Politically Speaking: Now What?

Well the midterm elections are past and the Republicans gained power in the House while the Democrats kept control of the Senate. The big question is what does that mean for us? It was quite a election season with not only the Democrats and the Republicans fighting in the ring, but the Tea Party was there also, with both the Republicans and Tea Party thinking of victory by riding each others coat tails. My feelings are that the Tea Party got owned by the Republicans, time will tell, but it already looks like there is some dissension between the ranks, and it's only been a couple of days since the election.

I tend to lean towards the Democrats, but I am frustrated and disappointed with their spinelessness. There were investigations of wrong doing by President Bush and some of his close associates that showed that he was doing things wrong and he was intentionally doing them even though he knew they were wrong. Why then is it that the subject of prosecuting Bush, and whoever else involved, such a taboo subject even from the Democrat side? To make things worse, now George Bush has a book coming out where he admits once again of his war crimes. Will the insanity never cease?

Bush basically passed his own pardon and pardoned everyone who took part in all the illegal activities before he left office, put people in key parts of the government, while he was in office, that would allow him to get away with doing things that were wrong. Don't forget that both Bush and Cheney got on national television and admitted that they gave the orders and supported water boarding and other torture techniques, had secret prisons, performed secret renditions, and crimes against the American people and the constitution by the unlimited phone and internet monitoring, arresting people in the middle of the night and not charge them of any crime for 5 years if at all, with no rights, and going against the Geneva Convention rules and international laws and agreements. This upsets me with the Democrats. When Obama stood there and said, let's not bother going back and dwelling on the past, but look towards the future in reference to prosecuting Bush I stood in shock... I think there were many others who had the same reaction. In my opinion the people's mandate for election a great majority of Democrats in 2008 was so that something could be done about the rouge, run away government that the Bush Administration turned into, that included bringing to justice the people who blatantly and openly broke the laws of our constitution and how our government is supposed to operate, both at home and abroad.

The other thing that I and I think many other people that supported Obama are disappointed about is the health bill. Not for the fact that it was passed, but how fast the best parts of the bill were negotiated out before it even came to vote, and then that it really never mattered any way because it was pretty much a straight party vote, so there never was any compromise from the other side at all. Many people would have liked to see the single payer option at least seriously considered. Health care should not be run by organizations that their main purpose is not health care, but stockholders profits, that's just wrong. We need to get rid of all the swindling, lieing, profit machines that we call health insurance companies. A lot of money could be saved if the government took care of people with that money instead of a big company not worrying about if they will break even, but make record profits. This was another thing that didn't make me too happy with the Democrats.

The thing with the Democrats in general is that it's hard to try to compete with the bullies on the playground while playing by the rules and bending over backwards trying to appease any of them. Both sides worry more about being elected, getting their side in power, or keeping their side in power, that they don't really seem to care too much about us. In all fairness I guess I have to say the Democrats tried, they came in at the worse time since the great depression and actually did some good, tried to pass some good financial reform, credit card reform, health care reform, it just was a little too slow to help them for the mid elections.

What will we see going forward? I fear not much different than we seen these last couple of years. In the mean time we, meaning us common folk, will suffer while they all have their pissing contests.

What do you think? Agree or disagree, feel free to leave a comment.

Where Does Dick Cheney Get his Special Powers

I was reading along through my news emails the other day and I came across an article talking about Dick Cheney criticizing the appointment of a special prosecutor by Eric H. Holder Jr. What caught my eye was a transcript of Cheney stating, "at his request" the CIA release a document showing whether or not the Bush Administration's interrogation methods were responsible for defeating all efforts to attack our country. Later in the article said something else about the CIA memos released at Cheney's urging.

I have one BIG question. Who the hell is granting Dick Cheney the power to advise the CIA about anything? Hey Dick!, I thought you were a vise president, not only that, but didn't your side lose the last election? What gives Dick the power to be still advising the CIA on anything? Releasing documents?...Dick? Weren't you the one in the last administration that was calling most everything in the form of documents, that were requested by oversight committees, protected by executive privilege?

In your defense of torture you say that it worked, it kept all the evil powers from hurting anyone in the US. What doesn't seem to get through the thick Dick head is it doesn't matter if you think what you did worked, it doesn't even mattered if it did work, breaking the law is breaking the law, and torture is breaking the laws of both the United States and of international treaties we have agreed to. I get jumping up and down, pulling my hair out mad as hell that we have a person like Dick on just about every major television network, if not every major television network, admitting publicly, in the light of day, that he is proud of what he done, and that he'd do it again, he'd still be doing it. Even though it is illegal. Why isn't he arrested already?

Maybe Dick does get it. Maybe he knows that on the merits of law and order he is guilty as sin. That is why he holds that the ends justified the means. It worked, this makes it better than the law. He thinks that if he can paint enemy combatants as sub human, others will commit unheard of acts against them out of fear, and he is right, but does that make it right. Didn't this happen before...hmm...perhaps Nazi Germany with the Jews? This is just the thing that happens when a group of people acquire power with no oversight. It was what we got as a result of a closed door meetings with what was said vailed by the phrase executive privilage.

Still, after all this, Cheney crawls out from under his rock, from the death of his political career, and he still has the power to request and urge the CIA to release documents

Let's Applaud Those Who Stand up for What is Right

Dear Senator Feingold,

I just want to thank you for your stand against not only CIA torture abuses, but your outspokenness that the interrogation probe on CIA abuses, does not go far enough and that "The abuses that were officially sanctioned amounted to torture and those at the very top who authorized, ordered or sought to provide legal cover for them should be held accountable,"

I do not know why there are not more people in Washington who will take a stand against this blight that is contrary to the ideals on which our country was founded.

In the past our great country could take the high road in fighting against the tyranny of rulers from other world countries, but now we need to take the high road to fight the tyranny the Bush Administration.

Other countries knew that they could depend on our high morals and honor and even the solders of countries that we have fought against knew that they could have faith in the humane treatment that they would receive if captured fighting us.

The Bush Administration has given our country a black eye that won't heal in the eyes of the rest of the world if we don't honor our international agreements concerning the treatment of our captured combatants.

Our country was instrumental in bringing to justice people from Germany and Japan for the same types of apostrophes that people in the Bush Administration have encouraged.

I can't believe that Dick Cheney can go out in public in the light of day and try to justify breaking of US and International laws by using the ends justify the means argument.

If nothing is done to correct things done during the Bush Administration, history is going to report that not only did people in the Bush Administration do horrendous wrong, but that the following administration was just as horrendous for not making things right.

Please continue to stand up against the wrongs done in the name of our country until what is wrong is right. You, me, our descendants, and our country will be the better for it. Thank you.

Indict Bush Now

The crimes of the Bush administration must be proclaimed, acknowledged and remembered because their disastrous human consequences, dictatorial tendencies, subversion of Constitutional government and violation of the rights and dignity of humanity. They include wars of aggression, the crime against peace and the "Supreme International Crime," war crimes, and crimes against humanity, genocide by military violence "with intent to destroy in whole, or in part, a national... or religious group," authorizing and condoning massive violations of the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights and other Amendments, international treaties including the U.N. Charter, Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Convention Against Torture, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Geneva Conventions.

The clear duty of the American people and their elected representatives -- on which the changes in U.S. government policies essential to achieve a peaceful, decent and humane future depend -- is the vigorous pursuit of the indictment of former President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other high officials who have participated in their crimes, followed by rigorous criminal prosecution wherever the evidence, having been fully and fairly presented to a federal grand jury, results in their indictment.

The indictment of George W. Bush and other high officials is the challenge facing 'We, the People.' Will we rise to meet it? This is not a matter of politics or partisanship. It is the defense of the basic tenets of the Constitution.

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark,
Former U.S. Attorney General

Catching Up

It's been awhile since I've wrote. There were quite a few things going on since January, many things worthy of writing about. A close friend of mine father died and it seems like I kind of got in a rut after that. My own father died about 13 years ago and I still miss him a lot. We had kind of a rough time during my teenage years and we were just starting to get to where we enjoyed each other's company and respected each other's differences shortly before he died. There is a lesson here for all you that still have your fathers around.

Some of the things Cheney was saying during TV interviews before Obama come into office I was really surprised that Bush didn't pardon him or the rest of his buddies before he left office. Cheney pretty much admitted that he approved the torture of detainees and a lot of the other illegal things that went on while he was in office. Cheney complained publicly that he was pretty upset with Bush not fully pardoning Libby who was involved in disclosing the name of the CIA agent who's husband spoke out against starting the war in Iraq. I was amused when Cheney was in a wheelchair at Obama's inauguration, supposedly from moving boxes. Think about it, here is a guy that was second in command, and arguably maybe first in command, moving his own boxes when he left office. Why do you suppose he was moving his own boxes? Could be that he didn't trust anyone else carrying his boxes because of what was in them? You know that was kind of suspicious when he had a fire in his office too. I never did hear what they figured was the cause of the fire. I bet there is a place somewhere that a lot of papers were burned to keep them from ending up in the wrong hands, and I'm not talking about the hands of would be terrorists.

I also been watching what's been going on with Obama's Administration to see which direction he is going to go and how much he will, or be able to fix from the Bush Administration. While Obama has been doing much to try to fix what was wrong from the Bush Administration, he is still trying to preach that we should be looking forward and not back when it comes to the illegal activities of the Bush Administration. I still feel that this is the wrong decision on Obama's part. We can not go forward without finding what all it is that needs fixing. If we let Bush and his buddies get away with the things they did while in office, future presidents will figure that they have the right to do the very same things as Bush did. At least hope isn't fully dead as many people both in and out of politics are still pushing that we need to investigate what all the Bush Administration done behind closed doors and if there are illegalities charges brought up. We can only hope that Obama will do the right thing in this situation and appoint an independent investigation on this topic. Actually for a lot of this they don't need more investigations because they already have reports from past investigations concluding that Bush took us into war illegally on false information.

There are other things I disagree with the Obama on, but in general I agree on many of the things he's doing. At least Obama is trying a different path instead of the stay the coarse plan that Bush pretty much stuck with. I'm ok with the closing down of the secret prison in Cuba and not sending detainees to countries that do torture. I agree of the process of telling everyone involved that torture is not an option. What did we gain with the Bush Administration's approval of torture? We got some of the worse criminals outside the Bush Administration that we can not try in court because of the torture. I also agree with the gradual getting our troops out of Iraq, a place that we never should have been in the first place.

Maybe this is enough for now to get the creative juices flowing. Don't forget to check back again.

I'm almost afraid to talk about this subject for another 6 days because it still would be enough time for Bush to blanket pardon a lot of his administration. But it really scares me the way Obama talks about he would rather look to the future instead of spending too much time looking back. There is something just wrong about not looking at the past in regards to the Bush Administration. There are just too many questions that need to be brought out into the open, answered and some form of accountability established. I think it would be a big mistake for Obama not to address the wrongs of the last eight years of the Bush Administration

The Bush Administration has from the start refused to hold itself up to any oversight. It has stonewalled Congress with information in the forms of email and video tape, refusing to let people even testify in House hearings, the Bush Administration has been one of the most secretive Administrations in modern times.

We can't begin to right the wrongs if we don't investigate the past well enough to tell what wrongs have been committed or set in motion. As far as making sure that any crime committed would be taken up, there has been numerous reports from Congress itself stating the many laws broken both within the United States and internationally that have been approved by Bush and Cheney and others in the Bush Administration so that there should be no question that there should be trials taking place.

By not addressing the wrongs that took place during the last administration we can not start to get our reputation back in the rest of the world as a country that stands for our high ideals. Being branded as a country that does torture does not make us friends around the world, it helps dangerous organizations recruit members of people that want to stand up against the U.S.

We will not get our reputation back with the rest of the world if we let these issues slide into the past. The American people deserve better than to have to wait until some UN or world commission holds Bush and his Administration accountable for their crimes. To show the rest of the world that we do stand behind our country's high ideals we can not do anything less than hold the Bush Administration accountable for its wrongs against the American people and people of the world. It is embarrassing to be an American until we restore our laws and our honor with the rest of the world.

Free Money

People, it is time to call, write, or Email your representatives in government office. We are getting ripped off big time over this bailout deal. According to an Associated Press article the banks and institutions that have received part of the first half of the $700 billion government bailout package are saying that they don't know what they are doing with the billions they have gotten from American taxpayers. They claim that they are not even tracking that money which is pretty sad and unbelievable. You can read the article from the Associated Press here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_secrets

Here is a copy of the Email I sent to one of my representatives:

Dear Congressman Obey,

I have just read an Associated Press article about the unaccountability the banks and financial institutions have with the almost $350 billion dollars they have received from American taxpayers in the form of a government bailout. Here is a link to the story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_secrets

This is totally unacceptable and I would hope that there are going to be some accounting for the money these institutions already have received before they get a dime more out of the second half of $700 billion earmarked for bailing these businesses out. It's unacceptable and unbelievable that these businesses would receive billions without tracking what they are doing with the money, if this is really the case they are not fiscally responsible enough to receive any more taxpayer money. If they were lending money out you better believe that they would want to know what the intended purpose of that money was and they would keep track of it.

It burns me that Bush had to have the line about the businesses that have their troubled assets bought up in the government bailout scheme have to follow the rules of the bailout bill, but then Mr, Paulson instead bought up stocks in their companies effectively voiding out any oversight or accountability for the money they received from taxpayers. What the heck is that Paulson guy doing anyway? The Bush administration and Paulson basically got what they asked for in the first place, a large amount of money with no restrictions on what was done with it or who it was given to. Something is wrong when the administration asks Congress for that much money to do one thing and then after they get the money they do whatever they want with it anyway, don't you guys feel like you been hoodwinked? I do, even though its what I expected in the first place. You people in the House and Senate better be getting together and demanding information and accountability about the first half of the $700+ billion before you release any of the second half of the money or you all are going to have as high of approval ratings as Bush enjoys, and that wouldn't be good for your future elections. I just find this totally unacceptable.

Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxx

Update:

This is the letter I received back from Congressman Obey:

Dear Mr. Chapek:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about how the Treasury Department is implementing the bank rescue program.

I absolutely share your concern. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank is holding a series of hearings, with some already underway, about the implementation of the program. This is going to continue to be a challenge in the coming months and will be one of the many major issues President-elect Obama will face when he takes office in January.

Please be assured I will keep your views in mind if further legislation is brought to the Floor of the House this year and also into the next session of Congress.

Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch.

Sincerely,

David Obey
Your Congressman

Throwing Money to the Wind

What a mess this country is in. It's not all this country though, it's countries around the world. The economic situation is pretty bad all over. There are many countries where it's worse than it is in the United States. In a lot of other countries people and police are protesting and battling in the streets. Thinking back to hurricane Katrina, it really does not take long for all for lawlessness to break out when society starts to fall apart. We are learning that there are many different ways a society can fall apart too.

In Katrina it was the lack of services because they were knocked out from the storm. No electricity, no power for lights cooking, security, or most importantly refrigerators, because of no refrigeration people ran out of food very quickly. Because of no electricity for refrigeration stores didn't have food either, trucks could not bring in food and supplies because of the flooding. Hunger is a really powerful motivator. If you don't have food, you are going to try to get it one way or another even if you have to steal it and if it gets bad enough, to kill for it. Another drive that overrides all else is survival for your self and loved ones, if you or your love ones need medical supplies you are going to do everything in your power to see that they get the help they need.

Other causes of society breakdown is when the government breaks down. When this happens individuals and small groups start taking things into their own hands, and nothing is off the table when survival is at stake. Money can be another reason for a breakdown of a society, either too much of it, or too little of it, either way it leads to eventually not being able to afford the basic necessities. There are numerous other ways that a society breaks down including racism, difference in moral standards, religion, to much of a gap between the haves and the have nots.

The U.S. government has decided to throw money at the situation. First it was the financial institutions. It was decided that it would take at least $700 billion to set these Wall Street businesses right. I think giving out any money for them was a mistake. I did not agree with bailing them out in the first place and I am even more convinced that my thoughts were correct now that half of the $700 billion has been distributed.

I knew when the Bush Administration first came out with this plan that it was going to be no good. They first wanted the money to dole out with no restrictions, no oversight, and no legal or financial accountability. President Bush just wanted that amount to give to Mr. Paulson from the treasury to hand out to whichever companies or institutions he saw fit to do with whatever he thought would help the economy. Luckily, or maybe not depending on your opinion, Congress got involved and decided that they would need to have some oversight and not just cut Mr. Paulson a blank check. After some hemming and hawing they came up with a bill to give half the money to Mr. Paulson and have some oversight and restrictions on top executive salaries and bonuses. The whole idea of the plan was that Mr. Paulson would use the money to buy troubled mortgages and when the price of real estate recovered the mortgages could be sold for a profit and the money paid back to taxpayers where it was going to come from in the first place. When the bill went to the president he wouldn't agree unless there was one line stating that institutions that had their mortgages bought up would have to abide by the rules in the bill. Funny thing though, after getting Congress's approval for the $350 billion Mr. Paulson decided on his own not to buy up troubled mortgages. Instead he decided to just inject the money into the companies by buying stock in their companies and because of the line Bush made sure was in the bill, it pretty much voided any restrictions or oversight as to how the bailout money would be spent. It wasn't long before Bush and Mr. Paulson were on television pleading with the institutions to use the money given them to loosen up more money for lending, but of course there wasn't much they could do except plea at that point. Now if the economy gets even worse and these companies that we have bailed out go under what will their stock be worth, nada, just what the American people will get back from bailing out these companies. By the time the economy straightens out these companies have a good chance of being liquidated or will change hands and their original owners will be on to the next big thing, or perhaps starting new financial companies and there will be no entity to pay the tax payer back.

Next in the line of people wanting the government to bail them out was the big three auto manufacturers. Executives from the big three flew their private charter jets to Washington to ask for their share only to be mocked for flying their private jets into town. After a stern scolding from Congress the executives were sent home without a deal with the instructions to come back after they show how they would tighten their belts and restructure their companies so they could compete with the non union car manufactures in the United States and foreign car manufacturing companies. After what happened with the bailout money given financial institutions it looked like Congress was maybe getting smarter, but Bush stepped in and after scaring the big three talking about maybe letting them have a controlled bankruptcy decided that he would bail out Detroit with some money from the $700 billion gotten to prop up the financial institutions.

We should have never started giving money away. I believe that we are going to hit bottom anyway the only difference is that we are going to have at least $700 billion less when the dust clears. The free market system is supposed to be that, a free market. The financial institutions at least would have never took such chances if they weren't counting on the government bailing them out if it hit the fan. The auto companies have been fighting all the way of having higher mpg standards and alternative energy autos, the very issues they will have to address if they are to be able to compete with foreign auto manufacturers.

We started down a slippery slope now that we started giving money away. In the past weeks I have heard of many other big businesses jumping up shouting that they too will need government bailout money to keep their workers working and their companies above water too. There are many voices calling out for money because they are all thinking, "Well if they are bailing out them guys I should be able to get something too." How many more companies can we not afford to bail out? I think this is a big mistake, it's like throwing money to the wind.

If the Shoe Fits...

In many ways I think that it is fitting that Bush end his presidential career ducking shoes. With the words, "This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog." and "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." Muntazer al-Zaidi made history, one news article puts it as, "the shoe heard around the world." It is rumored that Muntazer al Zaidi was severely beaten for throwing his shoes at President Bush. It is hard to say if or how bad he was beat as he has been whisked away to jail and no one has been allowed to see him. The judge went right to his cell to talk with him instead of bringing him before the judge. I am sure that there are many other people besides myself who hope that the Iraqi journalist isn't hurt too bad and that his injuries are taken into account at his sentencing.

Normally, throwing a shoe at a country's leader would be looked at as a pretty disgusting, childish act maybe, but in this case at least it seems justified. George Bush has systematically been trampling our rights and ideals, not only in our country but in others as well, with his boot of oppression, it's only right that he sees the bottom of a shoe now and then. In fact if it were up to me, Bush would need to watch for flying footwear for the rest of his life. If they don't prosecute Bush for crimes against the people of the U.S. or for war crimes, Congress should at least pass a bill prohibiting the prosecution of anyone throwing shoes at the soon to be former president.

I really hope that Bush and his administration gets a lot worse than just shoes thrown at them, I'm hoping they get the book thrown at them too. There is a lot of talk about the possibility that President Bush will probably wait until the last days of his presidency to grant immunity to most all his administration and other key individuals who were directly involved in the illegalities of the Bush Administration. Just lately Dick Cheney admitted during an interview on a national television channel that he and other officials had personally approved torture techniques used on prisoners captured by the U.S. It is a question why would Cheney admit to such a thing unless he was putting that on the table as a way to force Bush to grant him immunity, that sounds plausible to me. We won't have to wait too much longer to find out what is on Bush's mind when it comes to granting immunity, it will be interesting to see what transpires.

If Bush does indeed grant immunity to himself and others in his administration we, as in the U.S., might lose the ability to hold Bush responsible for illegal wiretapping, holding prisoners without charges, lieing to get into war with Iraq among other charges, but he can not grant immunity for himself and others that will protect them when they are out in the rest of the world. This maybe about our only hope of seeing justice done to Bush and his administration. I am afraid that either Bush will grant immunity to his administration, or the incoming administration will let this issue slide not wanting to further hamper bipartisan relations. Even if he gets away with his crimes in the U.S. Bush maybe subject to the laws in other countries in the world.

BS: Bush Stuff

In less than a month Barack Obama will take office.

Trickle down economics don't work. There is a lot on the minds of many Americans as they wait for this historic event. In the meantime there are lots of things to be anxious about. Bush throughout his administrative reign has proved that he and his cronies are dangerous enemies to our constitution. With less then a month left, Bush can still do a lot of lasting damage to our government. For a lame duck Bush has been working double shifts to come up with everything he can to aid big business and hinder the Democrats coming into power on January 20, 2009. It will be as no surprise that he will come up with some really controversial things to do to us right before he leaves office. He is undoubtedly waiting for the last minute to come out with the worse he can do which will be far worse than we will expect. Just like during his presidency the bad news is coming out daily. It's almost to the point where it would be easier to list what all he hasn't done bad for the country than what he has. His government will be known as by the people for big business.

Trickle down economics don't work. This administration has been so bad that Bush won't be able to have a presidential library because all the information will be classified. Someday in the future at some point when they pull the classification of Bush's records and release them to the public, they will first laugh at us for being so gullible to be caught up in all the bs in the first place and then for how spineless we will be by letting him just walk from all his crimes and deceptions just because he was president. Hopefully after they have all had a big laugh, the information will be used to point out everything that can be wrong about an administration so that people can learn from our mistakes.

Trickle down economics don't work. In the past 8 years most businesses have profited by having a Bush Administration, many have had record profits. For the most part blue collared people haven't seen a balanced increase in their quality of life. If not for the crimes against the Constitution, war crimes, lies to go to war, and breaking all kinds of other laws, at least think. Trickle down economics don't work.

Agencies: Crime and the Damage: Healing

I have heard good and bad news coming out of Washington the last few days.

Some of the good news is I have heard that Obama was going to go through all the different agencies of our government, and restore them to what they should be in contrast to the way they were left from the Bush Administration. Many agencies, especially anything having to do with oversight, were completely gutted and broken. One of Bush's ways of making oversight agencies useless was to peel back funding over the years so that their staff was reduced to the point that they could not carry out their tasks required of them to do their intended jobs. Another thing the Bush Administration was good at was to put political appointees in oversight of the agencies, even though they had no scientific background, they would control the public release of reports by picking and choosing what information makes it out of them agencies to the public, this way any information that did not support the administration's agendas or ideologies would not be officially supported by agency reports.

It has been in the news more and more that Bush will possibly/probably pardon himself and most the people in his administration before leaving office in January. This would be totally outrageous. There is also talk from the other side of the isle, the Democrats, that they don't want to dwell in the past, but look to the future. So Democrats aren't concerned with bringing up charges or impeaching the Bush Administration. They talk like if Bush does pardon himself and others in his administration it will be an act of healing for our government. This is all horse pucky. The things the Bush Administration is has done should no way be pardoned with the approval of Congress or Democrats as "healing". Bush and members of his administration all took their positions by swearing an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, they did not do this. There were numerous issues of broken laws, spying on Americans illegally with the help of telecommunication companies, torture of detainees, giving out the name of a CIA operative, destroying evidence, refusals to comply with subpoenas, capturing people off the streets of other countries without their government's permission, holding people indefinitely without charging them, lieing to gain support for the Iraq war that had nothing to do with 9/11, and the list goes on and on... If Congress allows Bush to pardon any of this, it doesn't make them healers, it makes them accessories. Two years ago when many Democrats were voted into office it was because they promised to reign in the lawlessness of the Bush Administration and bring the war in Iraq to an end, we have been lied to. Now they don't want to do their duties to impeach Bush and Cheney for their illegal actions while in office, this is why they have one of the lowest ratings for congress. Again I say they are not healers, they are accessories to the crimes. If the House members do not act to impeach Bush and Cheney they should all be prosecuted as accessories to the crimes of the Bush Administration. And, believe it or not I tend to classify myself as more of a Democrat than a Republican.

Impeachment: It's Still an Issue

A few days ago I received an Email from an activist group called The Pen. It talked about impeachment and the possibility of Bush pardoning the whole bunch of his click up on the hill including himself. The Email was set up in a form that you could send your comments to your state representatives, your senator and a local paper in your area. I typed in my comments, answered a few questions, included a zip code, and hit send. A couple of days later I received an Email from my U.S. Senator, Herb Kohl, and then I got a call from the paper in Chippewa asking if it was my own words and then tell me it would be included in the letters to the publisher part of the paper within a couple of days. Following is that letter:

Bush and Cheney Should be Impeached

Everyone, not only in our country but around the world, is celebrating the U.S. election of Obama for president, but we shouldn't lose track of why it is that we are so happy to get rid of Bush.

The Bush Administration will be a dark chapter in American history. If we don't impeach Bush and Cheney for their illegal acts while in office I believe that there is a good chance that Bush will pardon everyone involved, including himself, forever closing the chance to ever bring to justice these people who did more harm to America's constitutional rights than all the dictators and communist leaders combined.

It is not the time to bury our heads in the sand and pretend this will never be an issue again, because it will be. If we don't make sure that these people are brought to justice, we guarantee that our rights and freedoms will be assaulted again from the inside, from the very people who take oaths to defend the constitution of the U.S. when they take office.

We've had the elections, so let's stop using the excuse that no one wants to do anything because it will effect the presidential elections. Lack of action on Impeachment and the Iraq war is the reason Congress has such poor ratings. We were promised action when they ran and we elected them, so they need to do their jobs.
===========================================================
Here's the reply I received from Herb Kohl:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your
views on the current administration. I appreciate hearing from you
and welcome this opportunity to respond to you.

As a means of checks and balances, the Constitution
permits Congress to remove Executive Branch officials from office
if they are found to have committed "treason, bribery, or other high
crimes and misdemeanors." This critical power allows the
Legislative Branch to protect the nation from the abuse of
executive power.

As you may know, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-
OH) introduced H.Res. 1258, 35 articles of impeachment relating
to President Bush, on June 10, 2008. Additionally, Rep. Kucinich
previously introduced H.Res. 799, three articles of impeachment
relating to Vice President Cheney, on April 24, 2007. These
resolutions seek to remove the President and Vice President from
office on the grounds that both of them intentionally deceived
Congress and the American public during the events that led to the
March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. House possesses the sole power of impeachment.
H.Res. 1258 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on
June 11, 2008, and H.Res. 799 was referred to the same committee
on November 6, 2007. Should the Committee determine that there
are grounds for impeachment, the resolution will be considered by
the full House. A simple majority is required to impeach. In order
for an official to be involuntarily removed from office,
impeachment by the House must be followed by conviction in the
Senate; this requires a two-thirds majority. I will be certain to
keep your thoughts in mind should this matter come before the
Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this very serious
matter. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.

Sincerely,

Herb Kohl
U.S. Senator
===========================================================
The following are my words: The Northern Politic

People, my fellow Americans, I can not stress this enough. If we don't stand up for our rights and freedoms, well then that Constitution is just what Bush called it, "The constitution is just a piece of paper." If we think of it that way, then we don't very much value the live's of the people, who faught for those rights and the ideals for which they stand, and who paid the ultimate price for those rights and ideals that are spelled out on, "just a piece of paper."

Racism Rears it's Ugly Head in America

November 4th made us feel good as a nation, we elected our first black American as president. This was a time that we were able to reflect on 50 years worth of improved relations between whites and other races in the "Mixing Pot" of America. Now approximately two weeks after the presidential election it seems like many people are showing their dark side and it is not pretty or something to be proud of. It also goes to show just how far we as a nation have to go yet to separate ourselves from our racist past.

Since the presidential elections in America there has been a rash of racial hate crimes across America. Black dummies hanging from trees, graffiti sprawled across communities, websites that people are betting on Obama's assassination dates, property damage for people who show their support for Obama, and other senseless destructive acts across America. What is it that drives people to racism acts of hate because another person's skin is a different color than their own? I would assume that most of these acts are carried out by people who didn't vote for Obama in the elections. It would maybe be another safe assumption that these people haven't spent much time listening to anything Obama has been saying all through the campaign process. I don't think I have only been looking at things through a biased point of view, but I really didn't hear anything from Obama either before or after the election that would indicate that Obama's agenda is going to be lopsided in favor of blacks or other minorities once he takes office.

I have to admit that I am somewhat taken back at the amount of racist acts that have been going on since the elections. I am even more taken back by the apparent lack of discontent by people directed at the last president George Bush. I mean the present administration has trampled the constitution with it's wire tapping practices and spying against American citizens, lied to the American people and congress to start a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11, trampled human rights and international laws torturing prisoners, endangered CIA operatives and ruined their careers because they expressed views that differed from the administration's, extradited people off streets not only in America, but other foreign sovereign countries without the country's knowledge, held people for undetermined amounts of time with out charges against them or due process, fired prosecutors over their political affiliations, only hired people of certain political affiliations to fill key positions in government, have blatantly flouted breaking laws to further their public and secret agendas, acted under more secretive circumstances than any other administration in American history, obstructed justice by destroying evidence needed by oversight and legal investigations, pardoned criminal buddies, and the list goes on and on. With all these things that we know are true of the past administration, some people are being much more critical of a black man that hasn't even had the chance to show, by his acts or record, of how he's going to run the country. I mean, come on, compared to the record of the past administration is it too much to ask to overlook the color of one's skin, to look at things objectively, and at least give him a chance to see how he's going to run the country?

If these people who are doing these things were really patriotic Americans they would be doing things to help our country move along into the future not dredge up and revive bigotries from the past.

T. A. R. P. = Covering Over Taxpayer's Eyes

Troubled Assets Relief Program (T. A. R. P.) should stand for tarp, a covering over the taxpayer's eyes so they don't see that this is just a wealth distribution scheme for big business. This whole thing is such a mess, first the administration asked for $700 billion dollars for a bailout program and said that they would create accountability by buying up bad mortgage assets to hold until such a time that the mortgages would increase in value and be able to be sold to pay back taxpayers who are ultimately paying the bill to bail out Wall Street.

Earlier this week Mr. Paulson from the Treasury said he decided that that was a poor plan to buy bad mortgage debt and instead told us, that after getting this money, he decided to just buy stock in the failing companies to faster inject cash into the failing institutions. The problem with that is instead of having some land or property that would eventually be worth something again when the market recovers, Mr. Paulson has basically a handful of worthless pieces of paper bought from failing institutions that have a good chance of filing bankruptcy in the future leaving the taxpayer with worthless paper in exchange for $700 billion dollars. The other problem with just buying worthless stocks is that Mr. Paulson, the President, or the Congress has no way of restricting what these institutions do with the money that they are given.

It was never the Administration's intention to hold these institutions accountable for the money in the first place. If you look at what President Bush and Mr. Paulson originally asked for it was for $700 billion dollars to spend in which ever way they see fit, to anyone they see fit, for whatever way the institutions that receive the money see fit. Are the American taxpayers the only ones that saw this for what it really was, a wealth distribution program where every man woman and child would give $2300 to the fat cats on Wall Street who are making millions and getting big bonuses even though they ran their companies into the dirt with their greed. And what happened?

The institutions that received the bailout money, that the Bush Administration's "intention" was to free up money tied up in bad mortgage deals to lend out to people, to get the economy moving again, decided that they still don't want to free up money for lending. President Bush was on national TV pleading with the financial institutions to fee up that money, but without the teeth of regulation and oversight there is not much chance of the institutions using the money for much more than to shore up their accounts, buy other failed banks, and/or give their management people and stockholders something. We've already seen how they been spending money knowing that they are getting bailed out by the taxpayers, there were big parties, million dollars a month for people on retainer, and holiday bonuses of up to $230,000 for administration making close to $400,000 base salary. So for those paying attention it is Fat Cats - $350 Billion, taxpayers nada.

Now that the 2nd bailout plan didn't work, Mr. Paulson has a new, new plan on another way to use the 2nd half of the $700 Billion bailout money to bail out these financial institutions. Again I don't see much for regulations or ways to insure accountability. This latest play doesn't directly help mortgage holders that are either already in foreclosure or will be shortly. That's the one thing I don't really understand. One one hand I can't see giving money to people who obviously knew they were trying to buy properties they couldn't afford. On the other hand, there are a lot of banks and mortgage companies that took advantage of the housing bubble to convince people to take out money against their mortgages because the value of their homes had went up so much. Many of these people didn't fully understand what the banks were getting them in to and they took their lending institution at their word that they were sitting in a good spot to take on more debt. To a certain extent, if the government would just take over them loans that are on amounts higher than what the property is worth, reorganize the mortgages so that the people could have payments that they could afford, then the mortgages wouldn't be bad debt and shouldn't strain the financial institutions of Wall Street.

Now the major domestic car manufacturers want to be bailed out too, they are claiming that they will be forced into bankruptcy if they are not. Originally Obama and the Democratic Congress wanted the Bush administration to help bail them out too, but the Bush Administration didn't want to include the auto makers. Now the Bush Administration says that they would be willing to support bailing out car manufacturers long as there are no strings holding car makers to use the money to make more energy efficient cars to make the auto makers more competitive with other car makers. Again the Republicans don't want to place any restrictions on car makers on how they use that money. What is the sense if that? If we are going to bail them out shouldn't we retain the right to say how we want this money used?

President Bush recently made a speech claiming that the fault is not fault the free market system. This is one of the first things I agree with that Bush has said in a long time. The free market would be a working system without trying to bail out industries. It's not like these financial institutions didn't know what was happening, they just were hedging their bets that the government would bail them out. The auto makers and Republicans have been fighting any effort to make strides to increase mileage per gallon or make alternative fueled vehicles, two things that have caused the big three auto makers to lose ground to foreign car makers. The Bush Administration has already wasted $350 billion dollars that has no regulations on how it's spent for these failing industries to take and cut and run when that runs out. These industries should have just failed in the first place, they are going to any way, the only difference is this way taxpayers are going to be out $700 billion dollars first.

All in all this is a hell of a Christmas bonus for big business from the lame duck Bush Administration at taxpayers expense.

We Continue to Get Fooled Again

Unlike The Who song in the 70s, that states, "we won't get fooled again", it is instead, "we continue to get fooled again".

Remember that $700 billion bail out package for Wall Street financial companies that was supposed to free up money from bad debts for lending to get the economy back rolling? With most of the first half of that money gone or spoken for, it didn't work. A week ago a lame duck president got up on national television and pleaded with financial institutions not to hold on to that money to shore up their financial situation, or buy other failing institutions, but to use it for lending like it was intended. It looks like the original plan which was to buy up "bad" mortgages and eventually sell them at a later date paying back taxpayers when the housing market was higher wasn't really considered too hard to start with. Instead of buying failed mortgages, setting some kind of stipulations on how the money was spent or used to insure that the taxpayer could be paid off, the administration decided that we would just buy up the worthless pieces of paper called stocks from companies that no one else would ever in their right mind buy, because the companies are failing in the first place. It looks like Bush get's his money for his big business buddies one way or another. Now that almost half the money is gone, and they can't get banks to loosen up money for lending, the government is thinking about maybe starting to give the second half of the money to directly help homeowners, let's hope that they come up with a few better rules for regulating that half of bailout money.

Talk about redistribution of wealth? How are the bailed out or soon to be bailed out institutions reacting to the economy downturn? They are paying bonuses in the area of $230,000 to employees making base salaries of $400,000. Makes perfect sense to me. After your upper management loses all your money resulting that your company needs to be bailed out by the taxpayers, your management people need hundreds of thousands of dollars of bonuses to know they are appreciated. What?!! Yes during house hearings I heard that these institutions were paying up to a million dollars a month to people who weren't even working at the company anymore, but who were held on on retainer because the companies were afraid that these people would spill their trade secrets with their competitors. Trade secrets??? Mr. Big Business, you are broke, what is it about your company procedures would anyone want or value? Gee what would these trade secrets be? Something like, "How to Bankrupt Your Company and Get Bailed Out by the Government"? Or maybe, "Screw Your Company and Get a Million a Month for Not Working". And while those guys who make 400 thousand dollars a year and bonuses of 230 thousand dollars are getting paid by the American taxpayer if, God forbid, that taxpayer gets a 1 thousand dollar tax break, it is an evil wealth redistribution plot that will bankrupt the top 1-2% of Americans. While you are thinking about that, think about just how much that health plan or education, or disability is such a drain on society compared to them guys pulling in $600,000 dollars plus a year at your expense.

This is not even touching on all the taxpayer money going towards the war in Iraq or money going to other governments that are fighting wars for us. What about all the money going to the company Dick Cheney has ties to that supplies the instruments of destruction to support the wars around the globe. I bet that is another company that isn't feeling the pinch of the bad economy, the only company other than big oil. It isn't chance that in the movies Batman and Spiderman that more than one multimillionaire's fortune was built up using money from the arms industry, kind of like art reflects reality.

I have a bit of news for them politicians. The market is failing and stalled because the common man, the one that's not in the top 2% of income earners, doesn't have any money to spend on things that aren't absolutely necessary. Hell most of them don't have the money to spend on the things that are necessary. That what happens when you cater to the top 1-2% of the people who make the most, they divvy things up to make the most out of everyone else until everyone else don't have the money to keep the economy going.

These things should make you mad as hell. They should make you want to hold people, corporations, and administrations accountable for the mistakes that make and especially when they do things that either are illegal or should be illegal. The Bush/Cheney administration needs to be held accountable for their deeds while in office, they surely didn't protect the constitution that they swore to protect. They started wars where we had no business, screwed up the economy for their buddies gain, went against Geneva conventions and international law. The first step to fixing things is to find and admit where things went wrong to get to this time in space that we are in, and take steps that these things do not ever have the chance to happen again. Impeach Bush/Cheney. Then prosecute them.

Clean Air Interstate Rule of 2005

The Northwoods Politic

Today's news speaks of a decision of a federal appeals court that effectively cancels any air pollution regulations the Bush Administration implemented to cut down the levels of greenhouse gases, by stating that the EPA overstepped it's bounds when it established the Clean Air Interstate Rule of 2005.

Shortly after that, the same day, the E.P.A. Administrator, Stephen Johnson, announced that he wasn't obligated to regulate greenhouse gases saying that it would be an unprecedented expansion of the agency's authority.

Between these two actions, any new reductions of air pollutants during the Bush Administration has been canceled out. This basically is what the administration's, Transportation's, Agriculture's and the Commerce Department's want. Their position all along is that they didn't want to place air pollution controls on these industries anyway.

I think this is no accident, the Bush Administration's has all along used legal points to battle and effectively stonewall any attempts of getting any information needed by oversight committees to do their investigations. Do you think it's possible that the Bush Administration could have accidentally overlooked how their controls set up to reduce greenhouse gases could be deterred by the courts? I think it was planned all along.

Bush and his administration has played this country like a chess game, as the country's attention has been drawn from one contested issue to another in other unrelated areas, attention is always being shifted so as to never give enough time for people or agencies to act on or follow through with oversight or arguments against the earlier issues. In this way he has used his time in office to promote republicans,, that he can count on to go along with him, into just about all areas of government. Republicans have infiltrated all areas of the government and they use that power to promote their agendas not the people's. How many times have Bush and Cheney stated that public opinion isn't important to policy, what's important is that we stay the coarse on their agendas because they know what we need, even if it's not what we want.

Iraqi Government Does What U.S. Government Can't

The Northwoods Politic

I get most of my news from the Associated Press and The New York Times. Today I noticed that the Iraqi Government appears to be doing something that our Congress can't seem to do. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is standing up to President Bush in regards to the Iraqi/U.S. agreement that Washington was trying to get approved by July 31st.

According to what I've read, the UN agreement for troops being in Iraq ends at the end of December, but the Bush Administration has been pushing Iraq for an agreement to allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq before the end of July. The reason for this is obvious, Bush wants to get a concrete agreement with Iraq before he leaves office at the end of the year. According to the Bush Administration, they claim that they don't need Congress approval even if they decide to have full status of forces agreement with Iraq. The administration has been pretty mum about what the points of the U.S./Iraq agreement not wanting to have a bunch of resistance from Congress until after the agreement is signed.

Most of what we hear about the proposed agreement is coming from the Iraqi side, our government won't inform us of what they want with Iraq for stipulations. Some of the points that the Iraqi government has taken offense to are:

1.) The U.S. authority to carry out military operations within Iraq.
2.) The ability to arrest Iraqi citizens without Iraqi government's permission.
3.) Getting legal immunity for private security contractors.
4.) Control of Iraqi air space.
5.) Setting a time table for U.S. troop withdrawals.

It sounds like Washington might have dropped the immunity stipulation in regards to the private contractors, but nothing is set in stone yet. Washington has been pretty secretive about what it wants compared to what the Iraqis want. The Iraqis want control of their airspace and basically want the U.S. out of Iraq as soon as possible it sounds like. Even with Iraq talking about wanting withdrawal timetables, U.S. Ambassador Crocker has said, "We are looking at conditions not calendars, and both sides are in agreement on this point. So it doesn't appear like anyone in the U.S. is listening to what Iraqi leaders are wanting. I guess that they are just supposed to trust our government not to infringe on Iraqi rights just like we are supposed to trust our government to follow our constitution. Washington continues to say withdrawals would only be linked to conditions on the ground.

In the last couple days Iraq leaders have made headlines in their standing up to Washington against their perceived danger of turning into indentured servants of the United States. Some of the headlines are:

1.) Iraqi Raises the Idea of Timetable for U.S. Withdrawals
2.) Iraq Demands Pullout Timetable in U.S. Defense Pack Talks
3.) Iraq Insists on Withdrawal Timetable

The United States might bring the Iraqis factions together after all, but it will probably be done by pissing them off about us so much that they will unite against us.

While Iraq and the United States are trying to make some sense out of what to do with the agreement, Israel, the United States, and Iran are having a pissing contest in the gulf. First Isrial carried out maneuvers showing that they could feasibly get to Iran to start a war, then the U.S. and Iran both announced that they would do maneuvers in the gulf with a chance of starting an international incident. Iran stated that it would close out the traffic from the gulf if attacked, so the U.S. sent a convoy to the area to show that they would attack if any sign that the Iranians would put up a blockade. It's kind of like watching a bunch of young boys playing in a playground except that the stakes are much higher.

With a Little Help For My Friends

There has been scant information regarding the 2008 American/Iraqi agreement that President Bush wants to have in place by July 31st when the current agreement that the UN has for having military troops in Iraq expires. What information that has come out is mostly from the Iraqi government commenting publicly in frustration of their disagreements with what President Bush proposed and wants in the agreement.

I was reading that the agreement that the Bush Administration has been trying to pass on the Iraqi government is very similar to what the British tried to enforce back in the 30's. as seen below.

1930 Pact Between Iraq and Britain

1.) Iraq had to consult with Britain on security issues.

2.) Iraq had to allow Britain use of all road, airports, ports, railways, and rivers.

3.) Iraq had to allow Britain to have two major military bases within Iraq.

4.) Britain could station troops through out Iraq.

5.) Iraq had to grant personnel immunity from Iraqi laws and prosecutions.

Proposed 2008 Pact between Iraq and United States

1.) Would allow officials to detain or arrest suspected terrorists with out the approval of Iraqi government.

2.) Would allow the United States complete control over Iraqi airspace.

3.) Would allow approximately 58 U.S. military bases in Iraq.

4.) Would give the U.S. troops, contractors, and personnel immunity from Iraqi laws.

The pact of 1930 did not go well, the Iraqi populations rioted in the streets and protested violently. The 2008 pact will undoubtedly be met with about the same enthusiasm. With the lesson of the history of the pact in 1930 why would anyone propose basically the same pact? One reason is by calling our occupation in Iraq a pact the Bush Administration claims that the process doesn't have to go through with getting Congressional approval to stay in Iraq. Something the administration is pretty concrete about. Also by not having to get approved by Congress the Bush Administration is hoping to keep most terms of the pact secret, most likely until the end of their term in office, at least until after the pact is agreed on. KBR, a large contractor who Vice President Cheney was formally a chief executive over working for Halliburton, for food and housing for the troop has just received a big $150 billion, 10 year contract for a Iraq.

The answer became clear about a day later when news that the five major oil corporations have been awarded no bid contracts for working Iraq's oil reserves. It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to figure out, ok we'll concede some of these crazy issues in our proposed pact if you give my buddies in the oil industry non bid contracts to work your oil fields.

Speaking about oil industry buddies... President Bush lately has been pushing to have federally owned land and the coastal shelves opened up to drilling for oil saying that we need this to bring down the price of gas, but here's the kicker, the companies that make the big drilling rigs are already five years behind on their orders for deep water oil drilling rigs. If American oil companies put in their orders for oil rigs right now, it would be over five years before they would posess any new oil rigs. American oil interests already own the drilling rights on big areas of land that they are not utilizing yet. So why is it that there is a push to open coastal areas to drilling now? Well we have to set our oil buddies up now before the Bush Administration leaves office this fall, it has nothing to do with the price we are paying for gas right now. In fact many of the articles are carefully worded as this move would' "help surpress the high price of gas", that means to slow the rising of the cost of gas, not the reduction of the cost of gas.

It's just business as usual for the Bush gang. Their eithics seem to be that nothing is wrong with gouging the American public and their tax contrabutions and giving as much of that money as possible to their friends in high places before leaving office. Oh what a way to get by with a little help for my friends.

Bend Over America

In the latest news of the fleecing of America as reported in the New York Times. Charles M. Smith a former civilian overseer for the Army, overseeing the largest contractor of the Iraq war for food services, KBR, said he was ousted from his job because he refused to pay one billion dollars for questionable charges that were not substantiated by KBR. The Bush Administration must hate the New York Times.

KBR is a Houston-based company that provides food, housing and other services to the troops stationed in Iraq. KBR stands for Kellogg, Brown and Root and is the subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas company that Vice President Dick Cheney previously served as chief executive. Mr. Smith's position was then given to a colleague and KBR received all the money it was asking for, including the one billion that didn't have supporting records for.

So we have a war that support was gotten from Congress and the American people through the lies and misstatements from members of the Bush Administration, which included Vice President Dick Cheney, who has had strong ties with the KBR company. Doesn't this sound a bit like conflict of interest on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney? Hmmm, can we say kickbacks? For someone that came into a very high level of government from being a chief executive of the company in question, it would be hard to not imagine some kind of benefits coming back Cheney's way in some form or another. I suppose we will learn later, as this story breaks, that this is probably another one of the Bush Administration's no-bid contracts. If we are getting fleeced for at least one billion in food services, what about the other services that KBR supplies like in troop housing and other services? We'll see huh? It's a big surprise,not, that in our failing economy the only businesses doing well, extremely well, are businesses that the president and vice president are/were involved in, oil companies and companies involved with supplying services and weapons for the war in Iraq. Now Bush is pushing for the oil companies to be allowed to drill off shore, something that oil companies have been pushing for for some time, coincidence? I think not.

We can count on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will look into this and find in this case, as it has for other cases in the past, misconduct on the part of the Bush Administration. Yet, Hello Democrats, there will be no push by Democrats to follow through on impeachment proceedings against Bush or Cheney as there are already articles of impeachment that have been sent to the Judiciary Committee that are basically sitting on ice. I agree with Democrats on most things, but when it comes to doing their constitutional duties in regards to protecting the American people against a corrupt administration they are nutless. I can't understand why that is? I can't believe that Democrats are so afraid that people, who voted them into office on their platforms of fixing a corrupt government and getting us out of the Iraq war, are going to chastise them during an election year because they would be doing what the American people put them in office for. Where is the justice? Instead they give lame reasons that they have more important things to do during the remainder of their terms.

What is more important than protecting the Constitution? What's more important than impeaching the people in office, who have done so much damage to the American people's constitutional rights. What's more important than making sure that the people who got us into an illegal war with Iraq which cost over 4 thousand American solders their lives and countless Iraqi lives, costs to the American people of trillions of dollars, a failed economy and high gas prices, are brought to justice. Instead the Democrats are content to piddle with trying to pass bills that have no chance to pass because even if they can get enough support from the House and Senate, the crook of a president we have will veto them. What's more important than fixing that?

Most of this doesn't make sense. About the only way any of this makes sense to me is:

The Democrats don't really want to bring this war to and end as the American public wants. The Democrats think that they will get more support, or more support for a Democratic president, from the American people passing bills that are repeatedly vetoed by a Republican president. The Democrats secretly want to keep the executive powers that President Bush claimed for their own use when they get one of their own in the president's chair. The Democrats are completely clueless as to their jobs in office. What ever their excuses are, they don't make sense. If they don't watch it, it will back fire this fall and the American public will be so fed up with their inaction that they will vote independent or even Republican cause even if the Republican's objectives are different than the people's objectives, they at least know how to get what they want, specially when no one is willing to call them or stand up to them on their illegal procedures and activities.

Excuses not to Impeach Bush

This is a response to an article I read off a web site called The Daily Kos written by Kevin Holsinger, Tuesday June 10^th, 2008, titled, I believe we should let George Bush get away with breaking the law because...

Read Kevin's Article Here

At first while when I started reading through the article, I was under the impression that these were Kevin's views on the subject, but reading on through the rest of the article and some of the responses that he got and addressed after the article was posted, he clarifies that this is not the case. In fact Kevin states, “I support impeachment, doomed or not.”

I couldn't help but comment and give argument to the reasons Keven listed to support why, I believe we should let George Bush get away with breaking the law because... Right or wrong I decided to go through Keven's points of argument from my Wisconsin Northwoods perspective.

I believe we should let George Bush get away with breaking the law because...

1. the attempt to hold him accountable has unscrupulous motivations.

   Yes, what could be more unscrupulous than protecting and upholding the constitution?

2. the attempt to hold him accountable diverts people's much-needed attention to getting a Democrat in the White House.

   This might bite you in the ass in the long run. Stay the coarse of not bringing up or supporting the impeaching of President Bush, no matter what the growing, undeniable facts are that are piling up show, and there is a good chance that people will start to see this is it is, a spineless, politicized excuse for not wanting to make waves during an upcoming presidential election. Democrats in office are betting that the people will act less negatively to a subject not brought up then they will to congress actually taking initiative to do their jobs.

3. the attempt to hold him accountable should have been made long ago, and since it wasn't, it's now most likely useless.

   Yes the attempt should have been made long ago, but that's no excuse for not standing up and doing the right thing still. Before the last elections there was a Republican majority in control that wouldn't allow articles of impeachment to proceed any way. What signal or deterrent do we send to future administrations if we don't hold George Bush accountable for his crimes? There might still be too much opposition, but wouldn't it look better on your records to show that you at least tried to do your constitutional duties while in office?

4. the attempt to hold him accountable will play into the media's desire to not focus on things that matter, which impeaching Bush doesn't qualify as.

   What is more important than getting a criminal who continues to break laws as he is getting called on them, out of public office? Here is a person who probably didn't even earn the honor of being president with all the questionable acts that reportedly happened around the polls during the national elections and after. He's taken us into war with questionable motives and intelligence. He's broke all kinds of federal and international laws and agreements such as torture, holding people prisoner for years without charges, spying and creating data banks on American citizens, the list goes on and on. Doesn't qualify as things that matter???

5. the attempt to hold him accountable means nothing unless you go after other people first.

   Wouldn't it be possible to go after as many people as are relevant?

6. the attempt to hold him accountable isn't realistic.

   Isn't it realistic to have faith that the laws of our country will be carried out, enforced, and applied equally no matter who you are or how much money you have or don't have?

7. the attempt to hold him accountable won't get enough Republican supporters.

   Same as mentioned in answer to question 3. Wouldn't it look better on your records to show that you at least tried to do your constitutional duties while in office?

8. the attempt to hold him accountable is being led by someone that people like to make fun of.

   So if you are so much more respected, jump on board. It's a good cause, it's what you should do, uphold the constitution and to do your constitutional duties. Lend your credibility to the cause.

9. the attempt to hold him accountable is about dwelling on the past.

   These things are still going on right now as we speak, Bush is still breaking laws, still stonewalling congressional investigations, still claiming that we don't torture, but reserve the right to torture, still illegally tapping lines of the American people and building data bases. These are all issues of the present not the past.

10. the attempt to hold him accountable would upset a sizable portion of Americans who wouldn't like that a President they (allegedly) elected and then (allegedly) re-elected is now facing impeachment.

    I'm not positive, but I think the numbers doesn't support this claim.

11. the attempt to hold him accountable wouldn't be as useful as waiting for Barack Obama to maybe become President so he could maybe investigate Bush then.

    Bush needs to be held accountable no matter who wins the presidential elections. This would essentially pass the buck from the people who should have been addressing this issue in the past, passing the buck from those who should be taking on this issue now. This would also leave a very dangerous man in office for another 6 months, a man who could still do grave damage to American's rights, America's economy, America's reputation, a person who even now is carrying out plans of ramping up to gain support with the claims that Iran also needs to be invaded to stop their nuclear weapons of mass destruction... Didn't we learn anything from the current war with Iraq?

12. the attempt to hold him accountable would make the Republicans want to illegitimately impeach a future Democratic President, and the warfare between the parties would never end.

    What planet are you living on? The warfare between parties will never end, both parties are way more interested in doing things to promote their party above things that would help the general population. Any impeachment should be done on legitimate standing, whether the subject of impeachment is Democratic or Republican, the articles of fact should dictate the end result.

13. the attempt to hold him accountable would suck up money that, without a doubt, our Legislative Branch would use to fix our broken infrastructure.

    Much better that our monetary resources be spent on investigating steroids in baseball or taping during football games. The money that is spent getting a corrupt politician out of office is probably just a small portion compared to the money we have been spending and getting ripped off by the dubious accountability of bid less contracts, reconstruction in Iraq, or in other corrupted areas of our government.

14. the attempt to hold him accountable would suck up time that, without a doubt, our Legislative Branch would use to deal with other issues of importance...time that also can't be split between holding Bush accountable and tackling these issues.

    In my opinion that time has been pretty wasted already since we put a Democratic majority in the house and senate. Instead of tackling the important issues right away, they have been spinning their wheels getting no where because of not having enough votes to override presidential vetoes. If we wouldn't have a secretive administration that is more concerned with keeping information from the American public to protect their ass, it might be a lot easier to address these other issues that are not going anywhere with or without impeachment proceedings going on.

15. the attempt to hold him accountable is only supported by left wing extremists.

    I think again and again at town halls across the country have in frustration, because their federal government is broken, passed their own articles of impeachment. I don't think this statement can be true unless you label a large majority of the American public as left wing extremists, which by virtue of being a majority, would not define them as left wing, which would mean that the politicians going against the majority would be better deserving of the tile of extremists.

16. the attempt to hold him accountable is really pointless since he's leaving anyway, and what matters is that he's not around to commit any more crimes, not whether or not he committed crimes in the past.

    I beg to differ here. If we as a country allow Bush and other people in his administration to go without being held accountable, we send a message to future administrations of being compliant and gullible.

17. the attempt to hold him accountable would be used to the advantage of the pro-Bush media.

    The world is a changing.