Comments (93)

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 10:47 AM:

Also, Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table"!!! Run, Cindy, run!

Troll Patrol wrote on July 16, 2007 10:59 AM:

Feed your soul, not your troll.

Light a candle:

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?l=eng

Or click below:

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 11:01 AM:

Isn't Sylvester Reyes the guy who didn't know that Al Quaeda was Sunni or if Hezbollah was Sunni or Shia. Guess there isn't much of a chance that he would recognize that bonafide US intelligence agencies have been infiltrated by Cheney's guys.
Code word:Smile, as in "Smile, we are going to invade Iran."

chris wrote on July 16, 2007 11:01 AM:

Isn't Sylvester Reyes the guy who didn't know that Al Quaeda was Sunni or if Hezbollah was Sunni or Shia. Guess there isn't much of a chance that he would recognize that bonafide US intelligence agencies have been infiltrated by Cheney's guys.
Code word:Smile, as in "Smile, we are going to invade Iran."

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 11:08 AM:

Didn't the GOP get tossed out in 2006 because they "covered up" Mark Foley's actions?

regular lurker wrote on July 16, 2007 11:14 AM:

Self first, f*ck the taxpayers. Business as usual continues. Only the (R) has changed.

Betty wrote on July 16, 2007 11:17 AM:

Who are the democrats? I skimmed the article but couldn't find their names.

TheraP wrote on July 16, 2007 11:17 AM:

Red Face in Photo above. Doesn't look like shame. Looks more like the results of imbibing too much over a long, long time.

Money - not the only thing funneled.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 16, 2007 11:22 AM:

"Members oppose putting this thing out because you read this and the natural question is: 'Did you know this, and what did you do about it?' I don't think any members wanted that scrutiny."

They don't want scrutiny. Whose government is this, anyway? On paper, this is still a govenment of the people. Until the Constitution is officially abolished, citizens still have a right to demand that it be enforced.

Regardless of party, heads need to roll.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 11:30 AM:

Betty:

". . . the committee's chair Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) has decided not to publicly release the full 23-page declassified version." It seems as if Jane Harmon tried to release some of the info. The remaining Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are as follows:

Alcee L. Hastings, Vice Chairman (Florida)
Leonard L. Boswell (Iowa)
Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr. (Alabama)
Anna G. Eshoo (California)
Rush D. Holt (New Jersey)
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Maryland)
John Tierney (Massachusetts)
Mike Thompson (California)
Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)
Jim Langevin (Rhode Island)
Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania)

Let me know if you need to know how to contact any of those Representatives to express your displeasure.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 11:31 AM:

Run, Cindy, run!

the truth will out wrote on July 16, 2007 11:38 AM:

According to the L.A. Times story:

"Five Democrats objected to keeping the report secret."

The Chairman clearly wants secrecy. And who are the 5 others who are opposed to "sunshine?"

Seems we need a "sunshine list."

mutt wrote on July 16, 2007 11:42 AM:

Well, there you go. Corruption, like mass murder abroad- remember the Central American wars? Reagans handlers couldnt have done it w/o the Dims- is bi partisan.
Not too sure what Cindy Sheehan can do about it, but indeed, Pelosi has to go.....

Phylo Se Fiser wrote on July 16, 2007 11:47 AM:

I'm also waiting for phase two of the Senate Intelligence Committee report. I don't think they released the whole report. This was the report that was supposed to investigate whether or not the White House manipulated the intel.

This is very concerning.

Shook her hand wrote on July 16, 2007 11:54 AM:

What's Pelosi got to do with this?

I don't see her name on the committee.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 16, 2007 11:57 AM:

Democrats need to be RUTHLESS with members of their own party who are in league with corruption. A higher standard must apply. If any of the Democrats don't like that, they are welcome to switch parties.

Gandhi wrote on July 16, 2007 12:05 PM:

Maybe the Democrats don't want to win the next elections?

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:05 PM:

mutt and Shook her hand:

Pelosi's hand-picked chairman is Reyes (don't you recall the whole Jane Harmon vs. Alcee L. Hastings fiasco?). If Pelosi wanted that report released, she could do it with two words. As for Cindy Sheehan, that is a more recent development, I think she's decided to run against Nancy Pelosi next year. That would be a HOOT!

The war on error wrote on July 16, 2007 12:05 PM:

Not sure how switching parties makes sense here.

Sunshine. More sunshine.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:08 PM:

Mother Sheehan has given Pelosi until July 23rd to seek Bush's impeachment:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3356936&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Seek Wisdom wrote on July 16, 2007 12:10 PM:

Yes, more sunshine.

Light a candle. Click below.

onsetdresser wrote on July 16, 2007 12:18 PM:

"Congressional sources said Reyes and other Democrats had initially voted to let other members of Congress see the document, but reversed course after a fierce protest by the panel's ranking GOP member, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan."

"They are so nervous about this report being out," said one congressional official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Members oppose putting this thing out because you read this and the natural question is: 'Did you know this, and what did you do about it?' I don't think any members wanted that scrutiny."

This report needs to be released. Now.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:30 PM:

Needless to say, the DEMS are the ones agreeing to withhold the report, notwithstanding any "fierce protest" by the panel's ranking GOP member.

July 23rd D-DAY

Johnson's Dog wrote on July 16, 2007 12:32 PM:

Cindy Sheehan is a pain in the ass. If she believes she can alter Pelosi's behavior by running, then she should just run, not threaten to run if she doesn't get her own way.

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 12:33 PM:

Cunningham….aha this is why the DOJ wanted C. Lam out!

You have to read the whole LA times article, just amazing!!!

But even more scary is Cunningham’s behavior was being facilitated by the House Intelligence Committee, and Issa from San Diego is on that committee also, wonder what his involvement (if any) could have been!

Issa is walking a thin line, his mud runs from the west coast to the east, yet he still can’t build a bridge with his mud!!!!

I am sick of politicians who are more worried by the next election and how they fund it, when their focus must be on the people and the constitution….END of story!

Just like Sara Taylor said…“I took a oath to serve and defend the
president” ….

See this is the way they all think! They forgot what they took an oath to...and they need to be reminded that they serve the constitution of the united states not a president nor their deep pocket.

Bring back serving the people and defending the constitution, versus having a mind set of retirement and vacations, and campaign on their next election! If they just do what they are suppose to do defend and service, all the scandals will be cut!

Lam was outed because of the story that the la times wrote about! Read it!

Duckman GR wrote on July 16, 2007 12:34 PM:

Of course, the Dems might be more inclined to release such information if they felt that there was some chance that their complicity, which was not at nearly the same level as Cunningham's filthy whoremongering, wouldn't get them lumped into the same basket as Cunningham by hyperventilating lefties and nuked by the blogosphere, if you know what I mean.

Because that's what many will do, the evidence is here in some of the comments above. If the cost of doing the right thing is too high for people, they will abstain.

How many of you can say with total honesty that you would unhesitatingly expose some illegal or dubious or questionable or dirty but legal business activity you were a part of or witness to if you knew it would result in getting fired and prosecuted, even if you were not an active participant?

Yes, we all know that there is a lot of corruption or influence peddling (not the same things at all) in DC. Throwing out everyone tainted with it, while noble and lovely, isn't at all realistic, practical, or needed.

Put it on a personal level. Would you work with the guy that ratted you out because you were at a meeting that led to some bad business practice, and you didn't stop it or call your bosses/company out or went to the press and blew the whistle? Even though they (the rat) were right and righteous?

Would you expect total cooperation from Congress for doing the same thing?

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:34 PM:

Seek Wisdom:

You're only making my job easier.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:37 PM:

Johnson's Dog"

If she can alter Pelosi's behavior simply by threatening to run, why not at least try that first?

Cowboy wrote on July 16, 2007 12:43 PM:

All it takes is one powerful member to keep the report under wraps. Probably Reyes. Based on the contributions Murtha received from Wade my guess is that he goes down if this one opens up.

My boy Jake though likely loses Jerry Lewis the one-time appropriations chair, Doolitte (who's already in trouble in connection with Abramoff it appears--at least his wife is) and perhaps even the Veep.

Jake D. I'll shoot Reyes an email regardless. If I didn't think you were a rank hypocrite, and second rate apologist for the loyal Bushies, I would have guessed that you'd have called your representative this morning too to complain about the firings of Lam and the aUSA in LA who are not exactly tangential to the MZM ACDS, Cunningham matter.

Perhaps you're only interested in the committee report, and not on corruption generally? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:48 PM:

Sorry, Cowboy: "Feed your soul, not your troll."

Troll Patrol wrote on July 16, 2007 12:53 PM:

Hmmmm...... "a job"

onsetdresser wrote on July 16, 2007 12:55 PM:

"How many of you can say with total honesty that you would unhesitatingly expose some illegal or dubious or questionable or dirty but legal business activity you were a part of or witness to if you knew it would result in getting fired and prosecuted, even if you were not an active participant?"

I would and I have, at Disney. But the corruption went so high up that they buried it. The funny thing was it mirrored Cunningham perfectly, contractor bribes and all. I left that hell hole in disgust.

I'm not asking for more than I would expect from myself. We deserve to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Mexican Jumping Bean wrote on July 16, 2007 12:57 PM:

Troll getting antsy?

Artists - go to town!

.

SC agrees: "screw"

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 12:58 PM:

Thank you, onsetdresser, for standing up and being counted!

TheraP wrote on July 16, 2007 1:03 PM:

I too have resigned rather than serve with an incompetent liar - after trying, without success to get an administration to listen.

Many people prefer to serve the truth - than keep a job and be a hypocrite.

Cowboy wrote on July 16, 2007 1:08 PM:

I don't think Jake D. is a troll. I think he's earnestly confused. I know a lot of Bush true-believers like him. Good people, easy dupes. Problem is they're playing with my money and my inheritance too.

Seek Wisdom wrote on July 16, 2007 1:10 PM:

Serve the truth, not the troll.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 1:11 PM:

I'm not confused.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 1:13 PM:

The topic, however, is "DEMS Help Buty Committee Report" (see above).

Sunshine wrote on July 16, 2007 1:14 PM:

He's admitted it's his "job." And he says he's not confused.

Ergo....

He is in "fact" (sc) a troll.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 1:19 PM:

I never admitted I was a "troll" -- I was AVOIDING Cowboy's trolling -- lit a candle instead of any confusion ; )

As for my "job" I don't get paid to post here -- I simply want to give the other side of the story -- those like "Seek Wisdom" are indeed making that easier.

Sunshine wrote on July 16, 2007 1:28 PM:

Just like AA, it takes so long for them to admit it!

Even when the truth is plain to see.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 1:36 PM:

That's right, I'm in denial about not getting paid too -- good one!

johnnydoughey wrote on July 16, 2007 1:43 PM:

The mobs are winning folks... and it won't matter which mob wins, because there will still be mobsters in charge, which means THEY will win and WE will lose... because we are supporting mobsters.

onsetdresser wrote on July 16, 2007 1:54 PM:

Sorry Jake D. that you feel the need to troll this site incessantly.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 1:59 PM:

Onsetdresser:

It would probably be better if you took "Seek Wisdom's" advice ; )

Adam C. wrote on July 16, 2007 2:00 PM:

"Lawmakers have plenty of motivation to keep the review quiet, the Times, which obtained a copy, reports..."

Run that by me again. The Times *has obtained a copy* of the full declassified report? What the hell are they waiting for? Disclose, NOW!

Duckman GR wrote on July 16, 2007 2:03 PM:

I'm glad to hear that there are people who do the right thing, but it can't always be that easy. I know somebody who crossed the picket lines during the grocery store strike back in '05. 2 young kids, and just bought a house, a house she would have lost if she had stayed out on strike for the full 3 months or whatever it was. It was easy for me not to cross the picket lines, not so easy for her.

All I am saying, is give peace a chance, oops. I mean, we can't just nuke every Democrat for not being 100% pure, or even 75%. 65%, probably, 60%, yeah. We don't have the votes or replacements in all cases to keep from losing some seats to Gopper Thugs like Cunningham.

And don't think I'm giving carte blanche to someone like Ben Nelson of NE, a lot of times he hides like a got damned coward behind that Red State Conservative Farmer State bullshit.

Put pressure on the 5 (?) that are keeping the report closed, don't be surprised or disgusted if they don't respond to pressure this time, or the next time. They still need to be pressured, at the same time we still need these people.

And as for Cindy, well, if Pelosi sees that Cindy has a lot of supporters, that might give her some things to think about, but don't have any expectations that her forthcoming candidacy will do anything more than make the Dems look disorganized and weak to no gain. I was going to say poison the political waters but that wouldn't be at all accurate.

We really need to stop airing our dirty laundry quite so publicly, it really only helps the goppers and their corporate media slug allies.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 2:10 PM:

Michelle Lang was the senior staff member who sent the "HOOAH! Another $5 million of taxpayer money wasted" email -- was she employed by a DEMOCRAT? My LegiStorm.com is not working.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 2:14 PM:

How are you proposing to stop Cindy? Obviously, Pelosi is not going to bring Articles of Impeachment by next week.

Duckman GR wrote on July 16, 2007 2:17 PM:

Adam C, it would seem that somebody has done the deed, and getting the report out will certainly make things dicey for some Dems.

That doesn't change the thrust (!!!) of my arguments, though. We shouldn't step on them like a cockroach exposed in the kitchen light, but help them see the good in that exposure, how it eases the burden of their guilt or divided deliberations, and makes them better people for sharing their mistaken notions with us all.

Julie wrote on July 16, 2007 2:27 PM:

Iowa Representative Leonard Boswell (D), from Billy Pilgrim's list, is a toady, at the least. I've even been wondering this past year if he wasn't compromised on something, considering the way he's voted on a couple of key bills--his votes seemed so odd, illogical. No surprise that he doesn't want this released.

Duckman GR wrote on July 16, 2007 2:28 PM:

If you're talking to me, Jake, obviously. Who said anything about stopping Cindy?

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 2:33 PM:

Thanks for the info, Julie.

P.S. to the Duckman -- you said "We really need to stop airing our dirty laundry quite so publicaly" right? You nonetheless want Cindy Sheehan to run against Nancy Pelosi?

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 2:44 PM:

looks like this site has become infected by the nonsense of a supposedly 75-year-old troll. he's been farting at thinkprogress and calling it perfume for quite a while. the rest of you here have my condolences.

rickles wrote on July 16, 2007 2:50 PM:

TPMM,
When presenting an artivle about Cunningham (and all others that have been convicted) I think a picture in his prison "blues" would be more appropriate, don't you?

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 2:54 PM:

I thought the article was about "DEMS Help Bury Committee Report"

Julie wrote on July 16, 2007 3:01 PM:

Duckman said:
"We shouldn't step on them like a cockroach exposed in the kitchen light, but help them see the good in that exposure, how it eases the burden of their guilt or divided deliberations, and makes them better people for sharing their mistaken notions with us all."

I say, squash the damned cockroaches as a lesson to the rest that there isn't a dark enough corner in which to hide their collusions, that TIMES HAVE CHANGED! Christ, no wonder Congress has such miserable poll numbers.

Powkat wrote on July 16, 2007 3:11 PM:

Dresser - Of course the troll doesn't think resigning for ethical reasons makes sense: it doesn't have a clue what you are talking about. Sellilng it's soul for power seems like a fine idea to the troll. The concept that honor outweighs material gain is foreign to it.

Those of us who agree with you, who have lost positions (twice) for telling the truth about unethical and illegal actions know that to remain human one must keep one's soul. Pity the troll - it has no soul.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 3:16 PM:

What part of "Thank you, onsetdresser, for standing up and being counted!" posted at 12:58 PM don't you understand? No wonder you believe that I don't think "resigning for ethical reasons" makes sense or that the "concept that honor outweighs material gain" is foreign to me. Learn to read someday.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 16, 2007 3:18 PM:

I think Democrats should all continue to breathe air if they wish to survive longer than 5 minutes.

Powkat wrote on July 16, 2007 3:25 PM:

I do believe I hurt some troll feelings. Oops, silly me, trolls don't have feelings.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 3:29 PM:

Did you hear Reid is threatening to hold an all-night debate?

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 3:35 PM:

Did you hear Bush is threatening to send even more troops to iraq?

Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 16, 2007 3:36 PM:

People should run for office as Democrats if they ever have a hope of being elected as a Democratic officeholder.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 3:41 PM:

For the record, I am fine with sending more troops to Iraq -- we should also do something to stop Iran from attacking us -- thank God you people weren't around during WWII.

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 4:08 PM:

Jake D. - People like you were around during WWII and they said things like "I was just following orders."

Austin Cooper wrote on July 16, 2007 4:14 PM:

"...thank God you people weren't around during WWII."

I'm glad I wasn't around during World War 2 -- if I had, I'd be in my eighties now. As it is, I had my war, Jakey.

How about you?

Powkat wrote on July 16, 2007 4:15 PM:

Good one, Anon (posted @ 4:08) Actually, given the mindless bile that spews from the troll, it would probably have been an America Firster - opposed to every move FDR took to help England. It was the left who saw Hitler for what he was - but of course the trolls of the day accused them of disloyalty for their views. Really, nothing has changed - the right, the trolls, the corporate machine still seek to undermine democracy in the name of ever more money and power.

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 4:16 PM:

could you imagine if during the middle of WWII, the u.s. pulled all of its troops from europe, saying that capturing hitler wasn't that important, and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with the invasion of poland. how would that have turned out?

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 4:19 PM:

thank god duke and his pals weren't around during ww2. could you imagine a rep getting indicted for fraud and bribery involving defense contracts during wartime? not to mention that a top cia officer also got swept up by it. it's too bad the current administration fired the u.s. attorney heading the investigation.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 4:20 PM:

Austin Cooper:

I was in the Army during the Korean War.

Julie wrote on July 16, 2007 4:21 PM:

"For the record, I am fine with sending more troops to Iraq -- we should also do something to stop Iran from attacking us -- thank God you people weren't around during WWII."

Jake D.

Oh, here we go with the myth of the noble war and the mythic warrior heroes. Quick, get out the flag, play some tinny, loud patriotic music. Anybody got some crummy John Wayne movies so we can all get in the mood? Repeat after me, zombies, "War is great, war is good".

Sorry, I've seen this movie before: Iraq is Vietnam, Iran is Cambodia. I think I'll just spend my evening reading Robert Lifton's Home from the War

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 4:25 PM:

Duke and his pals were highly-decorated fighter pilots during the Vietnam war, you cowardly no name.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 4:28 PM:

As I said, Julie, thank GOD you weren't around during WWII, or we would have lost that one as well. Noted historian, David McCollough, has observed that we would have lost the American Revolution if today's "Chicken Little" media had been around then too.

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 4:29 PM:

and now he's a highly decorated prisoner, you cowardly apologist.

[no hyphen necessary since 'highly' is an adverb]

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 4:36 PM:

"At least I use my real name: 'asshole'"

there, i fixed it for you.

Anonymous wrote on July 16, 2007 4:37 PM:

So your real name is "Jake D. Asshole"? Good to know.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 4:49 PM:

No, my REAL name is Jake -- unlike the fake "Jake", or you, who refuses to disclose your real name.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 4:51 PM:

I like a name-jacking man - with a foot fetish.

Just call me "Jackie."

Austin Cooper wrote on July 16, 2007 5:08 PM:

"I don't think Jake D. is a troll. I think he's earnestly confused."

Well, I think his opinions are bigoted, lack substance, and are generally baseless and inflammatory. That's a fair definition of a Troll.

So far as I'm concerned, henceforth he can speak to an empty room. You can try rehabilitating him if you'd like...

And, Jakey? Just a note: If you'd been in a combat arm, I doubt if you'd say some of the tripe you spout here -- not so easily, anyway.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 5:17 PM:

God it sucks being me.

Mick Savage wrote on July 16, 2007 5:27 PM:

Yes, Jake D. Asshole, it sucks being you - for once we can agree.
It also sucks having to read your blithering spew.

johnnydoughey wrote on July 16, 2007 6:23 PM:

Duckman...
I am fully willing to forgive these poor wayward folks for not airing their dirty laundry. I also believe that it is INSANE to keep these same people, who are aiding and abetting in the destruction of our democracy, in areas of authority.
Let them continue their deeds and secrets in a place that affects much fewer people with these actions... not at a national level!

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 6:32 PM:

Keep in mind it's not just the Democrats in the House that have betrayed you lefty moonbats -- from Russ Feingold:

"I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses. But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country. The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.

While some have pointed to Republicans’ decision to impeach President Clinton, I am also concerned about the over-use of impeachment. And I am conscious of the fact that I would have a specific role to play as a sworn, impartial juror should an impeachment be tried in the Senate. If charges come to the Senate, I will approach them and the trial with the same seriousness that I had when I participated in the Clinton impeachment trial. I would not prejudge the case one way or the other should it come to this.

. . .

[I]t is the role of the House to impeach, and it is the role of the Senate to try impeachments. But the Constitution left it up to the judgment of members of Congress whether or not moving forward with impeachment is best for the country."

Powkat wrote on July 16, 2007 6:38 PM:

The troll lies - so for it has said it served in the Korean War, graduated from Stanford Law School - and a few other impossibilites I can't remember. It must work for the RNC - padded resumes instead of padded crotches.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 6:43 PM:

LOL, Powkat -- you think there were no other Korean war vets who went to Stanford Law?? You're funny.

Harvard wrote on July 16, 2007 6:53 PM:

Any graduate of such a suck ass school as Stanford is not qualified to be a lawyer, much less a para-legal if Jake is an example.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 6:57 PM:

Very funny.

Jake D. wrote on July 16, 2007 7:29 PM:

Oh, Powkat, here's another Korean war vet / Stanford law grad (R.I.P): http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/fgdutton.htm

JNagarya wrote on July 16, 2007 8:51 PM:

"Cindy Sheehan is a pain in the ass."

Sheehan is a political neophyte, threatening to be a bull in a China shop. Threatening, that is, though she doesn't realize it, to do more damage than good.

Posted by: Johnson's Dog
Date: July 16, 2007 12:32 PM

Julie wrote on July 16, 2007 11:00 PM:

"Duke and his pals were highly-decorated fighter pilots during the Vietnam war, you cowardly no name."

Jakeass

So? Funny what they gave decorations for in that war. We saw that with our soldiers at My Lai who crouched in firing position to fire at non-resistant old men, women, children, babies, grown men play-acting as if they were firing at enemy soldiers. It seems the only ones who "resisted" were the girls who were raped and the pigs which were chased down and bayonetted. So, what's new? Just goes to show that mythic, play-acting hero warriors can be crooks, too. It's called "re-enactment".

Jane wrote on July 16, 2007 11:07 PM:

This article would probably be better titled something along the lines of: Democrats continue Republican coverup of crimes Wade committed on the Republican's watch.

The current Republican members of the committee are:

Terry Everett (AL)
Heather Wilson (NM)
Mac Thornberry (TX)
John McHugh (NY)
Todd Tiahrt (KS)
Mike Rogers (MI)
Darrell Issa (CA)

Of these John McHugh is new taking Rick Renzi's seat. Renzi 'temporarily resigned from the committee because of an investigation. USAG Charlton first appeared on the firing list after he started the investigation.

Don't you sleep better now, knowing that these folks who couldn't figure out how to stop one of their own from diddling the tax payer and funding incompetent providers on security projects?

SC: fear -- As in I fear that you won't believe me but I wrote the above before checking the code.