Saturday, January 10, 2009

George W. Bush surrendered to Osama bin Laden

   Original Article

by barry s Sat Jan 10, 2009

Surely, it is getting tiresome to the see the mantra repeated that George W. Bush kept us safe from terrorists after 9/11.  While it is not surprising to see such remakrs from  pro-Taliban publications such as the Wall Street Journal (editorially praising the rise of the Taliban back in 1995), loyal Americans must be apalled.

The simple fact is that George W. Bush surrendered to Osama bin Laden's key demand: withdrawal of US troops from Saudia Arabia. This was, I believe, the first American surrender to a foreign military diktat since Correigdor.

In May 2003, the man who so bravely served in the Texas Air National Guard (while cowards like John Kerry hid in the jungles of Vietnam) aceeded to the key demand of the man responsible for killing thousands of Americans.

Surrender thy name is George W. Bush

This was not the first act of cowardice and appeasment by the favorite of such obese, impotent draft dodgers as Rush Limbaugh. The AWOL drunk in October 2001 used our tax dollars and planes to airlift hundreds (if not thousands) of terrorists out of harms way.  The "Airlift of Evil" or the "Al Qaeda Dunkirk" is rarely mentioned by the likes of Man Coulter. However, loyal Americans who consider Max Cleland a greater war hero than a serial draft dodger such as Dick Cheney should be horrified at this treachery.

Al Qaeda Dunkirk

In the 1980s Ronald Wilson Reagan sent Ollie North to grovel before the Iranians and beg for the release of American hostages.

In this decade, George W. Bush groveled before the killer of Americans so he could strut aboard an aircraft carrier and give a woody to traitors like G. Gordon Liddy.

The surrender at Corregidor was avenged in a few short years.  Alas, that was an America of different age where the so-called leading financial publication didn't editorially support America's enemies.

In history we learned about great Americans who bravely faced the enemy,

"Don't Give Up the Ship"

"I have not yet begun to fight"


Now our politcal class honors a 'man' who didn't get all of us killed by surrendering to terrorists.


Political Satire for The Weekend

   Of course, Bush got most of the jokes aimed at himself.

David Letterman:

"Well, ladies and gentlemen, today is an historic day down in Washington because five living presidents had lunch together. George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all at the White House, all having lunch. What a day. And while this was going on, John McCain was at Applebee's blowing on his soup."

"On this date in 2001 ... George W. Bush was certified as the winner of the 2000 presidential election. How about that? That turned out pretty well, didn't it?"


Jay Leno:

"Actually, there was one awkward moment, when President Bush asked all the other former presidents, he said, 'Don't you hate it when your approval rating goes below 15%?'"

"And you know, I think he's trying to struggle to come up with some accomplishments. They're trying to make him look good, you know. Like today, he took credit for ending the drought in New Orleans."

"Well, let's see what's going on. Unemployment is up again, especially if you're the new senator from Illinois trying to go to work."

"And Congress says this week they are looking into this Bernard Madoff scandal. So The guy that made $50 billion disappear is being investigated by the people who made $750 billion disappear."


Conan O'Brien:

"On Inauguration Day, Barack Obama is going to be riding in a brand new presidential limousine made by General Motors. Because, folks, nothing says 'hope for the future' like General Motors. ... The good news is that at least they sold one car, apparently."

"The Washington Post reports today that Barack Obama wants to select Sanjay Gupta to be surgeon general. Yeah, Obama said the CNN doctor must be pretty good, because he's kept Larry King alive all these years."

"Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama talked about the recession. He described the economy as 'very sick.' That's what he said. Yeah. Historians say it was a childish way to describe a complex problem, but still the smartest thing they've heard a president say in eight years."

"Earlier today, Barack Obama's daughters started at their new school in Washington, DC. Yeah, their teachers are really impressed and said that both girls are already reading well above President Bush level."

"George Bush Sr. recently said he'd like his son Jeb to be president, but that right now is a bad time for him to run. When asked what a good time would be, Bush Sr. said, 'Eight years ago.'"

The Real Wages Of Autoworkers...

   and it is not anything near $70 an hour. This info is looking at only the hourly wage that a worker earns, not including healthcare, ect.

   Note that these are the averages across the board.


  More info, including hours worked and state employment figures can be found at the U.S. Department of Labor. there's quite a bit here on the auto industry.

42 State Salmonella Outbreak

    Not sure of you are aware of this, I wasn't, but 400 people in 42 states have been struck by an outbreak of Salmonella. AND, once again, the culprit would appear to be peanut butter. That is what state officials  in Minnesota are saying at this time.

On Friday, the Minnesota Department of Health said preliminary laboratory testing found salmonella bacteria in a 5-pound container of King Nut brand creamy peanut butter. The tests have not linked it to the type of salmonella in the national outbreak, but additional results are expected early next week.

   Those state officials are not yet identifying the company that makes the peanut butter, but it apparently is not sold to the general public. So. who gets the food item?

  ...but is distributed in Minnesota to long-term care facilities, hospitals, schools, universities, restaurants, delis, cafeterias and bakeries.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday that 399 cases have been confirmed nationally, with about one in five of victims hospitalized. They have not confirmed any deaths associated with the outbreak

   You can get much more information on this outbreak by going to the CDC.

Friday, January 09, 2009

Gov. Rod Blagojevich...

   has been impeached by the Illinois House by an overwhelming vote on Friday.  The impeachment now sets Blagojevich up for a Senate trial to decide on whether he should be tossed out of office for abuse of power.

Impeachment required just 60 votes. The final result was 114-1.

Legislators accused the second-term Democratic governor of letting down the people of Illinois by letting ego and ambition drive his decisions.

"It's our duty to clean up the mess and stop the freak show that's become Illinois government," said Rep. Jack D. Franks, a Democrat.

  I will now say that Blagojevich's days are numbered in politics.

Republicans Fear A Successful Economic Stimulus Package...

   and their fear is rightly based. The last thing that Republicans want to see is Barack Obama and the Democrats succeed in getting the United States economy back on track. That would mean the end of the Republicans in the White House for some time. that would also include, if you and I are lucky, the House and the Senate.

    So, what do the Republicans do? Why, they resort to one of their tried and true tactics. Fear-mongering. You've head some of it already. We cannot afford $1 trillion or so to bring the economy back in line. Or one of their favorites, the new New Deal will not work. According to the GOP, President Roosevelt’s policies actually lengthened the Great Depression, not helped it.

   Here's why Republicans are in fear of a Democratic Party success.

However, from the standpoint of Republicans, the more ominous lesson of the New Deal policies is that it left the Democrats firmly in power for more than 20 years. The Republicans did not regain the White House until 1952, twenty years after President Roosevelt was first elected.
Imagine how terrifying the prospect of 20 years of Democratic presidencies must be to the current generation of Republican leaders. This would mean that they would not retake the White House until 2028, just twenty years before the Social Security trust fund is first projected to face a short fall.

For this reason, Republicans can be expected to adopt a strategy aimed at delaying and diluting the stimulus. We can expect their leaders to find every conceivable argument to slow down the spending that the economy desperately needs right now to prevent further job loss. While some of their concerns may be legitimate – we should all support efforts to restrain wasteful pork barrel spending and rein in corruption – these concerns should not be the basis for obstructing stimulus. The public should be careful to distinguish legitimate concerns from simple delaying tactics.
In short, we should realize that the main concern of some of those opposed to stimulus may not be that it will fail, but rather that it will succeed. Most of us don’t have the same set of concerns.

   Not having Republicans in power for 2 or 3 decades would be a bad thing? I think not.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Latest Gallup Pole:Majority of Americans Favor $775 Billion Economic Stimulus

      The Gallup Poll  was done January 6-7 and the question was:

  Do you favor or oppose Congress passing a new $775 billion economic stimulus program as soon as possible after Barack Obama takes office?

Favor ( 53% ), Oppose ( 36% ), No Opinion ( 11% )

   Republicans are, of course, against the plan.  34% favor it and 56% are opposed to the plan. Among Democrats:  67% favor, 19% oppose. How about the Independents? 54% favor, and 37% oppose.

Most likely, this tepid response from Republicans represents both a typical conservative reluctance to increase government spending by such a large amount, as well as a negative reaction to the fact that the plan is being pushed by the Democratic president-elect.

Still, given that 11% of Americans interviewed don't have an opinion on the issue of the stimulus package, the results show that the measure "passes" by a 17-point margin (53% to 36%) when those in favor are compared to those opposed.

  Let the games begin!

Starbucks Facing More Union Busting Charges

   Back on December 27,2008, I reported that Starbucks was found guilty of extensive violations of federal labor law in its bid to counter the IWW Starbucks Workers Union.

  Well, now it seems that the firm is in hot water once again. Some corporations never learn, I guess.


(Minneapolis) On the heels of a landmark decision finding Starbucks guilty of almost 30 labor violations in New York City, the IWW Starbucks Workers Union has slapped the embattled coffee giant with nearly 30 additional counts of illegal union-busting in Minneapolis/St. Paul. The union alleges that Starbucks broke federal law repeatedly by interrogating workers about union sympathies, instructing supervisors to spy on the union, and disciplining workers for participating in the union. Union baristas plan to illustrate their disgust by delivering an oversized six-month "Performance Review" of Starbucks to regional management at an 11am press conference at the Franklin and Nicollet store on Thursday.
Union barista Erik Forman said, "After the guilty verdict in New York City and settlements in the Twin Cities and Grand Rapids, we had hoped that Starbucks would have learned its lesson, but unfortunately, the company has chosen to continue the pattern of illegal union-busting they have established across the US. We will not stand for this, Starbucks must respect our right to organize."

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

George Bush's Greatest Hits...

   and there are oh so many, are there not?

Partially compiled by NBC News:       Source

Then: 4.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001)
Now: 6.7% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2008)

Then: 10,587 (close of Friday, Jan. 19, 2001)
Now: 8769 (close of Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009)

Then: 50% (1/01 NBC/WSJ poll)
Now: 27% (12/19 CNN Opinion Research poll)

Then: 49% (1/01 NBC/WSJ poll)
Now: 21% (12/08 NBC/WSJ poll)

Then: 48% (1/01 NBC/WSJ poll)
Now: 21% (12/08 NBC/WSJ poll)

Then: 45% (1/01 NBC/WSJ poll)
Now: 26% (12/08 NBC/WSJ poll)

Then: 115.7 (Conference Board, January 2001)
Now: 38.0, which is an all-time low (Conference Board, December 2008)

Then: 6.4 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 7.6 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent numbers available)

Then: 39.8 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 45.7 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent available)

Then: +236.2 billion (2000, Congressional Budget Office)
Now: -$1.2 trillion (projected figure for 2009, Congressional Budget Office)

Employee Free Choice on the Early Agenda?

by Trapper John    Wed Jan 07, 2009

Perhaps the biggest question surrounding the Employee Free Choice Act has been when we can expect Congress to act on the bill. In recent weeks, there has been a current of reporting, particularly in right-leaning media, suggesting that Free Choice was being moved to the legislative back burner. But there are fresh indications that Congress and the Obama Administration (God, it feels good to type that) recognize that we can't have genuine middle-class stimulus without the wage-buoying effects of collective bargaining -- the very effects that the Employee Free Choice Act is designed to create.

Matt Cooper writes today:

There is no question that Obama favors the bill; he was one of its many co-sponsors in the Senate. But now he has to make a choice. If Obama wants the law, he can get it passed, but he’ll have to fight for it—and spend valuable political capital early in his term—when he has other priorities, like pushing health-care reform, clean-energy efforts, and an economic-stimulus measure. In 2007, the E.F.C.A. was passed by the House but was filibustered in the Senate and did not pass. This time, though Democrats enjoy a larger majority in the Senate, some in the caucus—especially new senators from conservative states, like Mark Begich of Alaska—might not stand up against a Republican filibuster.

Transition officials were divided on how aggressively and quickly Obama should move on the bill, but sources close to the campaign tell me he will push ahead. I’ve often been a critic of unions, but on this issue, I support them and think Obama is right to move forward.

(Emphasis mine.) Matt Cooper is certainly a Beltway Insider, so this is encouraging -- both the news that Obama is pushing for early action on the Act, and that a villager like Cooper supports its passage. More concrete evidence that the Act is going to receive swift consideration comes from yesterday's TAPPED:

A Democratic aide on the hill passes along the first ten bills that Majority Leader Harry Reid will put in the hopper this evening to kick off the new session of Congress, as sent by leadership to various Senate Legislative Directors. Unfortunately for us, the bills are placeholders that only contain vague statements of purpose, not specific legislative language, so we can only get a sense of the basic priorities of the Senate Democrats. Here's the countdown:

   * S.1 -- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 . . . The stimulus bill; no surprises here.

   * S.2 -- Middle Class Opportunity Act of 2009. Sound familiar? This is a retread of a bill sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer in the last Congress that has a variety of tax reform goals; the additional descriptions in this bill include hints at union support ("ensuring workers can exercise their rights to freely choose to form a union without employer interference") and perhaps another go at the Ledbetter law ("removing barriers to fair pay for all workers").

(Emphasis added.) That sure sounds like Free Choice -- in fact, it could hardly mean anything else.  And why shouldn't an act that allows people to vindicate their right to bargain collectively be part of the stimulus wave? As Harold Meyerson writes in today's WaPo:

The one great period of broadly shared prosperity in U.S. history remains the three decades following World War II, which, anything but coincidentally, is the one period in which America had high levels of unionization. The business lobby is throwing big money into ads opposing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would make it easier for workers to join unions, but one concern it has neglected to address is how the United States can again become a land of broad-based affluence with private-sector unionization at its current 7 percent level. There is no historic precedent for mass prosperity absent mass collective bargaining. The model cannot be constructed.

Happily, Barack Obama seems to have learned the right lessons from America's economic history. He knows that the stimulus package needs to be big enough to compensate for the collapse of bank lending. He knows that unemployment insurance and food stamps cannot be allowed to run out. He supports the EFCA as a way to boost Americans' incomes.

It can't come soon enough.              Original Article

The Root Of America's Ills? The Corporate Tax Code...

   which was basically created by the Republicans so that their friends in high places could keep more of their money and fuck the American worker at the same time. Democrats ( Bill Clinton ) had a hand in this also.

   Economy In Crisis

To renew America's economy, the U.S. must stop rewarding overseas manufacturing and investment. Currently our tax code is set up to reward American corporations that invest abroad and penalize those corporations that invest at home. When American corporations move overseas they are only taxed on the money that is brought back into the U.S. So American companies simply do not bring money back into the U.S. Instead they keep their overseas profits overseas and that money which could have been funneled into the American economy is instead absorbed by foreign economies. U.S. companies then parlay their earnings into building more factories and infrastructures in the countries they are inhabiting like China and India.

Due to our current tax codes it is more profitable for American companies to manufacture their goods elsewhere and ship them to the United States. The U.S. needs to adapt tax codes that provide tax breaks to those companies that keep American companies on U.S. soil and stop providing tax breaks to companies that move offshore.

  I do not think that Obama, or anyone else, will touch this part of our tax code.

The next administration needs to provide incentives for Americans to keep their companies in the U.S. Our “free trade” policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization make it impossible for the United States to be competitive. NAFTA has led to the U.S. having an explosive trade deficit of $190 billion with Canada and Mexico. The trade deficit equals job loss. If we had a trade surplus it would mean we were producing instead of buying, there would be more people employed to do the production. America has become a service economy, leaving manufacturing to the rest of the world, which is truly the heart of America's distress. Until America restores its manufacturing base, we will have no means to recover.

  A  tax-code goodies for you.

The incentives for US companies to invest abroad are myriad and complex. They can borrow money in the United States, and deduct the interest from their taxes. They can take that money and earn income on it abroad, and perhaps never pay taxes on that income. The expenses of foreign taxes are deductible against US taxes, so in the end, United States taxpayers pay the companies taxes in places like China.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Jeb Bush Says No To 2010 Senate Run In Florida...

   and thank God for that one! All that the fine citizens of Florida need is another Bush in any type of governmental office. Of course, Jeb was their Governor at one time and he is still popular down in Florida, so it is possible that the the other spawn of Bush 1 could have won the seat.


Former Gov. Jeb Bush says he won't run for the U.S. Senate in 2010 to replace the retiring Mel Martinez.

Bush made the announcement Tuesday, saying "now is not the right time to return to elected office."

The president's younger brother served as governor of Florida from 1999-2007 and remains a popular figure in the state. His announcement clears the field for several other potential Republican candidates who had said they wouldn't challenge him.

   So who will the Florida Republican Party field for the seat? That is a good question and one that probably will be answered pretty soon. With Jeb out of the way, this should be another pick up for the Democrats unless they screw things up. That is not an uncommon feat for the Democrats, as we all know.

   Maybe Jeb Bush is by-passing the Senate for a straight run for the Presidency? Would be no surprise since his daddy has stated that he would like to see Jeb as the President.

Asked in a broadcast interview about Jeb Bush's consideration of the Senate seat, Bush 41 said: "I'd like to see him run. I'd like to see him be president someday."

When asked if he was serious, he said: "Or maybe senator. Whatever. Yes, I would. I mean, right now is probably a bad time, because we've had enough Bushes in there. But no, I would. And I think he's as qualified and able as anyone I know on the political scene. Now, you've got to discount that. He's my son."

   The broadcast interview was on "Fox News Sunday". If it had been on anyone else's network, Papa Bush would have been laughed out of the studio!

More Americans Getting Chronically Ill...

   and this would be nothing new since we have gotten physically lazy and we don't eat right. I also happen to think that many of our chronic illnesses are coming by way of all of the additives which we have in our foods, among other things.

  (Reuters) — More Americans are burdened by chronic illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure, often having more than three at a time, and this has helped fuel a big rise in out-of-pocket medical expenses, a study released on Tuesday showed.

The rise in Americans with multiple chronic illnesses comes as obesity and sedentary lifestyles have grown more common. Obesity contributes to many chronic ailments including diabetes. U.S. health officials say the rate of new cases of diabetes soared by about 90 percent in the past decade.

  Look at the jump in Americans with three or more chronic illnesses. This isn't a pretty picture.

    It jumped from 13 percent in 1996 to 22 percent in 2005 for ages 45 to 64, to 45 percent for ages 65 to 79, and rose from 38 percent to 54 percent for those 80 and older. Among all ages, it went from 7 percent in 1996 to 13 percent in 2005.

Chronic disease accounts for three-fourths of the more than $2 trillion spent on health care yearly in the United States.

The chronic disease increase was seen not just among the very oldest age groups but also in middle age and early old age -- regardless of sex, race, ethnicity and income level.

Monday, January 05, 2009

Barack Obama: "I expect to be able to sign a bill shortly after taking office. By the end of January or the first of February."

   Let the games begin! Let's see if President -elect Obama and the Democrats can deliver on a fiscal plan by the end of Obama's time frame. With Republican obstructionist such as Mitch McConnell against any help what-so-ever for the middle class and the poor in America, this will be a tough feat for Obama so push through.

   Obama's proposal  to stimulate the economy includes tax cuts of up to $300 billion — including $500 for most individuals and $1,000 for couples if one spouse is employed — as well as more than $100 billion for businesses, an Obama transition official said. The total value of the tax cuts would be significantly higher than had been signaled earlier.

New federal spending, also aimed at boosting the moribund economy, could push the overall package to the range of $800 billion or so. Some $77 billion would be used to extend unemployment benefits and to subsidize health care for people who have lost their jobs.

The rest would go toward job-creation projects such as roads and bridges and toward long-term goals such as alternative energy programs.

  Republican House  Minority Leader John Boehner is worried about the cost of this economic recovery package.

"This is not a package that's ever going to be paid for by the current generation," Boehner said. "It's being paid for by our kids and grandkids."

Republican lawmakers want more details, Boehner said, but he replied "yes" when asked if he expected a stimulus plan to be enacted within six weeks.

  Hey John=boy!  Where was all of that concern about our kids and grandkids paying for our over indulgence's when you and the Republicans where busy shafting all of us and running up the bills?

    It would be nice if both Senate Majority Leader and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would get over all of that bi-partisan bullshit and create a real bill to be shoved down the Republican's throats.

    The Democrats control both the House and the Senate, yet they still have to ask the Republicans for permission to do their jobs. WTF?

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Republicans/Pundits Are Still Pushing For More Reagan " Voodoo Economics "

   This group of people have to be " stuck on stupid " to even remotely suggest that more tax cuts for the upper earners/corporations will help to fix our economy.

   But this is exactly what CNBC's Lawrence Kudlow is suggesting.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is absolutely right to warn against Obama’s gigantic stimulus-spending package. McConnell says it “will be the largest spending bill in the history of our country at a time when our national debt is already the largest in history.” As a result, he says the bill “will require tough scrutiny and oversight.”
According to McConnell, scrutiny should include this simple test: “Will the yet unwritten, reportedly trillion-dollar spending bill really create jobs and grow the economy — or will it simply create more government spending, more bureaucrats, and deeper deficits?”
The Republican leader is drawing a clear line in the sand. Okay, good. But the GOP has got to do more. It must start talking about tax cuts to grow the economy. And it must get back to the supply-side by talking about lower marginal tax rates on individuals, businesses, and investors.

  Now, I'm all for tough scrutiny and oversight when it comes to spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to fix anything, but, where was McConnell's concern when 700 billion was apportioned to Wall Street with no oversight involved? Where was Mitch's concern while he and Bush ran this country over a cliff, putting our national debt at its highest levels ever?

   Tax cuts to grow our economy? We've had those tax cuts in place for some 28 years and the only economy that they have grown was the economy of the already wealthy, while fucking everyone else.

We don’t need bailout nation. Nor do we need the government picking winners and losers in a massive, Keynesian, new-New Deal spending extravaganza. And it’s not Obama’s middle-class tax cut that’s going to get us out of this economic jam. At best his vision is incomplete. But at worst his aversion to successful earners and investors is a real obstacle to full economic recovery..

   I suspect that the Republican/communist Party has found a way yet to keep their hands in the till, hence all of the bullshit ideas and the whining.

If we had an economy without rich people we wouldn’t have much of an economy. That’s why lower tax rates to reward the economic activists — the most prominent capitalists — are so essential.

In fact, the GOP has a great opportunity to challenge Obama’s Keynesian pump-priming by insisting there be a major tax-cut component in any new fiscal package. Republicans shouldn’t merely push for somewhat less government spending. They have to make a bold case that tax rates matter for economic growth and job creation. They must insist that any recovery package includes this key element. Shift the debate. Say clearly that a reenergized economy cannot occur without lower marginal tax rates.

  I'm surprised that Kudlow isn't pushing for even more deregulation to help fix or economy.

The whole debate in Washington is heavily skewed toward government spending on infrastructure. It’s all spending and virtually no tax cuts. For a more balanced and effective recovery policy, the GOP has to bolster its argument for spending discipline with a loud case for tax cuts.

  Have they not learned that more government spending coupled with the Bush tax cuts do not work?

Those " Soft on crime " Republicans, Starring George Bush

   Here it is folks. Another look at why George Bush and the rest of the Bush Crime Syndicate should be prosecuted for war crimes and a host of others.

   But first! See that little button to the right? Sign the damned thing already!!


Soft On Crime: Deterrence, The Death Penalty, and George Bush

by: buhdydharma

Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 14:51:19 PST

( - promoted by buhdydharma )
For all of my fifty years on the planet the Republicans have been the party of crime and punishment. Republicans were tough on crime, Democrats were Soft on Crime. From Nixon onward, this has been a major line of attack against all Democrats. Democrats coddled criminals like Willie Horton, for instance, while Republicans would have locked him up for life....or put him to death.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the administration of Republican President Richard Nixon continued the full-on attack against crime begun by Johnson -- but with an emphasis on law and order. Nixon's policy, however, came under attack, largely from liberals, who saw Nixon's law and order campaign as attempts to put down civil rights activists and antiwar demonstrators. President Nixon, on the other hand, used the rising public sentiment that criminals were out of control and city streets unsafe to assail members of the Democrat Party as being "soft on crime."

Though many Liberals support it too, the Republicans have always been the party of the death penalty as well. By far the most used argument being that facing the 'punishment' of death will deter people from killing others. The death penalty deters murder. Stiff sentences deter crime. Three Strike laws deter career criminals. It is not inaccurate to say that 'Soft on Crime' and deterrence through harsh punishment and penalty was one of the Right Wings great themes of the late 20th Century.

Republicans are tough on crime. Because being tough on crime....prevents future crimes. If you do not harshly punish crime, it just leads to more and greater crimes.

Which brings us to George Bush....and the various and sundry crimes that he and the officials of his administration have committed. And make no mistake, crimes HAVE been committed. From outting an entire CIA network, to the 269 War Crimes that have been documented to the outright confessions of Bush on Domestic Spying and Cheney on authorizing the torture program and the resulting homicides, there can be no doubt left that there is plenty of cause for, at the very least, a thorough investigation. In fact you see very little if any questions as to whether Bush and company have committed crimes. The debate now is over what to do about them.

Virtually none of the comments I have seen opposing the idea of appointing a Special Prosecutor to even investigate the crimes of the last eight years have centered on guilt or ignorance. Every piece of punditry, comment and column has centered not on the criminality and the crimes themselves....but on the politics of the situation. Not the crimes...not the victims. And certainly not what it means to be an American in an America that tortures. They do not want to think about that....they do not want to know. And so they dimish it to a "political matter" and refer to the false meme of "criminalizing politics" ....rather than as the politicization of a War Crime.

Some say it is revenge, not justice, that is the motivation for a Special Prosecutor. Is prosecuting crime, any crime, and punishing crime, any crime....just revenge? What about merely investigating whether crimes have been committed or not, is that revenge too? Or is it being....tough on crime?