March 20, 2006
Why Doesn't the Democratic Leadership in Congress Start Holding Bush Accountable for Crimes Against the Nation, Instead of Getting Upset with Feingold for Being Outraged?
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
Bush, it now appears, authorized KGB-like "black bag jobs," with law enforcement authorities breaking and entering into businesses and homes of U.S. Citizens.
At his infamous hearings on illegal NSA wiretappings, Gonzales would NOT definitively say that Bush did NOT authorize illegal NSA wiretapping conducted for partisan purposes. In short, one can infer that he did allow snooping for political purposes.
Shouldn't that get the Democrats a little riled up, instead of angry with Russ Feingold for calling for Bush's censure?
What would it take for the Democratic leadership in Congress to really get outraged? Bush on a videotape having sex with a cow on his ranch? Bush personally strangling a prisoner at Guantanamo who had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban?
No, the Democratic leadership in Congress would probably say that, "We aren't in a position to judge until hearings are held." Of course, the Democrats know that the Republicans will never allow hearings to be held. Cults don't expose their leaders.
How much more damage to America's interests will it take before the Dems in leadership positions see Bush as the guy to get lathered up about, instead of Dems who are trying to save the nation?
Exactly, why does the Democratic leadership keep thinking an opposition party will come along to save THEM and America?
Would someone tell them that they are the opposition party -- and that an unfit commander in chief is in the White House doing illegal things and shredding the Constitution?
Please, someone tell them. But first get rid of all those Gucci-loafered, losing political consultants that they use.
These men and women get paid boat loads of money for advice guaranteed to lose elections.
What a bunch of pocket stuffing wimps.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS