Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Just Wondering

Can we now prosecute some of the people who committed perjury in the Abu-Grahib coverup that allowed George Bush to be re-elected and then to escape impeachment? How about General Geoffrey Miller for instance?

Should people who say "the coverrup is often worse than the crime" be spat upon?

Should people who say "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture be spat upon?

Why is David Ignatius such a complete douchebag, and why does such a complete douchebag have a job at the Washington Post?

Why does Obama sometimes seem like such a mealymouthed, chickenshit, lightweight? Could it be because he sometimes, especially when he might instead say something true or courageous, says incredibly stupid stuff like this?

And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what [torture] took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

Uh, word Mr. President: we already did that. Remember the Abu Grahib hearings, and exactly how much truth they bipartisanly whitewashed out of existence?

And while were asking questions, Janis Karpinski has a few. Like: how come the hillbilly sadsacks who tortured the guys at Abu Grahib got prison terms but the CIA guys who tortured people get "Obama's Patented Just Following Orders Free Pass Out of Jail"?


Post a Comment

<< Home