Non-partisan Congressional Report clears Blanco of right-wing charges

[phlup]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I will ask the question for the third time:

If the Congressional Research Service exists solely to produce biased reports for any congressman who asks for them, and these reports influence public perception (after all, we are talking about one such report here and now), why then doesn't Tom DeLay or some other dittohead congressman get the CRS to produce a report that absolves the Bush Administration of any responsibility in the Katrina disaster?

Oh, I know - DeLay is CLEARLY too ethical to pass off information that he knows to be biased or untruthful, and he certainly wouldn't dare play politics with such 'lies'.

Your premise that the report is flawed simply because John Conyers asked for it is simply retarded. You know nothing about the Congressional Research Service. Please admit that now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is what you do not understand. Basically, the bureaucrats run Washington. People are hired and people quit, but rarely do people ever get fired. Having a job in the Federal government is CAKE. Here is the kicker though. MOST of the employees in Washington, the people who are "nonpartisan" are quite liberal. Do you really think that everytime the White House changes hands that all of the employees at the GAO or the CBO or the CRS are fired and a new batch are hired? No.

Most bureaucrats are liberal, most reports written by them are liberally slanted. Whether it is on purpose or not is irrelevant, its just the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof do you have that most bureaucrats are liberal?

Let me guess, you're just saying that because it's what you think and therefore it's instantly a fact. Or maybe Rush said it so it's true.

Anyway, why would you think this? From what I remember since 1981 we've had 8 years of a liberal and 16 years of conservative administrations. So who exactly was hiring all the liberals?

And if you go by who controls congress (not that it matters since most of the bureaucrats you're talking about are in the exec branch), congress has been in republican control since I think 94.

So again, please let us know why this is true

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the kicker though. MOST of the employees in Washington, the people who are "nonpartisan" are quite liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pankwindu]

[ QUOTE ]
The report Grey mentions was requested by conspiracy buff Conyers

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll repeat the question from the other thread (which I understand was ignored because it deals with facts):

[ QUOTE ]
Ad hominem attack aside, which aspects of the formal Stafford Act request, the Presidential disaster declaration, and the Department of Homeland Security National Response Plan fall outside the realm of reality?

[/ QUOTE ]

[bobman0330]

I'm not too fluent with this debate, but it seems like their has to be something more to the Bush argument (I hope...?), because Bush acknowledged both letters from the gov. by declaring the requested emergency state. What am I missing here?

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats don't want a bi-partisan committee to investigate (because they know the truth will come out).

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the vote they had today where the Republican's voted 100% along party lines AGAINST such a committee puts the lie to that statement.

Typical Big Lie right wing propagandist. Just say the 100% opposite of the truth. Accused the other side of exactly what you are doing. Because nobody would believe that you could be that corrupt, that dishonest.

Why can't these democrats just let Bush investigate..."what went right...what went wrong..."

[Felix_Nietsche]

What republicans were are this so called bipartisan committee?
The only name I see is John Conyers......A democrat.....If there were no republicans on the 'committee' then it was hardly bipartisan. Also, who did they interview in this whirl-wind investigation. Was the head of FEMA interviewed? Was Michael Chertov(sp?)?

Only a fool would believe this piece of propaganda by John Conyers. You post is rather silly. Do you really believe an investigation could be completed this quickly? Perhaps you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
What republicans were are this so called bipartisan committee?
The only name I see is John Conyers......A democrat.....If there were no republicans on the 'committee' then it was hardly bipartisan. Also, who did they interview in this whirl-wind investigation. Was the head of FEMA interviewed? Was Michael Chertov(sp?)?

Only a fool would believe this piece of propaganda by John Conyers. You post is rather silly. Do you really believe an investigation could be completed this quickly? Perhaps you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you daft? All they had to establish was how quickly she made way for the federal response. If it took longer than a couple of days, it took far too long.

[theBruiser500]

this thread is a joke

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
What republicans were are this so called bipartisan committee?
The only name I see is John Conyers......A democrat.....If there were no republicans on the 'committee' then it was hardly bipartisan. Also, who did they interview in this whirl-wind investigation. Was the head of FEMA interviewed? Was Michael Chertov(sp?)?

Only a fool would believe this piece of propaganda by John Conyers. You post is rather silly. Do you really believe an investigation could be completed this quickly? Perhaps you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the rest of the thread. This is addressed at least 5 times.

Hint: Conyers wasn't on the 'committee', and it's not bipartisan. It's nonpartisan.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
...and it's not bipartisan. It's nonpartisan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, in the end, doesn't mean [censored].

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I will ask the question for the third time:

If the Congressional Research Service exists solely to produce biased reports for any congressman who asks for them, and these reports influence public perception (after all, we are talking about one such report here and now), why then doesn't Tom DeLay or some other dittohead congressman get the CRS to produce a report that absolves the Bush Administration of any responsibility in the Katrina disaster?

Oh, I know - DeLay is CLEARLY too ethical to pass off information that he knows to be biased or untruthful, and he certainly wouldn't dare play politics with such 'lies'.

Your premise that the report is flawed simply because John Conyers asked for it is simply retarded. You know nothing about the Congressional Research Service. Please admit that now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is what you do not understand. Basically, the bureaucrats run Washington. People are hired and people quit, but rarely do people ever get fired. Having a job in the Federal government is CAKE. Here is the kicker though. MOST of the employees in Washington, the people who are "nonpartisan" are quite liberal. Do you really think that everytime the White House changes hands that all of the employees at the GAO or the CBO or the CRS are fired and a new batch are hired? No.

Most bureaucrats are liberal, most reports written by them are liberally slanted. Whether it is on purpose or not is irrelevant, its just the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What proof do you have that most bureaucrats are liberal?

Let me guess, you're just saying that because it's what you think and therefore it's instantly a fact. Or maybe Rush said it so it's true.

Anyway, why would you think this? From what I remember since 1981 we've had 8 years of a liberal and 16 years of conservative administrations. So who exactly was hiring all the liberals?

And if you go by who controls congress (not that it matters since most of the bureaucrats you're talking about are in the exec branch), congress has been in republican control since I think 94.

So again, please let us know why this is true

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the kicker though. MOST of the employees in Washington, the people who are "nonpartisan" are quite liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You have never lived in DC have you?