Issues: Iraq

NO MORE WAR!

Issues: Abortion

The conservative stance on abortion is one of the most confusing and most backwards of what they stand for. And you could actually say that I am the most pro-life person there is. If it is life it should not be killed. Let me explain.

Conservatives have turned the debate over abortion and stem cell research into some kind of murder trial as if we are just harvesting babies to then slaughter. A sperm cell is not a person. Neither is an ovum. When they meet they have the potential to create a person but there is still a long way to go before a person is created. The DNA instructions are there but parts of a thing do not make up a thing. Is a foot a person? Is a spine a person? No, they are parts of a human being but not actually a human being. So therefore, an embryo is not a person. Abortion is moral.

Why the conservatives are so wrong about their pro life stance is that they have absolutely no problem killing innocent lives, and unquestionably life, in war. And also have no problem with the death penalty that may have carried out executions of potentially innocent people. I do not believe that a person should ever have to suffer death as a punishment for someone else's decision. So I am pro life. But an embryo up to a certain point is not a person so can ethically be terminated before full gestation.

One major problem with abortion being illegal is the growing number of unhappy and therefore bad parents. This leads to poor performances from children - our future adults. This also leads to a growth in foster children - something very much unnecessary in our already bursting foster care facilities. Be reasonable. For those who say it will emotionally scare the mother to have an abortion I say, "Oh well at least you didn't harm two people in the process." One injury is better than two last time I checked. Of course the best option is for no injury. Therefore, abstinance education and safe sex practice is essential for young people.

Bush "disappointed"

Immigration Bill Dies on Floor of Senate
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11502047

NPR.org, June 28, 2007 · Senate opponents have succeeded in stopping a bill to give legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants, making it unlikely that the issue will be decided until after the 2008 elections.

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the measure, which had critics in both parties.

Conservatives said it gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, while Democrats said fees associated with obtaining visas were too high and decried a provision lessening the weight given to family ties.

Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year when the presidential election will be a key focus of both parties.

A similar effort collapsed in Congress last year, prompting the House to wait on Senate action before tackling the issue again.

The bill's defeat was a stinging rebuke for President Bush, who personally worked with Congressional leaders to obtain their support. The president has acknowledged that the compromise proposal was not perfect, but he said it was necessary to secure the borders and curb illegal immigration.

In a brief statement, the president told reporters he was "disappointed" by the vote.

Looking ahead to the next session legislative session, Bush said Congress "needs to prove to the American people" that it can work together for the common good.

Thursday's vote was a victory for Republican conservatives, who strongly criticized the bill's provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails.

The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home.

From NPR reports and The Associated Press

Above the Law (again)

White House Refuses Congressional Subpoenas
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11502745

NPR.org, June 28, 2007 · The White House on Thursday rejected Congressional subpoenas for documents that could shed light on the decision to fire a number of federal prosecutors, asserting executive privilege.

President Bush's attorney told Congress the White House will not give up the documents of former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path, which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege."

The White House also made it clear that Miers and Taylor will not testify next month, as directed in the June 13 subpoenas. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.

In his letter, Fielding said Bush had "attempted to chart a course of cooperation" by releasing more than 8,500 pages of documents and sending Gonzales and other senior officials to testify before Congress. The White House also had offered a compromise in which Miers, Taylor, White House political strategist Karl Rove and their deputies would be interviewed by Judiciary Committee aides in closed-door sessions, without transcripts. Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Conyers of Michigan, the chairs of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, have rejected that offer.

On the other hand, Fielding said Bush "was not willing to provide your committees with documents revealing internal White House communications or to accede to your desire for senior advisors to testify at public hearings.
"The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch," Fielding said.

"The doctrine of executive privilege exists, at least in part, to protect such communications from compelled disclosure to Congress, especially where, as here, the president's interests in maintaining confidentiality far outweigh Congress's interests in obtaining deliberative White House communications," Fielding said.

"Further, it remains unclear precisely how and why your committees are unable to fulfill your legislative and oversight interests without the unfettered requests you have made in your subpoenas," Fielding said. "Put differently, there is no demonstration that the documents and information you seek by subpoena are critically important to any legislative initiatives that you may be pursuing or intending to pursue."

It was the second time in his administration that Bush has exerted executive privilege, said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. The first instance was in December, 2001, to rebuff Congress' demands for Clinton administration documents. in federal court over separation of powers.

Tensions between the administration and the Democratic-run Congress have been building for months as the House and Senate Judiciary panels have sought to probe the firings of eight federal prosecutors and the administration's program of warrantless eavesdropping. The investigations are part of the Democrats' efforts to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Democrats say the firings of the prosecutors over the winter was an example of improper political influence. The White House says U.S. attorneys are political appointees who can be hired and fired for almost any reason.

Democrats and even some key Republicans have said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign over the U.S. attorney dismissals, but he has steadfastly held his ground and Bush has backed him.

Just Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, demanding documents pertaining to terrorism-era warrant-free eavesdropping.

Separately, that panel also is summoning Gonzales to discuss the program and an array of other matters - including the prosecutor firings - that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs.

Leahy, the committee's chairman, raised questions Wednesday about previous testimony by one of Bush's appeals court nominees and said he wouldn't let such matters pass.

"If there have been lies told to us, we'll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate," Leahy told reporters. He did just that Wednesday, referring questions about testimony by former White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Backwards Bush Clock

Tricky Dick II

Senate Panel Subpoenas White House on Wiretaps
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11471824

June 27, 2007 · The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office on Wednesday to obtain documents relating to the Bush administration's program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. According to a statement by Leahy's office, the four parties have until July 18 to comply with the subpoena demands.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program.

"Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Leahy said a letters accompanying the subpoenas. "There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee."

Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply.

"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."
The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.

Leahy's committee and its counterpart in the House have issued the subpoenas as part of a sweeping look at how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors, for political reasons. The House and Senate Judiciary committees previously had subpoenaed Miers, one-time legal counsel, and Taylor, a former political director, in that probe.

But with senators of both parties already concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice and, in particular, his willingness to permit the wiretapping program.

Piquing the committee's interest was vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004.

Comey told the Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then-White House counsel, tried to get Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse course and recertify the program. At the time, Ashcroft lay in intensive care, recovering form gall bladder surgery.

Ashcroft refused, as did Comey, to whom Ashcroft had temporarily shifted the power of his office during his illness.

The White House recertified the program unilaterally. Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller and their staffs prepared to resign. Bush ultimately relented and made changes to the classified program that the Justice officials had demanded, and the agency eventually recertified it.

From The Associated Press

Candidates: John McCain

I’ve always had a casual interest in John McCain. He’s a very frequent guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart which is a program I’ve come to watch religiously in the last few years. He is one of the rare dudes on the right who actually shows his ass up on that program. And that takes some guts. And not only does he not struggle with it like John Kerry when talking about Iraq, he seems to really be comfortable conversing with Stewart.

This seems to be one of the only things that separates him from the Republicans. He holds very standard conservative views about Iraq – our most important issue. He believes victory must be accomplished in Iraq and more troops will be necessary to accomplish this. He is very concerned about fair treatment of war prisoners (understandably) and the troops, but my biggest concern is with the people caught in between. The innocent victims of war - Iraqi citizens and the families and friends of the victims of this pointless war. Victory can’t be accomplished with innocent lives being harmed. Ever. We need a plan to get out. Yeah, soldiers die. Yeah, extremist morons die. But they have to be expecting it with their lifestyle choices. When a mother looses her only child to Dubya’s war we’ve already lost.

Iraq also takes away from our need to fix all of our domestic problems that are so numerous.

McCain wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and give that power to the states. Ok. I’m not too concerned. Abortion is moral and this can be philosophically proven but we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Along with this he takes Bush’s view that we shouldn’t use embryos for stem cell research which doesn’t make any sense to me but is true with his morals on the creation of life. Both are fundamental arguments with a basis in religion. I am not religious but also not currently in need of an abortion or stem cells. Since it doesn’t concern me I’ll let those it affects decide.

Border security does affect me. Because Mexicans allow this country to run. They do the shitty jobs we don’t want to do because they are trying to put food in the mouths of their family. As far as the terrorism argument – last I checked we were dealing with fundamentalist Islam not Catholic Mexicans who not only pose no threat to this country but actually allow it to function.

I do like McCain’s stance on global climate change. At least he admits it exists unlike the President who seems to have his fingers in his ears as he sticks out his tongue to almost 100% of environmental scientists. Global climate change is an extremely real and important issue. It is safe to say that I will never give my support to a candidate without a serious plan to deal with this.

McCain also believes that the government spends too much money on frivolous projects. While this may be true to a certain extent, a lot of these projects may be necessary for our development and understanding of the world. While I am not at this time clear on the projects the government chooses to support I will not make further comment on this issue.

McCain certainly focuses on many other issues. These seems to be the major ones and ones of importance to me. I plan on doing issue posts in the future on some more minor issues addressed by the candidates. My overall impression of McCain has changed since he originally announced he would be running. Except on a few issues, he differs very little than most of the extreme conservative candidates and Bush himself. Because change is necessary for America, it seems very unlikely that he will take the presidency.

60% chance of nomination

The Old, Hairy, White Men...

...and a woman and a black dude. But still old. And hairy. These are who we have to pick from in our next presidential election. I haven't been all that interested in the debates and candidates until recently. I frankly find it a bit lethargic this early. But then I realized the hope that some of these folks offer for the future of America. And suddenly I feel optimistic for the first time in six years. I will be researching the candidates over the course of the year and posting my analysis of each right here. I believe that Americans are desperate for some of kind of change to their country so the winner will reflect this. Not to say it will be Madam President or Jesus Obama - too much change too soon. America won't have any part of that. But they'll stll get their profile and analysis. In the end I will pick the candidate that will be right for correcting the future of the United States not to make me selfishly happy. Hell, I supported Carol Mosely Braun. But that wasn't going to happen. The first profile will be up shortly.

What Took You So Long?

Poll: GOP support for Iraq war beginning to waver

By Bill Schneider
CNN Senior Political Analyst
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/26/poll.iraq.schneider/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Public support for the war in Iraq has fallen to a new low. Not only that, but Republican support is beginning to waver.

President Bush's troop buildup, or "surge," meant to quell the sectarian violence is now in place.
"The final surge was just completed in the last 10 days," Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott said Sunday.

What happens now? "Come September, we'll have to see how they're doing and we'll have to make an assessment," Lott said. (Watch Schneider report the poll results )

But the public is already making an assessment, and it's not good. In the latest CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday, 69 percent of those polled believe things are going badly in Iraq. Seventeen percent think the situation is improving. (View the latest poll results)

Thirty percent of Americans polled say they favor the war, the lowest level of support on record. Two-thirds are opposed.

Anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased with 38 percent of Republicans now saying they oppose the war.

Moreover, 63 percent of Americans are ready to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq. Forty-two percent of Republicans agree.

Fifty-four percent of Americans do not believe U.S. action in Iraq is morally justified. (Read the complete poll results document -- PDF)

The telephone poll of 1,029 adult Americans was conducted between June 22 and 24, 2007, and has a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

President Bush has always relied on solid Republican support for his Iraq policy. When Congress voted in April to impose a timetable for withdrawal, only two Republicans in the House and two in the Senate voted for the bill. Two-hundred-forty Republicans voted against timetables.
But there are some other cracks starting to show in the Republican wall of support -- most dramatically Monday when Republican Sen. Dick Lugar rose to speak in the Senate. (Watch Lugar call for a new direction for the Iraq war )

"I speak to my fellow senators when I say that the president is not the only American leader who will have to make adjustments to his or her thinking," Lugar said.
Lugar's assessment: "In my judgment, the costs and risk of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved." (Full story)

The Senate Democratic leader said Lugar's remarks may be a turning point. "But that will depend on whether more Republicans take the stand that Sen. Lugar took, a courageous stand," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

Are they? Among Democrats polled over the last four months, opposition to the war has remained nearly unanimous -- more than 90 percent opposed. About two-thirds of independents have also held steady against the war.

What's changed is Republicans. A growing number appear ready to follow Lugar's lead.

My Turn to Bitch

This blog is my attempt to add to the endless world of Bush blogs in cyberspace. Not only to bitch and moan but to provide comfort that there is a light at the end of this terrible, terrible tunnel known as the Bush administration. It will take place on January 20, 2009 - 1.20.09 - when our newest president will be inaugurated. AND IT WON'T BE DUBYA OR QUICKDRAW! I'll also use this as an attempt to further my own research into the current presidential candidates to eventually pick the best candidate to fix this hell hole called America. And as far as I can tell they're all better than the Decider. Even the God-apointed Republicans. I'll be posting shortly. Whenever I feel particularly pissed off. So like I said, shortly. I welcome your comments.