Congress sheds oversight obligations. News Media vanishes.

''Given what we've seen of late, you might assume I'm making this up,
but this news report is real.

Democrats and their allies are demanding that Sen. Pat Roberts hold
hearings on presidential advisor Karl Rove's role in the unfolding
Valerie Plame scandal.

But Roberts, who chairs the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence,
isn't budging, saying that Rove's role in the revealing of CIA agent
Plame's identity is already under investigation and that his critics
are playing politics.

"The sharks are in the water," he said. "Senate Intelligence has to be
nonpartisan."

That's right, Pat Roberts is accusing us of playing politics, and
pretending to care about non-partisanship on his committee. That would
be the same Roberts who…

* prevented his Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from making
any inquiry into the origins of the Niger forgeries;

* refuses to investigate the Plame scandal, but is prepared to
investigate Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame scandal;

* believes the CIA does too much to keep their agents undercover;

* told a national television audience that Plame wasn't really a
covert agent, despite all evidence to the contrary;

* dismissed the need for Plame hearings in 2003, less than five days
after the White House was notified about the criminal probe, because
the controversy was, as he put it, "an old story";

* defied comprehension by arguing in 2004, "If in fact [Saddam] didn't
have [WMD], why on earth didn't he let the U.N. inspectors in and
avoid the war?";

* and broke a promise to his colleagues (and the nation) in March 2005
by announcing that he would not allow his committee to prepare a
report explaining how the Bush administration misrepresented
intelligence on Iraq before the war began.

And now Roberts wants to lecture Dems about playing politics and the
need for non-partisanship in the Senate Intelligence Committee. Simply
breathtaking. ''

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4840.html

David wrote:

[even funnier drivel]

Back on crack, 'tard boy?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:45:10 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



David wrote:

[even funnier drivel]

Back on crack, 'tard boy?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

****ing piece of **** anarchist traitor.

dxAce wrote:

Back on crack, 'tard boy?


I'm afraid the only developmentally challenged person here is you, Bozo. Your
recent 'go jump in the river' insult showed such great promise. You had FINALLY
reached the grade three level of conversational interaction. Now this letdown.
How does it feel to be far below Cuhulin on the general scale of things?







mike

David wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:45:10 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



David wrote:

[even funnier drivel]

Back on crack, 'tard boy?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

****ing piece of **** anarchist traitor.

Yep, obviously back on crack.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

m II wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Back on crack, 'tard boy?

I'm afraid the only developmentally challenged person here is you, Bozo. Your
recent 'go jump in the river' insult showed such great promise. You had FINALLY
reached the grade three level of conversational interaction. Now this letdown.
How does it feel to be far below Cuhulin on the general scale of things?

Sure beats being as low as a dumbass Canuck!

Keep trying, 'tard boy!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"m II" wrote in message
news:CN5He.150530$HI.52388@edtnps84...
dxAce wrote:

Back on crack, 'tard boy?


I'm afraid the only developmentally challenged person here is you, Bozo.
Your recent 'go jump in the river' insult showed such great promise. You
had FINALLY reached the grade three level of conversational interaction.
Now this letdown. How does it feel to be far below Cuhulin on the general
scale of things?

mike

What about Dave? He just had a nervous breakdown over the whole
conversation.

B.H.

"David" wrote in message

****ing piece of **** anarchist traitor.


Your hyper ventilating Dave. Got a paper bag handy?

B.H.

Not worried too much about that.Mine has unofficially collasped.
cuhulin

dxAce wrote:

Sure beats being as low as a dumbass Canuck!

Keep trying, 'tard boy!


Two out of your four insults in ONE posting. Wow! How did you ever get *that*
concept?

If it weren't so mind numbingly BORING, I'd be way up at the 'indifferent' level.



....yawwwnnnnn...