Will Democrats allow the Bushies* to investigate themselves again?

[Q]

- It now appears that the Bush* administration is about to form an 'independent panel' to 'investigate the 'abuses' of Iraqi prisoners of war and other 'suspects'. The participants in this panel will be chosen by those who need to be a target of the investigation.

- It should go without saying that there's an astounding conflict of interest here as the Bush* government is once AGAIN allowed to investigate themselves and come to whatever conclusion looks the best for them.

- The Iraq Intelligence and 9-11 commission were both a joke with predetermined outcomes agreed upon before the hearings ever took place. It's difficult to come to any other conclusion at this point: the Democrats look complicit in hiding the truth from the American people.

[LittleApple81]

1. Yes. n/t

[Q]

2. I guess I shouldn't be shocked at this point...

...when MY party has done so little to impede the Bush* government's destruction of our society and the rule of law.

- Strange how the 'rule of law', due process and equal justice can deteriorate so quickly when the watchdogs of justice are either asleep at the wheel or have joined the other side.

[dusty64]

3. It looks like the

answer is a resounding "yup"!

[Q]

4. I'd like to remind my fellow Democrats...

...that the GOP holds a SLIM majority in both houses. This means that if Democrats REALLY wanted an independent investigation to seek out the truth...they have the bodies and votes to do it.

- "After a while...silence becomes betrayal"

[dsc]

17. huh?

This is a place where majority rules. The Republicans have a majority, close doesn't cut it.

[0007]

38. I think their constituency may have something to say about that, 'eh?

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. Yes, because the number of Democrats who voted yes on IWR

are complicit. They want as full and open an investigation as the regime does.

[Tinoire]

22. Which is why so FEW dare to say even "Boo"! n/t

[Q]

6. For those following this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.abuse.main/index.html

Rumsfeld to form abuse probe panel

Thursday, May 6, 2004 Posted: 10:12 PM EDT (0212 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will tell congressional committees Friday that he plans to form an independent panel to review how the Pentagon handled investigations into allegations of abuses of Iraqi prisoners, a senior administration official said.

---------

- Shouldn't congress be telling Rumfeld how it will be? Why is congress allowing the Bushies to dictate all the terms?

[Brewman_Jax]

7. You're probably right

and that scares me. Don't think for a moment that the republicans wouldn't be screaming to the world were the roles reversed. The democrats will never get a better opportunity to be the opposition and stand up and be heard. They'll probably let this pass because they helped cause it. (IWR vote)

I hope I'm wrong.

Mistakes can be corrected.

[Nlighten1]

8. 95-3 says they will

And Kerry won't vote.

[Gman]

9. Your question implies the Dems have the power

(at least in Congress) to do force the GOP to investigate. You have to have the votes in Congress to get anything done.

[Q]

10. If every Democrat voted for congressional hearings/investigations...

...you can be damn sure it would happen.

- Democrats don't NEED a single GOP vote to go foward with an investigation. It would, however, take a majority of Dems voting together.

- Many of us grow tired of the excuse that Dems have to be the majority party in order to force an issue to be heard or investigated. The problem seems to be that Democrats can't get together and agree that it's WRONG for a government to investigate and exonerate itself.

[ShaneGR]

11. Actually, that is false, just a blatant lie

If every Dem voted for an investigation and no Repgus did there would be no investigation. Please learn about the House and Senate rules.

[Q]

15. Perhaps it's you that needs to check the rules...and history.

- GOPers called for, demanded and received hearings and investigations against Clinton/Gore when they were in the minority. It would be nice to get a few Republicans to vote with the Democrats on these issues...but rules or not...there would be no way for the Right to stop the momentum of a majority of Democrats calling for hearings and investigations on the issues in question.

- I resent that you call my opinion a lie...but that's the way the 'new' Democrats work in weakening the left's resolve to confront Bush* on the issues. It's easy for you to say it 'can't work' when the Democrats aren't even TRYING to find a concensus to investigate or hold hearings (their Constitutional responsibility of oversight) on blatant conflicts of interest and government corruption.

- Stop the excuses and encourage your representatives to demand that hearings be held.

[dsc]

19. other than independent councels

where the law has changed that is baldly false. There were no Congressional investigations of Clinton before 1995.

[Q]

23. Republicans demanded investigations...

...and made false accusations from the first day Clinton took office. This set up an atmosphere of doubt and suspicion that later made it easier to hold investigations.

- The Republican minority also held hearings on their own and found 'friends' on the other side that joined with them to intimidate the Attorney General into reliquishing control and turning it over to partisan GOPers.

- It's telling that some of you seem to believe that 'power' comes ONLY from holding a majority. But the facts clearly show that the Democratic party isn't even attempting to find a concensus to confront the corrupt Bush* government. Instead...they hide in the shadows or actually VOTE FOR Bush* policies and appointees...thus further enabling the Bush* far-right agenda.

- The FACT is that the same Democrats who enable Bush's* agenda won't join with the brave Democrats to do their job as outlined in the Constitution. Make any kind of excuse you want for their inaction...but to a world looking for leadership and a strong opposition to the Bush* junta...they're cowards.

[ShaneGR]

30. Sorry, you are still wrong, and still lying

There were no congressional investigations into Clinton before 95 when the independent council issued it's report. In the absence of the independent council law there will be no investigation until about 13 Republicans and ALL the Democrats vote for it in the house or 48 Democrats, 1 independent, and 3 Republicans voted for it in the House.

So the insinuations you are making are lies. LIES I tell you!

- you

- can

- type

- like that

- all you want, it doesn't make it true

[dsc]

31. The only reason that the could demand those investigations

was the Independent Counsul Law which no longer exists.

[mmonk]

12. Dems have no power

[sampsonblk]

13. Unfortunately, yes

The same illogic that led to support of the IWR is going to lead the "leading" Dems to cave in on this also.

[Mandate My Ass]

14. I'm sure someone will say how distressing all this is

before the ennabling continues.

[Q]

18. Yeah...what IS this crap?

- Many Dems want to CAVE in without even trying. Oh, my...we don't have the power. We can't oppose the mighty Bush* and his rubber stamp congress.

- Let's keep this in context: Republicans FORCED the impeachment of Clinton by sheer will and PASSION. Now Dems are whining about 'not having the power' to even speak out and demand that Bush* not be treated as if he were ABOVE THE LAW.

- If Dems lose in November...it won't be because they have an inferior platform or agenda...but because they look like weaklings making excuses for their weaknesses.

[Cocoa]

16. I think you mean the Republicans

they're the ones that have been covering up for the Worst President Ever, who should have been impeached long ago.

[Q]

20. Are you admitting that the US is a one-party government?

...Because that's what you're saying if you suggest that Democrats have no voice or power in our government. Democrats have as much power as they want to assert.

- It's not as if the Republicans have a overwhelming majority that the Democrats can't fight against. The problem is that the Democrats aren't fighting AT ALL. (See: Negroponte)

- If ENOUGH Democrats demand a truly independent investigation...it will happen.

[Cocoa]

21. no, I'm suggesting we not let the GOP off the hook

what they're doing in covering for Bush is shameful, and hopefully a whole lot of them will pay for this by losing in November.

Ironic that people at DU, of all places, are diverting responsibility for the republicans' massive failure onto the dems.

[Q]

24. It's a well-known fact that Republicans are covering for Bush*...

...but it's not so well understood that the Democrats are no better when they don't orchestrate an effort to put an end to this most corrupt government in American history.

- Why in the hell do we even HAVE a two-party system when only ONE party is in the game and fighting for THEIR side? Some have accused me of 'not understanding the rules' of the houses...but I DO understand the rules of fighting for what is right. The Democrats aren't fighting back and it's obvious that they have no intention to do so. This becomes clear when one looks back over the last three years and remembers what the Dems haven't done to at least SPEAK OUT against the Republicans working outside the Constitution and the rule of law.

- There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Republicans are guilty of the first 'sin' and the Democrats of the second.

[Cocoa]

25. just so much gobbledy gook

it's pretty simple, despite your attempts to muck things up.

-- The dems have tried to investigate Bush
-- The republicans have blocked them

[Q]

27. A few Dems calling for investigations...

...is not exactly a proud moment in history for our party. You should know that no investigation has ever happened without a majority of one party agreeing to sponsor it. Get at least a couple dozen Democrats calling for hearings or investigations and then perhaps they will be taken seriously.

- Republicans block investigations and then Democrats simply give up. That's what we've seen for the last three years.

- But then there's the even more important issue of voters losing all respect for a party that won't fight for them. The party faithful can only watch this cowardice for so long before they'll give up and either join a third party or simply stop voting. Democracy simply can't work without at least the participation of two parties.

- Call it 'gobbledy gook' if you want...but I'm not the only one aware that the Democrats have given up fighting for the people. Their vote for Negroponte was an insult to all of us...as was their vote for the patriot act and the war of aggression against Iraq.

[Cocoa]

28. that's simply FALSE

"republicans block investigations and then Democrats simply give up."

It just does not conform to the FACTS, not that you would care about that. I have to say, there's so little TRUTH in your posts that I wonder what's up.

[Q]

32. I can name at least a half dozen examples...

...from 'corporate corruption to Iraq to the 9-11 commission. The Dems simply caved in on these and other issues. And when they didn't cave in...they conceded to tying their own hands to avoid exposing the truth or asked softball questions...right along side the GOPers on these commissions. In each and every case...Bush* and Gang were exonerated or came out smelling like a rose.

- If you insist on continuing to call me a liar...then prove me wrong instead of just another gust of hot air. Your type of blind cheerleading could be one reason why the Democratic party won't stand up and fight. There's always someone to apologist for them.

[Hotler]

26. Collectively, there isn't one pair

balls between them. Not being a majority is no excuse for silence. Our elected Dem's on the hill should be tightening ranks and ganging up on this administration like a pack of wild dogs. They need to stop with the political courtesy (sucking up to each other on the floor each morning. aaahhhhh!)and use a little more bite, and some Al Sharpton attitude in their rhetoric. I'm thinking of getting some baseballs and spray painting them gold. Then send a pair to each of my Representatives with a note telling them to put one in each front pants pocket when the go before the house, senate, and the media.

[Q]

33. Thanks for posting that...

- Democrats should AT THE VERY LEAST be doing more than letting the steamroller pass over their bodies repeatedly and without resistance. They might not get every hearing or investigation they call for...but how will they know until they try? If they could show a little backbone...they might be surprised who they find on their side.

[Triana]

29. bu$hit et al are the very epitome...

...of astounding conflicts of interest. And, yes, I believe Dems will let them get away with endlessly - they already have. That started in 2000 and they've been doing it ever since.

[Q]

35. This wouldn't be as much of an issue if Bush* were simply a 'bad'...

...president* and his administration simply made a series of honest mistakes. But the corruption, scandals and wrongdoing are so numerous...it's difficult to keep track.

- And you're right. Many, many Democrats are still pissed about THEIR PARTY not fighting hard enough to expose the fraud and civil rights abuses of the 2000 election. The first example of what was to be a long series of giving up without a fight.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Of course!

:puke:

[Q]

36. But why?

- Are they afraid of Bush*? Certainly that can't be it. Are they fearful of the RWing media ending their political careers? Afraid they'll be cut out of the gravy train?

- I've been voting and participating in politics for thirty years...and I've never seen the Democratic party in such a sad shape as far as standing up for what is right.

- I hope Kerry understands these problems and takes action to correct the course of the party.

[Generator]

37. The Democratic congress has been practically worthless I agree

Thank god for digital cameras.

Maybe(for those of you that saw Michael Moore's piece on electing a Ficus plant to congress) we can nominate a digital camera. It's more effective, I think.