high crimes and misdemeanors, amnesty, and voting rights...

"high crimes and misdemeanors"...what do we know for sure that phrase means? well, it may or may not include disagreement with radical republican reconstruction...although enough in the senate apparently thought so. it probably includes complicity in burglary for political gain. it probably includes perjury...and yes democrats, clinton's testimony was perjury, whether it was about sex or murder, it was perjury. but apparently slaughter, terrorism and war crimes don't fall into that category...i guess they are just petty misdeamenors as far as the office of the presidency is concerned. damn good thing too...i wonder if any of our presidents in the modern age could've made it through a single term if we hadn't decided as a people that state-sponsored terrorism, slaughter of innocents, complicity in fascism (yes...we were proud of the "gains" both mussolini and hitler were making until they stepped out of line and over one too many borders), targeting of urban civilian populations (notice nobody was prosecuted for this at nuremburg...might've set a dangerous precedent)...i think you get my point. impeachment is meaningless...the two times in history the process was actually pulled out it was for blatantly political reasons (even if the second time around the actions may have qualified)...oddly enough, both times by the republican party against a southern democrat. (side note...why do republicans hate clinton? he was better at putting conservative ideals into practice than anyone they've been putting up there. and on the flip side, why do democrats love clinton? he wasn't even one of them.). can we retroactively impeach roosevelt? truman? kennedy (one of the worst)? johnson? carter? reagan? bush sr.? clinton (again)? and can we please at least raise the issue of impeachment for the current nimblenuts occupying the white house?

amnesty for "terrorists" is absolutely unacceptable if you ask just about anyone with presidential ambitions in this country. they claim these people have "murdered" over 2,500 US soldiers and should not be allowed to walk away from such crimes. nevermind that killing enemy soldiers in a war is not murder...it is legally sanctioned killing...but then, we've shown we honestly could not care less about the the rules and laws of war. (and i admit, i've always been intrigued by law in war...as absurd as it sounds, if we pretend we live by them, we should at least make a token effort).

so the iraqi prime minister wants to grant amnesty to insurgents in order to move forward and actually stabilize his country. (any side bets on how long we let this government stand since this "democracy" apparently isn't strong enough to ignore the will of it's people and dance for us?) he wants his country to start working together and heal. seems fairly reasonable to me...but then i also thought lincoln was a pretty smart man (something the republican party apparently no longer believes). lincoln's plan for reconstruction, which, by the way, likely would have led to a smoother transition and avoided at least some of the horrible backlash that resulted in such bigotry being reinstated as law across the american south, called basically for amnesty for southerners who took up arms against their own fucking country...let along fought an american army stationed half a world away.

refusal to recognize the benefits that amnesty would hold for the country of iraq and refusal to allow their "democratically" elected representatives to actually do what their constituents desire to be done rather than what the white house wants them to do makes it perfectly clear that the fate of the iraqi people was never a concern of those that led us into this war. (nor was the threat of saddam...which anyone with half a fucking brain could see was virtually nonexistent...and anyone with half a fucking brain would notice that saddam, even if he had these vast stockpiles of weapons, kept a tight lid on them and never would have given them to terrorist organizations that wanted him out as much as the the guy who's father he tried to kill). if you honestly believe this had anything to do with anything but flexing american muscle and showing how the world must cower in fear before us while gaining access to the world's energy supply in a serious way you are either a fool or a liar.

republicans that split with some of their friends on extending the voting rights act are not only apparently out to sabotage their own party, but are horrifically amusingly bad at hiding their misdirected racism and xenophobia. one of their excuses is because it is apparently undemocratic to provide second language ballots or translation assistance for those that are voting. this is a completely idiotic subset of the immigration debate...but it forgets one thing. those that are voting ARE ALREADY CITIZENS! so basically, these folks want to make sure that citizens are not able to fully and effectively utilize their right to vote...the most important of all...because they may not vote for fat, rich, white men.

an example - harris county, texas, 2003 election - no bilingual assistance for the growing vietnamese community outside houston, violation of the voting rights act. harris county, texas, 2004 election - bilingual assistance for the growing vietnamese community outside houston, first vietnamese representative sent to the state legislature. see...therein lies the problem for these fucking assholes...allow minorities to have a voice, and they will tell you to go fuck yourself because it is obvious you don't give a rats ass about anyone but fellow fat, rich, heretical white men.

it serves you right to suffer...