Come on, now, folks.

[WilliamPitt]

A thread with no attribution or link is posted. It pretends to be an actual statement by congressional Democrats. It has lines in like this:

"The roughly 200 word statement will be concise, to the point, and relatively hard-hitting in that it indirectly implies a strong disapproval of the actions..."

A comprehensive search for this document anywhere on the web found nothing like it anywhere. Lines like "relatively hard-hitting in that it indirectly implies a strong disapproval" wouldn't ever be found in any press release by anyone, ever, especially on a matter like this.

It was satire, but a ton of people decided to take it at face value, so as to facilitate another round of teeth-gnashing and clothes-rending.

How about this:

---

(snip)

In his response to Fielding’s letter, Conyers said the president showed “an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government.”

“The executive privilege assertion is unprecedented in its breadth and scope, and even includes documents that the administration previously offered to provide as part of their ‘take it or leave it’ proposal,” said Conyers, in a prepared statement. “This response indicates the reckless disrespect this administration has for the rule of law.”

“The charges alleged in this investigation are serious – including obstruction of justice and misleading Congress – and the White House should be as committed to this investigation as the Congress. At this point, I see only one choice in moving forward, and that is to enforce the rule of law set forth in these subpoenas.”

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/NEWS07/70628019/0/NEWS02

---

P.S. This is the process, and it does take time. If my words have no weight with you, maybe Dan Froomkin's do.

A White House Wrapped in Secrecy
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com

Thursday, June 28, 2007; 1:22 PM

The White House's assertion of executive privilege this morning in rejecting subpoenas for documents and testimony related to last year's firings of U.S. attorneys shows that President Bush may be more concerned about keeping his staff's deliberations secret than he is about creating the appearance that he has something to hide.

Dragging things out has already emerged as the White House's strategy of choice with this investigation. Today's move, while sparking a genuine constitutional showdown, also suggests it will be a long, drawn-out showdown.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html?hpid=topnews

[blondeatlast]

1. I remember when they taught civics in high school, I rather enjoyed it.

But y'know, it's a pain in the neck to actually put it to use here. I'm more productive when I beat my head against the stucco.

Great post, Will, but as with so many, the people who need it most will pass on it or read the first few lines.

[redqueen]

2. what? people took that seriously?

jeez louise... things are worse than i thought.

[blondeatlast]

3. Yes they did--that's when I decided to stay the heck out.

As I say, I'm more productive with head to stucco.

[redqueen]

7. i would think 'relatively hard-hitting' might have been a pretty decent clue

*sigh*

[blondeatlast]

5. And they still are--the latest post to that thread:

(username removed)Thu Jun-28-07 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
116. Ooooh! A strong statement!
I bet Cheney's shaking in his boots right now!

Ok, probably not.

I know that people who say things like this are always accused of being trolls by people who don't want to hear it, but this is how I feel: The Democrats are being a bunch of pansy-asses right now, and I'm very disappointed in them.

[BlooInBloo]

4. lol! That's what you get, posting believable falsehoods.

[crappyjazz]

6. Fast food nation

it's conditioning

[Wheezy]

8. Hi. What are you talking about, please? n/t

[uppityperson]

10. here, satire taken seriously

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1198971&mesg_id=1198971

[Wheezy]

14. thank you kindly, uppity! n/t

[lonestarnot]

24. aye aye aye

[Chichiri]

9. Okay, so what IS the process?

How exactly is Conyers et al going to enforce the rule of law? Especially with both SCOTUS and the AG firmly in BushCo's pocket?

[kath]

11. [red-facedly] I confess that, even though it did cross my mind to think "WTF - is this The Onion or

something?" that I then went ahead and fell for that OP. My "satire meter" is usually pretty damn good. But, dammit, you gotta admit that all this "keeping the powder dry" appeasement-type bullshit has gone on for so long that many of us are totally fed up. Yes, it will probably be a "long, drawn-out showdown". And, yeah, Conyers is talking tough, but only a precious few others besides him are doing the same. So can you really blame those of us who fear that there may be no showdown at all? Today Obama said that impeachment is only for "grave" offenses, and is not called for at this point. WTF - what does Bushco have to do for the Dems to put impeachment on the table? Does Bush or Cheney have to get on TV, declare himself Dictator for Life and tear up the Constitution in front of the cameras??

[jasmeel]

12. Thanks for being the voice of reason. Sometimes we need it

'round these parts!

[ulysses]

13. "This is the process, and it does take time."

These excuses (yours isn't the first, Will) are beginning to sound like the "surge" rationale. How long do we wait?

[Canuckistanian]

15. My own responses to that post still stand

Until I see some real, actual concrete legal action.

So far, I've only seen words, mere rhetorical jockeying.

If that was satire, it cuts pretty damn close to the bone.

[redqueen]

16. It cuts very close...

how very sad that we find ourselves in this position.

[bear425]

17. C'mon now Will, I recognized it as satire...

satire that is seemingly painfully close to reality, but satire nonetheless.

[KoKo]

18. I tried to find link or the Presser...but couldn't find anything..except

whining Harry Reid shown on CNN carrying on about the defeat of Immigration Bill. He was pitiful.

But..agree with what you say...that a post goes up and get's folks worked up...and all day long there's no follow up link. It happens sometimes because folks here a promo on CNN that CNN then buries. I didn't take that post that seriously. But, do know that these "Joint Dem Statements" in the past have fallen flat...because they aren't well delivered. :shrug:

[mmonk]

19. The question is who is going to enforce the law?

Are they going to serve the subpoenas themselves and do they have arrest powers over the executive?

[MuseRider]

20. That thread is one of the funniest threads

I have ever read. Come on! We are in a horrible situation, the stress and anxiety are getting to us and we let it out. Read through it again. I am still laughing.

[Imagevision]

21. I gotta say, I respect the repugs, they don't talk, they just go ahead and get their things done...

we can talk about values & morals in the right venue, but Bush/Cheney are laughing at this new house & senate. One can easily reach the conclusion that the words are killing me already,, I want some damn action Ms. Pelosi!!

[senseandsensibility]

22. I admit to only scanning the post

so it was my fault that I didn't recognize the satire. It was pretty obvious, really. I just got exasperated after the first line or two and didn't want to read the rest completely. I think a lot of us need to stand back and take a few breaths.

[lonestarnot]

23. I tried to tell everyone they were going to start the time management thing and run out the clock.

[Hissyspit]

25. "Looking for a link" LOL

Isn't that the old J. Geils Band song?
"I'm looking for a link. I'm looking for a link." Badap-ba-ba (horn section).