America; in Clear and Present Danger?

(I originally posted this at The Motley Patriot. This is the original post with additional information.)

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) has now, on 2 Oct 07 MSNBC's `Live with Dan Abrams`, admitted as to why the Democratic Party in Congress will not defund the Iraq war; the Democrats in Congress are SCARED of the political ramifications. This is stupid. Why? The majority of America now want them to do exactly that; start reducing funding of the war, put restrictions on the administration - do something. So, there is exactly ZERO political fallout on this issue for Democrats. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred; Democrats have seen fallout because Congress is not following the will of the people.

So, why should Congressional Democrats be scared to act?


Are they scared that they will be attacked by a GOP controlled and complicit media? If that is the case, the Democrats have been scared for a very long time. The GOP shills in the media have been attacking Democrats since, well, forever. It's their job. The GOP shills took their best shots at Democrats on Iraq and polls have stayed consistant at best, or, have continued to swing in favor of the Democrats at worst. What is killing the Democrats in the polls isn't what the GOP shills are saying; it is what the Democrats themselves aren't doing, which is, fighting with everything in their power to end the war.

As noted by Darin Murphy, Nancy Pelosi couldn't even sit on The View talking to four busy-bodies without being scared to utter a word. The Democrats in Congress aren't stupid. They know the fallout and are trying desperately to control the damage. But, that is exactly what it is; control the damage. They are not working to reverse their current course, merely, they are trying to continue that course without the political fallout they have brought on themselves.

The government of our nation has been turned on its citizens. We know this because anti-war protest groups have been fired upon by our law enforcement. We know this because anti-war protesters and groups have been spied upon by our local and federal law enforcement. We know this because our government was stocked with cronies who cared nothing about helping the people after hurricane Katrina, instead, they were more concerned about how much of our tax payers dollars they could give to crony contractors. We know this because President Bush has vetoed SCHIP. We know this because voter rolls were purged to skew election results. We know this because journalists were threatened with arrest for reporting stories brought to them by whistleblowers. We know this because anyone, even military and veterans, who speak out are attacked by those who carry the water for this administration.

These reasons, in addition to many others, was the catalyst that brought liberals, progressives, independent voters, and, yes, even some moderate conservatives, to take away Congressional control from Republicans and the GOP in 2006. Yet, the history of the Democratically controlled Congress since then is pathetic. Why? The Democrats have held hearing after hearing, issued subpeona after subpeona, have been repeatedly told to go "cheney themselves", and, instead of pushing the rule of law, the Democrats simply gave up and said, "ok, we'll write another sternly worded letter". Why? The majority of America wants out of Iraq, yet, the Democrats have caved time and time again. Why?

What really has the Democrats scared? I can think of two things that might; 1) the threat of more anthrax "attacks" and 2) that their own corruption has been uncovered, documented, and they are now being blackmailed into complicity.

We already know about the anthrax attack on Congress, specifically, on DEMOCRATS in Congress, that occurred right after 9/11. We already know that, in the time since then, the FBI has never been able to "solve" the case. This lack of action by the FBI could be seen as an implied threat towards the Democrats in Congress. Yet, that would also mean that it is a continuing threat. If it was a continued threat, then we would have to think that at least one Democrat who received even the merest of hints of this implied threat would be all over the news, especially the new arrivals to Congress. But, there is no such claim, so, the initial threat may have been there, but, a continued threat? I don't see it.

But, what about corruption? We know that the warrantless wiretapping under President Bush started prior to 9/11. Well, we know for a fact that all three of the top telecom companies turned over all records requested to the same government who spied on protest groups and elderly ladies who protested the war. The GOP cronies who found themselves in positions of power manufactured corruption charges against Democratic politicians. The NSA wasn't looking just looking for terrorists before 9/11 when they were wiretapping United Nations officials. So, why are we to believe that the NSA under the administration wasn't mining every Democratic politicians emails, telephone calls, and communications, to uncover and document corrupt practices? We already know blackmail is something this administration will use; they blackmailed countries into signing Bi-Lateral Immunity agreements prior to our invasion of Iraq. So, what is to stop them from blackmailing Democrats in Congress whose own corrupt practices became known to them?

There is a very strong case that can be made to support this theory.

The issue of impeachment. A poll conducted by Zogby in January 2006 found that 52% of Americans were in favor of impeaching President Bush while 43% of those polled were not, yet, Nancy Pelosi stated that impeachment was "off the table". In May 2007, a Live MSNBC poll, with 566442 responses, showed that 89% were in favor of impeaching President Bush, yet, impeachment still remains off the table today.

The issue of funding the Iraq war. A poll conducted in May 2007 showed that 69% of America wanted the Iraq war funded with benchmarks. However, an additional 13% of those polled wanted all funding to stop, so, it is more accurate to state that 82% of America now wants some action taken by Democrats in Congress on placing limits on the administration regarding the Iraq war. Congress did that and the President vetoed it in May 2007. Since then, however, Congress has not done so again. Why?

We were briefly treated to a story in the MSM about Nancy Pelosi and her husband being potentially involved in shady land deals in San Francisco. Whether this is true, or just another fake scandal by the GOP, the issue was broached in the media on May 10, 2007, and since that time Nancy Pelosi has been very quiet. By sheer coincidence, this "scandal" was trotted out the same month that President Bush vetoed the Iraq Supplemental Bill (May 1, 2007).

In October 2006, one month prior to the midterm elections that put Democrats in charge of Congress, it was reported that Harry Reid received $1.1 million from the sale of land in 2004. Harry Reid had to then amend his reports to more "fully explain" the deal. Whether this explains why Sen. Reid has allowed the GOP to put a 60 vote mandate on controversial bills, instead of forcing the GOP to actually filibuster, remains to be seen.

I also found this statement made by Sen. Leahy in March 2004:

Just three weeks ago Members of the Committee were briefed by the Sergeant at Arms on the preliminary indications of his 3-month investigation into the theft of computer files of Democratic offices by staff working for Republican Members of this Committee. Yesterday afternoon the Sergeant at Arms briefed Senator Hatch and me, again, and provided us with a copy of his report.

This statement was released when it was found out that Republicans were spying on Democrats computers by accessing information they would normally be denied access to have, so, we know for a fact that Republicans did indeed spy on Democrats in Congress. We also know that there are those in Congress who have used those computers for, shall we say, less than honorable purposes, simply because they are privileged.

In addition, we have Democratic Party official's offices broken into, such as in Minnesota. It wasn't the first break-in, either, where laptops were stolen. But, the numbers, which seemed to escape the MSM, could be staggering as this one case seems to tell us:

A file of 93,000 of the 106,000 names was gathered for computer testing purposes in December 2006 and was still on the laptop when it was stolen. Trying to find a common thread, Democratic legislators asked if there was a disproportionate number of legislators, state employees and Democrats on the list. Law said she could not comment on whether the lawmakers represented a disproportionate share of the 106,000 names, which represents about 10 percent of all tax filers.

If you want to find unethical activity, you usually start by tracking the money and bouncing that through IRS records. The file in question above? It held:

The individual taxpayers consisted largely of citizens who filed their taxes via computer or over the telephone, the tax commissioner told lawmakers at a special public hearing called by the legislature's finance committee.

It also held information on:

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro of New Haven, state Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams of Brooklyn, Sen. Jonathan Harris of West Hartford, House Majority Leader Christopher Donovan of Meriden and Reps. J. Brendan Sharkey of Hamden and Carlo Leone of Stamford.

All of the above named are Democrats who are, or were, in office at some level. It is true that the file also had names of Republicans as well. But, that data shouldn't have been in the possession of the employee to begin with, by the articles own account. Regardless, the issue of GOP spying on Democrats is well established.

I will also add that this level of spying on Democrats by the GOP, as the articles attest, reached their pinnacle after President Bush took office. Also, there is this quote from this article:

From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight -- and with what tactics.

Glitch? Just how did this "glitch" come about and when? It seems that it was a technician working for Sen. Leahy in 2001 who caused the glitch. If this is the case, how then would other Senator's and Congressmen know about it? It seems they were told about it. If that isn't enough to make you question, how about this quote:

But the scope of both the intrusions and the likely disclosures is now known to have been far more extensive than the November incident, staffers and others familiar with the investigation say.

Keep in mind, these "intrusions" came from at least the 2001 to early 2003; either before, or after, 9/11 (Patriot Act and anthrax attack time-frame) to right around our attack on Iraq (how many Democrats signed onto the AUMF?). That is just those computers and it doesn't even touch the fact that we could possibly add anything that may have been uncovered with the use of the NSA warrantless wiretapping.

Whether or not this is true, that key Democrats in Congress are being blackmailed into complicity, the case can be made convincingly. While the evidence to this point is little, what is there is very damning, especially in the case of Nancy Pelosi (to which I have shown correlation between a scandal being brought out and her capitulation afterwards). If, in fact, this is the case, it leads us to one simple fact; that America itself is now in clear and present danger.

I will also add, for those who ask, "clear and present danger of what?" I will answer simply; from an out-of-control administration.