War versus war games

I heard a fact today which once again tells you all you need to know about the current Republican controlled Congress. "Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors. " However when it came to investigating the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison the Republicans have only had 12 hours of sworn testimony. 140 hours for Christmas cards and 12 for prisoner abuse.

I recall the hearings about steroids in baseball but none for how pre-Iraq war intelligence was used. I've seen hearings about violence in video games but none on why we pulled our troops and special forces out of Afghanistan before the country was secured so that we could invade a country that hadn't attacked us. With Republicans in Congress voting over 96% of the time with President Bush it's no wonder we have less ovesight and more earmarks for bridges to nowhere. My local Congressman Mark Kirk is a typical Republican. He has voted over 91% of the time with Bush but claims he is "independent." If you stand with the President over 9 out of ten votes, I'd hate to see what "dependent" looks like. There was more turnover in the old Soviet Union's Politburo than there is in the the House of Representatives. But I think the over 98% re-election rate for incumbents is going to be knocked down a bit this time. Looking at individual districts there are some really good numbers trending for Democrats. Some with big leads and some gaining. The point is this year I can't wait for election night (pizza and Cheetos standing by) to see if there is hope that the Congress might spend more time on hearings for things like war rather than for things like war games on the Xbox.