What do you mean? I'm not asking that as a loaded question, I don't see any issue with it (other than a waste of tax payer money). They R's are just trying to win back their "rightful" spot, and talking a big game. I'm not sure that doing that would be a smart thing, because two can play at that game, and I'm willing to bet the house I don't own that the R's are just as guilty of anything as the D's are (or the administration). Especially considering they didn't seem to put any effort into investigating the previous administration.
Seems like we wrote some really big blank checks and there wasn't any oversight or real transparency. I'm not suggesting that the republicans should go all out to "get" Obama, but the democrats sure aren't doing anything when it comes to providing oversight. They don't have any incentive to.
If Republicans want to come off as hugely hypocritical, then I guess they should proceed with this. Because they sure as hell didn't do anything when it came to providing oversight when they were in charge.
Democrats did. They hounded Alberto Gonzalez until he resigned. On the other hand, Bush's DoJ investigated many more republicans than they did democrats. Remember Fitz going after Cheney and getting Scooter Libby? (Fitzgerald was a DoJ guy).
I was talking about how REPUBLICANS would come off as hypocrites, not Democrats (who already come off as spineless pussies). They're talking about investigating the white house/administration for the same shit their party did when THEY were in office. But shhh..they're not doing it now that a democrat is in office though.
I prefer an honest government, not political partisanship. Blaming the other guy for doing exactly what your guys do (big, not little), is what chaps my hide more than anything else. To bitch about certain things only when the other guy is in charge, when your side had as much to do with the shit hitting the fan, shows your side isn't out for the better of the country, but the better of your wallet. And yes, it applies to both parties.
If it's Republicans doing the same shit they did with Clinton, then I'm against it. Sex is not the business of government. If it's an honest investigation on real issues, then I'm fine with it.
From the article: "Republican staffers say there won’t be any self-destructive witch hunts, but they clearly are relishing the prospect of extracting information from an administration that touts transparency. " The specific things they itemize to be investigated: Sestak, Romanoff, and Jobgate. It is illegal to rig elections by offering a candidate a job if he gets out of the race. Bailouts. TARP, AIG, Freddie/Fannie, GM and Chrysler. Countrywide Mortgage. A number of what look like bribes to Chris Dodd, among others. Black Panther Party. Charges they intimidated voters at polling places, and there looks like the DoJ is not investigating for political reasons. ACORN. They get $billions in govt. money. Minerals Management Service. You know, the BP oil spill. (Don't see no sex or anything personal against Obama in the bunch).
I didn't bother to read the article, so I appreciate the summary. If they stick to actual issues, I'll be fine with it.
Agreed. If they stick to issues and the facts, I've got no problem with investigating any of those things. barfo
You make the most boring threads, Denny. Then again, they always get a bunch of replies in this forum... Explains a few things.
