Why revenge?

Democrats have always been warlike, angry, vengeful, and absolutely hypocritical.  If they don't INSTANTLY get their way, they will agitate everyone who makes the mistake to listen to their hysteria and make the wildest and most hateful accusations imaginable.

For example, a friend of mine served loyally at the local Food Bank for many years, driving his Freightliner to eight freight pickup points, twice a month, and made deliveries to nine satellite Food Banks in our area.  In the view of this very mellow and polite man, it was humanitarian service in the name of Jesus.

I was always glad to give him time off on company pay to do the runs.  Even without a tax write off, it is the thing to do. 

So, what happened to him two weeks ago?  A Democrat working at one of the satellite Food Banks pressed him long and hard to find out if he was Democrat or Republican.  When he didn't say he was a Democrat, she went completely bananas, claimed that he raped her and the other five women at the satellite Food Bank, and that I had my entire crew stalking them.

It got even uglier, as they went insane, harassing me late at night, and one of these sweethearts threatened my wife.  She is in a wheelchair!

Yes, that really is the average hostility that we see in the Democrat party, all the way through.  It will always be exactly that negative and hysterical.

Nothing can ever improve them from that.  Ever.

Basically, it's simple.  If they keep everyone focused on Bush and what he did or didn't do, then people won't really be able to focus on how poor of a job THEY have been and are continuing to do, now.  It's a bait-and-switch method.  Sadly, it seems to work.  Who is really paying attention to this administration and all of the scandal it's already produced?  Not many, I'm afraid.

I believe the real reason for this is the viseral anger over the 2004 election.  Maybe Clinton empeachment has a small impact on this revenge issue.

Q: "Why would Democrats want to ruin bi partisanship by investigation OF Bush NOW"

This question can be read to assume that Democrats want to ruin bi-partisanship. Consider the possibility that there could be reasons for pressing for an investigation, other than to ruin bi-partisanship. It's also possible that people other than Democrats wish to see an investigation. I suspect that there are even some Republicans who would welcome an investigation.

That said, it is also possible that there are people who would like to ruin bi-partisanship. This could include people who are sick after six years of enduring one-party rule by a party other than their own, and then watching Democratic leaders cave like little school girls for another two years. But such people don't seem to be making much of a ruckus these days.

What bipartisanship do they "want to ruin"? The "bipartisanship" practiced by the Republicans who unanimously voted against the stimulus plan in the House and only gave the plan three votes in the Senate? The three Republican senators who dared to break ranks to vote for the plan are now on a hit list put out by the National Republican Trust PAC. Apparantly the PAC has a very short memory, Pennsylvania is increasingly Democratic and will only elect Republicans such as Arlen Spector, not Rick Santorum who supposedly was destined for great things on the national level before losing his Senate seat in 2006. Or do you mean the "bipartisanship" of conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh who has already stated his goal is for the Obama administration to fail? This kind of "just say no" GOP attitude is not a plan for anything but a continued loss of the party's political power. The average American understands that their theory of continuing to give tax breaks to the richest is what got us into this mess. Despite the response of the Washington Republicans, I hope President Obama continues to reach out to the party, especially its governors and mayors, who know what real people are going through losing their homes, jobs and health care. I beleive there were plenty of reasons to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. But now that they are gone, I don't think there should be a "truth commission" because of the many other problems facing our nation after eight years of their administration. However I do think that some matters such as the politicalization of the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales should be investigated to ensure that nobody remains who believes the job of the department is to reward cronies and punish political opponents.

First thing about this question is the question of bi-partisanship.  There isn't any and there hasn't been any for quite some time and that bi-partisanship led to wars in Afganistan and Iraq.

As for waiting until now to investigate Bush, I think there is an answer.  That would be that by waiting until after President Obama's inauguration on January 20 our former president hadn't offered his co-conspiritors blank pardons (offering pardons would have been admission of law breaking) and because now he can't offer them pardons.

As an Indepentant Voter I have been dismayed at the lack of action by the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. I've signed petitions and been making comments about the lack of action for quite some time.

And by waiting until now Congress can offer pardons for testimony helping get to the truth faster.  Leverage.

Because they hate bush

blood lust