AP: Democrats pledge array of investigations

[yurbud]

Good news overall though the article includes the anti-investigation noises by Democrats too, and uses the word "liberal" in about the same way people normally say terrorist or communist.

But if Democrats do an even half way decent job of investigating Cheney's energy task force, public support for impeachment would take care of itself.

Democrats pledge array of investigations

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - The incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is promising an array of oversight investigations that could provoke sharp disagreement with Republicans and the White House.

Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., pledged that Democrats, swept to power in the Nov. 7 elections, would govern "in the middle" next year. But the veteran lawmaker has a reputation as one who has never avoided a fight and he did not back away from that reputation on Sunday.

Among the investigations he said he wants the committee to undertake:

• The new Medicare drug benefit. "There are lots and lots and lots of scandals," he said, without citing specifics
  
• Spending on government contractors in Iraq, including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
  
  (SNIP)
  
  
• An energy task force overseen by Cheney. It "was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies," Dingell said.

***

Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), set to lead the House Financial Services Committee, said issues such as raising the minimum wage will be popular, even thought the idea has been identified with liberals.

FULL TEXT:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061126/ap_on_go_co/democrats_congress

[twilight_sailing]

1. FR opinon

"If the Dems do what they threatened, and if the GOP doesn't then immediately drop the gloves and go after these anti-patriots with full force, then people like myself might as well drop out of the GOP.

After all, if someone was attacking and/or filing lawsuits against MY FAMILY for no reason whatsoever, I would be going ballistic to defend.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are suffering 'battered woman' syndrome in which they just keep taking it to the face, and asking for more.

4 posted on 11/26/2006 8:53:49 AM PST by MojoWire "


No, Mojowire, the Republicans are not suffering from battered woman syndrome.

What they are suffering from is the consequence of their actions.

Corruption in government, especially in a time of war, is a serious matter.

[yurbud]

4. they are suffering from battered women syndrome in the sense that their knuckles hurt...

After the Bush years, I'd hate to see what this moran thinks "dropping the gloves" would be--going Rwanda on us or something?

Fortunately, those guys are blustery cowards and probably notice that they are in the extreme minority, and will limit themselves to crying on O'Reilly and Limbaugh that the Democrats aren't letting them beat up gays and wipe out whole Muslim countries.

[Aviation Pro]

7. Noted Freetard Mojowire....

...obviously doesn't understand that the GOP care not one whit for him, his family or the tired old horse he rode in on. He loves drinking the GOP ditch liquor and lives vicarously through his "heroes" hoping one day to breath in the fetid flatulence of Small Dick "Fucking" Cheney and Little Monkey.

[JudyM]

14. LOL! What a silver-tongued description. Excellent Cheney imagery. n/t

[Aviation Pro]

20. My pleasure....

...

[AnotherMother4Peace]

19. Oh my God! You've just described a couple of my relatives.

They are so blind to the real motives of these crooks. Sad but true.

[Aviation Pro]

21. Use at your discretion...

...

[symbolman]

48. LOL

And of course with the requisite BUSH/CHENEY bumpersticker on their 1978 rustbucket Datsun Truck.. :)

"Yeah, gonna win that Lottery some day.. I'm a Loser Baby, so why don't you kill me.."

I think that song was written about them..

[Aviation Pro]

50. Ah, Beck....

...yes.

[Tight_rope]

51. LMAO...you made me spit my tea..

[Independent_Liberal]

2. Dingell, Conyers and Waxman rock!

:patriot:

[MH1]

3. Also mishandling of small biz contracts and Katrina

http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/18/congress-small-business-taxes-ent-law-cx_mf_1120kerry.html

Kerry says to expect oversight hearings soon after Congress resumes on the nearly two billion dollars in federal contracts that were erroneously awarded to large business but slated for small business.

With the Gulf Coast rebuilding under way, Kerry says he'll call for more hearings on the SBA's role in disseminating disaster loans following Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes. As of September 2005, only $2.1 billion of the $10 billion in loans earmarked by the SBA had actually reached the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, and most of that was dispersed long after the storms hit. Kerry says he'll keep the pressure on the SBA to get the loan program ready before the next emergency strikes. "The hurricanes left a very powerful image of dysfunctional image in the minds of people," he says.

[yurbud]

5. just like every problem is about terror, to Bushies, every solution is Bechtel and Halliburton

[yurbud]

6. Bechtel and Halliburton should have their assets frozen, be investigated, and then have their

corporate charters revoked.

If you read CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN, those companies crimes way predate the Bushies, and are a big part of why Latin America sees us as dangerous to their economic well-being and democracies.

[tbyg52]

8. CORPORATE CHARTERS REVOKED!

Yes! What a concept! These entities answer to *us*, not the other way around!

[Amonester]

9. Agreed, but never forget who the busches helped and made

a killing with:

BFEE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x3087

Until the day the world is rid of these hideous monsters, there will be no justice and no peace to last.

Investigate AND prosecute then, I say.

[wordpix2]

12. here, here, I totally agree

[Joanne98]

24. Great book. I've read it twice.

[Polesitter]

10. Was anyone paying attention back in 1998? There was an

inverse correlation between investigations/impeachment and Clinton's approval rating. Why, was it because he was judged to NOT have committed the act alleged? No, it was because it was all one-sided. Without bi-partisan support, it's viewed soley as a political vendetta. Even if the House impeaches it still goes nowhere in the Senate. Conviction takes 67 votes.

No, going down that path re-casts the entire GWOT in a partisan context and sets up political fault lines that will not favor Democrats in 2008.

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who said that the 2006 election is not a mandate, but a chance? The most rapid and sure path back to minority status is to abuse majority power.

[papau]

13. To not use majority power is to abuse majority power - and to abuse the voters that trusted you n/t

n/t

[humbled_opinion]

15. So I guess your point is lets let Bush alone??

Having the Majority makes the Democrats the party responsible therefore responsiblity demands that we the people find out what is exactly going on in the government... If you ask anybody they will inevitably tell you something smells funny in the Bushco.... Investigations hurt no one... If Bush is guilty of a crime then he in fact should be impeached.. .I think the majority of Americans fell that way... Open your mind a little bit. Clinton did not have us in a no win war for oil. Clinton's lie killed no one... Now if the facts are that Bush lied us into a war then he needs to be held accountable. period.

[Polesitter]

22. I'm not saying leave Bush alone - those aren't my words.

I'm saying that Bill Clinton pointed out last week that this election is not a mandate but a chance. It's certainly (now my words) not a mandate for impeachment - that will inevitably cede the high ground to the very party vanquished in this election and royally piss off the US population that has enough partisan bullshit to last a decade. Did you hear Sen-elect Claire McCaskill this AM? She highlighted that this was not a huge mandate but still reflected a very closely divided electorate, it broke one way this time around and that can easily change - and will change with poor leadership. She stressed that the US population want both parties to work together always at odds. You accomplish that with seeking common ground, not by confrontational politics - especially in the Senate where you have to have 60 votes to pass anything when you trample on the minority and they throw a halt into the works.

Why no impeachment? No rational person can believe that there is even the remotest chance that an impeachment by the House (the body with exclusive power to impeach)would result in anything close to a conviction in the Senate. A Senate trial with 50 or fewer guilty votes (and it takes 67 to convict) strengthens him the way Bill Clinton's "acquittal" made him invulnerable for the remainder of his term.

A Senate trial, where he not only will NOT be convicted, will serve to validate his policies when he receives a majority not guilty votes. "Look, a majority of the Senators agreed with me!"

BTW - I was in government During Bill Clinton's Presidency and saw a basically good guy, but one who failed to take decisive action when it mattered. Of course I am speaking of the million killed in Rwanda while the world, including the US, waited until it was too late to stop the genocide. So what are the moral implications when you compare the battle deaths of 3,000 US soldiers, every one a volunteer, to a million dead Africans, slaughtered because of the Hutu/Tutsi hate? Do we get a "do-over, you can't count it" because we count only white deaths as tragic? I think not.

You also may recall when/why our policy vis a vis Bosnia changed. It's when Eli Wiesel spoke at the dedication of the US Holocaust Museum and said to Bill Clinton words to the effect (not an exact quote) that "America has to act because only America can act."

[humbled_opinion]

28. I am a rational person and believe that the only way Bush will not

be impeached is if the Congress does nothing. If they investigate the Iraq war as well as the criminal conduct of spying on America vis-a-vis the NSA Surveillance program which is a direct violation of the Law in that it is not conducted under the FISA rules. I mean we can also go into the power grabbing of the Administration using the Patriot act and the Bush pen known as signing statements... to wit: President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. So he has broken many laws and should be held to account... Do you propose we just use a broom and sweep our Constitution under the rug?

[Polesitter]

44. You overreach - esp on the "direct violation of the law"

We have three branches of government designed so that two can place a third in check. So when Congress Passes a bill, and a president signs it into law, there may very well be more than one interpretation of what that law means. There may be 535 different views in Congress and another 536th by the executive. Until any specific view is test in court, who's to say which interpretation is accurate? A President has as much right to read it a certain way as any member of Congress.

It would be an entirely different matter if a President defied the interpretation AFTER the US Supreme court has provided a definitive ruling.

Here's the example in the news a fair amount - President and Congress disagree over intercept of international communications when one communicant is located physically within the USA. Some members disagree even when the communication is linked to international terrorists. Well, ACLU sues and district judge rules program must stop. Case Over? Anybody jailed? In reality, neither because appellate court has stayed (temporarily overruled) the district court's order pending final resolution - and the case continues.

Cut & dried case? Hardly. Congress (doesn't really have a unified position, but I'll pretend it does for this discussion) says FISA act requires warrants.

President says Congress is wrong on several counts:

1. International calls represent US border being crossed and he has authority to search & inspect everything (including digital 1s and 0s) that leave or enter the country. If Ramsay Clark was preparing Osama Bin Laden filing for lawsuit, and tries to bring in lots of Bin Laden's personal property as exhibits to the filing, he is not exempt from customs and everything brought into the country is subject to inspection, search (where absolutely no warrant is needed) and seizure if appropriate. I'm unconvinced that a court will carve out an exception for material crossing the border just because it's digitized and conveyed electronically.

2. FISA limits exceed Congressional Power extended by Constitution. If the USSC determines intelligence surveillance is core Article II (Executive Branch) authority, Congress could not limit it any more than Congress could limit Andrew Johnson's power to discharge the Secretary of War. For background, Congress passed the 1867 Tenure of Office Act, Johnson "violated" same, was impeached by house (House Speaker was next in line for Presidency - no politics there) but acquitted by Senate after the necessary 2/3 guilty votes were not found. Sen Edmund Ross (R-Kansas) ended his career by a not-guilty vote, but his refusal to cave got him a chapter in JFK's Profiles in Courage. The act hung around on the books, but unenforced for more than 50 years. In 1926, in the case of Myers vs. United States, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Taft, held unconstitutional a law requiring the consent of the Senate for removal of certain non-Cabinet officials.

3. Congress Authorized Use of Military Force (lesser state than declared war). It will be argued before the court that in a war against terrorism, intercept of related communications are a usual and customer incident to military operations.

What will the Court do. Clearly nothing immediately since it is still at the appellate court level. I anticipate the Circuit Court of Appeals hearing the case "en banc", then one side ot the other may appeal to the USSC. Reality - no ruling before the next President takes office in Jan 2009.

This is but one issue. The men & women in Congress aren't so stupid that they will impeach on an issue before it has run its course through the courts. They also are unlikely to impeach on an issue that does not involve a clear cut violation of the law. "Really, I had no idea perjury was against the law!" In areas where the two branches disagreed, the courts settle it and everyone complies with the ruling, there will be no impeachment any more than the US Attorney Will try to indict a member of congress for being on the losing side of an issue.

Finally, be ready for the court to decide some of these in the Executive's favor. Don't be surprised if the executive really does have certain prerogatives that can be diminished only by amending the Constitution.

[Lasher]

43. The Clinton & Bush II cases are different

Democrats like Clinton and McCaskill are correct to say that the outcome of the midterms specifically mandated nothing except a change in control of Congress. It is more in Republicans' style to falsely claim mandates, like Junior did when he squeaked by in the 2004 presidential election.

Your comparison of Clinton's impeachment and Junior's potential case is premature because there have so far been few legitimate investigations to reveal the extent of The Decider's transgressions. Setting that aside, however, distinct differences are already known.

Americans rallied around Clinton because they correctly perceived the impeachment to be partisan endeavor, but that’s not all there was to it. More than that, they had grown weary of the GOP witch hunt that would ultimately drag on for 12 years at a cost of $91.3 Million. Most people were unimpressed with the results of the inquisitions that revealed only two misdemeanors that Clinton administration officials committed while they were in office:

Clinton - one count of misdemeanor perjury about a blowjob.

Clinton’s HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros - pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for misstating to the F.B.I. the amount of money he gave his girlfriend.

Already Junior’s GSA chief of staff, David Safavian, has been convicted on four felony counts of lying and obstructing the investigation into the dealings of Jack Abramoff. Other crimes, such as FISA violations, will probably come to be revealed in more detail now that the GOP lapdog Congressional leadership has been shown the door. And unlike the Clinton era indiscretions, these crimes take the form of power abuse and even treason. A comparison of the current administration with Nixon’s administration is more appropriate than the one you have offered, as this graph confirms:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/

[mac56]

18. Apples v oranges.

You assume the populace feels as supportive toward Bush as they did toward Clinton, and toward the outgoing GOP-controlled Congress as they will toward the new Dem-controlled one.

You also assume they feel the same about Bush's transgressions as they did about Clinton's less catastrophic ones.

You further assume that any investigations will be one-sided, and that no Repugs will step forward to join the Dems.

Lastly you assume that Congress doing its job equals "abusing power".

Investigations are just that: investigations. Were you paying attention in 1998? Remember the GOP's tired old mantra? "If you have nothing to hide, you don't need to fear an investigation." Maybe the time has come to turn that one on the GOP themselves.

[caledesi]

36. Great, succinct post. Is is not the right of the American people

to find out what laws have been broken? Is is not the DUTY of congress to investigate if they have evidence that laws have been broken? We are talking Geneva Conventions, et al, not a sex scandal.

This is the most secretive WH ever (The Dick, Cheney and * made sure of that). Rethugs are famous for "hiding things under the rug." If they continue to take this tact, they will be true to their ideology. That is all they care about is ideology; facts don't matter. Dems have a philosophy; facts DO matter.

edit: usual stuff

[Aviation Pro]

23. The difference will be....

...presenting the evidence to the American public as real high crimes and misdemeanors, which, of course, lying the nation into war really is. Clinton's impeachment was a farce and will be a tiny footnote in the historical record of statesman William Jefferson Clinton. Little Monkey's record will be notable as the worst pResident ever and will undoubtedly include volumes on his, and his minder Small Dick "Fucking" Cheney's, impeachment, removal, prosecution, conviction and incarceration.

[caledesi]

37. Yeah, where is "Ann-the-Man Coulter" and her books when you

need her?

[Occulus]

47. And yet,

if you view Clinton's impeachment as a means to pull the impeachment currently necessary "off the table", it all starts to make a diobolical sort of sense, doesn't it?

:think:

[wordpix2]

11. Yahoo! I wonder if my former CT Rep. Nancy Johnson is involved in Medicare scandals

:think:

snip: The new Medicare drug benefit. "There are lots and lots and lots of scandals," he said, without citing specifics

She was a major recipient of Big Pharma and Insurance campaign money.

I'm looking forward to all these investigations. :popcorn:

[ninkasi]

16. It's so twisted

that being liberal has come to have negative images. I'm extremely liberal, and believe that raising the minimum wage is much more important than cutting multi-millionaire's taxes. What's bad about that? If you examine the republican policies, they are cruel, narrow-minded, and punishing. One thing I'd love to see happen is for liberals to stop running from the word, and be proud about liberal policies, instead. Liberal is good, liberal is truly compassionate, as opposed to the "compassionate" conservatives, who are compassionate only to the really well to do. For them, nothing is too much, no benefit too much, no tax break too unfair.

We who are liberal must stop defending liberalism, and instead take pride in the true meaning of the word. The Sermon on the Mount is an excellent example of liberal thinking. Any person who can live comfortably with themselves, knowing that increasing their already immense wealth places burdens and hardships on others is not anyone I'd care to associate with.

[ArmchairMeme]

27. Thanks that needed to be said

[caledesi]

38. Amen! Have you noticed that young people consider themselves

to be liberal, not conservative? Good sign.

[CAcyclist]

52. Very well said nt

[Botany]

17. KBR did they folowing:

45% of all billing was for administrative costs on a cost plus contract?

billing for 30,000 meals yet serving 10,000?


Cheney's energy task force:
Letting Exxon, Enron, B.P., the Coal Companies, and so on write U.S. energy
laws and policies.

[bamacrat]

25. Can the VP be impeached without the Pres?

Or is it only reserved for b*sh

[onehandle]

29. Yes, Cheney can be impeached without Bush.

And it can happen in a single day.

However, he will resign for "health reasons" within six months. Guaranteed.

[caledesi]

39. Heard that too. His relationship is strained with * and he doesn't

have the influence he used to. The coup de gras was Rummy....Cheney was pissed.

[stepnw1f]

26. Merry Fitzmas!

Why not?

[upi402]

30. k/r n-t

[shanti]

31. barney frank

remember this! liberals ARE DEMOCRATS! :grr:

[greccogirl]

32. Look, trying for impeachment is a mistake. The majority of the

country won't support it no matter how they feel about Bush. The change over was done to get something done, and I fear that two years spent in endless investigations is going to cost power in 2008.

[Founders Know Best]

34. The majority already support impeachment

I think that a congressman who does his job and upholds our constitution is more likely to be re-elected.

[greccogirl]

54. I don't think the majority do.

I think the majority (as well as I) want to see those that have been elected make some changes.

[AndyTiedye]

35. You Would Give Them a Pass on Everything? No Investigations At All?

Why?

[greccogirl]

55. No I wouldn't. I'd like to know the answers

to a lot of questions. But I want to see things done as well.

[caledesi]

40. You mean the same endless investigations of President Clinton

at an unbelievable cost? "Oh, it was such a distraction." Not! "What do we tell the children?"

He was investigated over Whitewater! No proof, after endless investigations, not the mention money. The rethugs found NOTHING. Was there ever an apology? Uh, no.

I think * needs a distraction.

[greccogirl]

56. Yes I thought it was bad. At the time I didn't

care much for Clinton, but I don't want to see another two years of waste.

[JetCityLiberal]

53. No it isn't

I loathe b*sh, he is the biggest terrorist in the world. I have no "love" at all for him or any of his reprehensible terrorist supporters.

do you believe he should be impeached greccogirl?

What is your opinion of that lying murderer?

Cost who power?

[greccogirl]

57. I don't think he should be impeached and I don't

think the majority of the country would. Let's say my opinion of him as greatly changed in the past two to three years.

The dems are in power now, they need to show how they can lead so they can stay in power.

[illinoisprogressive]

33. Licking chops

I can just see the democrats licking thier chops like my cats after they eat when thinking of the investigations. Come to think of it, so am I. I cannot wait till they get those little fascists in to the rooms and grill them and make them sweat.

[caledesi]

41. Yes. Who cares about impeachment? Get these thugs under

oath...let the people decide. Torture them for the next few years; they deserve it. The thugs have done nothing but ignore Dems. Well, we are driving the bus now, and it ain't no short bus. Hold on, it's going to be a bumpy ride. Can't wait!

[GreatPirateRoberts]

42. How Can We Keep Them Honest?

I'm afraid that they will be scared to investigate & impeach. I think we're deserving of their not being afraid to really nail BushCo & the Rovepubs, how can we keep their feet to the fire & really get this done?

[fredrickdouglas]

45. Array Of Investigations That By Definition Can Lead Nowhere

because impeachment is off the table, as top Dem, Nancy Pelosi promised Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago.

Are we masochists? Maybe we are. Maybe we actually like the pain inflicted on us by the Dems with their endless array of tricks to keep us psychologically imprisoned in the cell of hope that they might actually represent working people or uphold the law. Everything they say is either worthless or a lie. We must love the torture.

[GreatPirateRoberts]

46. Stop the Cycle!

How can we stop this cycle of being used? We are the base & they would not have the majority if we had not stuck with them. What can we do to get this ball rolling?

[symbolman]

49. Let's take a little gander

at those Pallets of Poppy Papers from HIS Administration while we're at it, the ones that Bush the Lesser IMMEDIATELY HID -- I'm pretty sure we'll find those MOST illuminating, as a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet they'll be quite helpful in showing how it's all hobknobbed and toenailed IN TOGETHER :)