The House That Wouldn’t Bend Over

You Go Democrats! For the next two weeks at least, America’s telecom executives will be just as accountable to the law as the other 300 million of us. What a concept! Why should a few VIPs have a law that specifically prevents them from ever being sued? I don’t know anybody who has that kind of permanent protective cocoon wrapped around them. Do you? We’re a nation of laws; well, for two more weeks anyway.

It didn’t exactly take an act of blind courage for Congress to stand up to a cerebrally-challenged alcoholic president with single-digit approval ratings. But still, with all the bending and gyrating this Congress has been doing, it’s a huge relief that, for one fleeting moment, they actually stood up and said “No!”

Savor the moment. There’s no doubt, our petulant child king will be bringing this subject back for another vote, and another vote, again and again and again until he gets his way. You can’t say “No” to a scion of the Bush Crime Family. It’s just not done.

I forget where I read this, but somebody was making an excellent point: there’s something huge going on behind the scenes that’s making these Conservatards keep pushing and pushing and pushing and grandstanding and pleading and shouting for retroactive telecom immunity. Our bribery system doesn’t usually work like this. Generally, a congressperson gets a bribe from a certain industry, and he/she is instructed to vote accordingly. And that’s all.

Getting bribed isn’t supposed to require months and months of pleading and threatening and foaming at the mouth every time a TV camera appears. WTF is going on here? Probably a lot more than we’ll ever know.

This other story is sort of along those same lines — government secrecy, things we’re not supposed to know, etc. The Pentagon has completed a study which shows there was no connection whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Uh, that was one of our main reasons for invading Iraq five years ago (along with those non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction). For a full year before the invasion we heard nothing but “Saddam al Qaeda Hussein bin Laden 9/11 Iraq Saddam bin Laden Iraq al Qaeda…”

And now that there’s a Pentagon report showing that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the Reichstag Fire September 11th attacks, we the lowly peons — whose tax dollars paid for this invasion — are not entitled to know about it. The Pentagon has been instructed not to release this report, and the report is not available online.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

10 Responses to “The House That Wouldn’t Bend Over”

  1. Lisa Says:

    And now that there’s a Pentagon report showing that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the Reichstag Fire September 11th attacks

    No kidding Tom . Everyone knows that. What would make you think there was a connection to Saddam and 9/11 anyway?

    But I will agree we are peons. Not to worry those if Hillary or Obama wins us tax payers will be dumped on,not peed on.
    and how many times do you have to be reminded why we went into Iraq but here it is for the 56th time .Maybe it will click this time.

    http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

    And the firsr sentence “You Go Democrats” I am still laughing my ass off about that one. They remind me of an Olympic hopeful figure skater trying so hard to nail that triple salchow eventually after working on it 7 days a week 6 hrs a day they get it because pretty much that is their whole life.

  2. Tom Harper Says:

    Yes Lisa, everyone who surfs the net has seen this quote dump at least 56 times. The first 2 people quoted, Hillary and J. Edwards, were among the gullible spineless ones who “voted for the invasion before they voted against it.” Either they were in on it from the beginning and/or their spinelessness enabled Bush and his puppetmasters. Either way, I have nothing positive to say about either of them.

    All of the earlier quotes have one thing in common: None of them were calling for a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. They were all pretty much saying to keep an eye on Hussein, maintain the UN sanctions or even tighten them; NOT that we needed a unilateral invasion of the country.

    And you know damn well the Bush-Cheney sleaze machine was spewing out every Orwellian trick in the book to conjure up a public image that would merge Saddam Hussein/Iraq/al Qaeda/bin Laden into one scary bugaboo image to manipulate the public. They never quite came out and said it directly, so if somebody called them on it they could respond with “oh, I never said that.”

    So technically you’re right; they never said it. I can’t tell if you’re actually in favor of Bush-Cheney’s Orwellian methods for duping the public, or if you’re one of the people who fell for it hook line and sinker. Either way, you have my sympathy.

  3. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    It didn’t exactly take an act of blind courage for Congress to stand up to a cerebrally-challenged alcoholic president with single-digit approval ratings.

    In which alternate reality is Bush’s approval ratings in single digits? Oh. That must be, what did you call it last time? ?

    By the way. If you click through on those links, you’ll find that Congress’s approval ratings are even lower than Bush’s.

  4. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Hmm. That didn’t work out right. Try again:

    It didn’t exactly take an act of blind courage for Congress to stand up to a cerebrally-challenged alcoholic president with single-digit approval ratings.

    In which alternate reality is Bush’s approval ratings in single digits? Oh. That must be, what did you call it last time? Poetic license?

    By the way. If you click through on those links, you’ll find that Congress’s approval ratings are even lower than Bush’s.

  5. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    And how’s Congress’s push to end the war in Iraq going against that cerebrally-challenged, alcoholic president with single-digit approval ratings? I suggest you do a little research and thinking before you exercise poetic license of this sort that won’t hold up to even cursory examination, Tom. They’re tied to your credibility and, if you lose that on the internets, what have you got?

  6. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Why should a few VIPs have a law that specifically prevents them from ever being sued?

    Why, indeed. Of course nothing of the sort is being contemplated. It doesn’t immunize the companies from any law suits for any reason for all time. It immunizes them from law suits for actions taken in reliance upon legal opinions by the government in cooperation with anti-terrorism efforts in the wake of 9/11. Period. Agree or disagree but, again, flights of fancy like this are inextricably tied to your credibility. Don’t lie to your reader and your reader won’t discover you’ve lied to them and they won’t have any reason not to trust the next thing to come off your keyboard.

  7. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    Our bribery system doesn’t usually work like this. Generally, a congresspers on gets a bribe from a certain industry, and he/she is instructed to vote accordingly. And that’s all.

    Getting bribed isn’t supposed to require months and months of pleading and threatening and foaming at the mouth every time a TV camera appears.

    Hmmmm. You’re right. That probably means it’s nothing to do with bribery. More to do with not wanting other corporations to fear cooperating with the government’s anti-terrorism efforts, which, face it, who’s going to open themselves up to lawsuits in the billions of dollars, even to help the government prevent further catastrophic terrorist attacks if there’s no immunity?

  8. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    The Pentagon has been instructed not to release this report, and the report is not available online.

    That’s strange. I downloaded the report several days ago from here [clicking on the link downloads a 94 page .pdf file, 11.7 MB in size. Perhaps an update is in order.

    It’s an interesting report. The news reports don’t do it justice. It reveals the true extent of the ties to terrorist organizations, the extent of their training of terrorists, the extent of their acts of terrorism both inside Iraq and in other countries. I think everyone should download it and learn how dangerous Saddam’s Iraq was, not only to Iraqis within the borders but to other nations as well. There may have been found no operational ties to 9/11 but there are definite and multiple ties between Saddam’s Iraq and terrorism and terrorists.

    Then again, news of such revelations may not be so very well received around here, now that I think about it. It might take some of the sheen off the “Saddam was no threat” chorus line number on the left.

  9. Tom Harper Says:

    OK, Craig, you’re absolutely right. I’m just a lying dishonest $#%&!#$#%& with no credibility. Get over it :) :)

  10. Craig R. Harmon Says:

    I would if I could but I can’t seem to be able to! :-)

Leave a Reply


Fish.Travel