far be from me to disent.
oh alright.
given the position the republican controlled senate committee took in not questioning gov. blanks, just by her asking them not to, after the hack job they did to brown a few days before.
i’m not buying the not politicising this arguement. that was the purpose of the committee hearing. to politicize the outcome.
as usual i don’t express myself well.
my intent was to say the republicans in congress, even though in the majority, don’t have the backbone to stand up to the dems on the filibuster rule(s). imo
my comments regarding blan(k)o, the gov. of la. were due to the fact that she said she would only appear before the committee if they agreed, in advance, not to ask her any questions regarding the handling of matters prior to and after katrina.
when, in fact, the committee hearings were only to discuss the handling of matters before/after katrina.
more clear?
September 29th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
far be from me to disent.
oh alright.
given the position the republican controlled senate committee took in not questioning gov. blanks, just by her asking them not to, after the hack job they did to brown a few days before.
i’m not buying the not politicising this arguement. that was the purpose of the committee hearing. to politicize the outcome.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
louielouie, you lost me there…come again?…
September 29th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
as usual i don’t express myself well.
my intent was to say the republicans in congress, even though in the majority, don’t have the backbone to stand up to the dems on the filibuster rule(s). imo
my comments regarding blan(k)o, the gov. of la. were due to the fact that she said she would only appear before the committee if they agreed, in advance, not to ask her any questions regarding the handling of matters prior to and after katrina.
when, in fact, the committee hearings were only to discuss the handling of matters before/after katrina.
more clear?
September 29th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Got you…crystal clear now…