Who Cares About APEC Pledge...Americans Want Some Protectionism

First, here is a clue for APEC...Bush is a lame duck president that no longer speaks for most of us Americans that live on Main Street...that would be most of us. He can pledge all he wants to, and it is not going to keep America from taking some protectionist moves in the next 12 months. Further, even if Obama might want to honor Bush and the APEC's pledge not to take any protectionist actions in the next 12months, there is a good chance the matter is not going to be in his hands, but in the hands of Americans.

China...we don't much care for your products. They may be cheap, but they are also poorly made, and your nation shows NO RESPECT for the environment, or human rights. It seems to me that America might be better served bringing less Chinese Goods in during the next year. Sure the Christmas shopping season is going to be an eye opener. India...Americans are pretty sick of speaking to customer services reps who are answering phones from India...especially since your English is NOT NEAR AS GOOD AS YOU THINK IT IS. We want our jobs back, and perhaps it is time for us Americans to stop shopping at any store, or purchasing products from any company that exports any jobs off shore, and specifically to India...while we are at it, there is a good chance American Main Street anger will see our government left with no choice but to stop giving our American tech jobs to immigrants brought in from India.

Mexico...look for the raids to increase, and for our borders to suddenly become a lot less accessible to your illegal aliens, and your drug dealers...our government can't really afford to ignore Main Street America right now, and Main Street America is NOT going to accept a pardon. By the way Calderon...we will redo or revoke NAFTA.

So APEC, hold your little meeting, but I would not put much faith in those pledges you are securing...the average American is pretty well fed up with the Global Economy, and paying the price to bring prosperity to the rest of the world...it is time that our politicians start doing what is in OUR BEST INTEREST, and what is in our best interests right now is some serious protectionist trade policies. While we are at it...this American would suggest it might be a good time for America to RETHINK our membership in the World Trade Organization.

APEC Leaders: No Trade Barriers For 1 Year

Asia-Pacific Countries Pledge Free Trade, Vow To Return To Doha Talks

President Of Bronx Could Get Cabinet Post

By JONATHAN P. HICKS

Published: November 23, 2008

Adolfo Carrión Jr. is being considered for a senior position in the Obama administration, possibly as secretary of housing and urban development, people involved in the transition said.

U.S. President George W. Bush with Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan (left) and President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Lima, Nov. 22, 2008. (AP Photo/Dado Galdieri)

Track major events that lead to one of the most tumultuous times in Wall Street's history.

(CBS/AP) Leaders from 21 nations that account for half the world's economy are pledging not to implement any protectionist measures for the next 12 months, no matter how punishing the global downturn gets.

The leaders are endorsing a declaration made at last weekend's summit in Washington, saying they won't raise new trade barriers over the next year.

They are also pledging to reach agreement next month on the outlines of a World Trade Organization pact that collapsed in July after seven years of negotiations.

Why CAn't Americans See Security of Forces Agreement? Iraqi's Have Seen It

There are some very disturbing things going on right now in America, so it is easy to miss some of them. One of these is the SOFA (Security of Forces Agreement) that Bush wants to get signed and in place before he leaves office...in fact, he has gone so far as to claim the agreement does not need to be approved by Congress...that should ring some alarm bells. However here is the kicker...the citizens of Iraq have seen this agreement, it has in fact been published in Iraq...so tell me, why is it that the Bush Administration will not let Americans see the Security of Forces Agreement? For that matter, why will he not let CONGRESS see this document? If Iraqi citizens have seen the SOFA, we should be allowed to see it...are any of the major press organizations getting a copy of the agreement that was published in Iraq and having it transcribed and placed online?

Lawmaker accuses Bush of secrecy over Iraq deal

By Ross Colvin Ross Colvin – 1 hr 6 mins ago

Featured Topics:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. government is refusing to make public the security pact it has signed with Iraq, even though it has already been published in full in an Iraqi newspaper, a congressional hearing was told on Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were holding a closed briefing for U.S. House of Representatives members on the pact signed on Monday that sets a 2011 deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq.

Rep. Bill Delahunt, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations and Human Rights, before the closed briefing called it "insulting and an after-thought," after the Bush administration earlier rebuffed calls for Congress to be consulted during year-long negotiations on the agreement.

The administration has said it will not seek congressional approval for the deal. It has been in a hurry to finalize the pact, which Iraqi lawmakers still must approve, before the U.N. mandate under which U.S. troops operate expires on December 31.

Delahunt, who has urged President George W. Bush to renew the U.N. mandate rather than sign a bilateral agreement with Iraq, held the eighth in a series of hearings on the Status of Forces Agreement.

He said the Bush administration had turned down an invitation to attend the open hearing, saying it was a "sensitive time." Experts testifying before his subcommittee were forced to rely on an unofficial English translation of the security deal.

"Even now the National Security Council has requested that we do not show this document to our witnesses or release it to the public. Now that's incredible -- meantime the Iraqi government has posted this document on its media website," Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, said.

November 15th Global Financial Meltdown Summit...Let Us Know Your Plans

If you or your organization are planning protests or other events during the World Financial Conference to be held on November 15th, 2008, in Washington, DC please keep Washington Scandal in the loop so we can give you coverage. You can email the publisher at roycepenstinger@aol.com to make arrangements for coverage, or to time the release of your Press Releases. You can also keep us informed anonymously by simple leaving messages in this post.

Let us be your funnel into the mainstream media!

Iraq Troop Deal Should Not Be Considered Until 111th Congress

Seems a new SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) is circulating around on Capital Hill, and Gates is wanting Congress to pass it. Who cares if months of negotiation have brought forth a contract that Gates (and George W. Bush) can live with? Fact of the matter is, this SOFA should not be looked at, considered and voted upon until the 111th Congress, should not be voted on until the NEW PRESIDENT can put his fingerprints on it. Bush is a Dead Duck president with zero clout, Gates is gone when the new administration comes in, and the new President should not have his hands tied by pushing through a deal in the closing hours of a dismal administration that is filled with graft and corruption.

Status of Forces Agreement Being Circulated in U.S. and Iraq Governments

By KAREN RUSSO, LUIS MARTINEZ, KIRIT RADIA and ALI HUSSIEN
BAGHDAD, Oct. 16, 2008

After months of negotiations, the United States and Iraq have produced a draft agreement outlining how U.S. troops will operate in Iraq, and it is being circulated among the executive branches of both the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

Girls walk past a U.S. soldier on a patrol with the Iraqi police in Baghdad's Ameen district October 14, 2008.

(Thaier al-Sudani/Reuters)

Negotiations on the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, had been deadlocked for months over disagreements about a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal and over whether U.S. troops would be subject to Iraqi laws if they commit crimes.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is "comfortable" with the draft agreement, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said, indicating the key hurdle of legal immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq had been overcome -- though he did not reveal details.

However, a senior U.S. official told ABC News the deal would allow for American troops to be tried in Iraqi courts for crimes committed off-base and when not on missions.

The Iraqi government has pressed for lifting the blanket immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts that U.S. forces currently have in Iraq, should they be involved in crimes. Currently, any offenses are dealt with through the military judicial system.

Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship!

Shaking my head here...earlier tonight I posted about two SECRET White House memo's that approved CIA torture of prisoners, even though the Bush White House and administration had denied KNOWLEDGE of the torture. Now in another breaking news story it seems George Bush has used signing statements to declare key components of bills he signed into law as unconstitutional, saying they placed constraints on his Presidential Power!

1. Think the Iraq War is not about oil...one of the areas he had declared unconstitutional would have forbid money from the bill being used TO CONTROL IRAQI OIL!
2. Another section would have required negotiations to have Iraq share in the financial costs of the ongoing war...George Bush claims this would have weakened his powers as Commander and Chief.

In the other bill, he outlawed sections that would have strengthened legal protections against political interference with the internal watchdog officials at each executive agency. (As in INSPECTOR GENERALS!)

Based on this news, based on the fact that George W. Bush has used more signing statements to mutate Congressional Laws than all other presidents put together, I know what the first question in tomorrow night's debate should be. "If you are elected President of the United States, are you willing on your first day in office by executive degree to revoke all of George Bush's signing statements effective immediately?

Bush Declares Exceptions to Sections of Two Bills He Signed Into Law

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Published: October 14, 2008

WASHINGTON — President Bush asserted on Tuesday that he had the executive power to bypass several parts of two bills: a military authorization act and a measure giving inspectors general greater independence from White House control.

Mr. Bush signed the two measures into law. But he then issued a so-called signing statement in which he instructed the executive branch to view parts of each as unconstitutional constraints on presidential power.

In the authorization bill, Mr. Bush challenged four sections. One forbid the money from being used “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq”; another required negotiations for an agreement by which Iraq would share some of the costs of the American military operations there.

The sections “purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations,” including as commander in chief, Mr. Bush wrote.

In the other bill, he raised concerns about two sections that strengthen legal protections against political interference with the internal watchdog officials at each executive agency.