Letting bygones be bygones?

Does Nancy Pelosi truly believe in letting bygones be bygones? Like, it's not as if Bush snubbed her for her best girlfriend when they were in the eighth grade. We're talking here about murder, arson, rape, and pillage on a massive scale. Multiple war crimes. So Pelosi takes impeachment "off the table?" Does she really mean to just overlook the war crime of the century? Perhaps she has some secret plan for accountability that we don't know about? Sorry Nancy, this is not a time for letting bygones be bygones. Bush/Cheney must be held accountable. It is your constitutional duty to see that this happens. So get with the program. NOW!

The Democrats caved. I guess it was a foregone conclusion. Now they are supposedly negotiating over benchmarks. What a farce. They can set all the benchmarks they want, Bush/Cheney will simply ignore them and/or Bush will just sign another of his famous signing statements saying that he doesn't have to follow them. If either the Democrats or the Republicans wanted to stop this phony illegal "war" they could do so right now. It is obvious they don't want it to stop.

One also can only laugh at their desire to have neighboring countries help them in Iraq, countries like Syria and Iran, for example. What are they saying to them - please come and help us steal Iraqi oil? Here we are intervening militarily in a once sovereign nation 6000 miles away that was no threat to us (or anyone else at the time) and we have the gall to tell Syria and Iran to stop allowing insurgents to cross into Iraq? This is carrying chutzpa and hypocrisy to entirely new levels. No, I guess not, Bush/Cheney have done worse. Many believe that Bush has gone AWOL from the Presidency. Cheney has been quiet of late. Rice continues to babble on in various parts of the globe apparently with little or no success anywhere. She has got photo-ops down to a science. I guess maybe that is progress.

Our monthly Democratic meeting this evening. The topic was education and how we fund the schools (with periodic levees). Some believe you simply must vote for every levee because we have to support our schools and the Democratic platform says we must support public education. I don't believe this has to be interpreted in such a way that although you support education in general you have to support every individual school no matter how rotten it might be. Furthermore, why should we have to vote on levees every year or two in the first place? The reason is simple enough, our Republican controlled legislature over the last years simply refused to adequately fund the schools. And who votes time after time for the Republicans? Why none other than most of the school administrators and teachers. Other states don't have to vote levees constantly to barely fund their schools. Indeed, many states are proud to fund their schools and want them to be first class. Here in Idaho we think we are lucky to fund our schools at the most basic levels possible. Some said tonight we should demand excellence in our schools and go for levees much higher than we have in the past. Terrific idea. But the idea of excellent schools in Idaho, if possible, is only possible in the very distant future. Of course if we could elect a Democratic legislature it might become possible. The issue, as it seems to be framed, is that the Democratic party is obliged to support the levees. So I say, okay, let's say we do, that doesn't mean that every Democrat individually has to vote for the levee (it is a private ballot after all). Interestingly, and predictably I guess, everyone politely ignored the fact that both our Superintendent and Principal are authoritarian vindictive bullies that violate the civil rights of the students and the Idaho code of education, to say nothing of questionable spending priorities. Hey, this is Idaho, the most red state in the union, what would you expect? In the end we focused on the solution for all problems - we suggested a committee.