Too much credit to the Congrees, swampy. Didn't they just bring John Dean up to testify (sell his book) against Bush? Sorry, I don't assign -any- credibility just because they do a supporting role for Congresscritters grandstanding.
And I dothn't protest anything, but I got jumped on for asking for what apparently didn't exist: a simple summary of the whole 'she-bang' that makes sense to people with a network-news attention span.
"Hey bub! What's all the OKC hubbub?" "As if you don't already know! Read the links, idiot!" The staunchest converts are on this thread, and if someone can't really get a curious bystander on board, then how are you to grow the movement? I had not even kept up enough to know until yesterday that nobody thinks Padilla is JD2 anymore, and I considered myself somewhat aware of Jayna's stuff. I think these massive list-o-links are more dangerous to the truth than the cover-up, because the list-o-links LOOKS like a Mel Gibson "Conspiracy Theory" plot with extra tinfoil to most people 'on the outside'.
What I'm further concerned about, is that this story has been going nowhere because it hasn't gained enough momentum---to gain more momentum.
If we're waiting for the Great Oz of Congress to give this story life, then it is already dead. It's a 77 TransAm running street races in 1st gear. It's going to run into the ground like this.
Does that mean the "coverup" wins? Maybe. But no amount of Jayna's book sales will make up for the interest gap. No amount of blog chatter will make it happen.
Sadly, it may be that Rohrbacher has the power to squelch this by ignoring it...from whence he gets more power! They love that.
So my point about Schippers, though, is two fold. He's a smart beltway guy. He knows how to stroke those committees. If he thought this was the huge deal that we do, he'd get it done. I'm concerned that he's not as convinced as we'd like him to be....and that if he's not moving hell/high water to get this forefront, then we're unlikely to light a fire everywhere else.
Schippers (or others) could bring her to the steps/door of the Capitol as a lightning rod. Have press conferences, etc. But he doesn't: why? Maybe because he thinks it'll make her look like a tinfoil whackjob. Maybe she prefers to stir the pot from afar.
I will continue minimizing and packaging the "mini-OKC synopsis" to help spread this to the un-warsh-ed. But from a realistic perspective, I see this being buried as another JFK conspiracy, and frankly, I think they are winning by capitalizing on the "truth teller" bungling.
Bump to the thread
Again more nonsense, sam. My statement was an accurate explanation of how, and why, certain things are done in certain ways in Congressional committee investigations. The people who brought in John Dean really did believe him to be a credible witness, and, you'll note, the press dutifully reported it that way. Whether or not YOU assign -any- credibility to this is simply irrelevant.