush is guilty of is using any means necessary to keep our country from being attacked.

But that doesn't stop liberals like Ron Howard from making ridiculous unsubstantiated charges:

"the Nixon crimes pale by comparison, with uh, with uh, um, um, [picks up pen] you know, what we've been reading about and hearing about in the last few years. Uh, and yet, it also reminds us that abuse of power at any level cannot be accepted, and, so if there's a political point to be made, you know, I'd say it's nonpartisan, but that's the point."

So, Ron Howard, if you have evidence of any crimes, bring forth the charges before you go spouting off to your liberal base - by that I mean the main stream media. If not, get back behind your camera and stick to what you know best - making movies, not statements of political propaganda.

This blogger hits the nail on the head:
Scheherazade Needs A New Tale

What can one say about the shenanigans by Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor who was arrested this week on charges of trying to sell Obama's empty Senate seat to the highest bidder? Illinois politics as usual? Apparently so. What else is there to say?

This story, as it unfolds, is so full of ironic twists that one need not even try to come with ones own satirical observations - this one makes its own sauce. From Blago stating on Monday to go ahead and record him, then him being arrested the very next morning, to the actual content of the recordings that have been released that are so full of bleeped expletives, this series of events would be extremely funny if it wasn't so sad and reprehensible. The hubris of Blagojevich himself is both astonishing and laughable, and when you throw his "also foul-mouthed" wife into the mix, the whole series of events seem even more unbelievable.

The upshot to the whole sad story is that Illinois may end up having a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat, and that opens the possibility of the seat going Republican. On the street news interviews has shown some people stating that they voted for Obama, but after this Democratic Party debacle, they will be voting Republican. If Illinois could fill the seat with a Republican it will be a chink in the Democratic stronghold in Illinois, and would balance the ultra-liberal Dick Durbin, the senior Senator in Illinois. I know it's a slim chance, but it could happen.