It’s a perfectly fair question, even though most Democrats and the DNC insist those who ask it are embarrassing obtuse dirty fucking hippies who should best be ignored.
The latest outrages are the precisely described "thuggish "behavior of our President and Attorney General as they burned the constitution, along with gross abuse of Congress and the rule of law by ignoring perfectly legal and valid Congressional subpoenas.
As Atrios asks, when are our Senators going to wake up to the fact that they actually have to do something about this? That incredibly lame statements that “the committee intends to get to the truth” are laughably inadequate?
There isn’t any way to get ourselves out the many urgent crises we have except as a start to get rid of the criminals who dare to represent our country as soon as possible. 2008 without Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Gonzales should be the first priority of our Congress, and no other.
Senator Schumer: But you are telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program. Is that right?Attorney General Gonzales: Senator, I want to be very careful here. Because of course I am here only testifying about what the President has confirmed. And with respect to what the President has confirmed, I believe – I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you are identifying had concerns about this program.
In addition, on April 6, 2006, in answer to a question from then House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner about the hospital visit, which had been reported in the press, you responded: "Mr. Chairman, what I can say – and I’m sure this will not be acceptable, but let me say it anyway – is that I have testified before that the disagreement that existed does not relate to the program the President confirmed in December to the American people."
We ask for your prompt response to the following question: In light of Mr. Comey’s testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?
But after Comey’s testimony yesterday, it’s hard to imagine why the whole lot of them aren’t on somebody’s short list. As bad as their policy-making, as inept as their decisions, as suspect as their motives, it’s their general behavior and sleazy way of doing things that are the real grounds for a mass burial: Outing a C.I.A. Agent, nullifying Congress with Signing Statements, doctoring Intelligence, late night visits to get a signature from a desparately ill man, lying to Congress, withholding or destroying email communication, voter harassment, interfering with Federal Prosecutors, Interim Appointments to avoid Congress… The list is staggering. There should be a standard for "Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official." I hate to fall back on Clinton’s impeachment, but he was impeached for telling a lie that had nothing to do with his functioning as a President. I’m not defending him. I frankly wanted him to resign at the time. But these people chronically operate like white collar criminals, and yet impeachment proceedings aren’t introduced because they aren’t under indictment for specific crimes. The bar is set way too low.
But since that’s where the bar is set, I suppose the only recourse is to keep the investigations going until such indictments can be levied. It’s only a matter of time. There are lots of James Comeys and Valerie Plames out there. Sooner or later, someone will reveal a straw that breaks the camel’s back. And as an aside I’m not proud of, I’d really rather see them on the wrong end of criminal proceedings than given an honorable discharge…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.