Bush Pushes Agenda Without Congress

This is really a non-story. I have no idea why so many news sources are reporting about it. And here is why:

Outgoing presidents often unleash a flurry of executive orders and regulations in a last-minute attempt to leave their mark on U.S. policy. Frustrated by Congress' inability or unwillingness to pass the president's agenda, the administration already is taking steps to do it through executive action. [emphasis mine]

So this isn't at all unusual for an outgoing president. But I guess they have to fill in the space around the adverts.

(read more)

Must Read IMHO

I'll let this little snippet speak for me.

If we do not impeach Bush, we will have established that it is acceptable for presidents to lie us into wars, to spy without warrants, to detain without charge, to torture, to reverse laws with signing statements, etc. For similar reasons, we must impeach Cheney too. These reasons go to the survival of our democracy, a matter of far greater significance than the person who next sits in the office of the presidency – or the office of the king if that is what it is to become.

That's the gist of it, folks. We are, without an impeachment, setting a precedent which will allow future world dictators to break any law they want to with impunity.

Personally I don't want to see such dictatorial powers in the hands of a Republican or a Democrat. What's the point of having a great Constitution and Bill of Rights if we allow anyone domain over US?

Sometime soon I hope the Democrats will "fix" signing statements. They have to be limited to a narrow interpretation of a bill and open to revision by Congress. This "oh well, its out of our hands because he issued a signing statement" shit is ridiculous. The president has no right to make a binding commitment that isn't subject to review.

(read more)