Be INFORMED

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Cynthia McKinney And Her Articles Of Impeachment Against Bush

Cynthia McKinney introduced Articles of Impeachment  against President George W. Bush on December 8,2006 as she was on her way out the door and into retirement.

    Here is the text of her letter:

By Cynthia McKinney, December 8, 2006
Mr. Speaker:
I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout my tenure, I’ve always tried to speak the truth. It’s that commitment that brings me here today.

We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.

No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable—what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?

The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.

Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the American people supported this Administration’s actions because they believed in our President. They believed he was acting in good faith. They believed that American laws and American values would be respected. That in the weightiness of everything being considered, two values were rock solid—trust and truth.

From mushroom clouds to African yellow cake to aluminum tubes, the American people and this Congress were not presented the facts, but rather were presented a string of untruths, to justify the invasion of Iraq.
President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Rice, portrayed to the Congress and to the American people that Iraq represented an imminent threat, culminating with President Bush’s claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Having used false fear to buy consent—the President then took our country to war.

This has grave consequences for the health of our democracy, for our standing with our allies, and most of all, for the lives of our men and women in the military and their families—who have been asked to make sacrifices—including the ultimate sacrifice—to keep us safe.

Just as we expect our leaders to be truthful, we expect them to abide by the law and respect our courts and judges. Here again, the President failed the American people.

When President Bush signed an executive order authorizing unlawful spying on American citizens, he circumvented the courts, the law, and he violated the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Once the program was revealed, he then tried to hide the scope of his offense from the American people by making contradictory, untrue statements.

President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people.

With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us. To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake.

Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship.

I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.

This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.

Mr. Speaker:

Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush—along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice—should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res. _ in the House of Representatives.

To my fellow Americans, as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands—to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone.

Thank you.

                                            * * * *

    Perhaps Rep. McKinney should have done this before she lost in her election this past November. As she is no longer in the House, her letter holds no real sway, yet.

   From After Downing Street, here is  Rep. McKinney's case for impeachment.

On December 27, 2006
REMARKS ON H. RES. 1106 -- (Extensions of Remarks - December 27, 2006)
SPEECH OF HON. CYNTHIA McKINNEY OF GEORGIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2006
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to enter the following into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

ADDENDA TO A RESOLUTION INTRODUCING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND OTHER OFFICIALS: FURTHER ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT THAT WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION AS POSSIBLE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT AS IDENTIFIED BY MANY SCHOLARS, LAWYERS AND CONCERNED CITIZENS

I. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED

(1) Self-Exemption from Laws upon Signing.

(2) Suspension of Basic Legal Proceedings.

(3) Promoting Illegal War.

(4) Promoting Torture.

(5) Promoting Kidnappings and Renditions for Torture.

(6) Use of Illegal Weapons.

II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

(1) Obstructing Inquiry and Detection.

(2) Replacing the Veto with Signing Statements.

III. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION

(1) Suspension of Due Process.

(2) Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.

(3) Non-Cooperation with Congress.

(4) Establishment of an Unconstitutional, Parallel Legal System.

I. FAILURE TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, the President has a duty to ``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' George Walker Bush, during his tenure as President of the United States, has repeatedly violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law, has contravened the laws governing agencies of the executive and the purposes of these agencies, and in conducting the foreign affairs of the United States of America has proceeded in flagrant violation of the core body of international laws, to which the United States of America is bound by treaty.

With respect to domestic law, this conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) Self-Exemption from Laws upon Signing. Since assuming the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush has attached signing statements to more than one hundred bills before signing them, within which he has made over eight hundred challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress, a figure that exceeds the total number of such challenges by all previous presidents combined, and has used this practice to exempt himself, as President of the United States, from enforcing or from being held accountable to provisions of the said laws.

(2) Suspension of Basic Legal Proceedings. In dereliction of his duty to uphold the law, George Walker Bush has systematically violated basic legal and criminal procedures that require any search, seizure, arrest or detention to be non-discriminatory, based on probable cause and sufficient evidence to warrant a stated charge, that provide access to legal counsel, arraignment and the option of bail within a period of days, and that require reasonable and non-coercive interrogations, rights of silence, as well as privy communications with counsel and with others, pending an outcome of either release or a speedy and public trial, conducted in accord with federal and state statutes on criminal and court process, the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, applicable international law, or appeals to higher courts that apply. By ordering mass arrests and indefinite detentions based on indiscriminate profiling of specific populations, George Walker Bush has also systematically violated laws prohibiting harmful extraditions, secret arrest and custody, and denial of defined and legal periods of detention or incarceration.

With respect to international law, this conduct has included one or more of the following:

(3) Promoting Illegal War. Abraham Lincoln wrote in 1848, ``Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you will allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you will allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, `I see no probability of the British invading us,' but he will say to you, `Be silent; I see it, if you don't.' '' In direct violation of Articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, a treaty ratified by the United States Senate in 1945 and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution, George Walker Bush has advanced and executed a policy based on so-called pre-emptive or preventive war, whereby the United States of America claims the right to unilaterally assault, invade or occupy other nations without first engaging in collective measures with other member states of the United Nations or first gaining the prior assent of the United Nations Security Council, and whereas George Walker Bush did apply this doctrine by launching a war of aggression against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of United States military personnel, without United Nations Security Council authorization, whereby said George Walker Bush, as President of the United States, by advancing a doctrine of preventive war and initiating and continuing the invasion and occupation of Iraq by United States forces did commit and was guilty of precisely such abuses as Abraham Lincoln foresaw.

(4) Promoting Torture. In direct violation of, and as part of a pattern of consistent attempts through executive orders, legal memoranda and alterations to regulations such as the Army Field Manual, to undermine the Federal Torture Statute [18 USC Sec. 2340A]; the Third Geneva Convention banning torture and abuse of Prisoners of War, as well as non-combatants and unarmed (``enemy'') combatants held in detention; and Articles 4 and 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which expressly prohibit not merely torture but physical abuse of any kind being inflicted upon ``persons protected by the Convention,'' defined as ``those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals,'' this language being written as a precaution against and in anticipation of alternate definitions of torture, these declarations and treaties being ratified by the United States Senate and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution, George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, has condoned and presided over a vast expansion of the use of torture against unarmed combatants and civilian non-combatants, both foreign and domestic, detained or kidnapped by forces or agents of the United States, leading to extreme pain, psychological trauma, disfigurement and in some cases, death. By signing a legal memorandum on February 7, 2002 (declassified on June 17, 2004), in which he wrote that ``The war on terror ushers in a new paradigm,'' one which requires ``new thinking in the law of war,'' and decreeing that, contrary to all past military practices of an official nature, the United States would no longer be constrained by the laws of war presently in force in its treatment of those captured during its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and subsequently detained, a legal opinion which the Supreme Court struck down on June 29, 2006 (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) by its ruling that the Third Geneva Convention did apply to detainees in the custody of the United States, George Walker Bush, President of the United States, by his concerted efforts to undermine any legal limits on the use of torture by United States personnel, did commit and was guilty of high crimes against the United States of America.

(5) Promoting Kidnappings and Renditions for Illegal Torture. In direct violation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, Article 3, which states that ``No State party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,'' and the Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 31 and 45, the said conventions having been ratified by the United States Senate and therefore the supreme law of the land as according to Article VI of the Constitution, George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, did sign, on September 17, 2001, an executive order (still classified) granting unilateral authority to the Central Intelligence Agency to render detainees to countries where torture is routinely practiced for the express purpose of interrogation, thereby subverting an established program of rendering detainees to justice by bringing them to the United States or to a country in which they were wanted to face criminal charges in a court of law. And whereas the Central Intelligence Agency did thereafter carry out this order not only by rendering hundreds of detainees to countries where they were subsequently tortured, but also in many cases first illegally kidnapping the detainees, and did subsequently establish secret detention centers, operating outside any known laws, for the express purpose of circumventing all legal protections to which the said detainees were entitled under international law.

(6) Use of illegal Weapons. In violation of multiple and diverse tenets of international law, George Walker Bush, as President of the United States, has authorized or sanctioned the use of illegal weapons, including but not limited to the following:

(a) land mines, deployed by United States forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, which indiscriminately injure and kill combatants and innocent civilians alike, and which are therefore illegal under Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, which states that it is a war crime to launch ``an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians,'' and which are banned under the Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which forbids the deployment of any ``mine, booby-trap or other device which is designed or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering;''

(b) cluster bombs, including those which upon explosion project lethal plastic fragments not detectable by X-ray, deployed by United States forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, which leave unexploded ordnance known to maim and kill innocent civilians and which are therefore also illegal under Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, as well as under Protocol I of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which bans the use of ``the use of any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays,'' and under Annexed Articles 22 and 23 of the Hague Convention IV, which states that ``It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;''

(c) depleted uranium munitions, being radiological weapons used extensively by United States Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol 1, Articles 35.2, 35.3, 48 and 55.1, which prohibit the use of ``projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering'' or weapons ``which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment'' or damage to ``the health or survival of the population,'' and which have been classified as ``weapons of mass destruction'' by the United Nations Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities;

(d) napalm, a weapon widely used in Vietnam, an upgraded kerosene-based version of which has more recently been used by United States forces in Iraq, being dubbed the ``Mark 77 firebomb'', in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b, which expressly prohibits ``Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties'' of the device when used as a weapon;

(e) white phosphorous, which Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable confirmed on November 15, 2005 was deployed ``as an incendiary weapon'' in urban areas of Fallujah, Iraq, where there were high concentrations of civilians, during Operation Phantom Fury (November 2004-January 2005), making the said deployment of white phosphorous a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;

(f) BLU-82B/C-130 ``daisy cutter'' bombs, being massive incendiary bombs deployed by United States forces in Afghanistan, and which upon detonation create a firestorm the size of five football fields or greater, and a vacuum pressure capable of collapsing internal organs, in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Articles 35, 48, 51 and 55, which expressly forbid such indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and the environment;

In all of this, George Walker Bush's conduct has followed a pattern of not merely failing to uphold the laws he took an oath to defend as President of the United States, but of flouting such laws with the impunity of a dictator. Indeed, on numerous occasions, George Walker Bush has openly expressed his desire to become a dictator, as he did while President-Elect on December 18, 2000, when he stated: ``If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier ..... just as long as I'm the dictator .....''

This arrogant posture has also been typical in foreign affairs where he has made concerted efforts to undermine international law and international treaties, including his termination of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without the assent of the legislative branch, his decision to rescind the authorizing signature of the United States from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, his willingness to offend the 152 nations who are signatories to the Ottawa Treaty by refusing to sign and continuing the use of land mines by the world's most powerful military rather than asserting America's moral leadership, his willingness to offend the 93 nations who are parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III by refusing to sign and continuing the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets, his defiance of the United Nations Security Council by launching a unilateral war of aggression against the government and the people of Iraq, and in general showing little remorse over or regard for the tens of thousands of innocent civilians and American service personnel who have perished as a direct or indirect result of his foreign policy.

II. ABUSE OF OFFICE AND OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

In taking his oath of office, the President swore to ``faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.'' George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States, has consistently demonstrated disregard for that oath by obstructing and hindering the work of investigative bodies, by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office, by failing to ensure a swift response to a natural disaster where lives were in the balance, and by failing to appoint competent officials or to hold those whom he appoints or those to whom the government grants contracts accountable in cases of dereliction of duty, abuse and outright fraud.

(1) Obstructing Inquiry and Detection. At the Virginia Convention on ratification of the Constitution, George Mason argued that the President might usurp his powers to ``pardon crimes which were advised by himself'' or prior to indictment or conviction ``to stop inquiry and prevent detection,'' to which James Madison responded that if he did so, ``the House of Representatives would impeach him.'' In an effort to conceal the high crimes and misdemeanors here mentioned, George Walker Bush, in his conduct as President of the United States of America, has presided over the most secretive Presidency in this nation's history, and an administration which actively interferes with the free flow of information by manipulating the press and frustrating its ability to provide an oversight function by being actively hostile to questioning from the press, by placing imposters posing as agents of the press at press conferences, by threatening reporters with prosecution under espionage laws, and by purchasing television segments and placing newspaper stories falsely posing as unbiased reporting in an effort to promote Administration policies. The conduct of this Administration follows a pattern of seeking to hush ``whistleblowers'' who come forward to share potentially incriminating information with the public, rather than investigating the alleged crime. This Administration has also refused to provide key information to Congressional investigations, and to prosecutors investigating the outing of a Central Intelligence Agency Officer in an apparent act of retribution, or to actively pursue the identity of the guilty informant, despite the President's public pledge to fire the guilty party once discovered, and even after one Administration official was charged in the case with obstruction of justice. George Walker Bush has abused his office by consistently invoking executive privilege in order to shelter his office and his appointees from both Congressional oversight and judicial accountability.

(2) Replacing the Veto with Signing Statements. By declining to veto even one bill, and instead attaching signing statements challenging hundreds of laws passed by Congress, thereby seeking to exempt the executive branch from accountability to said laws,

George Walker Bush has subverted the very nature of his office by seeking to add to his office extraordinary and unconstitutional powers and privileges.

III. FAILURE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION

At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued that ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' intentionally included ``[a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution.'' In taking his oath of office, the President swore to ``preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States'' to the best of his ability, which includes the duty not to abuse his powers or transgress their limits, the duty not to violate the rights of citizens, including those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to act in derogation of powers vested elsewhere by the Constitution, George Walker Bush, in his conduct while President of the United States has not only failed in this regard, but has demonstrated a pattern of disregard or contempt for the Constitution itself, as he clearly demonstrated in November 2005 when he shouted at a group of Republican lawmakers, ``Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a [expletive] piece of paper!''

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) Suspension of Due Process. In direct dereliction of his duty to defend the Constitution, George Walker Bush has systematically deprived citizens and residents of the United States of their constitutional rights to due process under the law, by sanctioning or ordering, at the discretion of the executive, their detention without charge and without trial, a fundamental right to which they are entitled under habeus corpus and the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights; by denying the right to a fair and speedy trial and blocking access to counsel for the defense, both of which are rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights; by denying those so illegally detained the opportunity to appear before a judicial officer that they might challenge the legal grounds of their detention; by sanctioning and ordering mass arrests and detentions which inevitably involve all of the above named abuses; and by refusing to disclose the identities and locations of those detained.

(2) Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. In violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, George Walker Bush did clandestinely direct the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security to conduct electronic surveillance, including a new form of spying using sophisticated software to track internet usage, of citizens of the United States on U.S. soil without seeking to obtain, before or after, a judicial warrant, including spying on groups and individuals who had committed no illegal acts, involving penetration, entrapment and provocation, thereby reviving practices previously discontinued after they were deemed prejudicial to justice by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, chaired by Senator Frank Church.

(3) Non-Cooperation with Congress. In derogation of the legislative functions of the Congress, granted under Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, and the implied power to see that the laws made by Congress are faithfully executed, George Walker Bush, in his conduct as President of the United States, has engaged in a consistent pattern of obstructing and frustrating Congressional investigations. George Walker Bush opposed and delayed the formation of a commission to investigate the attacks of September 11, 2001, and once it was formed, refused to turn over key documents and information in compliance with subpoenas, and also sought and gained exemption from testifying under oath for all but one top administration official. (Condoleezza Rice). He refused requests from the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina and requests from the 9/11 Commission to turn over key documents and information. Under his administration the Justice Department made it official policy to refuse cooperation with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, to refuse the release of records or testimony, central to informing government decisions, to re-classify previously unclassified records and to withhold even non-secret documents. These actions severely restrict the ability of the people and their representatives in Congress seeking to hold government officials accountable for their decisions to have access to a record of how official decisions were reached, or even to know what the official polices are. Wherefore, George Walker Bush, by obstructing the work of the Congress, did commit and was guilty of high misdemeanors against the United States of America.

(4) Establishment of an Unconstitutional, Parallel Legal System. Edmund Randolph stated at the Constitutional Convention that: ``The Executive will have great opportunitys [sic] of abusing his power, particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands.''

In direct dereliction of his duty to defend the Constitution, George Walker Bush has, during his tenure as President of the United States of America, sanctioned the establishment of a parallel legal system operating outside the scope of the Constitution under which the participants would not be bound by due process or basic rights of the accused to speedy and fair trials, access to counsel, or even the right to know the charges and evidence against them, by replacing these measures with a new form of law involving: secret and indefinite detention without trial or hearing; renditions to other countries outside the reach of law and justice; the use of military tribunals to replace civilian courts; detentions outside normal writ of habeus rules and without access to effective counsel, unmonitored conversations or judicial attention and review; exclusion of the accused from portions of the trial and from access to evidence used against them; acceptance of hearsay, including testimony gained under torture or duress; and a lack of independent judiciary or appeal of conviction. An unknown number of individuals, many of whose names the Administration has refused to release, have already been held in undisclosed locations or secret prisons, and mass arrests have been accompanied by deportations. By failing to conduct timely status review hearings, as required under Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, the Bush Administration has made it effectively impossible to determine the status and the rights of those held in secret detention. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that the denial of rights under the Geneva Accords is illegal [Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld], new proposals from the Bush Administration expand the definition of those who can be detained as ``enemy combatants'' as no longer limited to aliens abroad, and assert that neither the Uniform Code of Military Justice alone, nor federal criminal procedures will guide the functions of these new courts. George Walker Bush, as President of the United States of America, in defiance the Supreme Court, and in keeping with a pattern of conduct seeking to exempt himself from its rulings and from constitutional law, did commit violations of domestic law and was guilty of war crimes.

In all of this, George Walker Bush has sought to arrogate unprecedented power to his executive office and to undermine the system of check and balances established by the Founders, by using war and national emergency as the basis for his claims in support of a unitary presidency.

                                               * * * *

    I do believe that the lady has made all of the arguments that need to be made.

   Now if we can just get the Democrats off their asses and get them to do what they know should be done. IMPEACH this asshole!! Then put his ass in prison where this punk belongs!

 

Technorati tags: , ,

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Bush's Letter To The Democratic Leaders

   I could not pass this up!

   This following bit of humor comes from the fine folks at WhiteHouse.org  Click the link and read the letter from Bush to the  new Democratic leaders.

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Israel Influencing A U.S. War With Iran

   Is Israel trying to push the Democrats into war with Iran?

    This article from AntiWar.com seems to suggest so. It makes for some very enlightening reading. The article is here!

 

Technorati tags: ,

The Records That Bushco Now Hides From Us

    Once upon a time in a free country that was called the United Sates, it's citizens could access almost all of the information that it wanted about government officials,government statistics and various other info.

   Once upon a time the citizens of this once free society could even view the presidential records after a period of time. We citizens could even view the White house visitor records if we wanted to .

   But then the stupid, blind, ignorant population of America elected (?)  a dictator in 2000 and in 2004. This evil dictator would have no morals what so ever but he would pass himself off as a Christian to lock in the Christian vote and ideas. What a cruel, conniving little twit this man was/is!

   To keep his loyal subjects from discovering how morally corrupt and crooked he and his posse where/are, he banished many records and reports  to the land of 'disappear', never to be seen or read from his public.

    In March of 2006, 'the decider' did away with the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).

This may seem like a rather wonky concern, but it’s important. The SIPP data help researchers identify which programs best assist low-income families. As the 400 scholars noted, SIPP “also tracks health insurance coverage, and provides more in-depth information than other government survey on work-family issues, such as maternity leave, child care, and child support.”   The Carpetbagger Report

    The Idiot in Chief also did away with the Annual Terror Report after the White House spin did not match the actual numbers.

   Next up was the Bureau of Labor Statistics dropping  their annual report on factory closings (mass layoffs).

The White House's Office of Management and Budget decided to discontinue its annual "Budget Information for States" , the primary federal document reporting how much states get under each federal program. In fiscal 2003, the report ran 422 pages. In 2002, it was 415 pages.

    One more here. Charter School Data was severely curtailed after the data showed that charter schools weren't going so good as the Bush regime would have you think.

   Of course, most of the reason's for this was because it would save money. Since when has the Bush Crime Family concerned itself with saving any money?

   We all know the latest round of hide and seek from these bastards!

That would be closing off the White House Visitor Records.

   So much to hide! This is the dictator that many of you voted for in 2004!  Who's sorry now?

 

Technorati tags: ,

 

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Dems Invoke Pay as You Go

    In the second day with the House now under Democratic control, they took on new rules aimed at the deficit spending and more accountability when it comes to pork spending.

   With the new rules in affect, the House is required to pay for any proposal to cut taxes or increase spending on the most expensive federal programs by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. WaPo for more!

The vote: 280  said 'yes',152  said 'no' 

48 Republicans voted yes on the rules

Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition,"It's important that they passed a pay-go rule because they're setting a standard for themselves. This is a way of saying 'There's a new sheriff in town' and 'We're going to be fiscally responsible. But, now, they're going to have to figure out how to live up to that standard. And that's going to be pretty tough."    The Story

 

Technorati tags: ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Republicans Feeling Left Out

Thursday, January 04, 2007

WASHINGTON —  In an historic vote lawmakers on Thursday formally named California Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the first female speaker of the House, making her next in the presidential line of succession after the vice president.

House Republicans claimed they were being excluded from the legislative process while in the Senate the GOP leader offered pledges of cooperation from the newly-minted minority.

                                      * * * *

    Even when I am sleeping at night I can hear the Republicans crying about not being treated equally! They are excluded from the processes, yack, yack, yack!

John Boehner:"In 1994 when we took control of the House, 12 years ago, it wasn't that — we wanted to treat Democrats the way we had asked to be treated. And, frankly, that's what we did. What we really expect out of the Democrats is for them to treat us as they would like to have been treated"    More from FoxNews

    Can you just feel the love? I am wondering what planet or drug Mr. Boehner has been on for the past six years! I do not see how this man could make such a statement and keep a straight face at the same time.

    For my own part though, I think that the Democrats should treat the GOP just exactly in the same manner as they were treated for the past 12.

    The voters put the Democrats in the majority to get things done and to slow down that screw-up in the White House and if the Republicans can not handle the fact that they have no real say-so in matters, resign and then go the hell home!

     Nobody cares about your infantile crying and moaning! Leave the adults alone and let the real Americans do their job! The GOP had their chance and couldn't do anything because they were to damned busy lining their own pockets. Now, Get the fuck out of the way!

 

Technorati tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Friday, January 05, 2007

Dems Send A Letter To Mr. Bush

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California have just sent a letter to Mr. Bush.

    Here is the Text of the letter courtesy of the New York Times

January 5, 2007

President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:

“I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It’s easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.

Sincerely,

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

                                                    * * * *

   I wonder if Mr. Bush will take the time to have someone read it to him?

Technorati tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Bush Slaps Down Two Generals

    Our dictator in waiting is canning a couple of generals who do not agree with his idea of sending more of our troops into Iraq.

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -  January 4,2006
   President Bush is shaking up the team responsible for carrying out his military and diplomatic strategies in
Iraq as he prepares to outline a new direction for the war that has raged for nearly four years.
   Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday. A revamping of the administration's national security team was already under way.  

    More here from the Associated Press

                                     * * * *

    This piece of trash never ceases to amaze me! What do the citizens of this country have to do to get the message into his thick scull that we do not want more of our people going to Iraq?

    Does this moron not realize that he and the rest of the GOP lost back in November because of Iraq? I guess  the fact that the majority of the American people do not want more of us in Iraq does not mean anything to Mr. Bush. The citizens of this country apparently do not matter when it comes to their opinions or anything else for that matter!

IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH  this asshole and then PROSECUTE him for the crimes against this country and others which he has committed!

 

Technorati tags: , , ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Thursday, January 04, 2007

The Surge to Nowhere: Traveling the Planet Neocon Road to Baghdad (Again)

     I put his following article up because it generally shares my feeling about the Asshole in Chief up in the White House.

    It conveys the message in a much nicer way than I can, so please read it.

                                              * * * *  

Original Story                                                         

The Surge to Nowhere: Traveling the Planet Neocon Road to Baghdad (Again)
By Robert Dreyfuss     TomDispatch.com

Thursday 04 January 2007

Like some neocon Wizard of Oz, in building expectations for the 2007 version of his "Strategy for Victory" in Iraq, President Bush is promising far more than he can deliver. It is now nearly two months since he fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, installing Robert Gates in his place, and the White House revealed that a full-scale review of America's failed policy in Iraq was underway. Last week, having spent months -- if, in fact, the New York Times is correct that the review began late in the summer -- consulting with generals, politicians, State Department and CIA bureaucrats, and Pentagon planners, Bush emerged from yet another powwow to tell waiting reporters: "We've got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan."

As John Lennon sang in Revolution: "We'd all love to see the plan."

Unfortunately for Bush, most of the American public may have already checked out. By and large, Americans have given up on the war in Iraq. The November election, largely a referendum on the war, was a repudiation of the entire effort, and the vote itself was a marker along a continuing path of rapidly declining approval ratings both for President Bush personally and for his handling of the war. It's entirely possible that when Bush does present us with "the plan" next week, few will be listening. Until he makes it clear that he has returned from Planet Neocon by announcing concrete steps to end the war in Iraq, it's unlikely that American voters will tune in. As of January 1, every American could find at least 3,000 reasons not to believe that President Bush has suddenly found a way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

What's astonishing about the debate over Iraq is that the President -- or anyone else, for that matter, including the media -- is paying the slightest attention to the neoconservative strategists who got us into this mess in the first place. Having been egregiously wrong about every single Iraqi thing for five consecutive years, by all rights the neocons ought to be consigned to some dusty basement exhibit hall in the American Museum of Natural History, where, like so many triceratops, their reassembled bones would stand mutely by to send a chill of fear through touring schoolchildren. Indeed, the neocons are the dodos of Washington, simply too dumb to know when they are extinct.

Yet here is Tom Donnelly, an American Enterprise Institute neocon, a co-chairman of the Project for a New American Century, telling a reporter sagely that the surge is in. "I think the debate is really coming down to: Surge large. Surge small. Surge short. Surge longer. I think the smart money would say that the range of options is fairly narrow." (Donnelly, of course, forgot: Surge out.) His colleague, Frederick Kagan of AEI, the chief architect of the Surge Theory for Iraq, has made it clear that the only kind of surge that would work is a big, fat one.

Nearly pornographic in his fondling of the surge, Kagan, another of the neocon crew of armchair strategists and militarists, makes it clear that size does matter. "Of all the ‘surge' options out there, short ones are the most dangerous," he wrote in the Washington Post last week, adding lasciviously, "The size of the surge matters as much as the length. … The only ‘surge' option that makes sense is both long and large."

Ooh -- that is, indeed, a manly surge. For Kagan, a man-sized surge must involve at least 30,000 more troops funneled into the killing grounds of Baghdad and al-Anbar Province for at least 18 months.

President Bush, perhaps dizzy from the oedipal frenzy created by the emergence of Daddy's best friend James Baker and his Iraq Study Group, seems all too willing to prove his manhood by the size of the surge. According to a stunning front-page piece in the Times last Tuesday, Bush has all but dismissed the advice of his generals, including Centcom Commander John Abizaid, and George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, because they are "more fixated on withdrawal than victory." At a recent Pentagon session, according to General James T. Conway, the commandant of the U.S. Marines, Bush told the assembled brass: "What I want to hear from you now is how we are going to win, not how we are going to leave." As a result, Abizaid and Casey are, it appears, getting the same hurry-up-and-retire treatment that swept away other generals who questioned the wisdom on Iraq transmitted from Planet Neocon.

That's scary, if it means that Bush -- presumably on the advice of the Neocon-in-Chief, Vice President Dick Cheney -- has decided to launch a major push, Kagan-style, for victory in Iraq. Not that such an escalation has a chance of working, but there's no question that, in addition to bankrupting the United States, breaking the army and the Marines, and unleashing all-out political warfare at home, it would kill perhaps tens of thousands more Iraqis.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Bush could get away with it politically. Not only is the public dead-set against escalating the war, but there are hints that Congress might not stand for it, and the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces is opposed.

Over the past few days, a swarm of Republican senators has come out against the surge, including at least three Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 in states that make them vulnerable: Gordon Smith of Oregon, whose remarkable speech calling the war "criminal" went far beyond the normal bland rhetoric of discourse in the U.S. capital, along with John Sununu of New Hampshire and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. In addition, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, less vulnerable but still facing voters in 2008, has questioned the surge idea. And a host of Republican moderates -- Chuck Hagel (NE), Dick Lugar (IN), Susan Collins (ME) -- have lambasted it. (Hagel told Robert Novak: "It's Alice in Wonderland. I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.") Even Sam Brownback, one of the Senate godfathers of the neocon-backed Iraqi National Congress, has expressed skepticism, saying: "We can't impose a military solution." According to Novak, only 12 of the 49 Republican senators are now willing to back Sen. John McCain's blood-curdling cries for sending in more troops.

Meanwhile, says Novak, the Democrats would not only criticize the idea of a surge but, led by Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, might use their crucial power over the purse. "Biden," writes Novak, "will lead the rest of the Democrats not only to oppose a surge but to block it." Reports the Financial Times of London: "Democrats have hinted that they could use their control over the budget process to make life difficult for the Bush administration if it chooses to step up the military presence in Iraq." A Kagan-style surge would require a vast new commitment of funds, and with their ability to scrutinize, put conditions on, and even strike out entire line items in the military budget and the Pentagon's supplemental requests, the Democrats could find ways to stall or halt the "surge," if not the war itself.

Indeed, if President Bush opts to Kaganize the war, he will throw down the gauntlet to the Democrats. Unwilling until now to say that they would even consider blocking appropriations for the Iraq War, the Democrats would have little choice but to up the ante if Bush flouts the electoral mandate in such a full-frontal manner. By escalating the war in the face of near-universal opposition from the public, the military, and the political class, the president would force the Democrats to escalate their own -- until now fairly mild-mannered -- opposition to the war.

However, it's possible -- just possible -- that what the President is planning to announce will be something a bit more Machiavellian than the straightforwardly manly thrust Kagan wants. Perhaps, just perhaps, he will order an increase of something like 20,000 American troops, but put a tight time limit on this surge -- say, four months. Perhaps he will announce that he is giving Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki that much time to square the circle in Iraq: crack down on militias and death squads, purge the army and police, develop a plan to fight the Sunni insurgency, find a formula to deal with the Kurds and the explosive, oil-rich city of Kirkuk which they claim as their own, un-de-Baathify Iraq, and create a workable formula for sharing the fracturing country's oil wealth.

By surging those 20,000 troops into a hopeless military nowhere-land, Bush will say that he is giving Maliki room to accomplish all that -- knowing full well that none of it can, in fact, be accomplished by the weak, sectarian, Shiite-run regime inside Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. So, sometime in the late spring, the United States could begin to un-surge its troops and start the sort of orderly, phased withdrawal that Jim Baker and the Carl Levin Democrats have called for.

Levin suggested as much as 2006 ended. "A surge which is not part of an overall program of troop reduction that begins in the next four to six months would be a mistake," said Levin, who will chair the Armed Services Committee. "Even if the president is going to propose to temporarily add troops, he should make that conditional on the Iraqis reaching a political settlement that effectively ends the sectarian violence."

That may be too much to ask for a Christian-crusader President, still lodged inside a bubble universe and determined to crush all evil-doers. And it may be too clever by half for an administration that has been as utterly inept as this one.

At the same time, it may also be too much to expect that the Democrats will really go to the mat to fight Bush if, Kagan-style, he orders a surge that is "long and large." Maybe they will merely posture and fulminate and threaten to… well, hold hearings.

If so, it will be the Iraqis who end the war. It will be the Iraqis who eventually kill enough Americans to break the U.S. political will, and it will be the Iraqis who sweep away the ruins of the Maliki government to replace it with an anti-American, anti-U.S.- occupation government in Iraq. That is basically how the war in Vietnam ended, and it wasn't pretty.

Robert Dreyfuss is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. He covers national security for Rolling Stone and writes frequently for The American Prospect, Mother Jones, and the Nation. He is also a regular contributor to TomPaine.com, the Huffington Post, Tomdispatch, and other sites, and writes the blog, The Dreyfuss Report, at his website.

 

Technorati tags: , ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Cheney Loses His Office

   Poor VP Cheney has been booted from his office at the Capitol by Rep. Charles Rangel!

"Ways and Means Committee" is already painted on the door so I guess that VP Cheney will have to find another hangout. My, how my heart bleeds for the scum!

   I wonder if Rep. Rangel by any chance was armed with a warrant to search before tossing? Wishful thinking, I know.

    From the New York Post :

    By GEOFF EARLE and IAN BISHOP Post Correspondents

January 4, 2007

Sources said Cheney's and his staff's belongings were removed over the holidays.

The new digs give Rangel some of the choicest and most politically central real estate in all of Washington - as well as a measure of sweet revenge.

Rangel moved at lightning speed to boot the man he once told The Post is a "son of a bitch."   More Here

 

Technorati tags: ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

The Empire Now Reads Our Mail

   That wanna-be somebody who will never be anybody has been up to no good once again!

    The New York Daily News has reported that Bush has given himself more new powers to open the citizen's of the United States mail without a warrant.

                                                * * * *

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

    More Here

                                            * * * *

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said,"Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant."

   It is worth noting that Mr.Waxman co-sponsored this bill.

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Harriet Miers Resigns

Harriet Miers, White house counsel, has submitted her resignation effective January 31.

   Tony Snow, when he was asked why she was leaving said,"Basically, she has been here six years. As somebody said earlier today, 'She put 12 years of service into six years.'"

   Snow also said that she was a scrupulous lawyer who aggressively defended the Constitution.   

    More From DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

                                              * * * *

    So she aggressively defended the constitution? Which version of the constitution was that, the U.S. version or the Bushco version?

    I would go so far as to say that she more than likely helped Bush find a way around the constitution that is not quite right (legal).

   Good riddance to this woman! Now it remains to be soon who her successor will be. I'll wager that whoever it is will have even less morals!

Technorati tags: ,

A Few Democrats Go Along With Troop Increase

    You have heard over the past week or so that a few Democrats would maybe go along with a short term troop increase in Iraq.

    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but did we not elect you people to help to get us out of Iraq? The American people did not elect the Democrats to help the Bush Crime Family kill even more of our citizens and to line their pockets at our troops expense!

   You few Democrats that would go along with the new Bush plan had best keep in mind that if you support such an idea, that we will make your short time in office miserable!

   The almost only sure-fire way to get our troops back from Iraq is to reducing military financing. Everyone claims that this will harm our troops in Iraq but this is not the case. All it does is stop our elected (?)Idiot in Chief from sending more people to Iraq and less caskets home from Iraq. Without the money to spend, Bush would have to pull out or either find another way around the cap.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IND.) on the increase in troops said,“might lead to a temporary abatement to the violence, but will only postpone the ultimate day of reckoning.

This problem is not going to be solved in Washington by the president of the United States; it can only be resolved by Iraqis.”  NYTimes

 

Technorati tags: ,

Ads by AdGenta.com

'Minority Bill Of Rights' for The GOP?

   You know that the Repugnicans are scared shitless when they now want to enact the 'minority bill of rights' that they would not even look at when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) want it enacted back in 2004.

   In fact, back in 2004,  Dennis Hastert (R-ILL.) would not even respond to the letter from Pelosi. Hastert was then the GOP speaker of the House.

   This is just another one of the GOP scams to pretty much tie up legislation and hold the Democrats in check until the 2008 elections are here.

    Hey GOP! You are the minority now, get over it. Fairness? Since when has that been a word in the GOP vocabulary? The GOP has shut out not only the Democrats when it came to any kind of debate or opinion on bills and what have you, but they also have shut out the American people as well! They still continue to do so.

    Suggestion. Take your little cry-baby asses back into the corners that you crawled out of and shut the hell up!! Don't make us put you in 'timeout'.

   Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats should not even consider going for this piece of garbage at this point in time or any other time.

 

Technorati tags: ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

A 'Surge' To Save Bush's Legacy

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted January 3, 2007.

But Bush declared that U.S. forces would "stay in Iraq to get the job done," adding "this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever."

During a classified briefing at the Pentagon in December, Bush then reportedly made clear to the brass that he had no interest in finding a way out of Iraq. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine commandant, described Bush’s message as: "What I want to hear from you is how we’re going to win, not how we're going to leave."      More Here

                                        * * * *

    So, Mr. Bush will approve the addition of 17,000 to 20,000 more troops to Iraq if the press is correct in its reporting!

    Has this shit for brains and his co-conspirators gotten so power hungry and greedy that they would risk even more of our people getting killed in Iraq just so that they can line their pockets with even more cash? It seems as if the answer is, YES!

    Bush could care less about winning this so called war of his. He is out now to save his legacy. To make himself look as if he knew what he was doing all along. This idiot could not run one of his own businesses without having to be bailed out by daddy and friends so what made him think that he could win a war that isn't even a right war in the first place?

    This is the Bush dynasty at work! Throughout the years, war has been very profitable for the Bushco Crime Family. In fact, it goes all of the way back to financing Hitler!

   The citizens of the United States cannot allow this 'menace to society' to continue to send our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and friends and neighbors into Iraq just for this presidents ego and for his family's profit!

   Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party have to knock off the bi- partisan bullshit and deal with this punk as he is, a criminal. Investigate his sorry ass and then impeach his sorry ass! Then, put his sorry ass on trial in the World Court and let him suffer the consequences of his actions!

 

Technorati tags: , , ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Bush Wants Democrats to Help Balance The Budget?

   If this so-called president has an I.Q. over 1, then my name is Jesus!

    According to the A.P. , Bush wants the Democrats to help him balance the budget within 5 years and to cut pork projects from future spending bills!

House Budget committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C.:

"We welcome the president's newfound commitment to a balanced budget, but his comments make us wary. They suggest that his budget will still embody the policies that led to the largest deficits in history."    More

    You may need to refresh my memory just a little bit. Was it and/or is it not Mr.Bush and his band of thieves who raided the treasury and gave us the biggest deficit in history in the first place?

    Was it not the $7 billion in oil drilling royalties that this administration has thus far refused to collect from the oil companies that helped our deficit soar higher and higher?

    I will not even mention that over priced, less than five  months, war that we are stuck in over in Iraq! Nor the tax breaks that the corporate friends of this administration are handed on a silver platter!

    I won't even mention companies such as Halliburton that gouge the American taxpayer out of $49 for a case of Coke or Pepsi!

    The list goes on and on with this immoral, corrupt administration.

    Pork projects? Look no further than the pigs who sit up in the White House! then look at the rest of the little GOP piglets who have tried their best to bankrupt this country because of their greed!

    If you want a balanced budget Mr. Bush, resign! Then and only then, will the budget have a chance to be balanced!

Technorati tags: , ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Iraq War Lie Detector Test

By Dean Baker
Truthout Columnist

Tuesday 02 January 2007

There has been no shortage of deceptions surrounding the prosecution of the Iraq War, beginning with the original justification - Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, supporters of the war continue to use deception to advance their agenda. The latest lie is that Congress doesn't have the ability to end the war, because if they cut off funding they would jeopardize the safety of our troops.

I will explain in a moment why this is completely untrue, but I first want to call attention to the "hide behind the troops" mode of argument. From the beginning, supporters of the war have regularly insisted that they support our troops, implying that opponents of President Bush's agenda want to see our troops harmed.

The argument over the conduct of the war is with President Bush, his advisors and his supporters in Congress. It is not an argument against the troops. It is an incredible act of cowardice for anyone to try to justify pursuing the war as somehow based on supporting our troops. It has absolutely nothing to do with supporting our troops. The troops are doing what President Bush ordered them to do - they are not the ones who decided to go to war in Iraq. If supporters of the war felt that they had an honest case, they would not feel the need to hide behind the troops to push their agenda.

The latest version of the "hide behind the troops" mode of argument is to claim that Congress lacks the ability to end the war. The story goes that President Bush is commander in chief of the armed forces, and that if he does not want to end the war, then Congress cannot force his hand. According to this argument, if Congress were to use its control of the budget to restrict funding, it would jeopardize our troops stationed in Iraq by denying them the supplies and ammunition needed to defend themselves.

This argument is garbage. Congress has the authority to require the top military commanders in Iraq to produce a plan for safely withdrawing our troops from the country. It can also require these commanders to give their best estimate of the cost of this plan. It can then appropriate this money, specifying that the funds be used for the withdrawal plan designed by the military.

President Bush would then have the funding required to safely withdraw our troops from Iraq. He would not have the money to continue his war. If he chose to defy Congress by misusing the funds (and thereby jeopardizing the lives of our troops), then the law provides a simple and obvious remedy: Impeachment. While it is possible that Bush would choose to violate the law, jeopardizing both the lives of our troops and his presidency, it is reasonable to assume that he would comply with the law and not exceed his authority as president.

Reasonable arguments could be made that this sort of decisive measure from Congress is not desirable. It could be argued that allowing President Bush more discretion in the conduct of the war would be the better route. But it is important to understand that Congress does have the authority to shut down the war without abandoning our troops. If Congress does not pursue this option, then it is because it has chosen not to. President Bush cannot continue to wage a war in Iraq if Congress is really determined to stop him.

Congress should have a real debate over how best to bring the war to an end. And, the supporters of the war should not be allowed to hide behind our troops.

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Pat Robertson's Prediction for 2007

    Pat Robertson told the blind sheep who still watch him on "The 700 Club" that God has told him that the United States will suffer a terrorist attack towards the end of 2007 that will result in "mass killing."

                                           ****

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

Robertson said God also told him that the U.S. only feigns friendship with Israel and that U.S. policies are pushing Israel toward "national suicide."      

In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.      AP

                              ****

    You have to love this fool just for his comic relief at times!

 

Technorati tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Tom Brokaw On Hussein's Execution

“[W]e portray ourselves around the world as the champions of democracy and the rule of law,” yet Hussein’s execution “resembled the worst kind of nightmare out of the old American West.” As a result, Hussein, who “had disappeared, in effect, as some kind of a symbol over there, suddenly becomes a martyr. Tom Brokaw speaking on Don Imus' radio show this morning.    Watch it Here

   Full Transcript

IMUS: Could we have a worse turn of events with the Saddam Hussein video and all that?

BROKAW: No, it’s — you know, as we portray ourselves around the world as the champions of democracy and the rule of law — first of all, that began to unravel in the eyes of a lot of people in that part of world with Abu Ghraib and the great cruelties and indignities that were imposed on people there. The debate goes on here about Guantanamo and about access to people’s private records. And then to say that we are going to install in Iraq a judicial system and a democratic form of government and have something that resembled the worst kind of nightmare out of the old American West. Not much dignity. He was, he was a god awful man and he did have a trial, but not have control of the execution, and to have it really just fuel more sectarian violence at a time when we are trying to dampen that is not helpful, which is an understatement.

IMUS: Well, I guess the New York Times reported and I was also talking to Richard about that the United States apparently unsuccessfully prevailed about Maliki to delay this.

BROKAW: Yep.

IMUS: I wonder, I wonder why he refused? I mean…

BROKAW: I honestly don’t know either. But Saddam Hussein who had disappeared, in effect, as some kind of a symbol over there, suddenly becomes a martyr. He was a terrible tyrant who was responsible for an untold number of deaths, you know, waged his own jihad against the Shiite in that country, especially in the south following Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s, and now he’s able to stand up there with the hood off and invoke prayer and even invoke the Palestinians, and go out in the eyes of his people at least as a martyr.

IMUS: I mean, it’s difficult to imagine how this could have turned out worse.

BROKAW: No, it is pretty difficult to imagine, and it’s, you know, just as the military commanders and the political people who are trying to run the war think that they’ve got something quieted over in one front, it pops up in another.

    Brokaw is right in the last paragraph. something else always seems to pop up when things get a little quieter in Iraq. This is not all do to the various factions which are bombing and killing. Alot of this is do to that idiot in the White House! Bush could care less about our troops over there fighting for their lives! Nor do I think that Bush wants this war to end! Bushco and friends are making to much money off of this to end it anytime soon.

    In the near future you will understand why I say this. I am currently working on the history of the Bush family, gathering info from everywhere that I can find it. Some of what I have found thus far will shock many of you.    But that is another story.

 

Technorati tags: ,

Monday, January 01, 2007

Quotes From Nancy Pelosi

  You knew it was coming!

    On Thursday, Nancy Pelosi will become the first woman speaker of the House in its history so I thought it appropriate to find some quotes made by her.

    From BrainyQuote :

America must be a light to the world, not just a missile.
Nancy Pelosi

America will be far safer if we reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in one of our cities than if we diminish the civil liberties of our own people.
Nancy Pelosi

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Nancy Pelosi

We must remain focused on the greatest threat to the security of the United States, the clear and present danger of terrorism. We know what we must do to protect America, but this Administration is failing to meet the challenge. Democrats have a better way to ensure our homeland security.
Nancy Pelosi

 

IceRocket tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

The Skeletons In The Bush Family's Closet

   This goes along with my previous posting on Hussein being a witness against the Bush dynasty.

   It would take to much space to cover everything that dates back to when Jimmy Carter was the President of the United States and forward to our present day, so i have provided the links for the reader to go to.

   1) Bush Silences a Dangerous Witness

   2) Missing U.S.-Iraq History

   3) The Secret World of Robert Gates

    This all comes from ConsortiumNews and is well worth reading.

Was Hussein A Witness Against Bush?

   From ConsortiumNews  comes this gem about what Hussein may have known about the Bushco Crime Family's goings on back in the 80's. This goes back to George's daddy for those of you who are to young to remember this era.

Bush Silences a Dangerous Witness

By Robert Parry
December 30, 2006

Like a blue-blood version of a Mob family with global reach, the Bushes have eliminated one more key witness to the important historical events that led the U.S. military into a bloody stalemate in Iraq and pushed the Middle East to the brink of calamity.    The Story

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

The Rush to Hang Hussein

   Many of us have been under the impression that the U.S. was responsible for the quick execution of Saddam Hussein.

    The New York Times  says that the Americans were questioning the timing and the manner of the execution.   More Here

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

My 2006 Year In Review

Here is what I saw in the year of 2006 as far as our government goes!
As I do not know who owns these pics, I cannot give the credit to the rightful owner. If one of them is you, then please let me know.







Let's see what "The Decider" does to us in 2007!

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

    Today's Washington Post has a piece on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama outlining their opposing views on such things as ethanol  and tax increases, to name a few.  More Here!

    While looking over each's various voting records , it becomes apparent that they both would seem to have some stands on issues that could come back to haunt them in their respective runs for the democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

 

del.icio.us tags: ,

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Words and Phrases of 2006

    The Global Language Monitor  has come out with its list of the top words and phrases used the most during 2006.

    "Stay the course," was the top catchphrase and "sustainable" was the top word.

 

"In 2006 the English Language grew ever more global with some 1,300,000,000 speakers using it as their first, second, business, or technical tongue.      The List

 

Ads by AdGenta.com