What assurances do we have that the Gang of Eight (or one/some of its members) isn't secretly working with Joel Combs, nephew of Brent Wilkes, former head of Archer logistics, now that Wilkes is in under investigation?
No, VJ, I think the Constitution works just fine as it is, I'm not looking for major changes. I also feel Speaker Pelosi is doing a good job, I'm not clammoring for Impeachment. Not that I do not think that Bush/Cheey deserve it, I think they do deserve it. However, I do not believe that is the answer to our problems.
I'm very sorry to hear that more Americans aren't aware of the situation that I asked about. Americans can't take the time to be informed about these issues, and then you want to give them VETO power? I understand how you feel with Bush in power, but what about when an official you personally like a lot wants to make tough choices for the country and the people aren't for it? I'm not saying that the Founding Fathers were perfect, nor that we do not need Amendments from time to time, certainly no one is in favor of turning back the clock on women's sufferage nor slavery, and maybe future generations will come to see that our generation was just as blind on certain other issues (though I doubt it will be with regards to same sex marriage). But I don't believe that the VETO power needs to rest in the hands of the American people other than through proxy with our elected officials, not that I personally wouldn't have loved to have VETO power with FISA, or any number of other issues.
The manner in which a lot of the terrible things our country does in the name of freedom overseas are carried out through the machinations of late night House sessions, in which earmarks are added to spending bills, sort of shuffled in when no one is looking. But to further complicate things, these earmarks can be hidden, if they are classified as Top Secret, so that no one, outside of a select few, ususally memebers of the Gang of Eight, even know about them. This is the way that Bush/Cheney (and their cohorts) have been able to not only get away with murder (literally) and war crimes such as torture, but turn a tidy profit with it as well. The company that supplied the encryption needed to hide these files, Archer Logistics, was getting billions in blind bid contracts, until their CEO Brent Wilkes came under investigation as part of the Randy "Duke" Cunningham scandal. However, unbeknownst to most, even those closely following the case, shortly there after, Brent's nephew resumed opperations while his uncle was (and still is) under investigation (by the FBI among others).
I merely want to know that the Speaker is aware of what is going on, and I hope that later in the year or next year I will hear more about the investigations. I'm pretty sure do to the sensitive nature of the crimes, national security and the nature of any ongoing investigation that this is probably not the proper forum for such discussion. However, I'm hopeful that when the Democratic Party sweeps the Senate and takes the White House later this year that the Speaker will have a much freer hand and that torture will not only truly be outlawed but that those unpunished few will face the music.
Hmm, maybe because the president can veto legislation and the Senate which only has a tacit and in name only democratic majority is really setting the agenda. It is win win for the republicans in the Senate, they in essence get to block legislation without any blame. Sure the House could keep pumping stuff out but why? I'm not sure it is a terrible idea just for the sake of doing it, ie having the upper hand at election time by saying this and that were blocked, and to have it on the record, but isn't everyone complaining about gridlock and ineffectiveness, didn't Madame Speaker have a mandate to enact meaningful legislation. From what I've seen of her term, she's all about the big picture. As Dubya says, Git 'er done, y'all.
Vote Up
Vote Down
Close