McCain To America..."Democrats want to surrender"

John McCain lies!

At a town hall in New Hampshire, McCain stated, "Democrats want to surrender"

Point in fact, Democrats want to end the war that is causing millions of civilian deaths, the deaths of the thousands of US soldiers and billions of dollars.

"The war has divided us" -John McCain

No, the war has not divided us. George W. Bush has divide us. Senator McCain continues to support the war and George W. Bush's far flung policies.

"Your either with us, or your against us" -George W. Bush

McCain employs many people who were Bush's advisers in the past. If this isn't enough proof that John McCain will continue Bush's policies, I don't know what is.



McCain and his lies

Why the situation in Iraq is not the same as Korea

Gates and Bush fail to see the difference between Iraq and Korea. As someone who lived in Korea for over three and a half years and has become interested in understanding Korean history, I am shocked at the comparisons drawn between the two countries by the Bush Administration.

First of all, the situation prior to our involvement with the two countries were a totally different set of circumstances. The reason we are in Iraq is oil. Even former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan acknowledges that fact in a Washington Post interview about his new book. The difference is that the two Koreas were divided after the end of WWII by the US and Russia to administer (or run) the countries. That became permanent when the type of elections and government could not be agreed upon. The reason we were there (and still are there), had to do with a threat from the Communist North which invaded South Korea in June of 1951.

Second, while there were a small number of "left wing insurgents" in Korea between 1945-1948, they were few in number compared to the large scale insurgency which is causing the sectarian violence in Iraq. The best estimates of violence in Korea is 30,000-100,000 people killed in Korea in the three years before the Korean Government was formed in 1948, compared to around 655,000 based on the Lancet Surveys of Mortality in Iraq.

Third, the administration fails to acknowledge to this day, there is a great amount of animosity toward the US from Koreans in terms of our continued presence there. This is the one area we can draw a comparison. Depending on who you talk to of course, the older generations (for the most part) realize that the US made sacrifices to keep the South free, whereas the younger generation tend to question why we still have troops in their country.

Some of the animosity I referenced above has to do with different incidents occurring US Military personal in Korea. The most famous incident happened in 2003 (prior to my arrival in Korea), when US soldiers stationed at the Youngsan Garrison Base were driving an armored vehicle which ran over two Korean girls. The US Military refused to turn the soldiers over the the Korean authorities, instead opting to put them on trial in military court. Both of the two soldiers were acquitted of manslaughter, the outcome of which caused a huge outrage toward all Americans (military or civilian) by Koreans.

I have to honestly wonder what Gates and Bush are thinking when they make such crude comparisons between Iraq and Korea. The only thing we are done is causing animosity toward the US, instead of helping the Iraq people.

Bush ponders his legacy while America suffers

In an interview with Robert Draper, Bush ponders the legacy of his administration, meanwhile America suffers as well continue to get drawn deeper into the problems of a country we invaded. Drapers book, "Dead Certain", will be released this next week.

From the International Hearld Tribune article some of the most shocking comments:

And in apparent reference to the invasion of Iraq, he continued, "This group-think of 'we all sat around and decided' - there's only one person that can decide, and that's the president."

This coming from an administration that used 9/11 as a pretext to invading Iraq as well as the assertion of WMD that didn't exist. It sounds vaguely reminiscent of the "I'm the decider" comments he's made in the past.

But he said he saw his unpopularity as a natural result of his decision to pursue a strategy in which he believed. "I made a decision to lead," he said, "One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse you of unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?"

People dislike you George because your an idiot, a liar, a thief and a grade A moron who has lead us into two wars we should have never gotten into in the first place. I think the description of arrogant fits well to describe you.

Bush has often said that will be for historians decide, but he said during his sessions with Draper that they would have to consult administration documents to get to the bottom of some important questions.

That is IF people are ever permitted to see the documents proving what a fraud your administration has been, which hopefully means you are prosecuted and thrown in prison for a long time.

Impeachment: The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make

Over at BlueOregon there seems to be a yelling match as to whether enough is being down to impeach Bush. Personally, I think the conversation has gotten a bit harsh with some shrieking (as Kari termed it) impeachment or else.

What is really funny, is that after I added my most recent comments I went over to Wikipedia and found the article about Movement to Impeach George W. Bush. In the Wikipedia article there was a quote from a recent article by Micheal Tomsky in the Washington Post. He makes some of the same observations I made over at BlueOregon as well as some other good points against impeaching Bush.

Specifically Tomsky says:

There's little disagreement among liberals about the substance. If any administration since President Richard M. Nixon's has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, surely it's this one; if lying about consensual sexual activity fit the bill, then surely lying about the reason for a war does, too. As Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky argue in their indignant book "The Case for Impeachment," the bill of indictment goes far beyond Bush's grave lies about Iraq. There's also the arrest and detention without trial of U.S. citizens, the violation of international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions at the prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the "blatant violation" of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment "by secretly authorizing secret warrantless spying on thousands of American citizens by the National Security Agency."

The political case, though, is another question entirely. Impeachment is not merely a bad idea, but the single worst course of action that Democrats could possibly undertake -- the only thing they could do that might, in one stroke, convert Bush from the figure of contempt and mockery he is now into one of vague sympathy. Just as bad, it's the one move that would definitively alienate nonideological voters and, therefore, harm the Democrats' otherwise excellent chances for winning congressional seats and the White House in 2008. And that's just what impeachment would do to the Democrats. Even worse is what it would do to liberalism and to the country.

You don't have to be as expert a nose counter as Lyndon B. Johnson to know that impeachment wouldn't succeed. You'd have to get both Bush and Cheney to make any difference, which makes it a heavier lift. Even if the articles of impeachment somehow got through the House -- a stretch, because 61 Democrats represent nominally "red" districts and thus may feel compelled to vote nay -- conviction would require 67 votes in the Senate. That means at least 18 Republicans would have to vote to remove a Republican president and vice president. (I'm assuming that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent, would vote no.) Of course, new bombshells could change all that. But for now, impeachment advocates are urging Democrats to start a fight they'd lose.

This is precisely why I think censuring both Bush and Cheney is a much better option, along with de-funding the war and bring the troops home. By doing these two things it essentially knocks the legs from underneath this administration. Yes, it leaves them in office, but with a very weak president and vice-president. It also makes sure (as the diehard impeachment movement states) that future administrations will realize that they can't pull the same crap.

It also may force Bush to do negotiate on issues that his administration has taken a "our way or the highway" attitude toward (tax cuts, health care, etc.). It would also do more to expose the evils of the Bush Administration to those who are apathetic and hopefully cause more people to be involved in the election next year.

So my question is this: Why is impeachment the only being touted as the only option?