- The Update: Bush spares Libby
- Bush says doesn't rule out pardon for Libby
- Editorials Hit Libby's Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card
- Bush "Is Not To Be Believed"
- Only 21% Of Americans Support Decision
- Fitzgerald: "Fundamental To The Rule Of Law That All Citizens Stand Before The Bar Of Justice As Equals"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My biggest question to everyone is "Why are you so surprised?" that Bush let ole' Scoot off the hook?
Seriously, has this Administration ever led you to believe even once that they or their henchmen could actually be held accountable for their misconduct?
I can't even pretend to be outraged anymore. I'd be more surprised if the Bush Administration would have left Scootie Puff Junior sit in prison.
Now President Bush is saying not to rule out a full pardon, well.. duh. Should we expect anything different from the Great Leader?
By the way, if Bush is going to pardon someone why isn't Bush pardoning Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso, the right wing has repeatedly called for pardons for these men as well - so why pick Libby? Oh, that's right because Libby was doing the Bush Administrations bidding by helping to oust the CIA agent Valerie Plame, so of course he deserves a pardon.
The pattern is consistent, the Bush Administration will do everything in it's power to avoid any kind of accountability at all. These men truly feel they are above the law.
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Monday, July 02, 2007
Conservatives : Reinventing History One Site At A Time
Back in May I wrote about the Conservative YouTube called QubeTV, today I bring you Conservapedia.
We all know about Townhall.Com and other "mainstream" Conservative publications and their blatant attempts to insert bigotry into our national dialogue and we know about their shameless and false reconstruction of history and current events.
We already knew that Conservatives couldn't cut it at YouTube, and now we also know they can't hang at Wikipedia either.
Conservapedia, what an interesting concept... Do we need a Leftapedia now so we can keep up with the constant flow of disinformation streaming out of Conservapedia?
Let's look at Conservapedia's entry on George W. Bush.
Economy :
"Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." Emphasis is mine.
If you read between the lines you can see the Plutocrat that lies deep within all Conservatives.
These Conservatives are failing to see that to the majority of the country witnessing Exxon Mobile making huge profits while we suffer at the gas pump is not a good thing, it is something we view as very, very bad.
The majority of the American people who are just hard working people with families do not see CEO's getting 300 million dollar bonuses while we pay record high gas prices as something positive!
Furthermore we are even more disgusted that these high oil prices are blamed on a lack of refineries which the oil companies refuse to build, instead giving their executives outrageous bonuses.
Sorry Conservapedia, we do not see getting raped at the pump as a positive improvement and this so called entry about the economy shows how out of touch the Conservatives are with the American public.
So how accurate is Conservapedia?
Let's look at the "Family" section for GW Bush :
"George W. Bush is the son of George H. W. Bush, who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993.
George W. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church, and many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list."
So Conservapedia doesn't even bother to mention Bush's daughters or his wife in the "Family" section? Is this supposed to be some sort of ultimate proof that Conservatives view woman as worthless?
If sexism is not the reason the President's daughters and wife are not mentioned in the "Family" section of the George W. Bush entry in Conservapedia then sloppiness and disregard for accuracy must be the answer. Quite a slapdash entry considering that you are writing a small bio for the current President of the United States...
Instead of mentioning the President's daughters and wife in his "Family" section Conservapedia finds it more important to discuss how "profound" Bush's faith is, according to some guy who is trying to sell a book.
Conservapedia also claims that "the anti-War movement was defeated" because Democrats were unable to pass a bill that included a withdrawal date.
What Conservapedia fails to mention is that President Bush vetoed two bills presented by Democrats that included timetables. Conservapedia also fails to observe that the antiwar movement has not been defeated, in reality public disapproval with it is at an all time high.
Comparing Conservapedia to Wikipedia is a joke.
Conservapedia's entry for the President is only 7 paragraphs long and offers zero insight into the life or career of George W. Bush.
Wikipedia's entry for the President on the other hand is at least 65 paragraphs long and offers information from his early life including controversies and it doesn't fail to mention his wife and daughters by name.
The bigger point of my post is that Conservatives are desperately and actively seeking to present an alternative to the truth (right wing domination of the radio, QubeTV, Conservapedia) that they are shameless in disseminating.
This brand of Conservatives disregard the facts that they find inconvenient to their narrative. It started with FOX and the right wing radio shows that dominate the air, now they are developing web platform which we need to be constantly aware of.
Conservatives always claim to set up these enterprises only in order to counter the "Liberal bias" that they see in everything imaginable- but the only thing I can really find "Liberal" about YouTube or Wikipedia is the fact that they are free and everyone is allowed to come in and only a rowdy few get kicked out.
When examining Conservapedia I am astounded at the lack of factual information. Only 7 paragraphs are offered on the current President and torture isn't even mentioned once. Warrantless wiretapping? Nope. Alberto Gonzales? Yeah, right...
But wait - Conservapedia's entry for Bill Clinton is 28 paragraphs long. Conservapedia offers some insight on their enemies, it's just their hero's they don't want you to know anything about.
But compare Conservapedia's 28 papragraphs to Wikipedia's 80 paragraphs for Bill Clinton and we can see that Conservapedia is light on the facts compared to Wikipedia, no matter what the subject is.
For Conservapedia and other Conservative media it is not about preserving the facts and the truth of the subject matter, it is about spinning the truth until it becomes favorable to Conservatives, no matter how many facts it omits and how many pretzel like contortions it has to make in order to do so.
We all know about Townhall.Com and other "mainstream" Conservative publications and their blatant attempts to insert bigotry into our national dialogue and we know about their shameless and false reconstruction of history and current events.
We already knew that Conservatives couldn't cut it at YouTube, and now we also know they can't hang at Wikipedia either.
Conservapedia, what an interesting concept... Do we need a Leftapedia now so we can keep up with the constant flow of disinformation streaming out of Conservapedia?
Let's look at Conservapedia's entry on George W. Bush.
Economy :
"Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." Emphasis is mine.
If you read between the lines you can see the Plutocrat that lies deep within all Conservatives.
These Conservatives are failing to see that to the majority of the country witnessing Exxon Mobile making huge profits while we suffer at the gas pump is not a good thing, it is something we view as very, very bad.
The majority of the American people who are just hard working people with families do not see CEO's getting 300 million dollar bonuses while we pay record high gas prices as something positive!
Furthermore we are even more disgusted that these high oil prices are blamed on a lack of refineries which the oil companies refuse to build, instead giving their executives outrageous bonuses.
Sorry Conservapedia, we do not see getting raped at the pump as a positive improvement and this so called entry about the economy shows how out of touch the Conservatives are with the American public.
So how accurate is Conservapedia?
Let's look at the "Family" section for GW Bush :
"George W. Bush is the son of George H. W. Bush, who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993.
George W. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church, and many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list."
So Conservapedia doesn't even bother to mention Bush's daughters or his wife in the "Family" section? Is this supposed to be some sort of ultimate proof that Conservatives view woman as worthless?
If sexism is not the reason the President's daughters and wife are not mentioned in the "Family" section of the George W. Bush entry in Conservapedia then sloppiness and disregard for accuracy must be the answer. Quite a slapdash entry considering that you are writing a small bio for the current President of the United States...
Instead of mentioning the President's daughters and wife in his "Family" section Conservapedia finds it more important to discuss how "profound" Bush's faith is, according to some guy who is trying to sell a book.
Conservapedia also claims that "the anti-War movement was defeated" because Democrats were unable to pass a bill that included a withdrawal date.
What Conservapedia fails to mention is that President Bush vetoed two bills presented by Democrats that included timetables. Conservapedia also fails to observe that the antiwar movement has not been defeated, in reality public disapproval with it is at an all time high.
Comparing Conservapedia to Wikipedia is a joke.
Conservapedia's entry for the President is only 7 paragraphs long and offers zero insight into the life or career of George W. Bush.
Wikipedia's entry for the President on the other hand is at least 65 paragraphs long and offers information from his early life including controversies and it doesn't fail to mention his wife and daughters by name.
The bigger point of my post is that Conservatives are desperately and actively seeking to present an alternative to the truth (right wing domination of the radio, QubeTV, Conservapedia) that they are shameless in disseminating.
This brand of Conservatives disregard the facts that they find inconvenient to their narrative. It started with FOX and the right wing radio shows that dominate the air, now they are developing web platform which we need to be constantly aware of.
Conservatives always claim to set up these enterprises only in order to counter the "Liberal bias" that they see in everything imaginable- but the only thing I can really find "Liberal" about YouTube or Wikipedia is the fact that they are free and everyone is allowed to come in and only a rowdy few get kicked out.
When examining Conservapedia I am astounded at the lack of factual information. Only 7 paragraphs are offered on the current President and torture isn't even mentioned once. Warrantless wiretapping? Nope. Alberto Gonzales? Yeah, right...
But wait - Conservapedia's entry for Bill Clinton is 28 paragraphs long. Conservapedia offers some insight on their enemies, it's just their hero's they don't want you to know anything about.
But compare Conservapedia's 28 papragraphs to Wikipedia's 80 paragraphs for Bill Clinton and we can see that Conservapedia is light on the facts compared to Wikipedia, no matter what the subject is.
For Conservapedia and other Conservative media it is not about preserving the facts and the truth of the subject matter, it is about spinning the truth until it becomes favorable to Conservatives, no matter how many facts it omits and how many pretzel like contortions it has to make in order to do so.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
White House Claims Executive Privilege After Claiming VP, Pres Not Executives
Related :
- Cheney claims a non-executive privilege
- Bush claims oversight exemption too
- House Claims executive privilege to avoid senate subpoenas
But I thought they said they were not executives?
After all it was only a few days ago that Vice President Dick Cheney claimed he did not have to comply with executive record keeping laws because he is not an executive. The next day the President made the same claim.
In Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution it is written:
"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America."
Meaning the president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. So not only is the President an executive, he is the executive.
So a few days ago George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not executives, but now they are executives so it turns out they have executive privilege?
This is quite a grandstanding claim to make. You can't have it both ways.
You can't claim you are not an executive but have executive privilege.
You can't claim your not an executive to avoid record keeping laws and then claim you don't have to show the records anyway because you have executive privilege. It just doesn't work that way in a system of logic and truth. It doesn't work that way in a democracy either, by the way.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Democrats need to be on every talk show in America informing the American people about the outrageous claims of the Bush Administration and making the case against the Bush Administration.
As for the media, what can I say? They have failed the American people by not enlightening them about the terribly abnormal time we are living in. They refuse to go into details thinking the American people are too stupid to understand them. They refuse to offer insightful exposes in fear of being called "unpatriotic" by the treasonous bastards who have hijacked this country and used it as a weapon of war. They fail to provide balance and wisdom, instead we get Paris Hilton and Tom Delay.
These are last ditch attempts by the Bush Administration to avoid oversight and accountability. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then it should have no problems handing over it's records.
The true problem lies in what is in the documents the Bush Administration is trying so desperately to keep secret from the rest of the government.
What is perhaps ironic is that the Bush Administration is fighting to keep documents about the warrantless wiretapping program secret, when all along the Bush Administration claimed that if Americans were not doing anything illegal then they should not be worried about all their personal emails and phone calls being monitored by the NSA.
The same logic can be applied to the documents which the Bush administration is trying to keep secret from Congress and the National Archives. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then why is it so afraid of sharing it's information with the rest of the government?
And don't even try to feed me that "national security" BS, it's not going to work.
- Cheney claims a non-executive privilege
- Bush claims oversight exemption too
- House Claims executive privilege to avoid senate subpoenas
But I thought they said they were not executives?
After all it was only a few days ago that Vice President Dick Cheney claimed he did not have to comply with executive record keeping laws because he is not an executive. The next day the President made the same claim.
In Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution it is written:
"The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America."
Meaning the president is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. So not only is the President an executive, he is the executive.
So a few days ago George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not executives, but now they are executives so it turns out they have executive privilege?
This is quite a grandstanding claim to make. You can't have it both ways.
You can't claim you are not an executive but have executive privilege.
You can't claim your not an executive to avoid record keeping laws and then claim you don't have to show the records anyway because you have executive privilege. It just doesn't work that way in a system of logic and truth. It doesn't work that way in a democracy either, by the way.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Democrats need to be on every talk show in America informing the American people about the outrageous claims of the Bush Administration and making the case against the Bush Administration.
As for the media, what can I say? They have failed the American people by not enlightening them about the terribly abnormal time we are living in. They refuse to go into details thinking the American people are too stupid to understand them. They refuse to offer insightful exposes in fear of being called "unpatriotic" by the treasonous bastards who have hijacked this country and used it as a weapon of war. They fail to provide balance and wisdom, instead we get Paris Hilton and Tom Delay.
These are last ditch attempts by the Bush Administration to avoid oversight and accountability. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then it should have no problems handing over it's records.
The true problem lies in what is in the documents the Bush Administration is trying so desperately to keep secret from the rest of the government.
What is perhaps ironic is that the Bush Administration is fighting to keep documents about the warrantless wiretapping program secret, when all along the Bush Administration claimed that if Americans were not doing anything illegal then they should not be worried about all their personal emails and phone calls being monitored by the NSA.
The same logic can be applied to the documents which the Bush administration is trying to keep secret from Congress and the National Archives. If the Bush Administration was not doing anything illegal or unethical then why is it so afraid of sharing it's information with the rest of the government?
And don't even try to feed me that "national security" BS, it's not going to work.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Republicans More Concerned About Partisanship Than Integrity Of The Justice Department
Related :
- GOP Blocks Senate Majority From Voting No Confidence On Gonzales
- Conservatives kill Gonzales no-confidence vote
Are Conservatives still so bitter over Bill Clinton they are still willing to hold the Bush Administrations head above water while the Administration is so clearly trying to drown itself?
The Conservatives are apparently willing to do this at their own expense. Because everyone knows a drowning person is likely to pull their rescuer under if the rescuer is not a strong swimmer, and it looks like the Conservatives can barely manage to doggie paddle for themselves right now. So trying to save the Bush Administration is probably not the wisest idea.
If there is one person in Washington D.C. who deserves a "no confidence" vote it is "Eternal General" Alberto " I-Don't-Recall " Gonzales who participated in what is one of the most damaging things one can do to a democracy - politicize the justice system.
Some fury towards the mainstream media, as per usual members of the MSM were quick to repeat Conservative talking points as to why the Republicans were refusing to hold Gonzales accountable, for at the very least his stupidity and at the very worse his blatant politicization of the justice system.
One's impression from the MSM is that the Democrats are just being a pain in the Presidents behind FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT PARTISANSHIP.
Well, let me tell you - after the Clinton years and Republican impeachment attempts over Clinton lying about getting a BJ, after six years of impotence in Congress when everything that was slightly Liberal was constantly berated and slandered, you know it wouldn't be such a stretch of imagination to believe that Democrats were "just being partisan" and trying to "get back" at Republicans for all of the misery including the Iraq War BUT
The truth should be told, by any intelligent standard Alberto Gonzales is either
A : a meandering fool who's memory has apparently been erased who never fully understood his role at the Justice Department
OR
B : he is a very deceptive and clever man who is wearing sheep's clothing to avoid punishment.
Well, since Gonzales is a lawyer I really have to go with "B".
By this point in time it doesn't matter whether Gonzales is "A" or "B" because being either incompetent or crooked should immediately render any person unfit for the job of the top law enforcement official in this country, dammit.
I don't care if a person is a Democrat or Republican, if they are doing the wrong thing get them out. It's that simple.
Which brings me to this point : What is WRONG with this country? How come politicians are THE WORST EMPLOYEES IN THE WORLD?? If anyone else did as terrible of a job as politicians do at their jobs - they would be fired or seriously demoted. Seriously.
In the real world this "I don't recall" and "I don't remember" excuse doesn't fly very far. Usually if your memory is that sketchy then so were your activities. In the real world people are distrusted for such excuses.
Having a "no confidence" vote was perfectly legitimate and it's unfortunate the Republicans did not use this as an opportunity to try to restore trust with the American people, and frankly I don't understand why they didn't use it.
Conservatives have lost a great deal of credibility in this country and I am starting to believe they are the only ones who do not realize it yet.
Is it because Republicans are in denial? Is it because they do not care if the American people no longer trust them? Do Republicans even care, if that is the case? I don't think so.
Conservatives have yet to realize the tables have turned.
Where in the 1990's the American people felt they were being lied to by Democrats about Bill Clinton and that the Conservatives were telling the truth, today it is the EXACT opposite and the issues are much more serious and complex than sexual liaisons between two consenting adults.
Today we know we are being lied to by the Republicans about George W. Bush, the Iraq War, torture, spying, oh, and politicizing the Justice Department.
The Republicans are threatening their own very existence with shenanigans like this and they should give the American people a little more credit than trying to convince us this guy who can't recall politicizing our justice system should remain in power.
Conservatives are refusing to be objective and refusing to see how seriously they would take the same situation if any political party other than the Republicans were politicizing the justice system.
Both parties need to understand that this is a country that is built on a system of checks and balances and both parties and our nations survival is dependent on this balance. As we hold others accountable and suspect for their actions, so should we ourselves to preserve the heritage of what is right about this country.
- GOP Blocks Senate Majority From Voting No Confidence On Gonzales
- Conservatives kill Gonzales no-confidence vote
Are Conservatives still so bitter over Bill Clinton they are still willing to hold the Bush Administrations head above water while the Administration is so clearly trying to drown itself?
The Conservatives are apparently willing to do this at their own expense. Because everyone knows a drowning person is likely to pull their rescuer under if the rescuer is not a strong swimmer, and it looks like the Conservatives can barely manage to doggie paddle for themselves right now. So trying to save the Bush Administration is probably not the wisest idea.
If there is one person in Washington D.C. who deserves a "no confidence" vote it is "Eternal General" Alberto " I-Don't-Recall " Gonzales who participated in what is one of the most damaging things one can do to a democracy - politicize the justice system.
Some fury towards the mainstream media, as per usual members of the MSM were quick to repeat Conservative talking points as to why the Republicans were refusing to hold Gonzales accountable, for at the very least his stupidity and at the very worse his blatant politicization of the justice system.
One's impression from the MSM is that the Democrats are just being a pain in the Presidents behind FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT PARTISANSHIP.
Well, let me tell you - after the Clinton years and Republican impeachment attempts over Clinton lying about getting a BJ, after six years of impotence in Congress when everything that was slightly Liberal was constantly berated and slandered, you know it wouldn't be such a stretch of imagination to believe that Democrats were "just being partisan" and trying to "get back" at Republicans for all of the misery including the Iraq War BUT
The truth should be told, by any intelligent standard Alberto Gonzales is either
A : a meandering fool who's memory has apparently been erased who never fully understood his role at the Justice Department
OR
B : he is a very deceptive and clever man who is wearing sheep's clothing to avoid punishment.
Well, since Gonzales is a lawyer I really have to go with "B".
By this point in time it doesn't matter whether Gonzales is "A" or "B" because being either incompetent or crooked should immediately render any person unfit for the job of the top law enforcement official in this country, dammit.
I don't care if a person is a Democrat or Republican, if they are doing the wrong thing get them out. It's that simple.
Which brings me to this point : What is WRONG with this country? How come politicians are THE WORST EMPLOYEES IN THE WORLD?? If anyone else did as terrible of a job as politicians do at their jobs - they would be fired or seriously demoted. Seriously.
In the real world this "I don't recall" and "I don't remember" excuse doesn't fly very far. Usually if your memory is that sketchy then so were your activities. In the real world people are distrusted for such excuses.
Having a "no confidence" vote was perfectly legitimate and it's unfortunate the Republicans did not use this as an opportunity to try to restore trust with the American people, and frankly I don't understand why they didn't use it.
Conservatives have lost a great deal of credibility in this country and I am starting to believe they are the only ones who do not realize it yet.
Is it because Republicans are in denial? Is it because they do not care if the American people no longer trust them? Do Republicans even care, if that is the case? I don't think so.
Conservatives have yet to realize the tables have turned.
Where in the 1990's the American people felt they were being lied to by Democrats about Bill Clinton and that the Conservatives were telling the truth, today it is the EXACT opposite and the issues are much more serious and complex than sexual liaisons between two consenting adults.
Today we know we are being lied to by the Republicans about George W. Bush, the Iraq War, torture, spying, oh, and politicizing the Justice Department.
The Republicans are threatening their own very existence with shenanigans like this and they should give the American people a little more credit than trying to convince us this guy who can't recall politicizing our justice system should remain in power.
Conservatives are refusing to be objective and refusing to see how seriously they would take the same situation if any political party other than the Republicans were politicizing the justice system.
Both parties need to understand that this is a country that is built on a system of checks and balances and both parties and our nations survival is dependent on this balance. As we hold others accountable and suspect for their actions, so should we ourselves to preserve the heritage of what is right about this country.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
"We'll Leave When The Iraqi's Ask Us To Leave"
So has been the mantra of the Bush Administration since at least 2004 : that if the Iraqi Government wanted the United States to leave Iraq the United States would comply. Or so the statement suggest. Even Colin Powell claimed America would leave Iraq if asked by the new leadership.
The most recent occurrence I can find of the Bush Administration "we'll leave if the Iraqi's want us to leave" myth is May 24, 2007, when President Bush again repeated the empty slogan when addressing reporters when he was still battling Congress about “arbitrary timetables” in the Iraq spending bill.
"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave." Bush claimed.
Invitation huh? Did the invitation go something like "Hey you! American guys!! Come over here! Come occupy us, we invite you!! Please, steal our oil while your here!" I must have missed the press conference in which the Iraqi government that didn't exist yet invited us to occupy Iraq.
But in all seriousness here is what happened...
According to IraqSlogger :
"Iraqi Parliament voted on Tuesday to approve a decision that gives it the upper hand in deciding any future extension of the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, according to Sadrist MP Nassar Al-Rubai'i.
Al-Rubai'i said that 85 legislators, out of 144 present, voted in support of the bill. "The vote came after a bill submitted by the Sadrist Bloc to the parliament, which stated that all decisions to extend the presence of the occupying forces in Iraq should be referred to the parliament," al-Rubaie told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).
Some Iraqi parliamentarians, most notably Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman, had stated weeks ago that the vote would be regarded as a non-binding petition rather than a law that would require withdrawal." (Emphasis is mine)
So in other words, over half the Iraqi government that voted wants us to leave YET the Iraqi government is unwilling to pass a law saying so, they can only manage a non-binding petition. Sounds like they have about as much spine as some of the politicians I know ... However, it is a statement so is Bush listening?
I wouldn't bet on it.
The Sadrist Bloc only holds 30 seats in the 275 member Iraqi parliament and doesn't even make up the majority of the votes cast in support of the petition, blowing the whole "only the extremists want us to leave" line right out of the water.
We have also known for quite some time that the majority of the Iraqi people want us gone and feel their lives are worse now than under Saddam Hussein. I don't think anyone needs to remind anyone else that the majority of this country is opposed to the war as well.
The petition is non-binding but is a clear indication that the Iraqi government is going to ask us to leave for real sooner than latter. What will George Bush do when the Iraqi government asks the United States to leave? Will he respect the wishes of a sovereign government?
Again, I wouldn't bet on it.
The most recent occurrence I can find of the Bush Administration "we'll leave if the Iraqi's want us to leave" myth is May 24, 2007, when President Bush again repeated the empty slogan when addressing reporters when he was still battling Congress about “arbitrary timetables” in the Iraq spending bill.
"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave." Bush claimed.
Invitation huh? Did the invitation go something like "Hey you! American guys!! Come over here! Come occupy us, we invite you!! Please, steal our oil while your here!" I must have missed the press conference in which the Iraqi government that didn't exist yet invited us to occupy Iraq.
But in all seriousness here is what happened...
According to IraqSlogger :
"Iraqi Parliament voted on Tuesday to approve a decision that gives it the upper hand in deciding any future extension of the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, according to Sadrist MP Nassar Al-Rubai'i.
Al-Rubai'i said that 85 legislators, out of 144 present, voted in support of the bill. "The vote came after a bill submitted by the Sadrist Bloc to the parliament, which stated that all decisions to extend the presence of the occupying forces in Iraq should be referred to the parliament," al-Rubaie told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).
Some Iraqi parliamentarians, most notably Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman, had stated weeks ago that the vote would be regarded as a non-binding petition rather than a law that would require withdrawal." (Emphasis is mine)
So in other words, over half the Iraqi government that voted wants us to leave YET the Iraqi government is unwilling to pass a law saying so, they can only manage a non-binding petition. Sounds like they have about as much spine as some of the politicians I know ... However, it is a statement so is Bush listening?
I wouldn't bet on it.
The Sadrist Bloc only holds 30 seats in the 275 member Iraqi parliament and doesn't even make up the majority of the votes cast in support of the petition, blowing the whole "only the extremists want us to leave" line right out of the water.
We have also known for quite some time that the majority of the Iraqi people want us gone and feel their lives are worse now than under Saddam Hussein. I don't think anyone needs to remind anyone else that the majority of this country is opposed to the war as well.
The petition is non-binding but is a clear indication that the Iraqi government is going to ask us to leave for real sooner than latter. What will George Bush do when the Iraqi government asks the United States to leave? Will he respect the wishes of a sovereign government?
Again, I wouldn't bet on it.
Friday, May 25, 2007
WE VOTED FOR CHANGE IN IRAQ, NOT THE STATUS QUO
Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority to continue to submit to the demands of George W. Bush and the Republican Party?
Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority in order to protect the Status Quo?
Yesterdays vote was monumental because it proves to the American people which Democrats actually want to end the war and which Democrats say they want to end the war just to get elected.
I congratulate the Democrats who voted against the bill, who will be attacked as "not supporting the troops". Hogwash. Supporting the troops is getting them out of a civil war that has zero connections to September 11 and zero to do with real freedom and Democracy.
To the other Democrats I say "Where is your integrity? Where are your convictions? Do you actually believe cooperating with Bush is going to do you or America any good?
The Democrats just made a monumental mistake, their approval ratings will likely take a dip after backing down to Bush and the Republicans which the majority of the American people have grown to despise.
WE DIDN'T ELECT THEM TO COWAR DOWN TO THE GOP AND BUSH. WE ELECTED THEM TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THE GOP AND BUSH.
Some Democrats will say "Well, if we had voted 'no' we would have been called unpatriotic" and so on and so forth.
The reality is, no matter what way the Democrats would have voted, the Republicans already had ready made ammunition to use against them. It would not matter which way Democrats vote, Republicans have an angle to attack it from :
If Democrats vote "no" they will be accused of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, waving the flag to al-Qaeda, etc.
If Democrats vote "yes" the Republicans can in turn say Democrats did not even try to do what they said they would do, which was end the war. Therefore, Democrats don't do what they say they will do so why vote for them anyway?
So if the other Democrats had any brains or integrity they should have just bit the bullet like the brave Democrats who voted "no" did.
I admit that I originally thought that the Democrats should let Bush have a bill without time-lines.
But after witnessing the spoiled brat Bush dig his heels in and refuse to sign two bills, one which the time-lines could have been waived I realized that it is high time for the Democrats to put an end to this shit and fight back, see how the other side likes it.
But what happened? The Democrats backed down, or I should say the majority of Democrats backed down to the evilness that can only have power if they continue to allow it to have power.
Word of advice to the Democrats : Stop acting like the minority and stop treating the Bush GOP like they are the majority. You have the upper hand - you just have to figure out how to play it to your advantage.
The majority of the American people are thoroughly fed up and disgusted with the Bush Administration and the war, now is not the time to back down.
Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority in order to protect the Status Quo?
Yesterdays vote was monumental because it proves to the American people which Democrats actually want to end the war and which Democrats say they want to end the war just to get elected.
I congratulate the Democrats who voted against the bill, who will be attacked as "not supporting the troops". Hogwash. Supporting the troops is getting them out of a civil war that has zero connections to September 11 and zero to do with real freedom and Democracy.
To the other Democrats I say "Where is your integrity? Where are your convictions? Do you actually believe cooperating with Bush is going to do you or America any good?
The Democrats just made a monumental mistake, their approval ratings will likely take a dip after backing down to Bush and the Republicans which the majority of the American people have grown to despise.
WE DIDN'T ELECT THEM TO COWAR DOWN TO THE GOP AND BUSH. WE ELECTED THEM TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THE GOP AND BUSH.
Some Democrats will say "Well, if we had voted 'no' we would have been called unpatriotic" and so on and so forth.
The reality is, no matter what way the Democrats would have voted, the Republicans already had ready made ammunition to use against them. It would not matter which way Democrats vote, Republicans have an angle to attack it from :
If Democrats vote "no" they will be accused of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, waving the flag to al-Qaeda, etc.
If Democrats vote "yes" the Republicans can in turn say Democrats did not even try to do what they said they would do, which was end the war. Therefore, Democrats don't do what they say they will do so why vote for them anyway?
So if the other Democrats had any brains or integrity they should have just bit the bullet like the brave Democrats who voted "no" did.
I admit that I originally thought that the Democrats should let Bush have a bill without time-lines.
But after witnessing the spoiled brat Bush dig his heels in and refuse to sign two bills, one which the time-lines could have been waived I realized that it is high time for the Democrats to put an end to this shit and fight back, see how the other side likes it.
But what happened? The Democrats backed down, or I should say the majority of Democrats backed down to the evilness that can only have power if they continue to allow it to have power.
Word of advice to the Democrats : Stop acting like the minority and stop treating the Bush GOP like they are the majority. You have the upper hand - you just have to figure out how to play it to your advantage.
The majority of the American people are thoroughly fed up and disgusted with the Bush Administration and the war, now is not the time to back down.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Who's Really Irreverent, Reckless And Unfortunate?
Jimmy Carter may have been a bad president but he tried to be a good man who exhibited fairness and honesty that is unmatched by any other former Presidents who are still living.
Indeed, although I can tolerate Jimmy Carter's simple countryman demeanor I would be likely to vote him to be one of the least successful Democratic Presidents of all time.
But as far as I know it is two Republicans, Nixon and Bush, who are still competing to be the most unsuccessful and corruption driven President's of all time.
With that written I note that recently Jimmy Carter commented that the Bush Administration was the worst Administration in American history.
Well, of course the White House fired back, calling Jimmy Carter "irreverent" and his comments "sad", "reckless" and "unfortunate".
But I challenge the White House or anyone else for that matter to find a more counterproductive and disastrous Administration in American history than the Bush Administration.
I disagree with the opportunistic soothsayers who believe that history will vindicate the Bush Administration and see President Bush as tackling Islamic extremism.
History will be leveled against the Bush Administration in a way that will likely make today's Conservative political commentators look deceitful or deluded.
The vision of history will not be tainted by the fresh emotional memories of 9/11, but based on the cold hard facts.
A President elected under controversy.
9/11, a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if the Bush Administration had heeded the warnings.
The Iraq War, preemptive invasion based on fabricated and fraudulent intelligence.
Guantanamo, a torture haven that symbolizes what is wrong with American Democracy.
Abramoff. Signing statements. Katrina. Scooter Libby. The Attorney General scandal. Illegal spying. Ashcroft in the hospital.
The impact of George W. Bush is much more significant and much more negative than any other President in recent history.
President Bush has gone far beyond the actions of Nixon and the only reason he is still in the White House is because the 109th and 110th Congress refuse to hold him accountable for his actions.
In the future historians will no longer look to Richard Nixon as being the prime example of great rises to power that were destroyed by their own scandal, corruption and overall lawlessness, it will be President George W. Bush.
Maybe Carter has become irreverent and sad in his own respects.
But it is the Bush Administration that is so wracked with failure and corruption that it is they who have become the very definition of reckless and unfortunate.
Indeed, although I can tolerate Jimmy Carter's simple countryman demeanor I would be likely to vote him to be one of the least successful Democratic Presidents of all time.
But as far as I know it is two Republicans, Nixon and Bush, who are still competing to be the most unsuccessful and corruption driven President's of all time.
With that written I note that recently Jimmy Carter commented that the Bush Administration was the worst Administration in American history.
Well, of course the White House fired back, calling Jimmy Carter "irreverent" and his comments "sad", "reckless" and "unfortunate".
But I challenge the White House or anyone else for that matter to find a more counterproductive and disastrous Administration in American history than the Bush Administration.
I disagree with the opportunistic soothsayers who believe that history will vindicate the Bush Administration and see President Bush as tackling Islamic extremism.
History will be leveled against the Bush Administration in a way that will likely make today's Conservative political commentators look deceitful or deluded.
The vision of history will not be tainted by the fresh emotional memories of 9/11, but based on the cold hard facts.
A President elected under controversy.
9/11, a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if the Bush Administration had heeded the warnings.
The Iraq War, preemptive invasion based on fabricated and fraudulent intelligence.
Guantanamo, a torture haven that symbolizes what is wrong with American Democracy.
Abramoff. Signing statements. Katrina. Scooter Libby. The Attorney General scandal. Illegal spying. Ashcroft in the hospital.
The impact of George W. Bush is much more significant and much more negative than any other President in recent history.
President Bush has gone far beyond the actions of Nixon and the only reason he is still in the White House is because the 109th and 110th Congress refuse to hold him accountable for his actions.
In the future historians will no longer look to Richard Nixon as being the prime example of great rises to power that were destroyed by their own scandal, corruption and overall lawlessness, it will be President George W. Bush.
Maybe Carter has become irreverent and sad in his own respects.
But it is the Bush Administration that is so wracked with failure and corruption that it is they who have become the very definition of reckless and unfortunate.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Retired General Says Bush Should Sign Iraq Bill
The AP Reports :
Read Full Story
Go Odem!
The AP Reports :
President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Oct. 1, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom said
Saturday.
"I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him," Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.
Read Full Story
Go Odem!
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Senate OK's War Bill With Timeline, Bush Job Ratings Lowest Ever - 28%
AP Reports : "A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war."
We also know by the recent elections and polls that the American people themselves want to start redeploying from Iraq sooner than later.
Now, we know that this bill will most likely be vetoed by President Bush, but what does this mean about the President?
Why does the President refuse to authorize money for the troops? The President is the man who is holding our troops hostage by refusing to cooperate with the will of the Congress and of the American people.
Is it because his pride is more important to him than the welfare of the troops? By signing the bill does the President feel as if he is acknowledging his mistakes in Iraq and his failure as a commander in chief?
President Bush has an approval rating of 28%, a full 11 points lower than Richard Nixon's 39% approval rating during the height of the Watergate scandal.
But you can't expect that to have an effect on the President. He will continue to be the same bullheaded and arrogant man who got us into this unnecessary mess in Iraq in the first place.
Now we will move into showdown mode with the 28% of loyal Bushies eager to take on the rest of the country to either force us into staying in the Iraq War or scare us into staying in the Iraq War.
This President was very interested in starting this war, but has little interest in ending this war.
AP Reports : "A defiant Democratic-controlled Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the start of troop withdrawals from Iraq by Oct. 1, propelling Congress toward a historic veto showdown with President Bush on the war."
We also know by the recent elections and polls that the American people themselves want to start redeploying from Iraq sooner than later.
Now, we know that this bill will most likely be vetoed by President Bush, but what does this mean about the President?
Why does the President refuse to authorize money for the troops? The President is the man who is holding our troops hostage by refusing to cooperate with the will of the Congress and of the American people.
Is it because his pride is more important to him than the welfare of the troops? By signing the bill does the President feel as if he is acknowledging his mistakes in Iraq and his failure as a commander in chief?
President Bush has an approval rating of 28%, a full 11 points lower than Richard Nixon's 39% approval rating during the height of the Watergate scandal.
But you can't expect that to have an effect on the President. He will continue to be the same bullheaded and arrogant man who got us into this unnecessary mess in Iraq in the first place.
Now we will move into showdown mode with the 28% of loyal Bushies eager to take on the rest of the country to either force us into staying in the Iraq War or scare us into staying in the Iraq War.
This President was very interested in starting this war, but has little interest in ending this war.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
If You Judge My Actions, You Let The Terrorist Win
"If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings," President Bush said in an interview on PBS "we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory." and those who "judge the administration’s plan" have "just given Al Qaeda or any other extremist a significant victories."
If the standard of success is not based on the number of bombings carried out then what the hell else can success be based on?!? Should we base success in Iraq on the number of sunny days opposed to the numbers of civilians dieing in bombings?
Was Bush's brain even in the "on" position, or what?
The statement is such a black is white up is down statement that I think I need to read 1984 to better understand it.
Let me be the first to ask : How could success not be based on the number of bombings carried out? Success has to be measured in levels of violence because violence is the problem!
Wasn't the goal of the "surge" to reduce the violence in the first place? So tell me again how it's working and tell me again how more bombings means more success.
The whole "if you judge my plan you let the terrorist win" line is getting a little old, it's yet another attempt to deflect criticism for a plan that still has not proven itself to be viable.
Source of George W. Bush quote : Think Progress
"If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings," President Bush said in an interview on PBS "we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory." and those who "judge the administration’s plan" have "just given Al Qaeda or any other extremist a significant victories."
If the standard of success is not based on the number of bombings carried out then what the hell else can success be based on?!? Should we base success in Iraq on the number of sunny days opposed to the numbers of civilians dieing in bombings?
Was Bush's brain even in the "on" position, or what?
The statement is such a black is white up is down statement that I think I need to read 1984 to better understand it.
Let me be the first to ask : How could success not be based on the number of bombings carried out? Success has to be measured in levels of violence because violence is the problem!
Wasn't the goal of the "surge" to reduce the violence in the first place? So tell me again how it's working and tell me again how more bombings means more success.
The whole "if you judge my plan you let the terrorist win" line is getting a little old, it's yet another attempt to deflect criticism for a plan that still has not proven itself to be viable.
Source of George W. Bush quote : Think Progress
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
ABC Gets It Wrong On Tillman
Is this ABC article poorly researched or deliberately misleading?
Tillman's Fictional Heroic Death: Did Bush Know?
Did Bush know? Did Bush know?!?
Back in March The Associated Press reported that :
"Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press."
So did Bush know? That's a ridiculous question.
The President had been informed that Pat Tillman's death was possibly friendly fire and decided to take advantage of the story of a real American hero in order to rally support around the war and perhaps to divert attention away from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.
Is this ABC article poorly researched or deliberately misleading?
Tillman's Fictional Heroic Death: Did Bush Know?
Did Bush know? Did Bush know?!?
Back in March The Associated Press reported that :
"Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press."
So did Bush know? That's a ridiculous question.
The President had been informed that Pat Tillman's death was possibly friendly fire and decided to take advantage of the story of a real American hero in order to rally support around the war and perhaps to divert attention away from the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.
What Would Fascism Look Like In America?
As Americans we are born with what we believe is an inherent right to freedom and we mistakenly believe that this freedom can never be restricted or taken away.
As Americans we tend to place an enormous amount of trust into our system of "checks and balances" not realizing how easy it is for that system to be upset and replaced by a doctrine of strict interpretation and a system of unlimited executive power.
When we do suspect a suppression of our freedom [i.e. The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act, aka the "Enabling Act"] we attempt to dismiss these power grabs as being "for our safety" or "best interest" but is this actually true?
Even if the current Administration does not outright abuse it's power (as many will argue they have) there is no guarantee that a future administration will not seize upon the executive powers the Bush Administration has created.
With that written I would like to bring readers attention to a recent article titled "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" in which the author opens with the words "From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all."
The article is very insightful and I believe it is well researched. The author provides numerous examples for the reasoning used in the article and is a must read for any American who is concerned that this great experiment could fail as a result mishandling and abuses of power.
The author identifies 10 steps any regime must take in order to abolish freedoms and descend into a nondemocratic nation. Each step has a thorough explanation of how the Bush Administration has met the "required" guidelines necessary to introduce a fascist state.
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
Read the full article "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" at this link to read the explanations behind how the Bush Administration has met the 10 steps above.
As Americans we are born with what we believe is an inherent right to freedom and we mistakenly believe that this freedom can never be restricted or taken away.
As Americans we tend to place an enormous amount of trust into our system of "checks and balances" not realizing how easy it is for that system to be upset and replaced by a doctrine of strict interpretation and a system of unlimited executive power.
When we do suspect a suppression of our freedom [i.e. The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act, aka the "Enabling Act"] we attempt to dismiss these power grabs as being "for our safety" or "best interest" but is this actually true?
Even if the current Administration does not outright abuse it's power (as many will argue they have) there is no guarantee that a future administration will not seize upon the executive powers the Bush Administration has created.
With that written I would like to bring readers attention to a recent article titled "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" in which the author opens with the words "From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all."
The article is very insightful and I believe it is well researched. The author provides numerous examples for the reasoning used in the article and is a must read for any American who is concerned that this great experiment could fail as a result mishandling and abuses of power.
The author identifies 10 steps any regime must take in order to abolish freedoms and descend into a nondemocratic nation. Each step has a thorough explanation of how the Bush Administration has met the "required" guidelines necessary to introduce a fascist state.
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create a gulag
3. Develop a thug caste
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens' groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. Dissent equals treason
10. Suspend the rule of law
Read the full article "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" at this link to read the explanations behind how the Bush Administration has met the 10 steps above.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Analysis: Rove Flap Gives Dems Ammo
The AP Reports :
The fight over documents has gone to red alert. The White House acknowledges it cannot find four years' worth of e-mails from chief political strategist Karl Rove. The admission has thrust the Democrats' nemesis back into the center of attention and poses a fresh political challenge for President Bush.
Read Full Story
Related :
- Who Is Behind The 4 Years Of "Missing" Karl Rove Emails?
- Impudent Bush : I will oppose any attempts to subpoena
The AP Reports :
The fight over documents has gone to red alert. The White House acknowledges it cannot find four years' worth of e-mails from chief political strategist Karl Rove. The admission has thrust the Democrats' nemesis back into the center of attention and poses a fresh political challenge for President Bush.
Read Full Story
Related :
- Who Is Behind The 4 Years Of "Missing" Karl Rove Emails?
- Impudent Bush : I will oppose any attempts to subpoena
Debunking Bush’s Whoppers On Pork
Think Progress reports:
"President Bush has tried to justify his planned veto of Congress’ Iraq withdrawal legislation by complaining about the non-Iraq related funds included in the bill.
American Progress senior fellow Scott Lilly, who served for years as Clerk and Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee, debunks Bush’s rhetoric:"
Read Full Story
Think Progress reports:
"President Bush has tried to justify his planned veto of Congress’ Iraq withdrawal legislation by complaining about the non-Iraq related funds included in the bill.
American Progress senior fellow Scott Lilly, who served for years as Clerk and Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee, debunks Bush’s rhetoric:"
Read Full Story
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The Bush Administration VS. A Democratic Congress
I am truly amazed at President Bush's absurd game of demanding that Congress submit to his will, as if he really believes this is a monarchy and that the job of Congress is to grant his wishes. Ha!
Perhaps if Bush had employed real constitutional scholars in his administration instead of 150 religious ideologues from Pat Robertson's Regent University he would understand how this thing we call a "Democracy" [not Theocracy] really works.
However I am truly concerned that the President seems to be unaware of the fact there are three branches of government and that he does not exercise absolute authority over the Legislative Branch.
The President "demands" a bill with no strings [i.e. deadlines, timetables] attached.
This means that the President wants unlimited amounts of money to wage a war for an undetermined amount of time, yet he can't even explain to us what constitutes as a victory or how he plans to achieve it.
Congress recently passed a bill that would have allotted President Bush the money necessary to wage his war in Iraq, if troops were to begin withdrawing from Iraq in 2008.
The President and his enablers have wrongfully labeled this move as "political theatre" and have falsely claimed that Congressional Democrats are trying to harm the troops by putting guidelines in the bill.
The Bush Administration has also been proclaiming the date of April 15 as being the day that "the money runs out" but an independent report concludes the Pentagon has enough money to continue operations of the war threw July without significant impact.
What else the President, his loyalist and his enablers are failing to mention is that the President is the one who failed or refused to include necessary money for the war in his annual budget. Because, you know, it's pretty hard to balance the budget with a trillion dollar war on the books.
Now President Bush seems to be holding press conferences for the sheer purpose of having nationally televised temper tantrums.
The President has reduced himself to throwing out partisan slurs to the audience so everyone can see just how outraged [!] he is that Congress is no longer acting as his complicit puppet.
The President's recent behavior is reminiscent to a spoiled child who is used to getting his own way and who doesn't know how to play well with the other kids.
Unfortunately for Bush he does not realize this behavior is extremely unbecoming of a mature President and that history will duly note his stubborn foolhardiness as detrimental to his own cause.
The President's recent behavior indicates he had grown far too comfortable with the old Republican Congress and the age of unaccountability they had enabled him to reign over.
So, where is that bi-partisanship spirit that Bush promised shortly after the Republicans lost the elections?
Oh, that's right, by "bipartisan" what the President really meant was that if the Democratic Congress was as subservient as the Republican Congress then bipartisanship was absolutely possible in one of the most partisan countries in the world! It's all so clear now!
Back to reality ...
Now the President wants to meet with Democrats to discuss the issue, with preconditions of course.
What a surprise! This is the exact same reason the Bush Administrations foreign policy is floundering at an impasse, because of it's unrealistic and unfair preconditions.
The Bush Administration attitude is "I'll only talk to you if you agree to compromise your position beforehand and I will not compromise my position at all."
No wonder they can't get anywhere. The Bush Administration cannot even negotiate with it's opponents in the US, so how would it ever be able to negotiate with opponents outside the US? The answer is they can't and that's part of the reason why the Bush Administration is broken down on so many levels.
The President and Republicans have to realize that they have already been given every opportunity and chance to win or end the war in Iraq while they were in power, but they failed to do either.
Their failure led to their defeat in the 2006 elections, but the Republicans don't even have the dignity to loose with grace and refuse to quietly surrender their position of authority even though they are no longer the majority.
That failure and fall from grace should serve as a lesson to anyone, Democrats included, who wants to wage a war, you need to have a plan for ending the war just as you had a plan for beginning the war and you must set a goal that is realistic and obtainable.
It's time for Republicans to give the other team it's chance at bat because they lost the inning. Whether they like it or not, it's the rules of the game and if they don't follow them history will not forgive them as easily as their enablers have.
I am truly amazed at President Bush's absurd game of demanding that Congress submit to his will, as if he really believes this is a monarchy and that the job of Congress is to grant his wishes. Ha!
Perhaps if Bush had employed real constitutional scholars in his administration instead of 150 religious ideologues from Pat Robertson's Regent University he would understand how this thing we call a "Democracy" [not Theocracy] really works.
However I am truly concerned that the President seems to be unaware of the fact there are three branches of government and that he does not exercise absolute authority over the Legislative Branch.
The President "demands" a bill with no strings [i.e. deadlines, timetables] attached.
This means that the President wants unlimited amounts of money to wage a war for an undetermined amount of time, yet he can't even explain to us what constitutes as a victory or how he plans to achieve it.
Congress recently passed a bill that would have allotted President Bush the money necessary to wage his war in Iraq, if troops were to begin withdrawing from Iraq in 2008.
The President and his enablers have wrongfully labeled this move as "political theatre" and have falsely claimed that Congressional Democrats are trying to harm the troops by putting guidelines in the bill.
The Bush Administration has also been proclaiming the date of April 15 as being the day that "the money runs out" but an independent report concludes the Pentagon has enough money to continue operations of the war threw July without significant impact.
What else the President, his loyalist and his enablers are failing to mention is that the President is the one who failed or refused to include necessary money for the war in his annual budget. Because, you know, it's pretty hard to balance the budget with a trillion dollar war on the books.
Now President Bush seems to be holding press conferences for the sheer purpose of having nationally televised temper tantrums.
The President has reduced himself to throwing out partisan slurs to the audience so everyone can see just how outraged [!] he is that Congress is no longer acting as his complicit puppet.
The President's recent behavior is reminiscent to a spoiled child who is used to getting his own way and who doesn't know how to play well with the other kids.
Unfortunately for Bush he does not realize this behavior is extremely unbecoming of a mature President and that history will duly note his stubborn foolhardiness as detrimental to his own cause.
The President's recent behavior indicates he had grown far too comfortable with the old Republican Congress and the age of unaccountability they had enabled him to reign over.
So, where is that bi-partisanship spirit that Bush promised shortly after the Republicans lost the elections?
Oh, that's right, by "bipartisan" what the President really meant was that if the Democratic Congress was as subservient as the Republican Congress then bipartisanship was absolutely possible in one of the most partisan countries in the world! It's all so clear now!
Back to reality ...
Now the President wants to meet with Democrats to discuss the issue, with preconditions of course.
What a surprise! This is the exact same reason the Bush Administrations foreign policy is floundering at an impasse, because of it's unrealistic and unfair preconditions.
The Bush Administration attitude is "I'll only talk to you if you agree to compromise your position beforehand and I will not compromise my position at all."
No wonder they can't get anywhere. The Bush Administration cannot even negotiate with it's opponents in the US, so how would it ever be able to negotiate with opponents outside the US? The answer is they can't and that's part of the reason why the Bush Administration is broken down on so many levels.
The President and Republicans have to realize that they have already been given every opportunity and chance to win or end the war in Iraq while they were in power, but they failed to do either.
Their failure led to their defeat in the 2006 elections, but the Republicans don't even have the dignity to loose with grace and refuse to quietly surrender their position of authority even though they are no longer the majority.
That failure and fall from grace should serve as a lesson to anyone, Democrats included, who wants to wage a war, you need to have a plan for ending the war just as you had a plan for beginning the war and you must set a goal that is realistic and obtainable.
It's time for Republicans to give the other team it's chance at bat because they lost the inning. Whether they like it or not, it's the rules of the game and if they don't follow them history will not forgive them as easily as their enablers have.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Impudent Bush : I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials
The Bush Administration recently purged eight U.S. attorneys, a move that has caught the attention of the mainstream media and Democrats, many of which feel the firing of several attorneys who had preformed well on the job, was at the very least, suspicious.
The American public is starting to catch on, especially when the Los Angeles Times and others are reporting that
"Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was fired in a direct attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California."
A DoJ official commented that "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam." when it was learned that "Lam notified Washington of search warrants in a Republican corruption case"
It doesn't help either when The Washington Post is reporting that David C. Iglesias, who was one of the other attorneys was fired after he had been "heralded for his expertise" by the Justice Department "which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes."
Which blows to pieces the Bush Administrations original claim that the attorneys were purged because of poor performance.
Iglesias alleged crime? Apparently Republicans were not happy with Iglesias because he failed to prosecute Democrats for voter fraud because “we didn’t have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Iglesias stated on FOX.
“Prosecutors can’t just prosecute on rumor and innuendo. I set up only one of two election fraud task forces in the country. In fact, the Justice Department asked me to speak at an election fraud seminar as a result of those task forces.” Iglesias also says that his firing was a "political hit" and wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times "Why I Was Fired"
The Bush Administration and it's apologist have supplied a steady stream of various excuses regarding the ouster of the attorneys.
First the Administration claimed the attorneys preformed poorly. Then it was within it's right to purge the attorneys, however suspicious and politically motivated the circumstances appeared. Then they pointed fingers at each other "Harriet did it" or "Rove did it" and "Gonzales did it". Finally they pledged accountability, right before they said they had nothing to be accountable for.
So, one would reasonably assume that if the Bush Administration was not participating in lecherous partisanship and trying to steer investigations when it purged the attorneys then it should not have any objections to going under oath and explaining themselves, should they? If the Bush Administration did nothing wrong then they should have nothing to hide and going under oath should not be a problem, right?
Wrong. Someone is hiding something.
The Politico is reporting that “In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.”
That's pretty damning, it reminds me of the 18 1/2-minute gap in the Nixon audio tapes about the Watergate break-in.
Not only that, now the President is refusing to allow implicated members of his Administration to go under oath.
The audacity of this President never ceases to amaze me, he could have cookie crumbs on his lips and he would still try to make a convincing case that he really wasn't eating cookies from the cookie jar.
The President now claims that the Democrats are just being "partisan" because they want answers regarding the attorney purge. Does he really think we are all that ignorant than we buy that nonsense? If he does, then I guess we can see who the ignorant one is.
It was the Bush administration that chose to purge attorneys for what clearly appears to be political reasons, and this is what the President seems to be choosing to ignore when he claims the Democrats want partisanship and impasse rather than truth and justice.
President Bush has a warning for those nefarious Democrats...
“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. The initial response by Democrats unfortunately shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials. And I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse, and I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.”
"A partisan fishing expedition"?!? Ooh, I get it, like the "partisan fishing expedition" the Bush Administration went on when it purged the eight attorneys?
"Honorable public servants"?!? The President is talking about the same Alberto Gonzales that said the US constitution prohibited taking away habeas corpus but that doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to habeas corpus? I'm sure Gonzales is an honorable servant, but he is not a servant to the public, obviously.
Democrats "scoring political points"? That may be so, but that is only because they are doing the right thing, what the public would want them to do, which is investigate. I am referring to the same public that Gonzales is an alleged "honorable servant" of, lest there be any confusion.
It will be "regrettable if they [Democrats] choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas"?!? Someone needs to tell Bush that it is normal procedure, if one refuses to cooperate and refuses to talk that the next step is a subpoena.
"I hope they [Democrats] don't choose confrontation." But essentially it is Bush who chose confrontation when he decided to refuse to allow members of his Administration go under oath and on record to explain the events surrounding the attorney purge.
The Bush Administration recently purged eight U.S. attorneys, a move that has caught the attention of the mainstream media and Democrats, many of which feel the firing of several attorneys who had preformed well on the job, was at the very least, suspicious.
The American public is starting to catch on, especially when the Los Angeles Times and others are reporting that
"Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was fired in a direct attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California."
A DoJ official commented that "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam." when it was learned that "Lam notified Washington of search warrants in a Republican corruption case"
It doesn't help either when The Washington Post is reporting that David C. Iglesias, who was one of the other attorneys was fired after he had been "heralded for his expertise" by the Justice Department "which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes."
Which blows to pieces the Bush Administrations original claim that the attorneys were purged because of poor performance.
Iglesias alleged crime? Apparently Republicans were not happy with Iglesias because he failed to prosecute Democrats for voter fraud because “we didn’t have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Iglesias stated on FOX.
“Prosecutors can’t just prosecute on rumor and innuendo. I set up only one of two election fraud task forces in the country. In fact, the Justice Department asked me to speak at an election fraud seminar as a result of those task forces.” Iglesias also says that his firing was a "political hit" and wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times "Why I Was Fired"
The Bush Administration and it's apologist have supplied a steady stream of various excuses regarding the ouster of the attorneys.
First the Administration claimed the attorneys preformed poorly. Then it was within it's right to purge the attorneys, however suspicious and politically motivated the circumstances appeared. Then they pointed fingers at each other "Harriet did it" or "Rove did it" and "Gonzales did it". Finally they pledged accountability, right before they said they had nothing to be accountable for.
So, one would reasonably assume that if the Bush Administration was not participating in lecherous partisanship and trying to steer investigations when it purged the attorneys then it should not have any objections to going under oath and explaining themselves, should they? If the Bush Administration did nothing wrong then they should have nothing to hide and going under oath should not be a problem, right?
Wrong. Someone is hiding something.
The Politico is reporting that “In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.”
That's pretty damning, it reminds me of the 18 1/2-minute gap in the Nixon audio tapes about the Watergate break-in.
Not only that, now the President is refusing to allow implicated members of his Administration to go under oath.
The audacity of this President never ceases to amaze me, he could have cookie crumbs on his lips and he would still try to make a convincing case that he really wasn't eating cookies from the cookie jar.
The President now claims that the Democrats are just being "partisan" because they want answers regarding the attorney purge. Does he really think we are all that ignorant than we buy that nonsense? If he does, then I guess we can see who the ignorant one is.
It was the Bush administration that chose to purge attorneys for what clearly appears to be political reasons, and this is what the President seems to be choosing to ignore when he claims the Democrats want partisanship and impasse rather than truth and justice.
President Bush has a warning for those nefarious Democrats...
“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. The initial response by Democrats unfortunately shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials. And I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse, and I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.”
"A partisan fishing expedition"?!? Ooh, I get it, like the "partisan fishing expedition" the Bush Administration went on when it purged the eight attorneys?
"Honorable public servants"?!? The President is talking about the same Alberto Gonzales that said the US constitution prohibited taking away habeas corpus but that doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to habeas corpus? I'm sure Gonzales is an honorable servant, but he is not a servant to the public, obviously.
Democrats "scoring political points"? That may be so, but that is only because they are doing the right thing, what the public would want them to do, which is investigate. I am referring to the same public that Gonzales is an alleged "honorable servant" of, lest there be any confusion.
It will be "regrettable if they [Democrats] choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas"?!? Someone needs to tell Bush that it is normal procedure, if one refuses to cooperate and refuses to talk that the next step is a subpoena.
"I hope they [Democrats] don't choose confrontation." But essentially it is Bush who chose confrontation when he decided to refuse to allow members of his Administration go under oath and on record to explain the events surrounding the attorney purge.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
