Investigating Bush

[babsbunny]

Henry Waxman's aggressive oversight offers Democrats a model for taking on a secret and corrupt administration

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20218740/investigating_bush

Since the Democrats regained control of Congress last year, they haven't exactly been taking it to President Bush. They have continued funding for the war in Iraq, rolled over on illegal wiretapping, acquiesced to the administration's ever-broadening bailout of Wall Street and refused to close a tax loophole for hedge-fund billionaires that deprives the treasury of $6 ?billion a year. Even the party's proudest moments have ended in disarray: After forcing Alberto Gonzales to resign as attorney general, Democrats agreed to replace him with Michael Mukasey — despite his refusal to prosecute waterboarding as torture.
Democrats blame their weak showing — which has earned Congress an even lower approval rating than the president — on their slim majority in the Senate. "What am I supposed to say?" says Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "We don't have a working majority. That's just as simple as it gets. We need to take back another eight or nine seats here in the Senate and get a Democratic president to get things on the right course."

[ThomWV]

1. Always be ware of the "non sequitur"

"Democrats agreed to replace him with Michael Mukasey — despite his refusal to prosecute waterboarding as torture."

Do you see the problem with that sentence? It lies in the word 'despite'. It is a problem in time. You see, by saying despite it implies that either Mukasey had already refused to prosecute waterboarding as torture before his appointiment or even that he might have told Democrats he would not prosecute waterboarding as torture before his appointment. He did neither.

Non sequitur can be thought of to mean out of sequence, in that the thing that came first can not be blamed on something that came later.

[Fireweed247]

2. aggressive oversight?

:rofl:

I am embarrassed to read such comments as Boxer's "We don't have a working majority" How is it possible that the Republicans always seem to get what they want whether they are in the majority or not? Our Democratic 'leaders' decide what will be voted on, or not voted on, they are in charge and this is a cop out.

They could use their 'non working' majority to bring forth articles of Impeachment and use the investigations to prove that Bush and his cronies are war criminals thus making a convincing case for electing more Democrats whether it passes or not.

Their current lack of pursuing accountability is making people throw up their hands in disgust and not helping get more Dems elected. It is making people drop out of politics or join the green party, either way not good!
www.peacecandidates.com