Wally Wonders Why

No editor, no publisher, you get what you get

impeachment

Who is the creep

If you read yesterday’s post you’ll know that one of the things that my father impressed upon me was that creeps were people who spoke disrespectfully of others. So I guess I have a bent in this area, but I’m OK with that. So this morning I read another informational article in the “law” section of the Herald titled “Mock trial of Bush discussed” I’m immediately tweaked because of the lack of respect exhibited by leaving out the title President or at least George W. Just Bush, as if it didn’t matter he is our US President. He is mentioned a few other times in the article.

 

discuss the impeachment process and her book, “US V. BUSH”
argues that President Bush and his colleagues have committed
a mock prosecution of Bush

Our US President is mentioned by name 4 times, with 3of them leaving off his title. So is it the Herald, the author, or the Whatcom Peace and Justice Center that is the culprit?

At least according to Amazon the author actually titled the book United States V. George W. Bush et al. Was the title shortened for space? If that’s the case it is sad that they would disrespect our president but spell out the sponsor Whatcom Peace and Justice Center and the location First Congregational Church. Both are very long words. And there is another article with the very long title of Trash becomes treasure at antiques fundraiser.

But what if the article was just supplied to the Herald by the WPJC? So what! They could reject it or say it needs to be rewritten. They don’t and don’t have to print everything that is given them.

So who is the creep? The Whatcom Peace and Justice Center is a given, but the Herald also deserves creepy credit for being the enabler and propagator of this disrespectful behavior towards our nation.

Why not impeach?

Have you wondered why some people who oppose President Bush don’t want to pursue impeachment? Perhaps it will come out that they actually agreed with him on Iraq? Here’s what some of the Democrats said several years before Valerie Plame became and issue and before Mr. Bush was elected.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18,1998.

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“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.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

Unfinished Post that will remain unfinished – Senator Oemig resolution

This post is unfinished but I felt it had enough information to have some worth and I am running short on time.

A few days ago I wrote about Senate Joint Memorial 8016, a resolution to investigate impeaching President Bush that was backed locally by Senator Spanel. At the end of my post I asked the question of who really wrote the resolution, Fellowship of Reconciliation’s or Senator Eric Oemig? Here is what I came up, with arranged chronologically. They are only excerpts so you can click the links if you want everything.

(more…)

My Commitment to Recycling

Today’s post is made from 100% recycled material. This is one of the many letters I wrote to the Bellingham City Council last fall regarding the Troops Home Resolution. With a resurgence of the well used but never explained Bush lied talk accompanying all the impeachment business I felt like a recycling some of my writings to counter the left’s recycled rhetoric.

9/14/06 email to Bellingham City Council

No matter how many resolutions and sign waving protest there are, the President must get up every morning and do the job for which he was hired. And similarly, no matter how many people are in the room supporting this proposal, the council still has an obligation to do the job for which they were hired. (more…)

Herald – Spanel Backs Impeachment Inquiry

Now I’m a bit disappointed, but it’s not because Senator Spanel is signing on with the impeachment investigation. Impeachment is in the local Democrats platform, so of course it will be pursued.

Supporting any and all actions of our elected representatives to investigate and begin impeachment proceedings of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and to strengthen the ethics rules for all elected officials.

Sure it is disappointing that a political party’s platform would target our elected officials directly, rather than be directed at an issue like terrorism or immigration. But what really disappointed me is that the article was subtitled “Resolution to Congress cites false information leading to Iraq war” but it didn’t actually cite any information, false or not. I want to see the evidence, not more hearsay and beating around the shrub. This is the closest the article comes: (more…)

Democrats have a plan for Iraq

It’s not a plan to win, it’s not a plan to bring peace, it’s not a plan to rebuild, and it’s not a plan to fight terrorism. It is a plan to fight President Bush and not terrorists. It is a plan that will lead to failure by forcing troop reductions which will lessen our chances of success in Iraq. It will also embolden Iran, other Middle East Nations, and Muslims worldwide against non-Islamic nations. And the beauty of it in the Democrats eyes is that it can be done while claiming they are funding the war.

The Politico
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options.

How is this possible? There plan proposed by Congressmen Jack Murtha, is to accept the added funds the President has requested, but with some additional requirements riding the bill. According to Win without War, the before mentioned anti-war group, this is how it will be done.

Key to Murtha’s strategy will be establishing a set of strict requirements that the administration will need to meet to deploy troops into Iraq:

  • Troops will need to be certified as “fully combat ready” with the training and equipment that they need;
  • Deployments cannot be extended beyond one year;
  • Troops must have at least one-year at home between deployments;
  • The “stop-loss” program where soldiers are forced to extend their agreed upon enlistment period will be prohibited.

Chairman Murtha described other measures the committee is considering for inclusion in the legislation:

  • Prohibit an attack on Iran without Congressional authorization;
  • Prohibit the construction of permanent military bases in Iraq;
  • Close the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba;
  • Bulldoze the Abu Ghraib prison into rubble;
  • Substantially reduce private security contractors and establish greater accountability for those who remain.

I can see so many ways that this will cripple our troops. President Bush will have the choice between no funding for the additional troops needed in Iraq or this plan, which will force the most experienced soldiers home early and leave the fighting to be done by less experienced soldiers. We lose either way. It’s ashame that the President has to wage a war on two fronts, here and abroad. If the Democrats want to kill our soldiers and citizens so badly, I wish they would just pick up a gun, instead of this “Slow-Bleed”

In a nutshell the Democrats finally have a plan, but it isn’t a plan to defeat terrorism.

We are all still waiting for that one.

And for you conspiracy buffs, or those who really wonder where the Democratic Party gets their agenda, realize that Democrats are working directly with Win without War which is a member of United for Peace and Justice, an anti-US socialist organization that has Whatcom Peace and Justice Center as its local members. You know the guys who stand on the street corner downtown with the signs.

Wally Wonders Why © 2014 Frontier Theme