Carol Platt Liebau: How Revealing

Monday, June 19, 2006

How Revealing

As Ankle Biting Pundits inform us, the Democrats think so little of the responsibilities of the Intelligence Committeee that they are fine, just fine, with letting Alcee Hastings become its ranking member. Yes, that's the same Alcee Hastings that was impeached and removed from the federal bench for corruption.

Apparently, the Dems think it's just fine for this solid citizen to be the go-to guy on their side in the House when it comes to intelligence matters. If that doesn't suggest a complete and wilful indifference to national security issues, I don't know what does.

(HT: Captain's Quarters -- feel better soon, Captain Ed!).

7 Comments:

Blogger Dittohead said...

Well regarding concern for security how about ...It's been more than three months since Dubai Ports World agreed to sell its port operations at 22 U.S. ports. But as of today, all 22 of these terminal facilities remain under the control of Dubai Ports World and the government of UAE.

9:03 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

According to the Wikipedia article, Alcee Hastings was impeached way back in 1989 as a federal judge.

The Senate that impeached him was controlled by Democrats at the time.

He was elected a member of the House in 1992 - as a Democrat. Apparently there was nothing anyone did to prevent him from doing that. Ever since then the guy has been holding the place for Florida's 23rd district since.

It boggles the mind that people impeached for corruption are not automatically disqualified from holding public office.

The Republicans took over congress in 1994 and have also held the majority since 2002. Has any legislation been passed that would prevent someone like Hastings from holding public office?

If not then the fault is equally Democrat and Republican.

It seems strange that while convicted felons are no longer able to vote in many places in the US, other convicted felons are able to hold public office.

Change the system. It sucks.

5:42 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Can't be worse than Pat Roberts.

8:14 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

I was interested to see if the left-leaning commenters on this sight would blindly defend their Democrat or if any of them would be honest enough to admit this is at the very least not a positive thing.

Ditto = Blind Partisanship

Salient = Honestly recognizes this as at least unseemly.

Thanks Salient. That's refreshing.

8:14 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Greg,

I didn't defend it. I hope it is just politicking and the guy steps aside. I support real reform and a real ethics committee that cleans both parties.

My comment was addressing Carol's last sentence. Having 22 major ports handled by UAE after the Senate said it would be too much of a risk, seems to me very bad.

9:36 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

well OSO is from Australia, so he isn't totally in tune with our fantastic heritage of ethics...which Nixon and Clinton helped out with in a bipartisan show of support.

10:20 AM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

Finally someone realises where I am from. I thought no one would question me typing "realise" instead of "realize".

Australia's system of government is obviously different (we still have a Queen) but one thing that I will say is an advantage of the US system is that bipartisanship and inter-party differences are felt during voting, whereas in Australia, parties generally vote according to policy.

I consider myself an "Independent progressive", which means I can take aim at the (US) Democrats whenever they do something wrong and not feel bad about it. It also means I can praise (US) Republicans for doing good things (something I haven't done yet, but I have praised Australian conservatives for some things).

I enjoy American politics and I also enjoy communicating with Americans about it. Some have even told me that I know more than they do!

10:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google