Fifty-two percent of people questioned say the president's policies will move the country in the right direction. An equal percentage feel the same way about the policies of the Democrats in Congress.

What do Americans think of Republican policies? Forty-three percent say the GOP's policies will move the country in the right direction. Nearly half of those polled said congressional Republicans would move the country in the wrong direction.

But the percentage of people who think Obama will move the country in the right direction has dropped 11 points since May, while congressional Democrats have seen a 5 point dip. Congressional Republicans have seen a 4 point rise over the same period.

We see polls every week about President Obama's approval ratings on health care, overall, energy and economy.  We've seen repeated polling on how Americans have changed their views on the Democratic Party or President Barack Obama's health care plans.  We're told that the ratings just keep on dropping.  Well folks, why are they dropping?  Do you see any polls telling you that?  I don't.  They leave that part of the story out of their polls.

Do they not like the plans because it's not what Obama promised during his campaign?  Do they not like them because they include a public option?  Do they not want medicare for all?  Why have they stopped supporting the plans?

When will some reputable pollsters finally take a poll asking for a reason why a person has stopped liking Obama or the Democratic Party's plans? 

Which of the following reasons have changed your views on the Democratic Party's Health Insurance plans?  Pick up to two reasons.

Death Panels (end of life decided by government)

Government Controlled (public option) health care will ruin private insurance companies

Too much money involved

Obama isn't Legal

Obama is black

I haven't changed my support

We need a single payer system

No public option available

We need Medicare for all plan

It's a socialist plan

They are a diverse group of people.  They accept all opinions and all feelings.  They shove no one away for their race, gender, political or religious beliefs.  They want all shapes and sizes included in their party.  While that is a proud thing to be able to say, it can also be their downfall at times.  Because they are so diverse with their own individual minds, they can never seem to get enough of one group to agree on one compromise.  Nobody's willing to compromise from within the Party itself.  If a group of people can't compromise on an issue among themselves, how in the world can they ever expect to get those that don't agree with the Party as a whole for political reasons - to jump on board with them on any issue? 

Take the War in Iraq for instance.  During the past 6 years we've heard the Democratic Party say many times, many different things, enough is enough, we'll not fund this war anymore, we demand a withdraw date or you won't get our votes, we must stand firm, on, we stand with America, on and on they go spewing their demands, thoughts and wishes only to end up giving into the Bush administration's demands - fearing backlash by voters-- as being seen as weak on defense.

The same thing is happening with the health care debate.  We want health care reform, that's what we heard while, then Senator Barack Obama was running for office, and he would say, and you'll get health care reform if you elect me. 

During the presidential debates we heard from Senator Obama, "we need universal health care", from Senator Hillary Clinton, "we need mandated universal health care", from Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich we heard, "we need a single payer system" and from John Edwards who was the first to announce his health care reform idea, we heard, "we need universal health care for all".

If we travel back in time this is what then Senator Barack Obama wanted according to his campaign site:

Currently:The Current Situation

Making sure every American has access to high quality health care is one of the most important challenges of our time. The number of uninsured Americans is growing, premiums are skyrocketing, and more people are being denied coverage every day. A moral imperative by any measure, a better system is also essential to rebuilding our economy -- we want to make health insurance work for people and businesses, not just insurance and drug companies.

Solution:utio

·  Reform the health care system:

We will take steps to reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.

·  Promote scientific and technological advancements:

We are committed to putting responsible science and technological innovation ahead of ideology when it comes to medical research. We believe in the enormous capacity of American ingenuity to find cures for diseases that continue to extinguish too many lives and cause too much suffering every year.

·  Improve preventative care:

In order to keep our people healthy and provide more efficient treatment we need to promote smart preventative care, like cancer screenings and better nutrition, and make critical investments in electronic health records, technology that can reduce errors while ensuring privacy and saving lives.

On May 29, 2007 he gave a few more details:

His plan could save the average consumer $2,500 a year and bring health care to all. Campaign aides estimated the cost of the program at $50 billion to $65 billion a year, financed largely by eliminating tax cuts that are scheduled to expire. President Bush wants to make those cuts permanent.

"The time has come for universal, affordable health care in America," Obama said in a speech in Iowa City, at the University of Iowa's medical school.

While Obama's plan is aimed at expanding coverage, he said cutting costs was also essential.

"We have reached a point in this country where the rising costs of health care has put too many families and businesses on a collision course with financial ruin and left too many with no coverage at all," Obama said. "This cost crisis is trapping us in a vicious cycle."

Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money to pay for expanding coverage. It would also create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies in offering the coverage.

I can find no statement by Senator Barack Obama, from the day he announced his candidacy for president to the day he was elected, saying he would want or work for 'a public option' in his health care reform plan.   If you can find one please correct this statement.  However, all we are hearing about now, thanks to the Republican Party's planting the issue over the August recess is, "They want a government controlled health care plan."...a Public Option.

So, what do some Democrats do - they start demanding that Obama include a public option, "like he campaigned on".  Other Democrats begin pushing for a single payer system, "that's the only way to get control of the health care costs."  And others said we need a Medicare for all system.

Even President Barack Obama started talking about his 'goal' was to create a public option to have real competition with the private insurance industry.  He's recorded as saying several times now that he feels that's the only true way to create competition.

Now a group of House Democrats are saying they won't vote for a bill without a public option in it.  The moderate Democrats are saying we won't vote for a bill with a public option included in it.  And of course we also have some Democrats just wanting basic reform, leave well enough alone.  Don't break something that's working, they say.

The Party is basically fighting within itself - who needs Republicans and conservatives to debate with; they've already done their job.  They've caused the Democratic Party to basically fold. 

The Democratic Party refuses to be more like the Republican Party when it comes to "following the leader".  Democrats want to be their 'own' leader, and there lays the problem the Democratic Party will have till it's dying days.  Each member does what they damn well please. 

If the leader of the Party (in name only) cannot prove to this crew that he 'in fact' is the boss - he will lose his job and a few of his crew as well --come judgment day.

The White House has been talking directly with Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine, who has proposed an alternative.

Snowe's idea is to use the threat of a government plan to force private insurers to become more competitive and cost conscious. She has been advocating the approach for months in closed-door negotiations with fellow senators and in talks with White House aides and the president.

The precise details have yet to be worked out, but the general idea is to give the insurance industry a fixed time to show that it can stem rising medical costs. If the private carriers fail, the government-run plan would be created. The approach could be tailored so that the government plan is used only in areas of the country where one or two private insurers control the market and have failed to bring down costs.

But the government plan wouldn't have to be used in regions where consumers have a choice of insurance companies and competition has kept prices low.

However, liberals are wary of Snowe's plan, favoring a robust government-run plan.

While this may sound good, I wonder who decides whether or not private insurers are being more "competitive and cost conscious"?  What will be the signs to look for?  What should we consider as prices being lower; Lower than what?  And how long will we allow the private insurers?

Will this government run plan be setup and ready to go on a moments notice or will it still take three years to implement it?

What will we do for those currently uninsured while we are waiting on private industry to care enough to lower their costs?

From the sound of it, this plan is too broad of a trigger.  The only pro thing I can say about this plan so far is -- it implies that a public plan MAY be put into effect.  It's placating the consumers and the Democratic Party's base.

I still continue to think that if a public option cannot be passed now, that it would be best for President Obama to officially announce that health care reform will be passed without a public option.  He should then explain exactly what that reform will consist of.

He should then, in that same speech or very soon afterwords, announce that he is putting together a special task force to come up with a plan to reform Medicare as we know it.  He should say that his only request would be to continue covering seniors as we do today; but to also allow those citizens that fall between the cracks of getting Medicaid and private health insurance the ability to join Medicare as well.

I highly recommend that you go read the editorial by the New York Times about former Vice President Dick Cheney's history revising.

It's easy to understand Mr. Cheney's aversion to the investigation that Attorney General Eric Holder ordered last week. On Fox, Mr. Cheney said it was hard to imagine it stopping with the interrogators. He's right.

The government owes Americans a full investigation into the orders to approve torture, abuse and illegal, secret detention, as well as the twisted legal briefs that justified those policies...

Mr. Cheney was at the center of each of these insults to this country's Constitution, its judicial system and its bedrock democratic values. To defend himself, he offers a twisted version of history:

They go into more detail about what Mr. Cheney said on Fox and what the truth really is.

They also point out information that some of us have yet to hear about:

Every week, it seems, new disclosures about this sordid history dribble out. This week, Physicians for Human Rights analyzed what the inspector general's report said about the involvement of C.I.A. physicians and psychiatrists in the abuse of prisoners. It said they not only monitored torture, like waterboarding, but also kept data on the prisoners' reaction in ways that "may amount to human experimentation."

The end of the column is especially well written:

Americans need much more than glimpses of the truth. They should not have to decide whether to believe former interrogators, whom they do not know, or Mr. Cheney, who did not hesitate while in office to mislead them when it suited his political aims.

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said in a speech last month that the Fed and Congress, as well as other governments and central banks around the world, deserve credit for stopping the global economy from falling into a depression.

"Without these speedy and forceful actions, last October's panic would likely have continued to intensify, more major financial firms would have failed, and the entire global financial system would have been at serious risk," he said.

A number of economists agree that the Fed, Congress and both the Bush and Obama administrations all deserve credit for steps taken to end of the recession.

"The actions of the Fed and Treasury starting last October actually worked, regardless of how unpopular they were," said Bill Hampel, chief economist of the Credit Union National Association. "It was messy. It was dirty. It required a lot of money. But they were successful in preventing the implosion of a lot of institutions."

An article written by Chris Isidore, of CNNMoney is asking today, "Who should get credit for a Recovery?" is being shown in CNNMoney.com's website this morning. I don't know if Mr. Isidore is a Democrat or a Republican but it appears somebody wants to make sure that the Bush administration gets credit for helping to solve the economic crisis of the century.

Might I remind everybody and Mr. Isidore that President Obama was telling former President Bush what to do about the banking system even before he was inaugurated to the 44th President of these United States.

January 14, 2009: First things first. Even before President Bush makes his farewell address on Thursday and Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president next Tuesday, the outgoing and incoming administrations are engaged in a concerted drive to release the second $350 billion installment of taxpayer funds to bail out the banks.

Obama telephoned Bush Monday morning and asked that he formally request the second half of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) windfall for Wall Street approved by Congress on October 3. Bush complied almost immediately,

I might also remind you that it was the Obama administration that saved the automobile industry and by doing so kept the unemployment rate below the 11% mark:

November 25, 2008: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have said they want the government to help the companies and that the funding should come out of the $700 billion bailout plan passed by Congress last month.

The Bush administration, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, has steadfastly resisted calls to use the bailout funds for the automakers... "We want to see legislation passed at this week's lame-duck session that uses existing funds intended for the automakers that will help them become viable for the long run," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Saturday. "We need to conserve the [$700 billion bailout] money for its intended purpose, stabilizing and strengthening our financial system."

While Paulson ultimately released some of the TARP money for GMAC, it was the Obama administration that ended up saving an estimated loss of nearly 2.5 million jobs if just half of the Big Three manufacturing companies were to have closed down.

I might also remind you all that it was former Senator Barack Obama that said the following way back in March 17 of 2008 before most of us even realized how bad things really were:

Obama claimed that the economy was "teetering on a potential crisis" at a news conference here today and pointed a finger at President Bush, accusing him of poor fiscal management.

"History will not judge President bush kindly," Obama said of the economic downturn over the weekend, arguing that Bush appeared nonchalant over the potential crisis in remarks last week.

"When I saw the president in his press conference, almost lighthearted and joking about some of these issues, I think it did not instill the kind of confidence in the American people and certainly it didn't instill any confidence in me that the Administration is taking the situation seriously," Obama said.

So my fellow readers, if Mr. Chris Isidore really wants to know who should get credit for the economic recovery --all he need do is read the facts, they are plain as day.

Senator Barack Obama, President-Elect Barack Obama and President Barack Obama, his administration along with the the Democratic Party in Congress and a few straggling moderate Republicans saved this nation from another Great Depression by not only pushing for the TARP money to be used for banks, AIG, GMAC and auto manufacturing but also by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that totaled $787 billion in spending and tax cuts over the period of 2009-2019.

Those tax cuts were the biggest tax cut in history in a two year period.

This administration and the Democratic Party not only saved this nation from an even greater economic meltdown, they are improving our infrastructure all across America at the very same time -- by fixing bridges, sidewalks, roads, electric grids, gas lines and government buildings. They are also saving us millions of future dollars by changing the way we heat and light up our government institutions.

Meanwhile they are keeping hundreds of thousands of families from going bankrupt by providing them unemployment compensation while they get over the loss of their jobs. Last but not least, they helped to stop the credit crunch thereby relieving thousands from having their homes in foreclosure.

And I might add, they did this while conducting two wars, preparing for the pandemic H1N1 flu, getting FEMA to work better in Louisiana after Katrina in less than 7 months then it took the Bush administration in 3 years.  And don't forget that his administration is also trying to calm things down around the world that the Bush/Cheney administration stirred up over the past 8 years with places like North Korea and Iran.

So I ask my fellow Americans, knowing all this ,do you still have any doubt as to who stopped us from going into another Great Depression, and at the same time improved our daily living environment and National Security? If you do, you are simply in denial or simply a Republican.

Reporting from Washington - U.S. officials are planning to add as many as 14,000 combat troops to the American force in Afghanistan by sending home support units and replacing them with "trigger-pullers," Defense officials say.

The move would beef up the combat force in the country without increasing the overall number of U.S. troops, a contentious issue as public support for the war slips. But many of the noncombat jobs are likely be filled by private contractors, who have proved to be a source of controversy in Iraq and a growing issue in Afghanistan.

The media is in attack mode over President Obama's Afghanistan plans.  He's been in charge for less than 7 months and already they expect miracles of the man, his administration and the military. 

The previous administration kept us there for 7 years, where were the media then?  They seemed to have packed up and pulled out of Afghanistan, almost completely ignoring it, when the Bush/Cheney administration decided to invade Iraq.  There was very little being reported by the media about Afghanistan and the war there --even throughout the recent presidential election.  It wasn't until President Obama announced we would be pulling combat troops out of Iraq at the end of 2010 and at the same time announced he would be sending more troops to Afghanistan to finish the job there that the media began to even notice we were in a war there.

Now they want results seven months later?  Actually less when you consider that the announcement that more troops would be sent over until March of this year, just 6 months ago.  It takes that long just to get them and their equipment over there.

Some are saying that Afghanistan is Obama's Vietnam.  Excuse me?  Afghanistan will always be "Bush/Cheney's Unfinished War".   As General Powell once said, "You break it, you own it".  They broke it, they own it.  Well, unfortunately, Bush and Cheney get to go home leaving behind their mess for President Barack Obama to fix.

Pollsters are once again taking polls about how Americans feel about our being in Afghanistan.  The latest says 54% don't believe we are winning this war.  When was the last similar poll taken (before Obama took office); I'll tell you, it was exactly a year ago.  It too showed 54% thought we weren't winning the war.

What?  The poll hasn't changed since Obama took office.  So why then are the media making such a bit deal of this latest poll?  

Are they stirring the pot - you might say?  Are they saying to themselves, "Let's get a story brewing"?  Who knows, maybe they are bored with the health care debate and want to talk about something else?  Whatever their reason is --- it's wrong to imply that 'feelings' have changed about the war in Afghanistan because when you compare past polls to the most recent ones, you find feelings haven't changed much at all.

Perhaps instead of risking the loss of getting any health care reform, President Obama and the Democratic Party should push for everything else they wanted from reforming health care and forget about creating a public option. 

Everybody knows Medicare will be broke in 10 years.  Both Democrats and Republicans are on record as saying it must be reformed --once again.  Very few can say 'no' to fixing Medicare. 

What better time is there to get everybody health insurance?  While discussing Medicare of course. 

Medicare will either have to come up with more money or lower the amount of customers or cover less medical care.

Why not reform Medicare to include those folks in America that fall between the cracks of being too poor to afford health insurance on their own and to rich to get Medicaid coverage.  They could be required to pay a small percentage of their income for the Medicare coverage but not nearly as much as a private insurer or employer would charge.

I've mentioned this idea before but just to reiterate, these folks/families will all tend to be non-seniors and less likely to require a great deal of health care.  This in my view and I admit I'm not an expert on Medicare-not even close, would bring in more money for Medicare to stay solvent, yet give health care coverage to those that don't currently have any.  This would not only help them if and when the time comes that they need health care, it would give them peace of mind as well.  It would also save the rest of us money.  Having everybody covered should eliminate the extra charges that hospitals and doctors pass onto those of us currently paying for complete coverage on our own.  At least that's what they say they are doing when approached about the higher costs of health care.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm sure other things need to be revamped within Medicare, but those things could be negotiating chips for Democrats and Republicans to fight over.

The idea of revamping Medicare to help cover those people that need help -- does not include everybody that decides they want cheaper coverage.  The family or person will have to qualify for the coverage based on income, the market value for private insurance and what the current income limit is with Medicaid.  It will not be Medicare for all -- as some are suggesting. 

At any given time if the person/family (non senior) that is using Medicare should come into more money, they should be required by law to report that and required to purchase a private plan.  The same goes if they should lose income, they should report that fact and be put on Medicaid instead.

While Congress is revamping Medicare and since we're not creating a 'new' public option, the cost of implementing this plan should be a great deal less.  Because of that fact, perhaps Medicare should also stop the 80% payments of Part A and B. 

Currently Medicare will cover only 80% of what 'they' consider the bill should cost.  Let's say your x-ray costs $50 at the clinic.  Medicare may consider that x-ray should have only cost $40.  So, they will only pay 80% of the $40 (not the $50).  The patient will be required to pay that extra $10 or buy a supplemental private insurance to cover things like this (meaning more profits for private insurers). 

Do you see how that process can be confusing to any person, let alone a senior?  This rule needs to stop.  If they want to only pay 80% of a bill, so be it; but none of this negotiating for a price should go on.  Congress can put rules on hospitals and clinics just as they do electric and water companies.  This is a universal health issue - it's a Right, not a Privileged.

I don't know this for a fact; but I'm betting all of the above would still be less than trying to create a whole new public option with the works and fix Medicare too.

Rachel Maddow Takes on Tom Ridge over Iraq

These men and women that supported going to war in Iraq are still trying to sell it as a war to bring Democracy to that nation.  They refuse to admit they were wrong to have gone into Iraq.  They still refuse to acknowledge that some of the neo-cons that helped make the decision to go into Iraq had even written books or theories about doing so -- even before 9/11 happened.

American's fear of another 9/11 was used by those in the Bush/Cheney administration to convince Americans into going into Iraq so that the neo-cons could carry through with their vision/plan for keeping Americans safe.

I agree with Rachel. 

History will someday say that this war in Iraq was a pre-visioned war by those that felt in their hearts it was the only way. They felt the invasion would be a piece of cake and that they could control the Middle East by getting us over there.

These same people continue to think we should invade/attack Iran.  If they had the opportunity, they would do so today -- with or without the approval of the American people.

The one thing that Rachel should have asked and didn't was, did anyone making the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 ever express, in anyway before 9/11, that they felt we needed to go into Iraq for whatever reason?  Tom Ridge, if he were an honest man, would have had to admit that, yes, some in the administration had a theory that if we went in, we could control not only the oil but the Middle East better.

Michael Steele is starring in a new TV ad by the Republican National Committee, which will run on select national cable channels and in Florida.

Make it illegal to ration health care based on age. Prevent any government role in end-of-life care," Steele says. "And stop bureaucrats from getting between seniors and their doctors. A few things we should all agree on. The Seniors' Bill of Rights."

I'm betting most Americans would agree that private insurers also have bureaucrats (not doctors and nurses) deciding what they should cover and what they should not cover- health care wise.  It's already been proven that even the private industry offers 'end of life' consultation coverage.  I'm also relatively sure from stories I've heard over the years that these same private insurers with their bureaucratic boards, sit around a nice big table discussing just exactly how far they will go with a patient's coverage when said patient has been diagnosed as terminally ill.

It's also a known fact that even the private industry rations coverage to all its customers.  If they didn't why bother sending out new pamphlets every year explaining what is covered and what is not?

As for government controlling 'end of life' care Mr. Steel, I believe it was your Party and its leadership that insisted on interfering to the point of passing a resolution in Congress and having it signed by a Republican president stopping the removal of feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo.

As for 'senior's rights' Mr. Steel, wasn't it your party that wanted to eliminate Social Security as we know it?  Your party wanted to privatize it, converting it to a stock market based plan.  Current and future seniors, if your Republican Party had gotten its way, would have been reliant on the same stock market that nearly went bankrupt this year;  Great job that would have been sir.

Because of all these facts Mr. Steel, it is 'your party' that has no business getting involved with senior's financial business or their health care.

The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto says:

If the Bush administration's policies really did keep us safe for 7½ years, then it stands to reason that the Obama administrations' policies may be endangering us now. Certainly that is how the public would see it in the event of another terrorist attack.

If that happens, heaven forbid, Obama will be seen to have failed in the most basic presidential duty, and the Bush administration will be vindicated. As inconceivable as it may seem today, the 2012 election may end up turning on national security. Republicans would be wise to nominate someone with both toughness and experience. Under such circumstances, it's hard to think of a better candidate--assuming, of course, that he could be persuaded to run--than Richard B. Cheney.

First off, our homeland was kept safe from foreign terrorist attacks, from 1993 through December 2000 under Bill Clinton.  It was only after George W Bush and Richard H Cheney took office did we have the worst historical attack against the homeland, with thousands killed (even more than during the attack of Pearl Harbor).

Why the press and media continue to listen to this man that is advocating torture and disobeying our land of laws?  To this very weekend the man thinks it was ok for interrogators to have gone beyond even what the Bush administration allowed.  This is like listening the Godfather explain why those people he killed or tortured needed to be treated as such.  It's like listening to Adolf Hitler explain why he felt he was saving lives by riding his nation of Jews.

Dick Cheney thinks that the end justifies the means.  Torture provided information (he says- no proof yet), therefore torture is good -- it saved lives.

Mr Cheney, does this give the police and the FBI the right to torture prisoners in our jails or those they've arrested -- if as you say, it means possibly saving lives?

I mean, think about it.  What if we capture a member of the drug cartel.  We know that these drugs he is selling can cause death among those that use them.  Should we torture this man to find out other gang member's names -- to, as you say, save lives?

Do you have a limit Mr. Cheney as to how far you will go, to quote, save lives?

Should we euthanize people with the H1N1 virus or Aids --- after all, it could, as you say, save others from catching it and possibly dying.  How far should we go with this -- ignoring of our laws?

Dick Cheney as president in 2012? A man that ignores our constitution and the Geneva Convention signed by the conservative President Ronald Reagan; You have got to be kidding!

Wouldn't it be extremely interesting to see the results of several polls asking the American people the following question:

If you had the chance to vote for one of the following people as your president today, which one would they choose?

George W. Bush

Richard H. Cheney

Barack H. Obama

Joseph R. Biden

John S. McCain

Sarah L. Palin

Why are the media even listening to former VP Dick Cheney and his daughter about the possible war crimes; but especially why do we care what he says?  That's like listening and talking to Adolf Hitler or the Godfather about the reasons for gassing Jews or killing other gang members and local citizens?  We're listening to the GUILTY and accepting HIS reasoning for committing the crimes.  That does not compute.

I'm not saying Cheney is as BAD as Hitler was but he DID advocate going against the Constitution and is still supporting the IDEA that torture worked so therefore we should disobey our own laws.

Does this give the police, FBI and fire depts the right to torture prisoners in the jails or arrested -- if it means possibly saving lives?  I mean, think about it.  What if we capture a member of the drug cartel.  We know that his selling drugs can cause death among those that use those drugs.  Should we torture him to find out other gang member's names to save lives?

Do you have a limit as to how far you will go to quote, save lives?

Should we euthanize people with the H1N1 virus --- after all, it could save others from catching it and possibly dying.  How far should we go with this ignoring of our laws?

TORTURE was ILLEGAL but Let's IGNORE THAT!

Senator John McCain responded to former vice president Cheney's comments about the AG Holder's investigation of torture by CIA:

These people make no sense what so ever with their logic.  War crimes were committed but for the sake of possibly upsetting somebody or hurting their feelings, we should just ignore the crimes and 'move on'.

A gang of crooks just stole drugs for their own pleasure or to sell for profit themselves, from a famous drug cartel.  Problem is, this gang of crooks were all police officers working for the city.  The attorney general said after careful consideration, "We need these policemen on the job and alert -- so we aren't going to punish them for their crimes, we should just move on."

This is crazy!!!!