:mad: :grr: :nuke: :mad: :banghead: :grr: :nuke:
When are we going to finally begin HOLDING BUSH/CHENEY responsible for the greatest financial/environmental disasters this nation has faced in the last 50 years? Why do we continue sidestepping the facts before us by ignoring the main genesis root CAUSE of that ushered in BOTH disasters?
posted on Buzzflash May 13 2010:
" I know -- we’re not supposed to “look back but ahead.” That’s become a virtual bi-partisan slogan.
Republicans don’t want to look back because, "back there" is all the stuff that got their party run out of power. And Democrats don’t want to look back because they fear it would only make already unpleasant Republicans angry, and making Republicans angry is apparently something Democrats fear more than anything else.
As a result the GW Bush administration has been granted a defacto immunity bath for an 8-year wave of crime, misdeeds and policy disasters. And this blind-eye to the past persists even as we continue suffering the results of those policies, deeds and crimes.
Republicans prefer to frame any attempt to review of Bush-era policies as simply Democrats seeking political cover for their own failures. But, as is their way, the GOP’s take on all this turns the argument on its head: Democrats fail, for sure. But, in this case, their failure is a failure to look, their failure to uphold domestic and international laws and the US Constitution and their sworn responsibilities under that constitution.
So let me venture ever so boldly into that backward thinking paradigm and ask again; why the hell isn't Congress ripping into the Bush/Cheney secret energy policies, even though the Gulf of Mexico and the citizens whose lives and livelihoods are being destroyed before their eyes? If not now, when?
A sane person would assume that, with such an enormous disaster on the news every night, those in charge would be interested in finding out precisely what it was that Dick Cheney and the head of BP decided during their secret 2001 meetings.
<http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/3199>
.