|
|
What Conyers is doing is playing by the rules. This is a HJC hearing, not a congressional hearing. There have been a number of ridiculous restrictions on what they can or cannot say imposed on this process. For example, they are not allowed to utter the word "impeachment" and Bush's name in the same sentence. Absurd. In spite of all the obstacles, he opened the hearings and has vowed to see it through and to bring the truth into the public discourse once the investigation is concluded. He is quite aware of the fact that he is putting his reputation as a senior member of Congress on the line, so it would make sense that what goes on there is compelling. He is doing nothing to distract or circle around THE ISSUES. He is moving the process along. He is chairing the committee. All the details of the restrictions, who put them there and why, Conyer's position, etctera, can be found in the numerous links that have been provided and is well summarized in DK's interview.
The difference between him and you? Are you serious? He is familiar with every single player, position, stance, viewpoint, piece of evidence and rebuttal. He is a fact checker. He is not considering this evidence on the basis of hearsay. He is evaluating the integrity of the proof as it is presented. You, on the other hand, say you know all you need to know because you have "heard it from other democrats." In other words, you are not willing to even listen to the prosecution case or its evidence as it is presented directly from the source. Instead you talk all around what is really taking place inside those chambers. You are still doing it, trying to twist this into something it most definitely is not. Here's the deal. When you can't win on the issues, out comes the smear and smut.
No one said anything about your having made anything up about Niger. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make this about that one single subject. There are literally scores of talking points and hundreds of pieces of evidence to sift through. You are not the least bit interested in any evidence. If you were, you would watch the interview and post you rebuttals. You're not doing that. You are obsfuscating. It's what you do. What possible difference could it make in terms of valid claims and conclusive evidence whether this process occurs in formal or informal impeachment hearings? Truth is truth. Proof is proof.
You are not interested in hearing from all the witnesses or seeing all the proof. Exactly the opposite. You want to see no witnesses and no proof, unless of course it backs your own contentions. Stop trying to imply that the process is rigged. In the post 9/11 politics of fear world, the republicans would classify the White House address, if they could get away with it. Preponderance of the evidence usually is all that is required to achieve majority vote. If that evidence is incomplete, you have the republicans to thank for that. Do you really think that all that info held in secret is vital to national security? The only thing it is vital to is covering the neoCONS behinds.
You doest protest too much. More obstacles. Be honest. This is not about you want this and you want that. It's what you DON'T want that is plain to see. You don't want to face the reality that they just might be onto something. Another pot shot at Clinton. You really think that lying about an affair is a more serious impeachable offense than misleading an entire nation on the reasons for going to war? One thing is for sure here. As long as you continue to refuse to view the process as it is happening, instead of what you speculate about what may or may not be going on, you really do not have any way to justify anything you are saying about it. You say you have heard what DK has said. Okay. Did you watch the interview? What was in it? You must have skipped over the stuff about the live blogging from inside the chambers. The information is available for those who are interested. Go to the links. It's all in there….including information on how to follow it on a day-to-day basis.
Since the rest of this post has disintegrated into non-stop personal attack, I will not waste my time with it. Clearly, you will not engage yourself in any direct, honest, informed dialogue on this subject. This is still about your comfort zone. This just goes to show how extremely intolerant you are whenever anybody tries to challenge your ideas and how terrified you really are with what might be coming out of those chambers.
|
A simple "I refuse to hear the truth" would do. - sm
