Republicans in Congress Can't Take White House Criminality Anymore

[G_j]

Republicans in Congress Can't Take White House Criminality Anymore - Maybe Democrats Could Join in and Act


By davidswanson
Created 2008-02-28 17:09

February 26, 2008 (House)]
via FAS <1>

ADMINISTRATION NOT COOPERATING WITH CONGRESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is
recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor tonight with a
heavy heart. The nature of the allegations I make speaks poorly of this
administration. In my heart of hearts, I have always wanted this
administration to succeed, but the issue at hand is of such magnitude
that the American people need to know what is being done and what
precedents are being set.

In my tenure as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, both as chairman and ranking member of an investigative
subcommittee, I have witnessed firsthand behavior by the Bush
administration which I find deeply troubling.

The disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has
shown toward Congress, including Republican Members, is so egregious
that I can no longer assume that it is simply bureaucratic incompetence
or isolated mistakes. Rather, I have come to the sad conclusion that
this administration has intentionally obstructed Congress' rightful and
constitutional duties.

Tonight I will discuss some serious examples of this administration's
contemptuous disregard for the authority delegated to Congress by the
Constitution. This bad attitude has consistently manifested itself in a
sophomoric resentment toward Congress' constitutional role as an equal
branch of government. The result has been an executive branch too
insecure to let Congress do its job, an executive branch that sees
Congress, even when Republicans held the majority, as a rival and a
spoiler, rather than as elected representatives of the American people
playing a rightful role in establishing policy for our great country.
Unfortunately, when the President of the United States rejects the
legitimacy of congressional prerogatives, there are serious
consequences. Tonight, I will provide examples of how this
administration for the past 7 years has undercut congressional
investigators, has lied to Members of Congress, and has forged ahead
with secret deals in spite of efforts and pleas by Congress to be
informed, if not involved.

In the last Congress, I was chairman of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In
that capacity, I learned that in the time immediately leading up to the
bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, convicted Oklahoma
City bomber and murderer Terry Nichols had been in Cebu City in the
Philippines. His stay in Cebu City coincided with another visitor to
that city, al Qaeda's terrorist leader Ramsey Yousef. Interestingly,
both Nichols and Yousef used similar bombs and methods just 2 years
apart to blow up two American targets. Yousef was the mastermind of the
first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Nichols was a
coconspirator in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in
1995.

By the way, I would like to acknowledge that today happens to be the
15-year anniversary of that first devastating attack on the World Trade
Center.
These individuals, one American and one Arab, were responsible for
planning two of the most lethal terrorist attacks on our countrymen in
our history. We are to believe that by coincidence they ended up in an
off-the-beaten-track city in the Southern Philippines? One doesn't have
to be a conspiracy nut to understand that this coincidence is certainly
worth looking into.

I started an official congressional investigation sanctioned by Henry
Hyde, then the chairman of the International Relations Committee, to
see whether Terry Nichols or his accomplice, Timothy McVeigh, had
foreign help in their murderous terrorist bombing of the Alfred Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City.

In light of the fact that Terry Nichols and Ramsey Yousef were both
in Cebu City at the same time prior to hauntingly similar terrorist
attacks, it was no stretch for a congressional investigative committee
to be looking into this matter. However, the Bush administration felt
quite differently. To those I had to deal with, it was ....case closed,
don't bother us.'' They had looked into the matter, and Congress should
simply and blindly accept their conclusion that there was no Nichols-
Yousef connection. ....Don't bother us.'' This was at times bureaucratic
laziness, and at other times it was clearly based on a disdain for
congressional investigations and authority.
During my investigation, I secured Ramsey Yousef's cell phone
records. The records were part of the phone calls that he made when he
was in that New York City area in the months just prior to the bombing
of the World Trade Center in 1993.
The phone records show that Ramsey Yousef made at least two phone
calls to a row house in Queens, New York.

<[Page H1066>]

That row house was occupied by the cousin of Terry Nichols' Filipina
wife. Let me repeat that. The terrorist bomber of the first World Trade
Center attack, the nephew of al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh
Mohammad, made phone calls to the same row house that was occupied by
Terry Nichols' cousins-in-law just 2 months before he exploded the bomb
in the garage of the World Trade Center 15 years ago. Another
coincidence?

I gave this information to the Department of Justice and since that
time have repeatedly sought their help in investigating this matter.
Time after time, my requests have gone unanswered or have just been
flatly denied.

I also asked the Department of Justice on numerous occasions to help
me investigate the name Samir Khahil. This name is on a list of
unindicted co-conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
again in connection with Ramsey Yousef.
It also is the name, by the way, of an Iraqi man in Oklahoma City who
at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing employed an Arab immigrant who
fits the description originally made by numerous witnesses as to John
Doe II.

This Oklahoma-based Iraqi lied, meaning the John Doe II look-alike,
lied to the investigators about his whereabouts at the time of the
Oklahoma City bombing, yet there was little if any follow-up on this
John Doe II look-alike. In fact, the FBI simply declared that John Doe
II never existed. The existence of John Doe II, let it be remembered,
was based on a sketch and sketches derived from witnesses on the scene
of the Oklahoma City bombing and the truck rental company in which that
bomb was placed on a truck from that truck rental company. Those
witnesses described a man who, as I say, looked very much like Samir
Khahil's employee.

Now, I have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell me if
the Samir Khahil on the unindicted coconspirators list of the 1993
World Trade Center bombing is the same Samir Khahil who employed a man
originally identified as John Doe II, the bomber, the number two bomber
in the Oklahoma City bombing. The Justice Department's answer: ....It
would be too burdensome to find out if it was the same man.''
Further, we asked help in finding the Arab immigrant who looked like
John Doe II and the man who was employed by Samir Khahil. We traced him
to Boston, but we have had no support or cooperation in finding this
very possible terrorist, or at least terrorist suspect. He may well
have been working at Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11/01, the day that a
plane took off from that airport and was hijacked and crashed into the
World Trade Center. Another weird coincidence to the Oklahoma City
bombing. Another coincidence, yes.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to believe that these things
should be investigated. Instead, there has been no follow-through, no
interest. The case is closed, forget it, both in terms of Samir Khahil
and his Iraqi employer and employee; and both of these people, of
course, reside in the United States right now.

That is just a small taste of the deplorable lack of cooperation for
a legitimate congressional investigation. And it was no fluke. I didn't
just happen to snag some uncooperative Federal employee. No, this is
the level of non-cooperation Congress has learned to expect from this
administration.
Yes, Departments and agencies do have limited resources, and I
understand that. I used to work in the executive branch. So, yes, there
may be some better uses for and some good uses for those limited
resources and better uses for their time and investigators, rather than
just following up on leads that are provided by Members of Congress.

{time} 1715

You can hear someone explaining that. But the lack of cooperation
that we have had goes far beyond the fact that they are not going to
give their limited resources or even use some of their investigators to
track down what most of us would consider a very worthwhile lead,
especially considering that the terrorist that we are asking to look
into currently resides in the United States and may well have had
something to do with the bombing of the World Trade Center and the
bombing of the Oklahoma City building there.

But, again, a lot of my requests don't require a lot of time and
effort on the part of the executive branch, and I still have been
stonewalled. For the past year, for example, I have repeatedly
requested to interview the imprisoned terrorist Ramzi Yousef. He is in
Colorado and in strict lockup. He has been there for 10 years.
This would have taken no time and no resources from any executive
branch or Federal employee. None. This request is well within my
committee's jurisdiction as ranking member of the Investigative
Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

This request has been supported by the chairman of the Investigative
Subcommittee, the chairman of the full Foreign Affairs Committee, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee.

Such attention by Congress should be welcomed by this administration
and every administration. The legislative branch can help bring new
information to light and inform the public.
Nevertheless, the Department of Justice, consistent with its
treatment of congressional inquiries during the tenure of this
President, has dismissed this valid request. This request has been
treated with what can only be described as contempt and condescension.

The point is, unfortunately, that this rejectionist attitude is
typical. It is not that they don't have enough resources to help out,
to look into an easy matter to look into. It is just that they do not
want to cooperate with Congress, even when it's a Republican in
Congress, even when the Congress was controlled by a Republican
majority.

So, why would this administration obstruct congressional inquiries
such as this? Remember, Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind behind several
devastating terrorist attacks and plots against America. He led the
first murderous attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, as I say.
After fleeing to the Philippines, he and two other terrorists plotted
to kill thousands of Americans by blowing up 12 commercial airliners
over the Pacific at the same time. It was known as the Bojinka plot. It
was within 2 weeks of being executed when it was discovered and
thwarted by Philippine police.

Interestingly, the terrorist operation, the Bojinka plot, was to take
place about the same time as the Oklahoma City Federal building
bombing, perhaps on the same day. We don't know. Perhaps we should
know. Perhaps we should ask Ramzi Yousef about that.
Ramzi Yousef has been in Federal prison for over a decade. He is a
prisoner with a unique understanding of the al Qaeda terrorist
structure. He is the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of
the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
In 2006, when I was the chairman of the House Oversight
Investigations Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was
investigating Yousef's movements and activities not only in the United
States but in the Philippines. I even traveled to the Philippines to
question authorities who had captured Yousef's roommate and
coconspirator in the Bojinka plot.

In spite of that fact and in spite of the fact that I was looking
into Yousef's terrorist activities and in spite of the fact that I had
obtained new information about Yousef's phone calls right here in the
United States and new information about his associates while he was in
the United States, the Department of Justice still dismisses the effort
and, more than that, they are obstructing a legitimate congressional
investigation, refusing to permit this elected Member of Congress, a
ranking member of a congressional investigating committee, to interview
a Federal prisoner. They refused access to Yousef claiming that there
is a ....ongoing investigation.''

This prisoner has been in jail for over 10 years. It is more likely
that what we have here is an ongoing coverup and not an ongoing
investigation. In fact, I have been told recently by a former member of
the Justice Department that they were told routinely simply to give
answers that there is an ongoing investigation even if no ongoing
investigation was underway, but simply using it as a phrase to dismiss
a request from Congress.

<[Page H1067>]

Well, this is outrageous, but it's typical of this administration.
This is a lot more than just a hurtful pride on my part of being turned
down.

This administration is setting a terrible precedent. What people have
to understand, when I am turned down like this, is when there is a
liberal Democrat in the White House, the President will have set that
Members of Congress can simply be dismissed, and that when they are
trying to do a congressional investigation need not be cooperated with,
in fact, can be obstructed. Is that the type of President that we want?
Is that acceptable? It shouldn't be acceptable to Democrats and it
shouldn't be acceptable to Republicans.

Doesn't Congress have a right to talk to Federal prisoners. Are these
the rules of engagement? Is it really the rules of engagement that we
want for our government that Members of Congress and the legislative
branch don't have a right to talk to Federal prisoners?
Well, that's apparently what the Bush administration is trying to
establish as the executive authority, as executive authority, the right
to deny congressional investigators access to Federal prisoners. The
danger of this should be easy to understand, both on my side of the
aisle, the Republican side, and the Democratic side of the aisle.

Again, the attitude, apparent in the treatment of this request, is
not an aberration or is it some sort of situation where this is not
really a representative way the President has acted with his authority.
No, I am afraid that's not the case.
This request was first made and denied when the Republicans
controlled the Congress and I was the chairman of the Investigative
Subcommittee.

Now Congress has a Democrat majority. In my position as ranking
member of the International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight
Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have seen it
time and time again.
Our subcommittee chairman, Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts, read in
the newspaper that our President is negotiating a security agreement
with the Iraqi Prime Minister that will govern the future relationship
of our countries.

Now let me say that again. The chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee
on Foreign Affairs Committee is getting the information about a hugely
important foreign bilateral security agreement by reading the
newspaper. So, Chairman Delahunt conducted a hearing about the status
of such an agreement and invited the administration to send a witness
to testify before Congress.

How did the administration respond? They ignored the request. So the
hearing was held with a private panel of witnesses, and, yes, the
public has a right and an obligation to fully understand such
commitments that are being made by the President in our name.
In a democratic society, policy is made after having an open
dialogue. George Bush was elected President, not king.
In another attempt last month, our subcommittee held another hearing
on the Iraqi security agreement and, again, our panel invited and
pleaded with the administration to provide a witness. Their response?
Silence.

Our subcommittee held another, a third hearing on this topic. Again,
our subcommittee invited the administration to attend and explain to
Congress what kind of commitment our government has agreed to with the
government of Iraq. Even our full committee chairman wrote letters
asking for the administration to participate in the subcommittee
hearing. All the requests to the administration by our committee and by
the superiors in the full committee were ignored, except for one, and,
in one instance, where the contact was made, and I am sad to say that
once again this administration was less than honest on a matter of
national importance, Chairman Dela-
hunt's subcommittee was told by a White House staffer that the
administration's unwillingness to participate in hearings was because
....There is nothing to talk about because we haven't put pen to paper''
on security, because they haven't put the pen to paper on the security
agreement, supposedly.

Well, when confronted with the fact that the New York Times had
written a story saying that a 17-page agreement was being passed
around, this White House staffer backtracked and quibbled.

This is unacceptable, it's dishonest, and it's typical. It's like
saying there is an ongoing investigation; don't discuss anything
anymore with me. There is nothing going on here.
Now, there is something going on, just as, instead of talking and
trying to negotiate about what type of spokesman we could have at a
hearing, instead, what we get is an undermining of the congressional
right to oversee for the foreign policy decisions of this
administration.

This stonewalling prevailed until a few weeks ago, when Condoleezza
Rice, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a person and a leader who I
deeply admire, testified at a hearing of the full International
Relations Committee.

When asked about this issue, about witnesses not showing up from the
State Department and this administration to explain to us in public and
to discuss in public these very important agreements that are being
negotiated with Iraq, she pledged at that time that there would be
future witnesses dealing with this Iraqi agreement.

At least Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, feels secure
enough in this administration to do what's right and to talk directly
to Congress and to send her people over to talk to us.
Unfortunately, we had to go all the way to the Secretary of State
before we could get anybody in this administration to participate. Let
me note, I am a supporter of the President's Iraqi policies. I have
been a supporter since day one. I supported the surge, and I am not in
favor of some of the propositions made by my friends on the other side
of the aisle, which I consider would be a precipitous leaving of Iraq
and would cause damage, I believe.

But that's not the point. The point is, Congress has a legitimate
oversight responsibility and that the President of the United States
should be discussing in public so that the public could understand why
policy is being made rather than trying to secretly arrange a policy
agreement and then surprise everybody, you know, as a done deal. Sadly,
this administration's antipathy to the constitutional responsibilities
of the legislative branch of government does not stop and end with my
efforts and those of my subcommittee on investigations.
In October of last year, 22 of my colleagues and I wrote to the
Acting Attorney General, Peter Keisler, regarding the pending lie
detector test for former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record, a copy of a letter concerning
making that request of Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.

Washington, DC, October 10, 2007.
Mr. Peter D. Keisler,
Acting Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington,
DC.
Dear Acting Attorney General Keisler: In 2005, former
Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger pled guilty to
the mishandling and destruction of classified documents.

He admitted to entering the National Archives and
unlawfully removing, then subsequently destroying, classified
documents dealing with terrorist related issues. He removed
the documents by stuffing them down his pants and in his suit
jacket, presumably with the intention of getting rid of any
damning evidence showing his involvement in the failure of
our intelligence and law enforcement communities to prevent
the Sept. 11th attacks prior to his testimony before the 911
Commission. These documents have never been recovered.

As part of a plea deal, Mr. Berger agreed to take a
polygraph test to be administered by the Department of
Justice. It has been two years since that agreement and Mr.
Berger has yet to fulfill his obligation.

We are writing to officially request that as Attorney
General you direct the Department of Justice without any
further delay to administer a lie detector test to Mr. Berger
and determine what documents were stolen and how our National
Security was compromised.

The Congress, and the American people, deserve to know the
facts of this crime and what Mr. Berger was covering up.
Therefore we respectfully request a directive be issued by
your office ordering Mr. Berger to surrender to the Justice
Department immediately and that a polygraph test be
administered forthwith.

Sincerely,
Dana Rohrabacher,
Member of Congress.

..much .more..

[democrank]

1. Thank you for posting this, G_j.

Mind-boggling

[peacetalksforall]

2. I am stunned. Rohrbacker? I'm stunned at the content and that it is from him.

It also shoots down my loosely held belief that some of the acts that are mihop by this administration and their operatives is shared knowledge with the Republican congress that pimps their positions in sessions and behind the scenes. He has been a major supporter and a loyal voter. Does it just mean that, for some, truth is important? What's going on here. This is atypical.

Highly recommend reading. It's in the C. Record now.

I hope there is some analysis of this by others. Is it being discussed on another site?

[damntexdem]

5. Rohrbacker is pushing his own little RW line:

OK City wasn't RW terrorists, it was Al Qaeda. But if it makes him attack the administration for not being sufficiently on the RW-nutcase page, good. Let them shoot at each other.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

51. He and Karl and Cheney decided it would 'look good' if this administration "appears" to be,...

,...trying to politically protect the prior administration for the "good of Americans".

I swear!

They are playing the, "we're just trying to protect the public from the truth" card.

It's psychological warfare,...and they have lots of fun playing it because they are A-MORAL! x(

[golddigger]

Yep! The fuckwads are in CYA mode.

[The Doctor.]

12. Exactly what I was thinking.

Republicans know it's going to be a bloodbath for them this November, so they're desperately looking for ways to distance themselves from Bush.

Unfortunately for them, when Democrats turn out in droves, they will be suffering 'straight-ticket death' across the country.

[Raster]

34. You reap what you sow. It is time for rethuglican party to return to complete and total obscurity.

They have failed the public and their party members at every turn. The rethuglicans cannot be trusted with ANY mechanism of national government.

[Joe Chi Minh]

42. Just national government?

[rateyes]

3. Rohrbacher should now call John Conyers and tell him

he's on board with impeachment.

[Hekate]

4. Stunning indeed. Is this for real? Linky? nt

[G_j]

11. Link:

sorry..


Source URL:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31398
Links:
<1> http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/rohr022608.html

[wryter2000]

6. K&R

Jaw, meet desk. Wow. Just wow.

:wow:

[datadiva]

7. Forgive me for being cynical

While I am glad some of them are waking up, isn't this about God knows how many years too late? And is he up for re-election?

[Pastiche423]

17. Yes, he is up for re-election

as well as all representatives. They all serve a two year term.

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. I dunno... how many DUers have woken up to what Rohrbacker is saying?

[Usrename]

8. Hey, doesn't this belong in the 9/11 forum?

Some people might read this and then get the idea that there has been a cover-up.

And all know there has been no cover-up.

:tinfoilhat:

[Raster]

35. Quickly....before any rational and logical discussion begins about 9/11....

...let's move this discourse to the dungeon and pretend it just didn't happen.

[malaise]

9. Good for him

Sure took ages.

[Robbien]

10. Wait a minute, this is a push to grant a freeper wet dream. Sandy Berger

Rohrabacher is pushing to go after Sandy Berger again. Ignore everything this admin has done in the last eight years, just go after Clinton's Sandy Berger.

Everything else he is saying is just cover.

[eppur_se_muova]

13. That's the "poison pill" to discourage real Dem support.

Then Rohrabacher can broadcast that he was thwarted in his Search for Truth & Justice by Dem chicanery, while looking good in the eyes of his RW constituency.

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. You guys are ignoring the facts, though.

This is about the facts. Sandy Berger is a sleazebag, I don't care about him.

[cascadiance]

14. THIS is EXACTLY why the claims that impeachment "won't work" are UTTER BS!

The Publicans are facing the music now as much as Bush is for being viewed as complicit with him in helping destroy this country and its rule of law. There's a point where we stop being "partisan" Democrats and Republicans and become Americans instead and realize that we can no longer accept an administration that would try to destroy this constitutional republic as they are trying to do.

Impeachment should be ON THE F'IN TABLE!!!!!

[G_j]

16. most arguments against impeachment

are disingenuous, even specious, when it comes to the expediency of politics and power.
The Constitution, justice, laws, treaties, integrity, mores are obviously all
"off the table".

[Uncle Joe]

15. The fallacy in this paragraph should answer Congressman Rohrabacher's otherwise excellent statement

regarding the Bush Administration's concerns regarding Constitutional Integrity or the will of the people.

"How did the administration respond? They ignored the request. So the
hearing was held with a private panel of witnesses, and, yes, the
public has a right and an obligation to fully understand such
commitments that are being made by the President in our name.
In a democratic society, policy is made after having an open
dialogue. George Bush was elected President, not king.
In another attempt last month, our subcommittee held another hearing
on the Iraqi security agreement and, again, our panel invited and
pleaded with the administration to provide a witness. Their response?
Silence."

I couldn't let that pass, Bush was appointed and as such feels no obligation to the people.

[Art_from_Ark]

27. Absolutely

The $hrub was APPOINTED, mostly by people on the Supreme Court who had been chosen, directly or indirectly, by his father, after the vote-counting in the key state had been thwarted by his brother and campaign co-chair, among others.
Al Gore was elected by the People-- bu$h was apppointed by the "Supreme" Court.

[Laelth]

18. Too little, too late, and too weak.

If he had accused the administration of being behind the 9-11 attacks, I'd cut him some slack. He comes close, but he doesn't quite get there.

It seems awfully convenient to me that now, after seven years of looking the other way, some Republicans are calling for the restoration of Constitutional power to Congress ... only now that a Democratic executive seems likely starting in 2009.

I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I agree with what this Republican says, that the executive branch has grown too powerful and that the Bush Administration has set precedent that seriously undermines the Constitution. I want to see Bush imprisoned or exiled for it, but I'm not going to pee my pants because this Republican has, all of a sudden, "seen the light." For the rank and file party members who know little and have finally seen enough to start voting Democratic, I have nothing but respect and open arms. For this Republican insider, however, I have little but scorn. All the damage of which he complains is his own responsibility. They let Bush shred the Constitution when they ran Congress. Now they want us to fix it.

Typical.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Cobalt-60]

33. It's a political death bed conversion

The voters won't buy it any more than the Devil believes the
standard DBC.
Given the zeig heiling, goose stepping, nature of the Republican Party,
I would go so far as to say he's put this out with the permission
of the RNC.

[Laelth]

36. That would not surprise me, either.

After all, they've got to do something, or they're toast. I hope they're toast regardless of what they do.

I look forward to the day when the Democratic party is the more conservative US party, opposed by a new, progressive party to its left. In order for this to happen, the Republican party must die. I hope we are seeing the beginning of its end.

-Laelth

[varelse]

19. Ah yes, I'd been trying to remember why it was that

I stubbornly persist in using the term "Republican" when referring to those partisans rather than adopting the more commonly used epithets found here (Rethug, Repuke, Rethuglican, Republicon, and the like). Sadly, there haven't been too many reminders such as this one, in the last few years.

[jazzjunkysue]

20. "disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has"

Gee- And all this time, I took it personally. I thought it was me (women, liburls, free-thinkers, dissenters, people who know how to pronounce nuclear) that he disdained and was uncooperative with.

Turns out, he was doing that to his own party, too!

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. Holy Shit.

[Octafish]

24. 'You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to believe that these things should be investigated.'

Gee. Hope Dana does more than talk.

"Instead, there has been no follow-through, no
interest. The case is closed, forget it, both in terms of Samir Khahil
and his Iraqi employer and employee; and both of these people, of
course, reside in the United States right now."

Thanks for the heads-up, G_j. Get enough pukes on board and who knows what will happen.

[LWolf]

25. "Maybe Democrats could join in and act."

Indeed.

:wow:

[Psyop Samurai]

26. An amazing document...

And what, pray tell, is the response of the other 434 members of congress to Mr. Rohrabacher's speech?

This needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb by the best political analysts and disinfo specialists, but, more importantly, by the best psychologists. It is a rare glimpse into the world of doublethink and controlled insanity, a remarkable record of the "seeing but not seeing" that permeates and allows the masquerade of our clinically insane congress. A deadly apparition has formed in the steam, but what's boiling in the pot is good and true. That's how you know you're not a "conspiracy nut". Hey, that's progress (as the world approaches five minutes to meltdown) - until now you knew you weren't a conspiracy nut by not seeing the apparition.

While distortions and selectivity should be analyzed in Rohrabacher's statements, it's almost pointless to paint him as disingenuous against the overall background of clinical insanity, in which most Democrats have been full participants.

[NMDemDist2]

28. I caught that on CSpan the other day

he had me right up until he was throwing in the Berger bullshit

[EFerrari]

29. K&R

[pingzing58]

30. Wow, they see the writing on the wall and now Repugs are saying that such actions are reprehesible.

[donheld]

31. So are they going to do something about it

or just whine?

[HamdenRice]

32. EXCELLENT! Important both in terms of content and procedure! krnt

[reprehensor]

37. Fascinating.

Rohrabacher also voted against H.R. 1955.

He's not all bad.

[Wizard777]

38. As I skimmed the story. I thought for a second they were using the Redneck Dictionary. "Yousef"

I'm not gonna go get it for you. Go get it yousef.

[pacalo]

39. "Conspiracy nut" only applies to those issues categorized by Rohrabacher's partisan mind.

On one hand, he's sounding just like us when he's talking about the stonewalling techniques used by this administration against his attempts to investigate Ramzi Yousef. On the other hand, his twice-mentioned "conspiracy nut" seems to be an unhealthy partisan attitude toward just as worthy issues analyzed by those who belong to the "other side of the aisle".

And now, 7 years after the Supreme Court put the boy king in office, he says this:

This administration is setting a terrible precedent. What people have
to understand, when I am turned down like this, is when there is a
liberal Democrat in the White House, the President will have set that
Members of Congress can simply be dismissed, and that when they are
trying to do a congressional investigation need not be cooperated with,
in fact, can be obstructed. Is that the type of President that we want?
Is that acceptable? It shouldn't be acceptable to Democrats and it
shouldn't be acceptable to Republicans.

If he had spoken out 7 years ago when the stonewalling of his Yousef investigation began, I would have had more respect for his stand. Sans respect, I'm glad he pointed it out on the floor.

[intheflow]

40. This is the same excerpt that caught my eye.

Seems to me this is just a way to start blaming the Dems. Rohrabacher hasn't really been bothered by the Republicans acting this way, he's just afraid the Dems will act the same way and railroad some--the horrors!--social safety net policies into place. It's a big statement to lay the groundwork for blaming the Democrats who are bound to get elected for the FUBAR state of the nation. x(

[pacalo]

53. He's been "bothered" by it for 7 years with his own investigation, sitting on his hands

& toeing his party's line, & when he sees a tsunami tide rolling for a Democratic victory, he thinks he'd better cover his behind ("I've been working for you, Oklahomans, to get justice for the Murrah bombing"), while shaking in his Fruit-of-the-Looms about getting the short end of the stick in the next election for his own seat & for his party.

[ocd liberal]

41. Holy Christ on a bicycle! n/t

[katty]

43. too late - and NOW bring up the Berger issue?! rush to CYA

[Frisbee]

44. I don't care what his agenda may be..

If this is coming about only because he faces reelection, so be it. If it makes things finally start moving forward in holding the criminal administration accountable, great! I say that if others start joining him, it is time to start talking seriously about impeachment (again). Make 'em put their money where their pie hole is.

[kimmylavin]

45. What I find fascinating...

Is how upset and bewildered he is that this administration would do this to *gasp* REPUBLICANS!

[hatrack]

46. So, he accuses the WH of blocking access to information tying OKC to the source of all evil . . .

CLENIS!

See, it was really al-Qaeda that attacked us in 1995, we didn't respond to this al-Qaeda attack, therefore it's Clinton's fault.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. "I HOPE IT'S YOUR FAMILIES THE TERRORISTS KILL"

That's my favorite Rohrbacker quote. And really the only thing he has ever said that got my full attention.

[truebrit71]

48. Rohrbacher? Holy crap, Dumbya is in deep shit if this kool-aid Reaganite is peeling away...

...:eek:

[lovuian]

49. Its never to late for repentance

if its sincere... but he has been a Bush fool for many years

He has much to repent

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

50. ROHRABACHER was such a Bush hack!!! Now, he's having a revelation?

Nope! I don't think so.

He's been playing the RW game for, like, ever.

My guess is he has been instructed by Rove and Cheney to reveal these threads FOR A PURPOSE.

I'll tell you why: he names only Berger as the one who MUST be subject to a lie detector.

Gee whiz,...no other members of this administration are being called to such a demand, to be subjected to lie detector tests about the Iraq war or 9/11 or the McVey scene or the detention of Yousef.

I mean,...what a freakin' load!!!

[Disturbed]

52. A RW Dicktator as Pres. was fine with the Rethugs but they now

complain that a Dem Pres. may continue to set up. That's what this is about.