Co-Sponsor H. Res. 1531 Against The Bush Blanket Pardons

I notice that when I DO state a concrete FACT you are suddenly nowhere to be found, KenM.

You write like a garden variety troll so I guess your hollow promises to respond to facts are just as vacant as your mind, huh?

Out of the scores of misrepresentations and out and out lies, I believe I'll just point out one at a time since you bob and weave like a scat back on steroids when it comes to answering a more complex questions truthfully.

Shall we start with ...ummm... the denial that we used torture. I guess since the battery cables Lyndie England used were hooked up to just one muslim's genitalia at a time and because they were attached to only one single 12 volt automotive battery when they were used, then there were no laws broken and nothing illegal taking place, right?

I'll wait while you stick to one thing at a time since you are already blaming Barney Frank instead of coming up with the REAL culprits behind the financial collapse -FAKE FREAKING INSURANCE created to circumvent insurance regulation but sold by brokerage houses so they could package non-performing loans and tell the buyers of those "securities" that "Credit Default Swaps" would INSURE that their investments were safe.

From greedy realtors, builders, banks and mortgage lenders all the way up to the orchestrators of the " computer models" that manufactured actuarial data and the brokerage houses that packaged the worthlerss paper and sold it as if it were REALLY an insurance policy.

One thing is sure.

Those people who were sold ARM's and who were told over and over that they "qualified" were made to feel both "bulletproof" and capable of retiring their debt.

To hear you tell it, the Shearsons and the AIG's were forced by Barney Frank to lend to credit UNworthy borrowers. That half-backed and oft-repeated theory is simply an out and out lie.

Not one thing in those statutes and guidelines that date all the way back to the Jimmy Carter demanded that one single financial institution lend money to a single person who was not creditworthy!

And since some of those original guidelines are sound today, you'd best look elsewhere to blame other than Barney Frank since the damned system has worked for almost 30 years since Carter left office.

If you cannot answer even direct questions asked in a clear and concise manner, then it may be time you looked for another board to pull that smoke and mirrors stuff you like to use.

Don't bother going into the second issue about your completely wrong take on the collapse of the financial industry until after you've apologized for lie number one that we did not allow or even condone illegal torture.of innocent Iraqis.

KenM, until you respond to your mistakes and misstatements, you need to pipe down and quit spreading obvious falsehoods, pal.

Oh, I agree: let's have an adult discussion.

Let's start with you stopping saying that I have belittled you, when I have gone out of my way to show you the respect that you (and I, and everyone else) deserve. I have complimented your patriotism by calling it equivalent to my own, and in return I have been compared to Nazi's. What I find most amusing is that people use the term "hyper-patriot" as if it is an insult. Personally I am proud of that term, as it indicates someone devoted to their country beyond the norm. Our soldiers deserve that term as a sign of respect and honor, while I am happy just being a regular patriot who loves this country.

But as far as your examples go, you seem to mistake your dislike of an event, with that event being the result of evil deeds on the part of our President. Nice try, but wrong.

Is our war expensive? Oh, yes. But to state that this is strictly the result of the evil Bush is simply projection with no basis in fact.

Did the current mortgage disaster occur? Of course, but it was directly related to the demands by Barney Frank and ACORN to loan money to people who demonstrably were unable to pay it back. Bush had exactly nothing to do with it, if you check the actual records.

Did torture occur? No, in fact. All examples of torture have been shown to be either mis-statements (no Koran was ever flushed down a toilet) or totally in line with established procedures. Now, you may disagree with those procedures, and in fact Obama has promised to change those, but ex-post-facto laws won't change the reality that what was done was legal at the time.

Sorry, but just because a partisan website hyper-ventilates over something they made up out of whole cloth without the slightest trace of reality, doesn't mean I have to believe it.

I don't want to see a witch hunt against the entire Bush administration, run by people who have no interest in truth but instead are driven strictly by the need to denigrate, destroy and ruin every one of the good and loyal people in the Bush administration (and I mean Pelosi and Reid).

We hired our Congress to solve the problems of this country. Those same problems are so large right now, that it will take every minute of every day of their time to address them. Every second that they spend viciously attacking their political enemies, and every penny of our (yours and my) money that they waste doing so, is a second and a penny that isn't being spent solving the problems that face us all. So to address your earlier question, yes, I do believe that Congress can't walk and chew gum at the same time: you and I don't have the luxury of the time they will waste on personal vendettas which they could be using to fix things.

-- KenM

KenM:

Did you stop reading before I brought up Bush's 3 trillion dollar war? That's evidence if I've ever read it. What about his lack of attention to the credit de-regulations also responsible for this economic disaster? Torture? Lifting environmental protections countless times (ie: environmental crimes against humanity) etc etc etc etc

You seem to want to play games more than address the issue at had, which I've brought back up to you several times now, still with NO response.

If you want to grandstand and belittle people, I think this is not the place.

If you would like to talk about the issue, I'd appreciate it.

Once again, the issue here is and has always been blanket pardons for crimes committed.

Here are a few websites with lists of crimes, in case you'd like to know what I'm referring to:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_Yoo_memo_evidence_of_Bush_0404.html
http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php#rogue
http://tvnewslies.org/html/the_smoking_gun_white_house_.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1185.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0801-07.htm
http://bushcrimes.net/

and these are probably only the tip of the iceberg if you take into account all the unanswered questions of September 11th, 2001 etc etc.

Please, no more childish "pointers". Let's have an adult discussion.

Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it. :-)

-- KenM (still waiting for the first fact to appear in your discussion)

You are simply put, the champion of mis-direction, KenM.

I didn't mention Hitler but the Third Reich DID cleverly use many of the same tactics your darling used when he orchestrated the War on Iraq and carpet bombing of Afghanistan BEFORE 9-11 ever occurred.

You know nothing of constitutional law and your stance, given a McCain victory, would have surely had the U.S. one step closer to an inseparable marriage of the corporatists and the Neo-Cons in a fascist candyland..

THAT marriage of corporate slugs and miscreants along with the lassez-faire "pay-to-play" administration Rove and Cheney created under Bush, KenM, is EXACTLY how Mussolini did define "Fascism".

You and the rest of the hyper-patriots who think it should be your way or the highway would gladly have given Bush warrantless wiretapping without our steadfast intervention.

Now explain to me again how they are going to make sure Bush isn't spying on political enemies and citizens without judicial oversight and I'll go away without dissecting the rest of your inane palaver.

Nice sidestep of the foreign gulags and the American Citizens held for 18 months in Egypt without charges.

You want us to THANK Bush for the "security" he provided us by killing 4.000 MORE Americans when he sent brave, young soldiers to find non-existent WMD's? You want to herald the "successes" when there was the collateral killing of between 400,000 and 800,000 INNOCENT Iraqis and the destruction of their country's entire infrastructure?

Go find someone who doesn't already know what a disaster of a president GWB actually has actually been for this country's armed forces, its economy, its stature in the world and the overall reputation its Cheif Executive has heretofore enjoyed among the nations of the world.

As I said: when you get some *facts*, some *evidence*, or anything but random name-calling, let me know. So far the replies have questioned my patriotism (though I have never questioned yours, nor will I as I think you love this country as much as I do, but we simply disagree on policy), you have insulted my positions (while carefully never giving any substantive rebuttal to them), and you have compared my position to Naziism (remember the original rule of Internet debate: the first person who brings up Hitler loses).

Your fundamental error is in thinking that armed enemies captured by the military deserve the same rights as those guaranteed to US citizens who are captured by law enforcement. This strange concept is no-where in the Constitution, and fails even the simplest analysis. It can only be followed by those who are determined to find fault with Bush, and are willing to sacrifice anything and everything (logic, law, common sense, etc) to that end. That sacrifice is reasonable, as our Founding Fathers were willing to sacrifice "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" to their ends, so there is precedent, but at least they were willing to publicly and proudly state what they were doing, and were ready to live with the consequences of their approach. Are you ready to live with the consequences of your approach, which is thousands of Americans dead in multiple terrorist attacks?

I say again: if and when you get some *facts* to back up your assertions of illegality, I am willing to listen. But for all of your passion about habeas corpus, note that it was entirely legal: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution explicitly lists when it may be done. Further, note that the law as written by Congress explicitly states that it only applies to non-US citizens. So your comment about "even an American citizen" is as fact-free as the rest of your entry. None of your rights as a US citizen have been affected.

Sometime you might considering reading the actual text of the laws you are so upset about. It can be a very enlightening and reassuring experience.

Of course this is a political vendetta. There is no other explanation for the viciousness of the attacks on a man who has done the best he could to protect you and I for the last 8 years, and (on balance) done quite well at that. For all of the mistakes which have been made, there have been no attacks on America after 9/11/2001, while the rest of the world has suffered tremendously due to the actions of our enemies. This is a record that you will never acknowledge, but nonetheless is one history will recognize as quite an accomplishment.

Enjoy the safety and protection you have been given to denigrate the one who gave them to you. That is *truly* something you can be proud of... :^)

-- KenM

I find Ken M's thesis faulty and his position repugnant,

Suspending Habeaus Corpus was both unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Giving ANYONE in Government the ability to simply point a finger and yell "terrorist" and by so doing, deny even an American citizen his previously-assured constitutional rights is as bad as anything that gave rise to the Third Reich.

It is very disconcerting to know there are hyper-patriot types like Ken M whose already-compromised judgment is poised and ready to subjugate the rest of America to their same brand of irrational craving for "security" at any price.

There are American Citizens who have been banished to FOREIGN GULAGS for questioning only to finally be set free after a year or more of captivity without even being told what they have supposedly done and you want to forgive, forget and even continue THAT?

If Ken M's blood doesn't boil after his government acted in that way, then all of us are in danger of the same Fascist beliefs destroying the few lines left in what was once our constitution.

This is NOT a political vendetta, Ken M!

This is about restoring our now denied but once inalienable rights.

Besides being dead wrong, Ken M, you are loquacious and dismissive. You should rethink your thesis starting with an understanding of why so many of us will never allow this to stand.

Add to that the fact that OUR patriotism has been questioned by you and the rest of the pseudo-patriots for far too long.

Get over yourself and get over thinking you have even a fundamental knowledge of how a real patriot feels about this country and its once mighty constitution.

Restoring the constitution to the condition it enjoyed before it was attacked and hijacked by the Neo-Cons is what we should all be seeking.

Congratulations to onechance for recognizing THIS STATEMENT : "those who have been kept safe by President Bush's policies but refuse to appreciate that accomplishment." as the SOFTBALL it was and then hitting it clear outta the park without do anything but repeating it!

Pure genius, onechance! Hats off to you for waiting on that pitch until it got right over the plate and into the middle of your wheelhouse! WHAM!

What I find amusing is that I stated that it was a political stance, but carefully didn't state which side. Note that there are as many Republicans who are angry at Bush for being a RINO as there are Democrats who are angry at Bush for being something other than to the left of Pelosi and Reid.

And yet 'onechance' accuses me of knowing which side he is on. Well, I don't know and I don't care: calling the President a criminal, in the total absence of any evidence, is strictly political, whichever party you belong to or don't.

'onechance is apparently totally uninterested in presenting any information, any logic, any evidence, or anything that contributes to a debate, but prefers to put forth ridiculous red herrings (running down the street naked).

Have a nice life. If you ever get some facts and are interested in presenting them for fair-minded people to evaluate, let me know.

-- KenM

Your position is simple, and it is extremely common on both sides of the political aisle: I really, *really*, **REALLY** disagree with 'x' politically, therefore 'x' is evil, therefore everything 'x' does is illegal, therefore anything we can do to destroy 'x' both politically and personally is not only justified but required by common sense and moral ethics.

But because it is common, and because your political positions are sincerely felt, doesn't make the rest of it true.

*Of course* it is all about revenge. Pelosi and others campaigned on the platform of impeaching President Bush. Obama campaigned on equating McCain with Bush. There are current calls for impeachment so that Obama can take office early. Meanwhile we are facing serious difficulties, and while Obama is facing these problems directly (and while I don't agree with his solutions, I do agree he is doing a fine job of paying attention to the problems), Pelosi and Reid are holding Congressional hearings to humiliate business leaders.

How will spending Congress's time on publicly humiliating every single Bush staffer, help the country solve the problems that we are facing? Of course, it won't, but it will make great press for Pelosi and Reid, satisfy the nut-cases who populate the DailyKos and MoveOn, and provide satisfaction to those who have been kept safe by President Bush's policies but refuse to appreciate that accomplishment.

-- KenM

KenM-

I'm not hateful person, nor do I ever seek or condone revenge. This resolution is not about revenge. This resolution is not about partisan politics. This resolution is about JUSTICE and accountability for one's actions.

Have you ever thought about the possibility that if Nixon hadn't been pardoned maybe Cheney/Bu$hCo wouldn't ever have attempted to commit half of (or any?) the crimes they are responsible for?

Your idea of letting it go, or sweeping all under the rug is insane at best.

To look at Pelosi/Reid is to compare the unknown with the known (a broad assumption) and it also reinforces the standard of power in this country as ALL powerful and lawless.

This is not Mexico where drug cartels murder people and the county turns the other cheek in fear. This is America, where law and justice are supposed to mean something.

Have you given up?

If I could count on Pelosi and Reid to put the interests and problems of this country ahead of personal revenge and vendettas against every single person in the Bush administration, I would support this bill.

Unfortunately, I can't count on that. I believe that as soon as Obama is sworn in, and President Bush loses the power to protect his people, Pelosi and Reid will go out of their way to ignore the difficulties that we are all facing (the economy, terrorism, etc) to hold Congressional committee investigations that will be nothing more than public lynchings of every person who served in the Bush White House.

It won't matter whether the people are guilty or innocent, and Pelosi and Reid won't even focus on that. They will be satisfied with bankrupting as many people as possible with lawyer fees, and staging lengthy speeches to attack their political enemies.

President Ford had the right idea: he pardoned President Nixon in order to spare the country the public spectacle of a President being publicly humiliated by his political enemies. His comments about "putting the long national nightmare behind us" are accurate.

Republicans should accept the results of the election as gracious losers, and support President Obama in his efforts to fix some of the problems that we have. Democrats should do the same, but should also prove themselves gracious winners and focus on these same problems. Neither should engage in political payback and retribution.

-- KenM

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. Just a caring citizen. That said… I'm torn here. The basic problem is the distinction between persons and laws. That individual evildoers should be held accountable is fundamental. But more than that is at stake here.

What matters more is (a) that present and future generations be allowed to see clearly the cynical, deliberate evil that has robbed our nation of honor and subjected our people and uncountable others to dramatically increased risk. And (b) that the primacy of the constitution and of the rule of law be not just symbolically but practically reinforced.

Think of what it means to "plead the fifth." The witness under arrest or just subpoena can refuse to tell the truth because the truth would incriminate her or him. If the witness has been pardoned in advance for anything she or he might reveal, then that "out" is denied.