Front Page
Login
Archive
ByLines
Mission
Resources
Tips
Our Store

Sections
Humor/Satire
Projects

ConyersBlog

Kudos from feline: One of the many things I love about this chatroom is knowledgable people who can instantly gratify my need to be informed, and immediately exchange ideas - I love it!

Chairman Waxman Intensifies Pressure on BushCo

Rusty

On April 20, Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee sent four letters to Republican officials warning that because he has not received sufficient cooperation in several ongoing investigations, he will convene his committee on April 25 to consider issuing subpoenas.

Roll Call’s Paul Singer notes that if the targeted White House officials refuse to offer their testimony voluntarily, “Waxman’s committee will consider issuing subpoenas for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for testimony about her role in President Bush's now discredited claim that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium from Niger; former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card for his testimony in regard to the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name to the press; the Republican National Committee for documents related to RNC e-mail accounts used by White House officials, including Karl Rove; and the White House for documents related to a federal contract given to a company that has been implicated in a bribery case.”

We can expect these subpoenas to be ignored if they are issued, but The Decider and his Rovian thugs are becoming increasingly isolated, day after day, as House and Senate investigations expose pervasive, systematic abuses of power and obstruction of justice throughout the Bush Administration. The complicit corporate media will continue to engage in damage control in an effort to protect these BushCo criminals, but there are too many concurrent investigations being conducted, too many ticking time bombs about to explode, and too many people coming forward to tell the truth to Congress and the American people.
A breaking point is rapidly being reached.

Gonzo is a dead man walking, the US attorney firing scandal is intensifying and spreading, Condi is in Waxman’s crosshairs for the Niger uranium forgeries, George Tenet’s new book is adding fuel to this bonfire, Dennis Kucenich will introduce articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney this week, and Iraq gets hellishly worse every day.

This administration is imploding. Desperate BushCo stonewalling, further abuses of power, and pathetically transparent lies cannot contain this implosion, they are the reasons why this administration is imploding in the first place. Bush and Cheney think they can run out the clock, but it’s already run out. I think we’re going to see Impeachment hearings by July. The 4th day of that month would be a good day to start them.

Comment # 1 ~ Alma ~ 02/07/2007 03:44 GMT

I sure hope JC gets into this. I think that would be the true meaning of support our soldiers.

Comment # 2 ~ Rusty ~ 02/07/2007 06:02 GMT

Me too, Alma. It's not like JC doesn't already have enough to investigate, but someone in Congress has to start actually supporting our soldiers. So far, the RePugs are still betraying them and the Dems are just standing around talking.

Comment # 3 ~ Rusty ~ 02/07/2007 22:22 GMT

The "judge" has declared a mistrial.

The Army needs to drop this case and just let Watada serve in Afghanistan as he offered to do, or let him resign from the Army.

Comment # 4 ~ Reed31463 ~ 02/09/2007 15:00 GMT

Good! This laughs in the face of that #@#%%##ing VP Cheney.

Comment # 5 ~ tahoebasha1 ~ 02/10/2007 01:44 GMT

Yes, Rusty, Watada is one brave SOB. A "mistrial" will buy him some time, but then what? It is a curious situation in that he did not "defect" from the government en toto, he only defected in terms of Iraq! I have known (vaguely) a couple on my train -- "he" is in the National Guard and has a "gag" on him -- haven't seem or his wife lately, must be that he got sent. But, point is that Watada took a stand against it all. I admit I'm confused! But wasn't there somewhere a law that allowed consideration to a "conscientious objector" to war? What happened to that? Watada stood his grounds for what he considered an "illegal war," which, in fact, it is. But he never, ever objected to going to Afghanistan - so how can the military see him as a "traitor, or whatever?"

Comment # 6 ~ Alma ~ 02/10/2007 02:06 GMT

To be a "conscientious objector", if I remember rightly, you have to be against all wars. They can still send you in a support position, instead of a combat position. Also it is best if you have documentation showing that you've been against war for a long time. Heres a couple of links for draft and CO status
Status

This next site used to tell you how to prepare a portfolio for your child to show how against war he is. The site has really changed since I last visited and I couldn't find the part I wanted.
MAD

Comment # 7 ~ Rusty ~ 02/10/2007 03:05 GMT

I think you've defined conscientious objector accurately, Alma.

Watada never claimed conscientious objector status, Tahoe. His position is that the Iraq war is illegal, and that he has not only the moral right but the duty as an officer to disobey an order to fight in an illegal war. Such an order is unlawful.

The Army is not going to admit in this case that Iraq is an illegal war, if they did, a legal precedent would be set, and thousands of other soldiers would have legal grounds to refuse to fight in Iraq.

I'll be surprised if the Army tries Watada again, this first trial was a disaster for them.

Comment # 8 ~ tahoebasha1 ~ 02/10/2007 14:22 GMT

Thanks, Alma. I was curious about that. Rusteeee, where did I say that Watada had claimed conscientious objector status?

Of course, and admission on the part of the Army as to the legality or illegality of this war would put it in a precarious situation and, as you say, open the door to other soldiers to take the same position as Watada.

I hope you're right about no further trials for Watada. I think maybe Watada has set a precedent, himself, by having taken the position he did -- awesome!

Comment # 9 ~ Rusty ~ 02/10/2007 19:27 GMT

I wasn't sure what you were confused about, Tahoe.

Comment # 10 ~ tahoebasha1 ~ 02/10/2007 20:31 GMT

I meant with respect to conscientious objector status. But in your case, just consider me generally confused!

Comment # 11 ~ Kent ~ 10/09/2008 11:48 GMT

Really, cool: , busty blonde blowjob, [url="http://blonde-blowjob.topxxxworld.com"]busty blonde blowjob[/url], http://blonde-blowjob.topxxxworld.com busty blonde blowjob, naked in public galleries, [url="http://naked-in-public.topxxxworld.com"]naked in public galleries[/url], http://naked-in-public.topxxxworld.com naked in public galleries, bisexual group sex, [url="http://bisex.topxxxworld.com"]bisexual group sex[/url], http://bisex.topxxxworld.com bisexual group sex,

Comment # 12 ~ Kent ~ 10/26/2008 18:31 GMT

Do not panik! , bird have sex biggest penises, [url="http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/cocotte-gangbanged-huge-dildos.html"]bird have sex biggest penises[/url], http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/cocotte-gangbanged-huge-dildos.html bird have sex biggest penises, hookers nookie biggest penises, [url="http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/senioras-nooky-biggest-phalluses.html"]hookers nookie biggest penises[/url], http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/senioras-nooky-biggest-phalluses.html hookers nookie biggest penises, dames have intercourse biggest dildos, [url="http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/bride-hump-big-dildos.html"]dames have intercourse biggest dildos[/url], http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/bride-hump-big-dildos.html dames have intercourse biggest dildos, big bisexual phallus, [url="http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/huge-tit-lovers.html"]big bisexual phallus[/url], http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/huge-tit-lovers.html big bisexual phallus, peach fucked big dicks, [url="http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/biggest-fucking-theory.html"]peach fucked big dicks[/url], http://tits.yourmoviessex.com/biggest-fucking-theory.html peach fucked big dicks,