Progressive Programmer

Progressive Politics or idle geek banter. What's on my mind when I'm irked, intrigued, bored or up too late.

Location: Michigan, United States


Big Brass Ones

The Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary has guts. John Conyers (D-MI) is one of the (the?) ballsiest guys in Washington when it comes to repeatedly calling Bush and the Administration what they are. Republicans across the aisle refuse to do a damned thing to stop, slow, or even question the tactics of the Administration, but Conyers labors on, documenting and filing things like his latest epic.

He has produced a 26 page report (half of it is footnotes) that TPM has been kind enough to host for all to peruse. 26 Laws broken. 26 pages. How fitting.

Manipulating and forcing intel. Tubes. Nukes. Chemical Weapons. Niger. Valerie Plame. Threats/revenge tactics. Wiretaps. Misleading Congress. Torture. Oh, it's all there in lovely detail.

Old News reminder from the Downing Street Memos. Remember, Bush told the nation he didn't decide to invade Iraq until just prior to the invasion in March, 2003. Page 2-3:
....President Bush had told Prime Minister Blair "when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq (Fall 2001); "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed" (March 14, 2002); the U.S. has "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat" (March 25, 2002); "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" and, most significantly, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy (July 23, 2002).

They may have gotten draft deferments and National Guard gigs back in the day, but boy did they have a hardon for this war. Page 7 (emphasis added):
  • An intelligence analyst who testified, "[t]here's so much pressure [to support the Administration's position on aluminum tubes], you know, they keep telling us, go back and find the right answer."
  • a senior official reported that CIA analysts got "pounded on, day after day" on WMD issues
  • a CIA official stated, "[t]here was a great deal of pressure to find a reason to go to war with Iraq. And the pressure was not just subtle; it was blatant...[the official's boss] called a meeting and gave them their marching orders. And he said, "You know what? If Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so.

You almost get the impression the Republicans and the Administration don't want to look into these matters. Page 13 (emphasis added):
Thus, the Senate and House Intelligence Committes have refused to conduct any serious investigation concerning intelligence manipulation relating to the Iraq War; House Republican Chairmen have rejected numerous requests by Members to conduct hearings on torture and other abuses in Iraq; and the Administration has ignored requests for information concerning such abuses submitted by the Ranking Members of six committees. Republicans in the House have also rejected myriad attempts by Members to ask the Administration to provide information regarding all of these matters pursuant to Resolutions of Inquiry.

Yes, we're still waiting on Part 2 of the Senate Report from the Preeminent Procrastinator of our time, Pat Roberts (jackass-KS). It looks like Conyers grew impatient.

But there is no cigar. No blowjob. No pecker tracks on a blue dress. I fully expect very little to come of any of this. Conyers will be (and has been) regarded as a shrewd politician pulling a stunt in an election year, and much worse.

The country's moral compass always points Due North Blue Sex, you see. The infamous semi-rhetorical, "What will we tell the children?" from the Clinton years is so last century. Nowadays, "How can we properly justify moral relativism to the children?" should be the quandary facing many of the hyper-ventilators still breathing into a bag over Clinton's penis. But, methinks that question won't be asked by anyone, cuz (say it with me) IOKIYAR.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Post a Comment

<< Home