Conyers: I didn't know members of Congress were supposed to read bills...

...don't people realize we have bigger fish to fry?

I believe that John Conyers (D-MI) has started a national debate. I mean, I would have thought that members of Congress reading bills they vote on as being a no-brainer, but the ruminations by the congressman, who is also the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, destroyed all that. Not only do I believe that Conyers has been in the House way too long, but it appears he's of the mindset that Congress must enact the president's agenda no matter the cost. He, like President Neophyte, have learned nothing about the Porkulus debate and the bailout of the auto industry. HotAirPundit has the video. Ed Morrissey rightly says that we send delegates to Washington to act on our behalf, so that we don't have to hold national referenda each time someone crafts a bill.

It seems that Democrat and liberal supporters of Neophyte take no issue with the fact that Congress isn't reading bills on which they vote. Everyone flashback to the debate on the Patriot Act in 2001. Liberal opponents of the bill slammed members of Congress for not holding much debate on the bill and passed it without reading it. They attempted to fan the flames that President Bush was "play[ing] to our fears," and besmirched supporters of the USA Patriot Act for allegedly surrendering our civil liberties (What a difference a presidential election makes...). Instead of reading bills, Conyers would rather invoke the Teddy Kennedy strategy, demonize the opposition.

Like Senator Kennedy, Conyers would rather shift focus from his questionable actions as congressman and those of his wife. Kennedy was trying to find some way to get President Nixon, and it didn't help that "Trickie Dicky" wasn't exactly forthcoming either, to shift focus from his July 1969 episode with a car, a woman, and a lake. Watergate, in itself, was not a crime, as many political heavyweights had engaged in similar tactics. Nixon himself was a victim of a break-in during his time in Congress. LBJ called on his press secretary, Bill Moyers, to investigate the sexual habits of Goldwater campaign staffers. LBJ also committed a few instances of voter fraud, while his predecessor's Justice Department wiretapped several prominent Civil Rights activists. Conyers is attempting to criminalize policies that had never been criminal before. By calling what the Bushites did, "torture," is blurring the lines between actual torture and "enhanced interrogation techniques," which were designed with human rights in mind. Liberals have been excellent at blurring lines before, see racism, and opposition to illegal immigration.

Most people are willing to concede that September 11th, 2001 changed how the US government handles terrorism. The methods that were used prior to that day proved ineffective and exposed a giant hole in our counterterrorism efforts. The Patriot Act tore down the wall that existed between intelligence and law enforcement agencies that had been built up during the war on intel during the 1970s and buttressed by Jamie Gorelick. The US had to engage in tactics that would ensure our nation would be safe from a future terrorist attack, by taking the fight to the enemy. Liberals cried up and down K Street in Washington over the fact that John Walker Lindh, Yaser Hamdi, and José Padilla were being held as enemy combatants...not that these three men were fighting against their country, therby putting it at risk. There was no real discussion over the president's powers in a conflict like this, all we heard were Democrats and liberal leaning groups feeling sorry that the terrorists got caught attempting to destroy the United States (Oh, and that they needed a new home team, since the USSR became rubble).

Glenn Greenwald, of Salon Magazine, is upset that the Washington Post editorial page advocates penalties for those who acted well outside the guidelines of the Office of Legal Counsel memos, which authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques." He, like other liberals, believe that Lyndie England, and her other compatriots that engaged in the horrible acts at Abu Ghraib, shouldn't be the only ones prosecuted for crimes, as they were scapegoated. He contends that the episode is merely breadcrumbs, which led all the way up to the Bush White House, like Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, said about President Reagan.

I wonder how many pieces of paper John Conyers will read during his investigation, if it happens...

Have a great day...