Republicans: A Threat to National Security
The Senate Intelligence Committee has become paralyzed by partisan bickering. This infighting has been standard in Washington for awhile now, but this agency is too important to be derailed by petty grudges.
Thomas Kean, who was in charge of the 9/11 Commission, said this partisanship “is new, at least to my mind, and it’s distressful, because this is one area where partisanship does not belong. The committee is absolutely essential, and it can’t allow partisanship to get in the way.”
This committee was established thirty years ago, and until recently it’s been mostly free of the infighting and backbiting that’s plagued the rest of Congress.
An aide to a former member said “it was almost a brotherhood.” He said their motto was “you are entrusted with the secrets; you work together; you leave your rhetoric and partisanship outside the bulletproof door.”
Republicans on the committee have repeatedly stalled and stonewalled any investigation into how intelligence was used prior to the Iraqi invasion. They’ve also refused any sort of investigation into Bush’s domestic wiretapping. Their main priority seems to be protecting Bush from any kind of political fallout.
A Democratic member of the committee said “This Republican Congress is simply too much of a rubber stamp for this administration.”
When Republicans on the committee refused to investigate Bush’s wiretapping scandal, the committee Vice Chairman said the committee was “basically under the control of the White House, through its chairman.”
When these rubber-stamp Republicans sacrifice their integrity just to protect a crooked president, they’re not only threatening our civil liberties. They’re threatening our national security as well.
posted by Tom Harper @ 9:02 AM
10 Comments:
I don't necessarily agree with this analysis. For the past 150 years, American politics has been the bastion of the two-party system. While it's true these two parties have increasingly grown to be mirror images of the other, this was not true as late as the 1960s.
In the 60s and earlier, the GOP & Dems differed widely on a multitude of issues. This is the very essence of partisanship.
I believe the main difference between now and then is that today we are more apt to HEAR about the differences going on behind the curtain.
In days of yore, political disagreements in the backroom rarely got aired in public. We know this now due to many historical documents that have shown that the united face presented to the voting public resembled in no way the cloaked tug-of-wars taking place out of public view.
As long as people have differing opinions, there will be partisanship. In fact, I dare say that partisanship is a good thing. Where partisanship is lacking, you have a dictatorship.
Rambling Taoist: Let me rephrase it then. It's not partisanship per se, but the fact that Republicans are placing blind loyalty to Bush, no matter what he does, over following the law and the Constitution. The article I linked to referred to it as partisanship so that's the wording I used; but now that you mention it, the crux of the problem is the Republicans' blind devotion to their Master and their determination to protect him from any political consequences. Their first priority is supposed to be following the law and upholding the Constitution.
Sure, disagreement between the 2 parties is a good thing. There should be a lot more verbal slugfests between them, either in front of the cameras or behind the scenes.
I have really nothing to add to the post. Well done, Tom.
The movie quote is, I believe, from "Clerks".
Later!
Brad: Thanks. Yup, "Clerks" is the movie.
these people, with their whoriffic inattention to governance, are rotting the country from within, exposing us to attack from without.
what form will the next failure take? an attack on iran? declaration of martial law during an alleged bird flu outbreak? ballot hacking?
it's not a matter of if, it's when...and with these jokers, the when is never far off.
Spaceneedl: I think you're right, it's a matter of if and not when they'll pull their next stunt. With those Diebold voting machines they probably won't even need martial law. Just "accidently" delete as many Democratic votes as they need to, and -- Presto! -- another win for the Right.
OK, now that you've rephrased your concern, I agree with it.
Rambling Taoist: I knew you'd see the light :)
To blindly root for the "hometeam" is common in sports, yet very often unsuccessful in wagering. Hometeam, or Party allegiance is fine, but you must factor in the "team's" record as well, if you want to develop any record for yourself!
P Jordan Sr.: That's a good analogy. You certainly don't want to bet on your favorite team if they have a losing record, and that's just what these super-loyal Republicans are doing.
Post a Comment
<< Home