There's a lot talk regarding impeachment hearings against President George W. Bush, and alot of gnashing on both sides and in the middle as to why it should or why it shouldn't happen.  I'm rather ambivalent on the subject, though I do agree that wrong doings in the administration, as well as with the rest of our public servants should be held accountable when they break the law. 

The argument against impeachment hearings from the right is that Bush did nothing wrong.  The argument from the middle is that it's just an attempt to get back at the Republicans for the witch hunt they did with Bill Clinton when he was President.  

There is no doubt that we've seen the corruption in this Congress and Senate, with many congressmen found to be in the pockets of Jack Abramhoff.  The question is now, how far up does the corruption go?

Since invading Iraq, we've seen many businesses with alliances to both George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney profit off of the war.  Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater has indeed profited from no bid contracts.  Other contractors have skimmed their profits off of the top and when they ran out of money to complete the projects, they've abandoned them, this includes KBR, which is a subsidiary of Haliburton.  

The idea of an impeachment hearing is not only to hold a President or Vice President accountable but also to determine the level of corruption, if any.  Given the White Houses and particularly Cheney's office to discredit the credibility of Valerie Plame when the yellow cake accusation was debunked, along with the extraordinary attempts to quiet war opposition, as well as the forced retirement of Generals who disagreed with Bush's assessment of the war, we should definitely begin to question as to whether the President lied to Congress to get into a war for nepharious motives.

If the President didn't lie to us to get into a war, then there should be no reason to fear an impeachment hearing.  However, since there's such a push NOT to have one, makes me seriously question if there's not some level of corruption or at least abuse of power coming from the  White House. 

Posted by Denise at 11:07 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

It was over 200 years ago when brave men stood their ground and were willing to die to establish a new country, to gain the freedoms from tyrrany.  If they were to see us now, would they be rolling over in their graves?  Would they, like me, be shedding tears of grief because those freedoms that they fought for have been thrown aside by our nations leaders of today? 

Over 20 years ago, I took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States.  At that time the enemy I stood guard against was a regime that tapped their citizens phones, bugged public places all for the good of their country.  Their media was controlled by the state and rarely, if ever, reported anything “ugly” against their leaders.  To do so meant imprisonment or worse, they disappeared.  Protestors against the leadership were arrested, branded dissidents, were not allowed to leave the country (if they remained free that is).  Those who stood with that government were given free passes to break the laws of that country.  The government policemen were allowed to enter the abodes of it’s citizens without cause and those citizens had no recourse.  Too many innocent individuals were detained without recourse.  How different is the USA today from that enemy that I stood guard against so many years ago?  Unfortunately not much and the passing of the FISA bill puts us perilously close to the former USSR. 

How eerie the comparisons of what the former Soviet Union did to what our government has been doing for the past 8 years in the name of protecting freedom, protecting the American people. 

Our government tells us that our way of life, our own freedoms are at risk by the present threat.  Yet it has been this government, the legislative, executive and, unfortunately, the judicial branch, that has been the greatest threat to our freedoms, using the excuse that it’s essential for our security to limit freedom with certain laws that go against the very constitution.   Again, by passing the FISA bill, they have shown their disregard to the very constitution they took an oath to protect. 

Today I cry even more, because once again, my government slapped me in the face.  In the past, I’ve been slapped by this government before, because I was a woman, because I was a spouse who’d have to make life and death decisions for my husband.  Today they’ve slapped me and every veteran and military member who took their oath to protect that constitution seriously.  Today, they’ve made my service to my country a joke by once again putting us perilously close to operating under Soviet style law by not only walking a close line to disregarding the articles of the constitution, but failing to hold those who’ve completely ignored it accountable, supposedly in the name of freedom. 

I should be proud of my service to my country, why is it that my government makes me hang my head in shame because of it?

Crossposted on Daily KOS

Posted by Denise at 3:29 PM EDT

Updated: Friday, 20 June 2008 3:31 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Recently I was forwarded an email attempting to discredit Barrack Obama by pointing out some "negatives" for what he supposedly stood for.  As I read through the email, I saw it for what it is, a weak attempt to swiftboat another Democrat candidate. 

Not only was the swiftboat attempt weak but it was filled with so much hypocracy, it wasn't even funny.  Know the old adage, when you point, you have four fingers pointing back at you?  I guess the original author of the email had suffered a major bout of alzheimers when they sent it out.

 Lets discuss some of the points of that were brought out:

-- Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

How quickly they forgot that our current President, the honorable George W. Bush admitted to cocaine use and alcholism earlier in his life before he found God.  Guess it's okay and forgivable for a GOP candidate to have experimented and developed a habit.

-- It's questionable exactly what religion Obama really is.

Last time I heard, Obama was a Christian.  So, I guess the only way to be "truly" a Christian is to be born into it.  Listen up missionaries, preachers and those who feel they need to convert.  Quit bothering to convert people to Christianity because we all know they're not "true" Christians. 

We were asked why GW's fundamentalist religious beliefs should be a factor in whether he's fit to be President, guess we can ask the same question as to why Obama's faith matters.

-- Voted Yes on comprehensive immigration reform. Would result in 20 million instant citizens never having paid SS, many refusing to speak English, immediately sending for their 40 to 50 million extended relatives telling them not to wait and obey the laws, the once mighty USA is theirs for the taking. 

Ummm, wasn't this a bill that our current President tried to get through and both John McCain and Lindsey Graham supported? 

Honestly folks, from someone who is in the middle and getting tired of the garbage that is going out to discredit the candidates, this is getting pathetic.  Seriously, it's extremely pathetic. 

During the 2000 Presidential campaign and republican primary, certain groups attempted to sabotage John McCains campaign by suggesting that his years as a prisoner of war may have left him mentally unstable.  The smear campaign unfortunately worked, causing him to drop out of the race prior to the South Carolina primary. 

What this group did was not only discredit McCain, but every man and woman who ever was held as a prisoner of war, reviving the idea that P.O.W.s were potential psychopaths.

The well known swiftboat campaign against John Kerry in the 2004 election, not only discredited Kerry and his purple hearts, but discredited the purple hearts received by every man and woman wounded in battle or in the line of duty.

Of course, now we need to support our troops and now John McCain is the best person to put in because of his military service.  Didn't matter about Kerry's war experience versus's G.W.'s (which was none). 

Now Obama, due to his lack of service, isn't qualified to be President of the United States.  Let's face it, neither was George W, yet here he is. 

Unfortunately, until the election, I will continue to receive such emails, that will sling mud at all Presidential candidates.  Thankfully, I refuse to both drink the Kool Aid and be led like a lamb to slaughter.  So I say, let them continue to be hypocrits, it will bite them in the butt eventually.

Posted by Denise at 11:08 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

It hasn't been that long ago since the first signs of it started popping up.  During the investigation of the Valerie Plume leak, there were alot of instances of forgetfulness among the White House and the Vice President's staff. 

It came up again during the Congressional hearings on the warrentless wiretap when Alberto Gonzales seemed to have short term memory loss and wasn't able to recall alot.

Now it seems that another member of the Bush adminstration has been inflicted with the early stages of this condition, prompting my concerns of whether this is becoming a slow moving epidemic. 

In his testimony to Congress, National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell explained that it was because of the Protect America Act of 2007, that the German terrorist plot was thwarted.  Indeed, when asked by Leiberman during the testimony if "the newly adopted law facilitated that during August?"   McConnell replied yes and then elaborated with:

“The connections to Al Qaeda, the connections specifically to what's referred to as IJU, the Islamic Jihad Union, an affiliate of Al Qaeda. Because we could understand it, we could help our partners through a long process of monitoring and observation. And so at the right time, when Americans and German facilities were being targeted, the German authorities decided to move."

Of course, it wasn't intentional.  

Officials said they believed McConnell gave the wrong answer because he was overwhelmed with information and merely mixed up his facts. 

Yes, according to a recent Newsweek article that details how McConnell had given inaccurate information to Congress, and recently admitted his mistake, McConnell was just confused about just when and how the information they had thwarted the terrorist plot in Germany.

It's not that the intelligence gathering authority given to McConnell alone under the Protect America Act was only temporary and McConnell wanted to show how this recent law works for America.   It was that he suffered temporary dementia and became confused.  It wasn't intentional, just a mistake.

Employers are responsible for identifying possible health and safety hazards within the workplace.  Perhaps it is time for the American public to call for an OSHA investigation to determine, whether working for us is creating an unsafe working environment for the members of our government.  After all, the instances issued above were just a few.  Given these others:

Rumsfeld stating that Iraq was not linked to the 9/11 attacks and Cheney having to remind him that they were.

Bush forgetting that mission was accomplished.

Bush forgetting that he was advised that it would take more troops to be able to win a war in Iraq.

Bush forgetting that he wanted Bin Laden dead or alive.

Bush forgetting that he works for the people of this country and not vice versa.

Bush forgetting that his generals had already told him that they wouldn't be able to sustain a surge for an extended period of time.  Now he's proud of himself that he is announcing that he can bring those troops home.

Obviously, there is something in the water or the air that causing this loss of memory and is a direct threat to the mental well being of our elected officials and their staff.  This must be the case because how else can they expect to pull of explanations to the people of America that are just so blatantly stupid and idiodic and then expect us to believe it?

Posted by Denise at 9:27 AM EDT

Updated: Friday, 14 September 2007 2:21 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink

During the Presidential campaign season of 2004, GW Bush ran on the "wolves are at the door" platform, stating that he was the best person to protect the country from terrorist attacks.  Ironically, one month prior to the election, a video made by Osama Bin Laden was received, as if to reinforce the fact that this country was still under threats of attack from Al Qaeda.  Bush won the election that year.

Yesterday, General Petreaus sat before Congress testifying about the progress of the surge in Iraq.  Just days prior, not one, but two video tapes were received of Bin Laden.  Coincidence, maybe.  One can argue that Bin Laden released the tapes due to the anniversary of the attacks on the US on 9/11.  However, if this is true, why, in 2004, three years after the bombing of the towers and Pentagon, why did he wait until October to release it and not around 9/11?  Now, not having received another tape for three years, all of a sudden two popup, just before the sixth anniversary of the attacks, which coincidentally was when Petreaus was to expound the virtues of the military troop surge?

We should be skeptical of these tapes that were released.  The inconsistencies in these tapes between past events should make us question the validity of what is being translated and the unnamed intelligence agencies doing the validating and translation.  Prior to the first tape received, the rallying cry from fanatical muslims was "death to the infindels", now it's convert or die?  It is said with the second tape that if one looks closely, you'll see that the sync between the voice and the lips are just a bit off.

Regardless of whether these tapes are authentic or whether they were established to "scare" the American people, one thing they have managed to do was to remind us that GW has not made progress in the war on terror like he claims is happening.  Indeed, we know that Bin Laden had escaped from Torra Bora, that the CIA disbanded the Bin Laden task force and that Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan and we haven't done anything significant to go after them. 

An inadequate number of troops were sent into Afghanistan, resources diverted to Iraq and the President insists on continuing to fight them there rather then here.  Of course, he'd like us to forget the bombings in Madrid and in London.  Fighting them in Iraq, didn't keep them from planting bombs in these cities.  Nor did it dissuade would be terrorists, like the ones that were recently arrested in Germany. 

The recent videos only reinforce the failure of this President and his declared war on terror.  Hopefully, the American people will not bite and concede to this administration in fear, but demand that we begin to focus on the true war on terror, which is not Iraq.

Posted by Denise at 10:24 AM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, 11 September 2007 1:11 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Yesterday the Pentagon reported that armed nuclear warheads were transported, via a B-52 from Minot AFB, ND to Barksdale AFB, LA.  They told us that no one knew this occured until the plane reached it's final destination.   No one, not the pilot, not the crew members, not the weapons specialists that loaded the bombs onto the plane, not one person realized that nuclear warheads were taken out of inventory and loaded onto a plane.  Could this be possible?  Very unlikely.

Let me give you a bit of background.  From 1980 through 1988, I was a message center operator.  My official title at the time of my discharge was Communications Computer Supervisor.  I know, it wasn't a glamorous position, however, this job required me to maintain a Top Secret security clearance with access to different levels of information. 

Part of my responsibilities in this position was to account for everything that was in that message center, everything.  Messages that went out and came in were processed according to specific guidelines.  We inventoried the equipment, the security codes, the backup tapes and, yes, even the garbage.  In centers where classified material was processed, you had a two-man center, meaning that there had to be two personnel on duty at all times.  You signed visitors in and out, you checked ID's, you verified that you disseminated information properly and then you reverify it. 

There were times that I had acted as Communications Security (COMSEC) NCO.  If equipment or material left the vault, it never left with one person.  It was signed for when it left, it was accounted for when it came back in.  If it had to be destroyed, it was recorded.  If it left the compound, it left under armed guard. 

Now, given that we had this much security for material that could compromise the national security, consider the security in place for devices that could actually create massive damage.  Since a nuclear warhead is not something you can put into your pocket and walk out with, since ordinances bear specific markings, how likely is it that no one noticed these warheads being placed on the plane?

We should look at the sequence that these warheads would have gone through to even get to the plane.  There would be someone in charge of the storage facility that stored these warheads.  Since rifles have to be signed out, it's highly unlikely that they'll just let anyone take a warhead without signing for it.  So the warhead left the facility and then was loaded onto the bomb.  No one noticed this when they were arming them?  Ok, so it's possible that the same individuals who placed the warheads in the missiles are the same ones who loaded them onto the plane, someone on that planes crew would have to be accountable for them. 

The excuse that the Air Force gives us for those warheads going to Barksdale is for decommissioning.  If this was true, why were they loaded onto missiles in the first place?  The reality is, is that missiles need to have a warhead loaded onto them first for them to be live and lethal.  I'm sorry, I do not believe that this was an accidental incident. 

Call me a conspiracy theorist, if you must.  Call me a fear monger, if it makes you feel better, however, this is one in a series of events that have occurred over the past few years, that is placing us as close to a nuclear crisis since the Bay of Pigs incident.  We've seen where, then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld had been discussing the use of a nuclear warhead on bunker buster bombs, as an answer to the underground nuclear facilities in Iran.  We've seen the President push for the missile defense system in Poland.  Now, it's been found out that a B-52 was flying with live nuclear ordinance (which, in reality, could have only been done on orders). 

Posted by Denise at 9:37 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 6 September 2007 12:41 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.  Department of Justice website.

When Alberto Gonzales took the position as Attorney General in 2005, he spoke to his employees stating "a special obligation to protect America against future acts of terrorism. We will continue to make that our top priority while remaining consistent with our values and legal obligations. That will be the lodestar that guides us in our efforts at the Department."   Two years and numerous controversies later, we now have to suspect that this was just another episode of lip service that the AG provided to his employees. 

If the mission statement of the DOJ reflects the values and objectives of the DOJ, then Mr. "habeas corpus is not a right" lied through is teeth when he stated that he would be consistent with the "values and legal obligations" of the department.  Even prior to his appointment as AG, Gonzales, then Counsel to President Bush, approached then AG John Ashcroft in regards to the illegal wiretapping, as was testified by FBI Director Robert Mueller. 

In the past few months, certain activities have come to light which have Congress and the citizens of this country wondering, at the very leas t,of Gonzales leadership abilities and at the worse speculating whether or not he intentionally perjured himself during his congressional testimony.  Given the AG's, and even this administrations consistent desire not to testify under oath, the speculation of perjury may not be too far off the mark

The depth of Gonzales's involvement in the illegal wiretapping and his knowledge of the replacement of federal prosecutors who were in the process of investigating key Republican officials for corruption and other activities, is still in the process of being determine.  Regardless of the results, Gonzales announced yesterday that he was stepping down as Attorney General on September 17, 2007.

Now the question is, who will be his replacement.  It's no secret that G.W. Bush has a tendency to appoint cronies to key positions regardless of their qualification for the position.  Speculation already has Michael Chertoff (Director of Homeland Security) and Joe "I'll kiss Bush's butt" Lieberman as possible replacements for Gonzales.  However, can we trust either of these individuals to put the rule of law first over that of the desire of an ambitious President and the RNC?  Doubtful.

The credibility and reputation of the DOJ has been damaged under Gonzales's watch and what is needed now is a qualified individual who will apply the law accordingly and not bend it or, even completely, evade it to push an agenda of a President who has shown a total lack of respect for the constitution and holds himself above the law.  Unfortunately, as has been in the past, any appointment made by the President will more then likely be based on cronyism and not by qualifications.

Posted by Denise at 4:19 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Yesterday in Kansas, President G.W. Bush stood in front of a group of veterans, citing the three past wars in Asia as reasons for our continuing presence in Iraq. 

Bush said that like World War Two, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the war in Iraq was an "ideological struggle" as he again depicted the conflict as part of the broader U.S. "war on terror."

"The militarists of Japan and the communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity," Bush said.

"Like our enemies in the past, the terrorists who wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places seek to spread a political vision of their own: a harsh plan for life that crushes freedom, tolerance and dissent," he added.

Umm, okay, sure.  If the only people that were fighting in Iraq were terrorist cells.  Unfortunately, this isn't the case.  The war in Iraq was never the war on terror, regardless of how the President would like to twist it, fighting them there isn't going to keep them from fighting us here.  All we have to do is look back at the Madrid and London bombings to show the flaw in Bush's rhetoric.

He has asked us to look back on the lessons of Vietnam to justify our continuing presence in Iraq.  The one lesson that our esteemed President fails to remember is that the longer that we stayed in country, the less public support we had from the citizens of that country.  Indeed, we've heard from many soldiers who returned, that it was difficult to tell exactly who the enemy was.  This is becoming the case in Iraq. 

Indeed, the President's recollection of history tends to be cherry picked.  We only need to look into recent history to justify ending this war and bringing the troops home.  We can go back to the Afghanistan/Russian war to have seen the insurgent movement that we are currently fighting.  We can look at the collapse of the Berlin wall to see that democracy is only won when the citizens of that country stand up and demand it.  We can look back at Cheney's comment about Iraq becoming a quagmire in the 1990's.

We can also look at the lies that sent thousands of our troops to their death, ill prepared.  Bush seems to forget this war was only a war on terror when WMD's weren't found.  In fact, the administration had to come back and retract their statement that Iraq was involved in 9/11. 

Yes Mr. President we do remember history, and we remember recent history more clearly.  When this administration sent our men and women over ill prepared and under armoured.  Now you ask us to continue to support a surge and send more troops over who are over taxed and according to a recent AP article, still under armoured. 

Yes Mr. President, remembering history is always wise, however, will  your cherry picking the history lead us to another 58, 193 dead soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as Vietnam has? 

Posted by Denise at 3:49 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, 23 August 2007 4:53 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

It is no secret that Rudolph Guilliani is one of the, if not the, front runner for the Presidential nomination for the Republican party.  With healthcare reform being one of the big, if not the biggest issue, facing this country, you have to wonder, when it comes to this, does he really get it? 

One of Rudy’s campaign promises is to provide a $15,000.00 tax credit for individuals who purchase their own health insurance.  The concept, to relieve companies and businesses from providing a generalized group insurance plan for their employees, and give individuals the opportunity to pick and chose their own insurance plan based, on their specific needs.  Although this plan may be a tax-reformists dream, the question comes into being, how does this alleviate the current and future crisis that this country is experiencing with healthcare and health insurance.

Rudy, please explain how this plan is going to be the answer to the biggest issue in this current crisis, individuals unable to get and/or afford insurance?  Are you truly that far out of touch with this problem that you believe a tax credit would be a fix all?

According to The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, in 2005, 46.6 million individuals were uninsured.  This is 1.3 million more then there was in 2004.  The primary reason for the increase in the uninsured is the erosion of employer-based insurance.  Mr. Guilliani would like to believe that with businesses not having to pay into group insurance for their employees, they would be willing to increase the pay rates to help individuals purchase their own health insurance.  The above numbers show this isn’t going to be the case.

In fact, the candidate’s plan would add more to the crisis then it would to relieve it.  The individuals who lack health insurance, usually are considered either part of the working poor or reside in the lower to moderate middle class.  The tax credit may give justification for companies to totally disband their health insurance benefits, especially where the current pay rate for employees is less the $10.00 per hour, leaving more individuals unable to purchase individual or private health insurance.  Should a company, like Walmart decide to discontinue their employee health benefit coverage, thousands of individuals would be added to those uninsured, where their salary would fail to cover the increase expense of private health insurance.  Indeed, the 15,000.00 tax credit would make little difference since individuals cannot receive back from the government, more then they put in.

Tax credits also are flawed in other aspects.  Under normal circumstances, one must already be enrolled and participating in a program to be eligible for the tax credit.  If 46.6 million individuals cannot currently afford to purchase health insurance, how is giving them a tax credit going to help them meet their monthly premiums to be able to take advantage of the credit?  Also, a one time pay out, in the form of a refund check, would hardly cover the annual cost of private health insurance for one individual, let alone a family of four.

An issue that isn’t addressed by Guilliani’s tax credits is the rising cost of health insurance.  There is no incentive for the insurance industry to lower its’ costs on individual or private plans.  Having worked in the health insurance industry myself and knowing the Human Resource aspect somewhat, insurance rates tend to decrease when you have more individuals enrolled in a plan.  Individual plans usually mean higher premiums or less coverage.    I personally have noticed the rate increase this year with the increase of my contribution to my premiums and the increase in my deductible and copay amounts required.  Despite the increase in all of these, I’m still paying less and getting more then I would for individual insurance.  Should I lose my health insurance benefits, there would be no medical coverage for my family and myself, because I would not be able to afford them.  Indeed, when my husband left his employment, he was offered single coverage health insurance at a rate close to $400.00 a month, under COBRA.  Imagine the rate to include spouse and child(ren). 

Guilliani’s plan, like many of Republican plans, seem to benefit businesses, insurance companies and those in the upper pay/class brackets of society.  Our candidates should be looking at ways to solve the crisis, unfortunately, this candidate seems to wish to not only continue the crisis, but like some of his other plans, escalate it. 

Posted by Denise at 12:36 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

It seems that once again the spotlight will be on Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, as Representative John Conyers and Senator Patrick Leahy will ask the Justice Department to investigate whether or not the Attorney General misled, lied, or otherwise acted improperly when testifying before Congress on the issue of the illegal wiretaps.  This request came on the release of notes maintained by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, pertaining to his meeting on March 12, 2004 with then Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The partially censored notes from FBI chief Robert S. Mueller, dated March 12, 2004, describe a distraught and feeble Attorney General John Ashcroft in his hospital room just moments after being visited by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card, the president's chief of staff at the time.

With the credibility of the nation’s top legal official already in question, is it no surprise that once again a cloud of suspicion and contradictions looms over the attorney generals testimony to Congress, regarding the illegal wiretap. 

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Justice Department, said Thursday he wants an internal investigation into whether Gonzales lied to or deliberately misled Congress about the 2004 dispute and its cause.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., also asked the Justice Department's inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, to examine whether Gonzales gave inaccurate sworn testimony about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

Due to the inconsistencies in the testimony, the head of the Judiciary Committee is seeking to have those in the Justice Department (JD) investigate their own boss.  This now raises the question of how impartial this investigation will be, if it even occurs.  What will be next, should the JD find that Gonzalez indeed acted inappropriately, especially with his involvement in the wiretapping?  Unfortunately, my gut tells me…nothing will happen except, perhaps, another dog and pony show in the way of congressional testimony.

We can look at previous hearings and events to see the outcome of this issue.  Congress has provided the citizens of the United States with a series of dog and pony shows which have done nothing but allowed those testifying to, at the minimum, avoid or skirt the truth with no repercussions.  Given the fact that we are witnessing a Democrat majority Congress who is reluctant to do anything other then put on the dog and pony shows; a Republican minority hell bent on obstructing any attempt to hold the administration accountable for their actions; and an Administration who hides behind executive privilege to stifle the investigative process, there is substantial doubt that this current revelation on Gonzales will do anything other then be a flash in the pan.

Failure to do anything regarding these inconsistencies has dire ramifications for this country and the very foundation it was built on.  By not holding anyone accountable now, it establishes a dangerous precedence, telling future officials that it is okay to ignore the Constitutional rights of the citizens who they work for and to ignore the check and balance system that was set in place to maintain our democracy.  Even now we are currently straddling a precipice that was created by the erosion of basic rights and liberties under the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Military Commissions Act and the current eavesdropping act that gave the National Security Agency (and thus, the administration) complete, unchecked authority to listen into conversation without constitutional oversight.

We can only hope that our lawmakers will wake up and pull a bipartisan effort to restore the checks and balances and shore up the remains of our Constitution.  However, given the events of the past, it’s highly doubtful.

Source:  Notes describe frail, upset AG Ashcroft, AP, August 16, 2007

Posted by Denise at 1:12 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink