How is it that a congressman feels perfectly OK to impugn and mock Congress but not the Executive?
Could it be because a congressman really is in the employ of the Executive and not the Congress? Yes it could.
And if so, what might be the President's goal?
Read on....
Re:
Conyers: Judiciary Committee not holding 'impeachment hearings'
Nick Juliano
Published: Friday July 25, 2008
http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Hundreds_gather_for_imperial_presidency_hearing_0725.html
A committee aide tells RAW STORY that members were cautioned to abide by the Rules of the House, which prohibit lawmakers from "impugning" the president's character during official debate.
But heard at the same Judiciary Committee meeting:
The committee's top Republican, Lamar Smith, mocked the proceedings, comparing them to last month's hearing featuring former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who recently wrote a tell-all memoir about his time as Bush's spokesman.
If last month it appeared we hosted a 'book of the month club,' this week it seems that we are hosting an anger management class," Smith said. "Nothing is going to come out of this hearing with regard to impeachment of the President. I know it, the media knows it, even the Speaker knows it. ... This hearing will not cause us to impeach the President; it will only serve to impeach our own credibility.
Is this maybe a case of wishful thinking by the Republican committee member? Would a member of a committee really wish to destroy his own committee's credibility? But how can that be?
Here's how. The same strategem has been used before in other organizations that the Executive hates. The United Nations is one example.
But the UN is still standing you say? Keep watching, that's my advice. Politicians are not working on Internet time.
Consider:
How is it that a congressman feels perfectly OK to impugn and mock Congress but not the Executive?
Could it be because a congressman really is in the employ of the Executive and not the Congress?
And if so, what might be the President's goal? And would this goal be acceptable to the US citizens?
There seems to be a glaring double standard, where the lawmakers are oddly enough prohibited from impugning the president, but lawmakers can and do impugn like crazy their Committee Chair, and by extension their own institution, as if they hate their jobs. What are they doing in this committee, other than undermining the Congress?
The entire subject under discussion is whether to impugn and impeach the president for his apparent war crimes and high crimes and misdemeanors.
What kind of place allows Chairman Conyers to be fully impugned and President BUsh to be fully protected, by those who are empowered and required by Constitution to use their duty to discuss in full whether to impeach a president?
Bush and his henchman certainly have not hesisitated from impugning the Congress. They hate congress. Their hate oozes from their every pore.
There seems to be a major conflict of interest in the behavior of several Republican congressmen in the Judiciary Committee, they hate their own institution, impugning it relentlessly, inappropriately aligning themselves with the Executive, and this should be curtailed by formal means to protect the reputation of the US Congress from such undermining.
These Republicans are undermining Congress for the president. They are working in the wrong branch when they impugn the correct and lawful proceedings of a Congressional committee.
These Republicans have not cited any formal complaints for deviation of the committee's proceedings.
Therefore their catcalls are simply for the purpose of impugning and sabotaging the institution of Congress itself as a favor to their same-party partner in the Executive Branch.
These Congressmen are in the process of castrating their own institution for the purpose of obtaining favors from their party boss in the Executive Branch.
The House Rules need to be amended to restrict the baseless impugning of Congressional Committees that are acting in compliance with House Rules.
Such obscene factionalism as displayed by these impugners today is a real danger to the continuity of the three branches of this nation.
Would the Republican committee members prefer to create a separate but parallel Committee?
This reminds me of the time the President appointed UN-hater Bolton to be ambassador to the UN.
Bolton was sent in to destroy the UN and encourage members to defect to a new but parallel organization to replace the UN, but with Russia and its veto power conveniently absent.
Were these Congressmen appointed by President Bush to do the same thing to the Judiciary Committee of the US Congress, as Ambassador Bolton was sent by President Bush to do to the UN, which is to no less than castrate and destroy it?
Be careful Mr. Conyers, you might in fact be surrounded by would-be destroyers of the Judiciary Committee, not merely inconsequential hypocritical impugners.
My final question to the Ranking Members of the Judiciary Committee:
Have you given much thought to the new name for your planned new committee to replace the Judiciary Committee?
And, would you feel compelled in any way to invite Democrats to your new committee?
Come on, don't be shy now. Impugning is your nature. Destruction is your goal. You want to make a parallel new committee with no Democratic members at all. I know you do. I've seen your boss President Bush try to use this same strategy before with the UN and his man Ambassador Bolton.