Obama Urges GOP to Keep Politics to a Minimum on Stimulus – First 100 Days of Presidency – Politics FOXNews.com

OK, of you want to keep politics out of it Obama let’s take Nancy Pelosi out of it… She has injected her politics into it with both pork barrel spending and trying to lock the Republicans out of the process only to try and shove this overbloated pig down the American people’s throats… That is unless that is your plan as well and these olive branches to the Republicans are nothing more than a pony show… This is more than philosophical difference, it is about identifying problems with this bill, the biggest being wasted spending for pet projects of the liberals in Congress and possibly the White House.

The spending all must be part of job creation and putting money into the hands and individuals to spend, not supplementing the states budgets or funding various liberal agendas…

Change You Can Believe In!

President Obama’s meetings with House and Senate Republicans resulted in a mutual desire to find solutions for the economy that are not ideologically driven, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

“I do think there is a genuine sense of cooperation that is involved in the meetings. I think we will have Republican support for this bill,” he said, noting that the negotiations with Republicans on tax and spending policies aren’t over. “I don’t think today was the beginning or the end or just part of that process.”

Gibbs did not say what the president was considering coming out of suggestions offered by Republicans, but not one item can fix the economy. Confronted with the scenario that maybe only a dozen Republicans would support the bill that is expected to face a vote Wednesday, Gibbs said, “We’ll take what we can get.”

He added that the process will keep moving after the vote.

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill earlier in the day, Obama said he understands the concerns of House Republicans but the massive economic recovery package he has proposed is aimed at getting the country out of the ditch it’s in and on the right track. 

Obama said he is “absolutely confident” that compromises can be reached, “but the key right now is to make sure we keep politics to a minimum.”

“There is some legitimate philosophical differences with parts of my plans that the Republicans have, and I respect that. In some cases, they just may not be as familiar with what is in the package as I would like. I don’t expect 100 percent agreement but I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people’s business right now,” he said. 

House GOP leaders said they were pleased with the conversation with Obama. Several said they still had the message — listen to our suggestions and use them. 

“The door of our conference will stay open to this president,” said GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence. 

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said the problem for Republicans isn’t negotiating with the president, who has “serious intent,” but working with House Democrats. 

“We are hopeful that (the president) can impose upon Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi to adopt the same attitude (as him) because frankly it has not been forthcoming whatsoever. There have been no meetings with Speaker Pelosi and Republicans. There have already been three between the president and Republicans in the House,” he said.

“We have yet to see one Republican proposal included in this plan,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington before the meeting.

Obama said the “statistics every day underscore the urgency of the situation.” He said Americans want to go back to work, gain energy independence, better schools and stronger infrastructure and they want all of it done “wisely so that we’re not wasting taxpayer money.”

Obama added his proposal is “just one leg in a multi-legged stool.” He also wants Congress and his administration to develop tighter regulations, more controls on the release of money to help shore up financial institutions and greater coordination with other countries. 

Of chief concern to Republican leaders is the amount of spending and the tax approach outlined in the proposal being considered by lawmakers this week. Many Republicans remain skeptical of provisions they say don’t match the talk about job creation.

“We have concerns that the plan that House Democrats are going to bring to the floor will not work,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner before the meeting. “And at the end of the day, our big move today will be to ask the president to help us. Help us make this plan better so that it will put Americans back to work.” 

Boehner said afterward that he thought many in the conference and the president himself “enjoyed the conversation.”

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter said before the meeting that he plans to tell Obama that he likes the approach that he’s offered, but doesn’t see that being followed on Capitol Hill.

“It’s line after line after line of favorite liberal spending programs and it amounts to a big government bill not a job creation,” Vitter told FOX News.

But Republicans did not offer any of their own changes to the Senate package that was voted out of the Appropriations Committee Tuesday morning on a largely party line vote of 21-9.
All the Democrats on the panel approved the bill while 9 Republicans voted against it.

Of the four Republicans who voted for the nearly $830 billion package, three — Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Kit Bond of Missouri — made it clear they were just voting to move the process along, reserving the right to oppose the bill in the end on the floor.

On the House side, Republicans rallied the rank-and-file to oppose measures that they say include too much spending and not enough tax incentives. Several pointed to examples of $4 billion for community development groups and millions more for the National Endowment of the Arts. More than 200 amendments had been sent to the House clerk on the legislation headed for debate on Wednesday. 

The version sent to the Senate calls for about $190 in assistance like Medicaid to the states and an extension of unemployment benefits; about $365 billion for infrastructure and science; and $275 billion in tax provisions. The Senate was also expected to add a patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax, which hits middle class taxpayers hardest. That would cost $70 billion or so in 2009, which would bring the total package to about $900 billion.

According to the Congressional Budget Office about $608 billion, or 73 percent of the $830 billion, would be spent in 2009 and 2010. The quicker the money gets spent, the more stimulative it is, say economists.

The Democratic version in the House calls for about 64 percent to be spent in the first two years. Pelosi has said she thinks Congress can get a bill to the president’s desk by the President’s Day recess next month. 

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen said that lawmakers who say no to the recovery plan are going to have to explain to constituents “why at this critical point in our history … why they didn’t support the economy.”

He added that Democrats have included net operating loss and energy tax provisions preferred by Republicans and suggested that Obama has worked overtime to get GOP support.

“So it’s unfortunate that the signs that we are hearing indicate that Republicans aren’t giving this as good a look as I would have hoped,” he said.

Neither Republicans nor Obama have indicated where they may be willing to make changes to the legislation, but both sides have said they don’t have any “pride of authorship” of the huge package. 

In a sign that Obama is willing to compromise, the president told Democrats to jettison from the package family planning funds for low-income people. Republicans have criticized the provision as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.

“He asked them to take it out he established a set of principles for spending to boost economic growth over the course of a two-year period and the contraceptive funding was not part of those principles,” said Deputy White House Press Secretary Bill Burton. Burton said the contraceptive funding issue had become a “lightning rod” and that without it the large bill had a better chance of winning bipartisan support.

FOX News’ Trish Turner and Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

via Obama Urges GOP to Keep Politics to a Minimum on Stimulus – First 100 Days of Presidency – Politics FOXNews.com .

The Socialist Are Taking Over America

Listen to the man John, Take Action Now, Go Get Em’

Pelosi Pays Husband With PAC Money

Nancy Pelosi used PAC money to pay husband... Nice to see Nancy violating her own ethics…

WASHINGTON —  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband’s real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the “culture of corruption” when Republicans did it.

The Washington Times is reporting that the California Democrat‘s husband, Paul F. Pelosi, owns Financial Leasing Services Inc., which has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker’s “PAC to the Future” over the PAC’s nine-year history.

Last year, Pelosi supported a bill that would have banned members of Congress from putting spouses on their campaign staffs. The bill banned not only direct payments by congressional campaign committees and PACs to spouses for services including consulting and furndraising, but also “indirect compensation,” such as payments to companies that employ spouses.

The bill passed the House in a voice vote but died in a Senate committee.

Last week, Pelosi’s office defended the payments, saying they were legal because she is compensating her husband at fair market value for the work his firm has performed for the PAC.

Ethical watchdogs called Pelosi’s arrangement “problematic.”

Liberals Botch Bailout 1.0

 

Down In Flames!

Voting against the bailout package, the House has created a major financial crisis. Having gone on for weeks blaming Bush and McCain, the liberals fell off the high ground. Partisan harassment of McCain going back to Washington last week, then being told to get out by the liberals because they thought they had it tied up.

The liberals only had 54% of their own party voting in favor. The liberals trying to blame the Republicans for voting against the bailout, are to blame. The liberals could have passed the bill by themselves. They knew to make it veto proof, they needed McCain as they would not vote for it unless John McCain did. McCain brought 33% of the Republicans over the line. If the liberals could have brought 17 more of their votes over they would have been able to pass the bill.

Now, America has to wait until after Rosh Hashanah before any new proposal is worked on. Today we lost 777 points on the DOW. There is a possibilty that this will double in a couple of days and if by weeks end nothing is done by congress, that number may double… This could be a third of the market gone in panic.

Congress needs to forget about their politics and come up with a responsible solution that will allow us to get out of this mess and stop the panic on the market. This has effected the European market and Asian Markets as well. The overal reprocussions are could be very costly if the world markets collapse. The Central Bank has pumped almost as much as the bailout cost, $620 Billion, into the market to support the world market and try to keep it from imploding… A responsible bill needs to be drafted with the support of all members of Congress.

I would like to thank Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Franks and Harry Reid for creating this financial mess, overlooking the problem when attention was brought to it, splitting their own party, running John McCain out of Washington and destroying our economy.

Barack Obama, please continue to take credit for this. You deserve it. Change You Can Believe In…

Pelosi Gets An Oil Change – Wrong Grade Oil Used

Uber liberal Nancy Pelosi touts that America is getting an Oil “Change”, I am guessing this is all for Obama’s campaign of change, but leaves out the fact that the oil will be missing…

The House has approved a lifting of the ban on off shore drilling, provided it is 50 miles outside of the US coastline and excluding George Bank commercial fishing area. The general public will be duped by the the vote as most people do not realize that the majority of known oil is within 50 miles of the coastline. This is a political posturing for both Congressional seats as well as for Obama. I would venture to say that the latter is the more important to the liberals…

What America needs is a comprehensive plan that includes Offshore drilling in viable areas, development of coal, natural gas and nuclear technologies, future technologies of solar, wind and hydroelectric. We do not need to make oil companies pay more, they will only pass that cost onto the consumer. The only good thing in the bill is aid to the elderly to help pay heating costs with winter lingering around the corner.

WASHINGTON – The US House approved an energy bill last night that would allow offshore drilling as close as 50 miles from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but a last-minute provision added at the insistence of Massachusetts members would prohibit oil and gas drilling around Georges Bank, saving New England’s premier commercial fishing grounds from potential harm.

The legislation also promotes investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, paid for by eliminating tax exemptions for oil companies and increasing their royalty payments, and it authorizes more funding for heating assistance for low-income people.

The House voted 236 to 189 for the package.

The Democratic majority’s support for expanded ocean drilling reflects mounting political pressure from an electorate deeply concerned about the distressed economy and high gasoline prices. Democratic leaders had previously criticized Republican proposals to end a longtime ban on offshore drilling, saying new wells would take years to produce oil and gas and thus have no immediate impact on prices. But with the ban set to expire at the end of this month and the November elections approaching, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shifted her stance, proposing legislation that would allow drilling as close as 100 miles from shore, and with a state’s permission, as close as 50 miles from shore.

“My colleagues have told me to tell you that it’s time for an oil change in America, and this bill represents that,” Pelosi said in a news conference yes terday.

But House minority leader John Boehner called the bill “a hoax on the American people,” saying it “won’t do a damn thing about energy” because the vast majority of known offshore oil is within 50 miles of shore and would therefore still be off-limits and because it would not promote the development of nuclear plants or coal-to-liquids technologies.

He also complained that the Democratic plan was hurriedly assembled “in the dark of night” and made public late the night before its arrival on the floor and that the Republicans were not allowed to offer an alternative.

US Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts called the bill comprehensive and praised House leaders for recognizing the importance and the vulnerability of Georges Bank.

“When you are 100 miles off the California coast, it’s 2 miles deep. When you’re 100 miles off New England, it’s 200 feet deep, so it makes it a lot more attractive for the oil industry to go to Georges Bank,” said Markey, who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

When the speaker’s office announced the broad outlines of the legislation last week, US Representative William D. Delahunt, who represents the Cape and islands, was immediately concerned about Georges Bank and informed leadership that he could not support the bill without clear protections for the fishing grounds. He said in an interview he also raised the issue informally with his Capitol Hill housemate, California’s George Miller, a member of leadership and the former chairman of the Natural Resources committee. Delahunt credited Markey with taking the lead on the issue with House leaders.

Markey said that when he explained his concerns about Georges Bank to Pelosi, she left no question that she understood and supported special protections, but negotiations over language lasted until late Monday night. The final bill also excludes marine monuments and national marine sanctuaries from drilling.

This summer, as gas prices climbed to nearly $5 a gallon in parts of the country and constituents seethed, Republicans put Democrats on the defensive by repeatedly calling for a vote on drilling. “Drill, baby, drill” became a mantra at the recent Republican National Convention.

Yesterday’s vote confirmed that the Democratic majority could no longer muster the votes to keep the ban on offshore drilling that has been in place since 1982.

Pelosi sought to turn the tables on Republicans by offering what she described as the “all-of-the-above” approach the GOP wanted. In addition to the drilling provisions, the bill includes tax incentives for solar and wind energy, plug-in hybrid cars, and energy-efficient buildings. It also would require utilities to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020 and release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to bring down gas prices.

Whether the drilling question will be settled before the end of the year remains in question. A bipartisan group of 20 senators has been working on a separate energy plan that would give a handful of southern states the option to expand offshore drilling.

Reaching a deal on a complex issue during a contentious election season with so little time left in the session, however, may be difficult. The Bush administration yesterday threatened to veto the House legislation, the Associated Press reported.

If Congress does not act and the offshore ban expires, oil companies could technically start drilling within 3 miles of any shore, which is where state jurisdiction ends and federal waters begin.

But energy specialists said this week that Congress is sure to return to the issue next year if nothing happens this year and that oil companies are unlikely to pursue new exploration until Congress acts.

Many environmental groups sharply opposed yesterday’s legislation.

“It opens up coastal drilling, which won’t help Americans with prices at the pump, but it will threaten our coasts with oil spills,” said Anna Aurelio, director of the Washington, D.C., office of Environment America.

Massachusetts environmentalists also criticized the additional drilling provisions, but they hailed the decision to exclude Georges Bank and other sensitive areas.

“Unlike many other states in the country where the 100-mile general provision that were put in the bill might have been highly protective, in New England, Georges Bank goes out well over 100 miles,” said Peter Shelley, vice president of the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation.

“I think it’s a very solid piece of legislation,” said Delahunt. “Were there trade-offs? Of course. . . .”

Lisa Wangsness can be reached at lwangsness@globe.com.

Pelosi Postures Offshore Drilling for 2008 Elections

Now that President Bush removed the Executive orders blockading offshore drilling the pressure is on the democratic run Congress to provide viable options for easing the energy crisis. Well it turns out the Pelosi is now considering offshore drilling even though her and her liberal cohorts, including Presidential Candidate Barack Obama have said it will not help lower the price of oil and that it would not provided any type of relief for another decade… This is true political posturing in hopes of keeping voters who support offshore drilling from voting for McCain.

The key will be what BS will be attached to any proposal to lift the Congressional Blockade…

Democrats’ stance against offshore drilling has shifted more, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaling on Saturday her willingness to consider opening up more coastal areas to oil and gas exploration.

In her party’s weekly radio address, Pelosi said opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling would be a part of energy legislation that House Democrats intend to put forward in the coming weeks to address oil dependence and high gasoline prices.

Lawmakers will be able to “consider opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil,” said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Just weeks ago Pelosi seemed resolved to block any votes to allow offshore drilling, in part because Californians have opposed drilling off their coasts since an oil spill off Santa Barbara in 1969. New oil drilling is only allowed now in federal waters in the western Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska.

Pelosi’s radio remarks were the latest to hint that the energy debate in Congress is still evolving, and that Democrats are budging on the issue.

Congress left for the August recess deadlocked over how to address $4-a-gallon gasoline. Democratic proposals to tap the nation’s petroleum reserve, curb oil speculation and force oil companies to drill on already leased federal lands were blocked by Republicans trying to force votes on offshore drilling.

Yet any vote on drilling is likely to force the Republicans’ hand, since it will likely be packaged with unpopular proposals to tap the petroleum reserve and recoup unpaid royalties from the late 1990s to pay for renewable energy projects.

“This comprehensive Democratic approach will ensure energy independence which is essential to our national security, will create millions of good paying jobs here at home in a new green economy, and will take major steps forward in addressing the global climate crisis,” said Pelosi, who criticized Republicans’ “drill only” plan.

Republican leaders called Pelosi’s proposal a ruse.

She “is deliberately misrepresenting the facts about our plan in order to shift attention away from the Democrats’ shameful record,” said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. “Her new effort appears to be just another flawed plan that will do little to lower gas prices.” Boehner and more than 100 House Republicans refused to depart for the summer recess in protest of Democrats’ refusal to have a vote on their proposals.

The pressure to expand offshore drilling intensified last month when President Bush lifted an executive prohibition on drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. A congressional ban remains in place.

Polls have shown that voters have grown more supportive of more domestic oil production as fuel prices have climbed.

Poor Pelosi’s Failure To Keep Promises

This gave me a chuckle, Nancy Pelosi is crying about how she is being considered a failure for not ending the war in Iarq… “The war, the war, the war — it eclipses everything that we do here,” and well it should as this was the Campaign PROMISE of the Democrats to gain control of Congress last year. Nancy, you and your ilk made promises in order to get elected and did not follow through on them. You told the people if you and your ilk were elected you would change x, y and z and you did not.

You can come up with all the excuses in the world for not following through, the key is that you did not. Maybe the Democrats could have done something if Cindy Sheehan had taken your place… Then again… NOT!

Hey Nancy how is the Campaign Reform Issue going, the other platform the Democrats promised to make changes on?

WASHINGTON —  Nancy Pelosi made history when she became the first female speaker of the House of Representatives a year ago. That turned out to be the easy part.

The reality of leading a bitterly divided Congress at odds with a Republican White House is that victories are difficult and disappointments many. Chief among them for the liberal San Francisco Democrat was failure to deliver on her biggest goal: ceasing U.S. combat missions in Iraq and getting troops on their way home.

The House’s final days before winter break were reflective of Pelosi’s up-and-down year: a major success — an energy bill including the first increase in vehicle fuel economy standards in 32 years — and two bitter defeats.

Hamstrung by Republican opposition and veto threats from President George W. Bush, Pelosi had to abandon her promise to not add to the budget deficit when the House agreed to a $50 billion tax-relief bill without making up the loss to the Treasury. The House’s final vote was on legislation giving Bush $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no withdrawal deadlines attached.

“The war in Iraq is the biggest disappointment for us, I mean the inability to stop the war in Iraq,” Pelosi, 67 and in her 11th House term, said in a recent round-table interview.

At the beginning of 2007 she believed Republican support for the war would erode. It did not. In fact, it solidified as the U.S. surge that began in the summer helped reduce the violence.

“They have stayed wedded to the president on this,” Pelosi said.

Time and again, the House passed bills setting a timetable for troop withdrawals only to see them fail in the Senate, where Democrats control the Senate 51-49, including two independents who usually vote with them.” Sixty votes are needed to overcome Republican filibusters — a procedural tactic to delay a vote.

Pelosi’s inability to force Bush’s hand on Iraq made her a target of an unlikely group: anti-war liberals.

They dogged her at public events and even protested outside her San Francisco home on Easter Sunday. In August, activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, announced she would run against Pelosi in 2008, contending the speaker had lost touch with people in her district who want troops home now.

Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California, said the war presented Pelosi with an unwinnable dilemma. Anything short of immediate withdrawal infuriated the left, but Democrats also feared criticism from the right that they were depriving troops in combat of money they needed.

“The base is not going to be satisfied until every American comes home, and realistically that’s not something she can deliver,” Pitney said.

Pelosi said she will continue to push next year for withdrawing troops and improving the training and equipping of military units.

“The war, the war, the war — it eclipses everything that we do here,” she said.

Pelosi accomplished some key elements of her initial legislative agenda, including raising the federal minimum wage, lowering interest rates on student loans, adopting ethics reforms and tightening security at seaports and airports.

But Republicans and some analysts said it was at the expense of another of her promises: a more open, less confrontational culture in Congress.

Echoing complaints Democrats made when they were in the minority, Republicans complained they were shut out of the lawmaking process with limited opportunities to consider legislation or offer amendments before Pelosi rammed bills through.

“I’m very saddened that the one thing that she did promise, that she’d work in a bipartisan way, has been thrown out the window,” said Rep. David Dreier, a California Republican.

Pelosi made no apologies. “It was necessary to push very hard to get all of this accomplished,” she said.

Even when Pelosi bent the House to her will, she could not push past Senate Republicans’ willingness to mount filibusters and veto threats from Bush.

“Overall I’m sure this is not the year she envisioned,” said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute. He credited Pelosi with reviving Congress’ oversight role but said she could have fostered a more bipartisan spirit.

For Pelosi the year began on an ecstatic high when, surrounded by children and grandchildren, some her own, she made history by taking the gavel as speaker. But as the months passed, the reality of the public’s dissatisfaction with Congress set in.

In an AP poll in December 2006, 22 percent of respondents said they had a favorable impression of Pelosi and 22 percent said it was unfavorable. An AP poll last month found her favorability rating the same — 22 percent — but her unfavorability rating had jumped to 38 percent.

Bush’s unfavorability rating stood at 61 percent in this month’s poll.

Pelosi’s predecessor as speaker, former Republican Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, had a 28 percent favorable and just 9 percent unfavorable rating in a Gallup poll 10 months into his first term. Newt Gingrich, who became speaker after the Republicans took control of the House in 1994, was rated 31 percent favorable and 57 percent unfavorable in a Gallup poll a year after he took office.

Still, Pelosi remains popular among fellow House Democrats, who see her as a strong leader willing to take risks. She met weekly with freshmen Democrats, many of them more conservative and also more vulnerable to election challenges than she is, and bent a bill on farm subsides to their liking rather than her own inclination.

Early in the year Pelosi outflanked the longest-serving House member, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, chairman of the House Energy Committee, by setting up a separate committee to consider global warming, something that falls under his jurisdiction.

Dingell was upset, but after holding up an energy bill over fuel efficiency standards opposed by Detroit, he ultimately agreed to a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 pushed by Pelosi and Senate Democrats. Afterwards, as Congress prepared for its winter recess, he had only kind words for the speaker.

“Let me quote (humorist) Will Rogers, who observed that he was a member of no organized political party, that he was a Democrat,” Dingell said. “With regard to Speaker Pelosi, she’s a strong and effective leader.”

Impeach This

Another liberal impeachment piece, complete with fake pictures to stir the liberal emotions… This piece like others I have read in the past, assume certain opinions as facts.

Surely the Democrats in this country, if they thought they had an actual shot at impeaching Bush or Cheney, would have done it already. Another broken campaign promise by the Democratic party.

The disillusioned author of this piece, purports many things as fact, when they are no more than opinion.

The fact that Congress was misled, is not Bush or Cheney’s fault, the members of Congress had access the to same intelligence as the Bush Administration and could draw their own conclusions, however even Hillary admitted that she did not read the intel reports because she was too busy.

The majority of Americans support impeachment according to the author, where do these statistics come from. I have yet to see a poll where 51% of the country is for impeachment. I have met a handful of people who actually support impeachment, and not a single one of them can actually cite an actual crime, which is required for impeachment.

The bulk of the allegations put forth by this author are strictly opinion, with a side of fact to make one believe the whole as a fact.

Additionally the auther tries to pawn of the “knowingly” part of the accussations, had the Vice President or President pass incorrect information, that they felt was correct, then they did not willingly do anything. The intel community had a responsibility to provided credible evidence and the Administration must go of the basis that this information is correct.

As for the cherry picking scenario, of course when building any case, you pick the evidence that supports your claims. Does a prosecutor introduce evidence that would show the defendent was innocent? Does the defense attorney introduce evidence that would cause the jury to find their client guilty? The answer to both questions in NO. Well when making a case against Iraq or now Iran, one would present the evidence that supports their claims, if someone disagrees with the assessment they present the other side. I do not recall Congress introducing any evidence to the contrary during the build up to the Iraq war.

The presentation of this article of impeachment was merely a voting gimmic for Dennis Kucinich, nothing more.

Wendy Wahman / P-I

Impeachment: If not now, when?

Lawmakers need to stand up for the Constitution and support impeachment

By LINDA BOYD
GUEST COLUMNIST

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. — Article II, Section 4

On Nov. 6, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney on the floor of the House of Representatives. For one shining moment the will of the majority of Americans and the promise of this nation’s founders were truly represented.

The detailed charges were solemnly read from the House podium and televised on C-Span. House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer made a motion to table the bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lobbied hard for votes to table.

In a stunning turnaround, House Republicans changed strategy and voted decisively to prevent tabling the impeachment resolution.

Pelosi was defied by 85 Democratic members who voted against tabling the impeachment resolution. This includes John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and six committee members. The resolution was quickly voted back to the Judiciary Committee, where it is not resting quietly.

Judiciary Committee member Bob Wexler wrote, “The American people are served well with a legitimate and thorough impeachment inquiry. I will urge the Judiciary Committee to schedule impeachment hearings immediately and not let this issue languish as it has over the last six months. Only through hearings can we begin to correct the abuses of Dick Cheney and the Bush administration.”

Impeachment is squarely on the table, and momentum is building. A year ago, almost no elected official breathed the word impeachment. Now impeachment has hit the House floor, and our electeds have gone on record. Millions of Americans are demanding an end to executive abuse of power.

After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration’s assault on the rule of law.

Allowing Cheney and George W. Bush to finish their terms without being impeached means future presidents are free to copy their lawless behavior. Of course many important issues deserve the attention of Congress. But the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, not just an issue. Without the Constitution, we have nothing.

Polls show that 74 percent of Democrats and the majority of American adults support impeaching Cheney. “Never in our history have the high crimes and misdemeanors been so flagrant, and the people of our country know it,” writes local author Richard Behan.

Kucinich has targeted Cheney first, but investigations will implicate the president as well. For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50 percent of respondents say they “strongly disapprove” of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48 percent, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974. With these numbers, why aren’t Bush and Cheney gone already?

The vice president is accused of:

purposely manipulating intelligence to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an attack on Iraq;

deceiving Congress about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida;

threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States.These violations of the Constitution and international treaty are just the tip of the iceberg. More articles of impeachment can be added at any time, and ample evidence to convict is on the public record. Representatives need to introduce articles regarding:

illegal war, in violation of both international treaty and the Constitution;

widespread domestic wiretapping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony. Bush already has admitted to this;

condoning torture in violation of federal laws and international treaties;

rescinding habeas corpus, the cornerstone of Western law since the Magna Carta;

obstruction of justice regarding U.S. attorney firings;

subversion of the Constitution, abuse of signing statements and rescinding habeas corpus.It’s astounding that our representatives to Congress carry on with business as usual knowing that Americans lack habeas corpus and a working code of law. I want my representative, Dave Reichert, to block the doors of the House until habeas is restored as a basic human right in this nation!

In light of Bush’s steady drumbeat for war with Iran, Kucinich said he will consider an impeachment resolution against him.

“Impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran,” he says.

“The most conservative principle of the Founding Fathers was distrust of unchecked power. Centuries of experience substantiated that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Constitution embraced a separation of powers to keep the legislative, executive and judicial branches in equilibrium,” Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said in the October 2006 edition of Washington Monthly.

If Congress were serious about oversight, there already would be dozens of bills and resolutions calling for impeachment of Bush and Cheney. The “Unitary Executive Theory” violates the principle of balance of power in the Constitution. The president cites this “unitary” power in hundreds of signing statements that say he can ignore laws passed by Congress.

The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are all now subject to the caprice of government officials. The Military Commissions Act allows U.S. citizens to be detained without due process if they are declared enemy combatants. Without our permission, this country has become an exporter of torture.

Congress has failed to provide oversight and exercise its authority to rein in a criminal administration. Only swift action on impeachment can redeem it now. The people have done the heavy work of bringing impeachment forward. Representatives need only ask if the allegations are serious enough to warrant investigations.

George Bush and Dick Cheney promote an imperial presidency. They assert that the executive is the most powerful branch of government, undermining the judiciary and Congress in violation of the Constitution’s bedrock principle of shared power among three co-equal branches. This subverts the very nature of our system of government.

“This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy. … That’s a big problem because that’s essentially a dictatorship,” Fein said.

Washington For Impeachment and Citizens to Impeach Bush and Cheney are working to inform the public, collect signatures to petitions, provide forums, and lobby representatives. Washington was the second state to sponsor a bill for impeachment in the state Legislature.

Washington State Democratic organizations have passed resolutions in 11 Democratic legislative districts, five counties and the Washington State Democratic Central Committee. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, has received impeachment resolutions from almost every legislative district within his congressional district. When will he represent the will of his constituents and honor his oath to protect the Constitution?

The national movement to impeach is a non-partisan effort to restore the Constitution and the rule of law. People across the political spectrum can unite to preserve the Constitution and civil liberties given to us by the founders. Impeachment is the peaceful, orderly, constitutionally prescribed way to rid ourselves of a lawless administration.

The issue is not about removing Bush and Cheney as much as it is about preserving the Constitution and redeeming the office of the executive. The Constitution is the contract of governance between the people and the government. What happens when major portions of the contract are violated?

Congress has failed to call the president and vice president to account, so citizens must turn up the heat. Members of Congress who fail to demand investigations are covering for criminals. Every elected official has sworn an oath to “support and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.” Anything less than impeachment and a full repudiation of the Bush administration’s crimes and violations of the law is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of the public trust.

If we want our democracy back, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work to clean out the House.

Linda Boyd is director of Washington For Impeachment, http://www.washingtonforimpeachment.org. Citizens to Impeach Bush and Cheney, in Olympia: http://www.citizensimpeach.org