Friday, May 18, 2007

Oversight, out of mind

* tpmm:
"Either Alberto Gonzales lied under oath last year or the administration has another major domestic spying program we don't know about.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) want to know which one it is."
ummm - yeah, we've known that there are other programs for more than a year. just ask Russ Tice, for (one) example.

* Novak via josh:
"Rove's former assistant, Susan Ralston, is currently seeking immunity to testify before Waxman's committee. Ralston is a former assistant to Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Washington super-lobbyist and Republican fund-raiser. As Rove's gatekeeper, she became special assistant to the President and the highest-ranking Filipino-American in the administration. For Waxman, she is a link between Abramoff and Rove. Ralston was deposed behind closed doors prior to her request for immunity. According to her friends, she has nothing to say that would cause problems for Rove. Her request for immunity was forwarded to the Justice Department, whose recommendation may or may not be followed by Congress."
* Laura:
"Listening to Comey's testimony again, how can the Senate Judiciary committee not invite to testify, and if need be subpoena Ashcroft, FBI Director Mueller, Andrew Card, and Gonzales and possibly Jack Goldsmith, Patrick Philbin and possibly Theodore Olsen about what transpired that night of March 11, 2004? And when is the Judiciary committee and/or Intelligence committees going to seriously investigate the warrantless domestic spying program and obvious questions over concerns senior DOJ officials had over its illegality? It seems plausible that Goldsmith becoming acting head of the OLC in October 2003 is what led to the DOJ's conclusion that the program as it was conducted did not have a legal basis."

* chyron of the day from Keith: "Oversight, out of mind"

4 comments:

steven andresen said...

This is just an observation,

It seems there's so much dirt on this administration that the thought of impeachment can only gain credibility. They won't be able to stop people from asking about it,... whether it's a good idea,... what would one say were Bush's or Cheyney's biggest crimes, and so on.

Won't the reply be something like, we can't impeach the President, or the Vice-President. It would hurt the country too much. We have to protect the country...in some way or other. An Impeachment would only tear people, or the politics apart.

I say this partly because denying the obvious will only become more and more peculiar. Absurd, even.

I imagine, if there are enough revelations and those turning into investigations, there will be just more obsfucations coming from the major media. That is, they won't try to make a clear picture of what's gone on.

I think this is what has gone on with coverage of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it true that the Taliban are taking back more and more of the Afghan countryside? If true, is this a story that's been clearly told?

I do not watch the news about Iraq, but is it true that the surge has not made Iraq or even Bagdad safer? If true, is the media clear about that?

And so, is it true that the President has hired thugs and criminals to run the government for their own profit? If true, is this a story that the media can or would tell us?

They're not going to tell us that we've been bogged down just outside of Stalingrad all of this last winter, nor that our troops have frozen solid if not been shot....The truth, perhaps, would only hurt the country.

If the argument becomes, we can't impeach the President, or Cheyney, because that would hurt the country, isn't that just the same as thinking that we shouldn't know we're fighting Stalingrad all over again, because that truth would hurt the country. I think so.

I suppose, then, the battle will be whether we should continue with our eyes open to what's gone on, or do we continue trying to ignore it all hoping it will just go away.

Anonymous said...

Since Mrs. Ashcroft spoke directly with the Whitehouse, why isn't she asked who it was?

lukery said...

steveA - yes, yes and yes. and yes.

anon - you too: yes.

calipendence said...

It looks like UMass students know how to treat neocons invading their graduation ceremonies. Look how they "received" Andrew Card as an "honorary degree" recipient.

Absolutely awesome. UMass, you're right up there now with Georgetown's reception of Abu Gonzales!