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...

So what color flip-flops would go with this outfit?

...as my outfit changes week to week...

Keith Olbermann's gonna cream his pants tonight upon the news that Dr. Condoleezza Rice, in her capacity as former President Bush's former National Security Advisor, signed off on allowing waterboarding. It's not as scandalous as say, forgetting to do one's "patriotic duty" by paying one's taxes, but that will not stop the usual suspects from crying "foul." He recently entertained former US Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski (ret) on his show to lament why her head rolled in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, while none of her superiors did not (Unfortunately for Mrs. Karpinski, I don't think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, nor Sanchez approved of Lyndie England, nor any of her other counterparts, human pyramids or covering detainees with black sheets...or any of their other crazy antics for that matter).

Liberals will continue to peddle the ridiculous notion that waterboarding, or any other forms of harsh interrogation, produces no valuable intelligence. In fact, liberals will claim that terrorists have been programmed, through training, to say anything to stop the "torture." To prove this point, they'll even cover up information that rebuts their argument. Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, recently sent a memo to President Obama claiming that the harsh interrogations used by the CIA during the Reign of Terror the Bush Administration, produced valuable intelligence that protected our domestic and global interests. The New York Times in a surprise move, noted that some very important points made by Blair were redacted in the media statement, but the bloggers at C & L were gleeful at the notion that Bill Orally had finally met his match in Ellis Henican...only Orally was more right than wrong.

President Obama is known, by now, for his shifting political stances. He, unlike former President Bush, values public opinion, even if it makes him look like John "Waffles" Kerry on steroids. In an interview with ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the president claimed that he would not prosecute former Bushites for harsh interrogation against terrorists, something that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, confirmed this past Sunday. Since it's obvious that he didn't consult the Demo-gods (Soros and kos) on the matter, he has left the door open, stating that it will be Attorney General Eric Holder's decision. Now, as with the impeachment trials of former Presidents Andy Johnson (D) and Bill Clinton (D), starting a witchhunt in an attempt to stick it to one's political opponents sets up a very dangerous precedent...one for which we can thank a Democrat later. The Republican party paid a price for going after Presidents Johnson and Clinton and the electorate viewed the potential removal of a president as politically motivated and detrimental to the country...but apparently, liberals can't learn that lesson.

An investigation would prove troublesome for some Democrats, who always revise history for their political benefit, who knew about the harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA and approved them anyway. Besides, it's not as if the CIA engaged in the same tactics that terrorists engaged in on Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl, the CIA's interrogations were controlled and designed to inflict little, if any physical damage. The CIA was playing mind games with them, and if the Left wants to criminalize that, then they should lock up every drill sergeant and anyone who's been in a romantic relationship. I think the Left would be wise to just let this one go, and concentrate on keeping the nation safe...since "they won."

For a group of people who wanted us to move on after the Clinton impeachment trial, even in the face of proof that he needed to be impeached, the fact that liberals are still "stuck on stupid" and have forgotten that the president has changed shows that they're more interested in bitching than actual governing. Then again, liberals have always been about criminalizing dissent...just check out Stalin's gulags or the latest posting at Media Matters.

Have a great day...