Brilliance rang out on the airwaves on July 3, 2007. MSNBC broadcast an Olbermann observation, an opinion piece. For me, the commentary was extraordinary, eloquent, exquisite, and erudite, just as the man delivering such a dictum is. The words of Keith Olbermann speak for me, to me. I hope these statements resonate within you.
Eight United States prosecutors were fired. The reasons for their release seemed suspicious. The tales, statements of purpose, the specifics are forever changing. There is reason for concern.
Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7, and another was let go months earlier, with little explanation from Justice Department officials, who later told Congress that the dismissals were related to their performance in office. Several former prosecutors have since alleged intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and have alleged threats of retaliation by a Justice Department official.
"This department has been so political that I think for the sake of the nation, Attorney General Gonzales should step down," said Senator Chuck Schumer on Sunday March 11, 2007.
In July 2003, there was no investigation. Republicans postured this was not an issue of national importance. Journalist and bloggist David Corn of The Nation postulated it just might be. This essayist compared the cries for an investigation of Clinton and the possible misuse of files to those not heard when the Bush administration was the charge. In 2003, the public was assured this was not a significant occurrence. However, its prominence grew. Bloggers made sure of this.
It was Tuesday, February 22, 2005, and as we all recall, "if it is Tuesday, we must be in Belgium," or Brussels and we were. We the people of the United States represented by our man, the man that believes that he has a mandate, was there in Brussels. He was speaking on our be-half, or at least on the behalf of those that voted for him. For President Bush rarely if ever speaks on my behalf.
Mr. Bush was asked of his intentions towards Iran now that Iran has announced that they are engaged in nuclear proliferation. Did he trust that Iran was only securing nuclear energy, or did he believe that they were building bombs, bombs that might be used against the United Sates and countries within the European Union? Did he have evidence to support the suspected belief that Iran now holds Weapons of Mass Destruction and if he did, would he authorize military action against Iran? Would he invade a country that he deems an enemy? Would he choose diplomacy instead?
President Bush discussed the concerns for possible United States military action against Iran. He stated that the idea "is simply ridiculous." However, he quickly added, "All options are on the table." [The Washington Post]
Subscribe to Site [RSS]
