The Common Ills: Why not Iraq!!!! (Your spin overlooks Pelosi and Conyers)

Tom Hoover whines to the editors of the Las Vegas Sun, "Why then is the congressional focus on Benghazi and not the resolution that mirrored our mistakes in Iraq?"

The stupidity is amazing.

First off, Congress isn't going to devote time into an investigation about how the illegal war started -- you're going back to the 2002 authorization and the roll out. That's 13 years ago.

Buy a clue.

Second, as we've pointed out repeatedly, Democrats controlled neither house of Congress in 2006. But the promise from the party was that if you gave them control of one house -- just one -- they could end the Iraq War and they could use their power to launch investigations.

They all made that promise but if you want to zoom in on just two, the names are Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers.

If you've forgotten, Conyers wanted to start the ultimate act of accountability: Investigations that led to the impeachment of Bully Boy Bush.

But the closer the 2006 mid-terms got, the louder Nancy Pelosi became that impeachment was off the table.

On the promise of ending the war and investigations, the American people gave the Democrats control of not just one house of Congress but of both houses.

And nothing happened.

Nothing.

The Iraq War didn't end (nor has it ended today).

There were no investigations.

As people began calling out John Conyers, he began insisting, you may remember this laughable assertion, that he would lead an investigation after Bully Boy Bush left the White House.

That would be January 2009.

And many (rightly) laughed at him but a few did believe him.

In January 2009 -- in fact through all of 2009 and 2010 -- Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

And that investigation?

It never happened.

They had the power, from January 2007 through January 2011.

But they chose not to use it.

And they chose not to honor their promises.

While many spinners and whores offer excuses for them, you may remember Cindy Sheehan broke publicly with the Democrats over this failure.

Hoover appears to have missed all of this.

If that is indeed what happened, then he's demonstrated just how his stupidity -- and the stupidity of others -- has harmed the country.

He says he wants an investigation.

But when the party campaigning against the war was in power, he did nothing to demand one.

As for Benghazi. That was 2012.

And investigations launched immediately.

The reality is that Barack was fighting for re-election -- remember that failed debate performance? -- and campaigning on safety from terrorists when the 9/11/2012 terrorist attack took place resulting in the death of at least four Americans (at least? Hillary's publicly claimed others have died from the attack in the aftermath -- the press has never pressed her on that).

The administration lied about what happened and launched the attack on Mitt Romney.

When you can't offer a defense, you attack the character of the person raising questions.

The campaign platform would have slipped right out from under Barack if they'd been honest.

So they lied.

That's clear in Victoria Nuland's publicly released e-mails (and we've already addressed that in real time). All of her e-mails were not turned over. She's referencing directives that are coming from someone somewhere.

They lied.

And it does matter.

But the lie is what prompted the initial investigation.

The fact that no one was punished for it -- not even the supposedly 'disciplined' four State Dept employees -- and that there's still no indication that the needed steps to prevent another such attack fuel the continued investigations.

There's also the hope, on the part of some, that at some point the reality of what was taking place in Libya might be addressed (don't hold your breath).

Pretending all the above doesn't matter make make you a good spinner, it does not make you honest.

The following community sites updated: