Bush Strategy On Bad News From Iraq -- Kill The Messenger

Click here to read the entire article.

Congress has set a 2007 termination date for the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction at the behest of the Bush administration, removing the source of a series of audit reports that have been critical of the administration's efforts.

That's the way the Bush Administration wants to handle bad news from Iraq -- kill the messenger.

be investigations and they will be more hard hitting then they already are...

. . .hypocrites.

Anyone who stands on principle only when there is no risk is held in contempt (No matter how happy we may be that they finally decided it was safe enough to stand up.)

Every time they declare "Don't worry, we have NO intention of impeaching anyone" they tie their hands to keep the "pledge" (and sentence the nation to continued dictatorial rule) or they sentence themselves to the contempt of the American people if they finally stand up and impeach.

because they are the minority but you are right they should never say that they won't....

. . .and are sworn to do so (sworn to defend the constitution).

If you are committed to principle, you fight for it, even if you "know" it will be a "charge of the light brigade." (And, of course, it is irrational to believe you know the outcome. No human is omniscient.)

Had principled members of Congress started demanding impeachment earlier, they would have been making an offer that many Republicans would be happy to jump on "You can have President Hastert now, or President Pelosi in 2007. You wanna distance yourselves from Bush's insanity? Here is your out!)

When they keep silent, or deny intentions to Impeach if they win, they give the rogue administration cover. (Hey, if we were committing crimes, wouldn't the leadership of the Democratic "opposition" be demanding impeachment? They aren't, so what we are doing must be constitutional.)

So, they are not just derelict in their sworn duty. They are giving the criminals in the executive branch cover for their crimes.

Not to mention that they sound like morally-confused mealy-mouthed morons when they try to condemn Bush's destruction of the Constitution, but refuse to take the action demanded. They either end up fouling up their condemnations with euphemisms (to cover the fact that the actions demand impeachment), or they speak in strong and truthful terms and sound unprinciples and weak-willed, unwilling to back their words with action.

All we can do is keep trying to save them from themselves.

They are heading home. We can blast them at close range. We can ask the hard questions (like the ones in the previous post) that can help to wake them up and make it clear that they risk far MORE by keeping silent then by speaking out -- even at this late date.

Demanding impeachment is not just the right thing to do, it is the WINNING thing to do. If they stood up and demanded Impeachment -- and said, unequivocally, that they will act if they win, they would gain 5% of the white male vote overnight by showing the fortitude that is respected by that demographic. (And those guys are getting more and more angry at Bush and Cheney -- and, unlike "our side" they have no reluctance when it comes to accusation and punishment.)

. . . a very dangerout business.



Purging the "messengers" from within your own ranks sends the same message Medieval lords sent when they returned them maimed or dead. (You send this, or any similar message my way, you will suffer the same fate.

Guess we need to re-establish the messenger protection laws. Wait a minute. We have them. Whistleblower protection.

To bad the King Members of Congress refuse to Impeach would never enforce such laws.

And round and round we go.

to shut down anyone who steps out of line....

no doubt the replacements -- scattered about various departments -- will be hand-picked to match up with the administration side of the story. it's just a variation of the "my way or the highway" strategy of this administration.