If Gonzalez, Miers, Goodling, Sampson, or McNulty claim executive privilege then verify the president in fact received advice from this person on this specific issue and hall “W” ass in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and let him answer Sen. Whitehouse’s questions.

I believe that our free press, the veritable backbone of a democratic society and the last protection against the destruction of same, is a sham.

I believe that the two party system is, in truth, a duopoly, with the only area of disagreement being the fight over funding by the corporations that own the legislators.

I believe that the court system has been subverted at the higher levels and we will discover this when Libby’s appeal gets high enough and is upheld.

I am an optimist despite the above because I believe in the ultimate restoration of the greatest democracy in the world and a return to a path wherein all who dwell within it are able to prosper.

TeddySanFran @ 64

IrishJim — to the credit of the WH press corps, though, someone finally asked the question about a Bush family member serving in Iraq. Not sure that’s happened before, that we’ve heard about.

I’ve submitted a question to WaPo WH reporters in their chatz every day for about four weeks, since the Preznit’s assault on David Gregory’s kids — “Now that the President has brought people’s chldren into the war discussion, will you take an opportunity to ask President Bush if he’s chatted with his children about military service?”

Not one WaPo reporter has selected my question, but I plod relentlessly onward, with this question the other day as my reward. The WH press corps will only move past colleagility and deference if pushed — so we must push in all the ways available to us.

And yes, Pony Blow’s response was upchuck-worthy. But ready-at-hand, so he must be prepared for more. The question needs asking in a more targetted way (I prefer my formulation) to eliminate the weasel-room Tony found.

Thanks for your perserverence SF Teddy – you never fail to inspire and lead by doing.

Dude, seconded! A man of amazing patience!

TeddySanFran @ 64

IrishJim — to the credit of the WH press corps, though, someone finally asked the question about a Bush family member serving in Iraq. Not sure that’s happened before, that we’ve heard about.

I’ve submitted a question to WaPo WH reporters in their chatz every day for about four weeks, since the Preznit’s assault on David Gregory’s kids — “Now that the President has brought people’s chldren into the war discussion, will you take an opportunity to ask President Bush if he’s chatted with his children about military service?”

Not one WaPo reporter has selected my question, but I plod relentlessly onward, with this question the other day as my reward. The WH press corps will only move past colleagility and deference if pushed — so we must push in all the ways available to us.

And yes, Pony Blow’s response was upchuck-worthy. But ready-at-hand, so he must be prepared for more. The question needs asking in a more targetted way (I prefer my formulation) to eliminate the weasel-room Tony found.

Thanks for your perserverence SF Teddy – you never fail to inspire and lead by doing.

TeddySF – sorry about my dyslexic moment.

IrishJim — to the credit of the WH press corps, though, someone finally asked the question about a Bush family member serving in Iraq. Not sure that’s happened before, that we’ve heard about.

I’ve submitted a question to WaPo WH reporters in their chatz every day for about four weeks, since the Preznit’s assault on David Gregory’s kids — “Now that the President has brought people’s chldren into the war discussion, will you take an opportunity to ask President Bush if he’s chatted with his children about military service?”

Not one WaPo reporter has selected my question, but I plod relentlessly onward, with this question the other day as my reward. The WH press corps will only move past colleagility and deference if pushed — so we must push in all the ways available to us.

And yes, Pony Blow’s response was upchuck-worthy. But ready-at-hand, so he must be prepared for more. The question needs asking in a more targetted way (I prefer my formulation) to eliminate the weasel-room Tony found.

Thanks for your perserverence SF Teddy – you never fail to inspire and lead by doing.

spurious @ 32

I agree.

Impeachment takes too much time and won’t be successful; just look at the no confidence vote. It would take 66 votes to convict and remove from office. I think the Dems are following the right strategy; hearings, document the felonies and perjury and obstruction and on and on. The key will be if the Dems follow up after 01/20/09 and refer to a Democratic Justice Department for prosecution. If that is going to happen, the public needs to be educated about the criminal nature of the Republican party and at least 60% of the public crying for blood.

You’re right about the American public needing to be educated of the crimes against the Constitution and crimes against humanity this Administration has perpetrated. In the past that “eductational” role was performed by the 4th Estate, print and broadcast. Over the last 8 years, however, the MSM has become complicit, compliant and corrupted by their power and priviledge. The last thing the media wants is an informed public. They are perfectly content with providing the citizenry with gruel for the mind. If the MSM is unwilling to perform an educational role, who then will do it? Certainly the internet is a start but how many people actually spend the time researching and finding out for themselves what the facts are? Something has to happen otherwise the American experiment in democracy is doomed.

Peterr @ 18

Lists were compiled.
Names were added.
Meetings were held.

The passive voice was used.
Accountability was avoided.

Grrrr . . .

I want that firewall brought down.

Never mind the hortatory subjunctive — I want to see Bush administration officials testifying using short sentences, first person singular pronouns, and lots of active verbs.

If that means Waxman and Leahy have to bring in the Grammar Police, then by all means do so!

We need to train all members of investigative committees to follow up every passive construction with a direct question, e.g.

A. “Names were added”
Q. “BY WHOM were the names added?”

That should be the automatic, immediate response to every passive construction.

Bob in HI

Also these:

Who had the authority to add and remove names? Who granted that authority?

Kyle? I don’t think so. The Chief of Staff is a staff position, not in the chain of command per se.

Lists were compiled.
Names were added.
Meetings were held.

The passive voice was used.
Accountability was avoided.

Grrrr . . .

I want that firewall brought down.

Never mind the hortatory subjunctive — I want to see Bush administration officials testifying using short sentences, first person singular pronouns, and lots of active verbs.

If that means Waxman and Leahy have to bring in the Grammar Police, then by all means do so!

We need to train all members of investigative committees to follow up every passive construction with a direct question, e.g.

A. “Names were added”
Q. “BY WHOM were the names added?”

That should be the automatic, immediate response to every passive construction.

Bob in HI