by Ilene Proctor

Q: How Can A Man Become a National Best Selling Author Without Ever Being Reviewed By The Mainstream Media?

A: The Internet and Progressive Radio Caused This Media Sensation

WATCH OUT WASHINGTON! HERE COMES Vincent Bugliosi’s The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder.

Make no mistake, things have been done to America in these recent years that are unwise, unjust, unconscionable, unacceptable and un-American by President George Bush who pursues his partisanship, his profiteering, his perjury, his pardons and his power that are frankly, according to best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi, unpardonable.

In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bugliosi presents a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq. Bugliosi sets forth the legal architecture and incontrovertible evidence that President Bush took this nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses-a war that has not only caused the deaths of American soldiers but also over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children; cost the United States over one trillion dollars thus far with no end in sight; and alienated many American allies in the Western world.

A BuzzFlash Review

Make no mistake, the hourglass is running out of sand for the darker impulses of this decider of our national politics and his destructive policies.

In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Vanguard Press, 2008), Bugliosi, the man who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson for murder, argues convincingly that President George W. Bush's conduct in taking the US military to war against Iraq under false pretenses in March of 2003 qualifies him to be prosecuted for murder in any state in the nation. Written in an in-your-face gutsy style, Bugliosi manifestly maps out Bush's destiny.

Despite a virtual press blackout, Vincent Bugliosi's book has became a national best seller and is fast becoming a cult fave amongst outraged Constitution loving, Bill-of-Rights adherents, Declaration of Independence followers, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and Independent Americans alike.

One of the first references to Iraq made by the Bush administration after 9/11 was made on October 15, 2001, by then Secretary of State Colin Powell when he told the press: "Iraq is Iraq, a wasted society for 10 years. They're sad. They're contained ..." If that were the case, how were they supposed to be a threat to the world's strongest military power?

Bugliosi calls our attention to the fact that after Bush had started talking about the possibility of war with Iraq, he said that his decision will be based on the "latest intelligence." What he never said, of course, is that on October 1, 2002, the classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate issued by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies said that Saddam was NOT an imminent threat to the US.

Not long after that, on the afternoon of October 7, 2002, then CIA director George Tenet delivered a letter to Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, saying "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical or biological weapons) against the United States." That evening Bush delivers a speech to the nation at the Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio in which he called Saddam Hussein a "great danger to our nation."

Then there is the infamous reference to Saddam's supposed quest for uranium in Africa in the President's 2003 State of the Union speech, which was based on documents which beltway insiders believed to be forgeries. In October of 2002 George Tenet told Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley that the president "should not be a fact witness on this issue," and the reporting on it was "weak."

However, for many, the conclusive evidence that Bush knew Saddam was no threat to this country, and therefore an attack on Iraq was unjustified, was the following. Back in March 2003, Bush said that if Saddam Hussein did not give up his weapons of mass destruction, Iraq would face war. But earlier, in a January 31 closed-door meeting, Bush told his British buddy Tony Blair that the attack would take place even if no WMDs were found. Indeed, George and Tony candidly conceded that the discovery of such weapons was unlikely.

This deliberate deception is revealed in a confidential five-page memo written by David Manning, Blair's top foreign-policy advisor, who was at the meeting.

Manning records that both Bush and Blair were uptight that the WMDs were not going to be found, so George W. offered another fabrication to give them an excuse to attack. He suggested that the U.S. would paint one of our own surveillance planes in the colors of the United Nations and fly it over Iraq, hoping that Saddam would be provoked into shooting it down. Then the U.S. and Brits could invade, claiming that they were retaliating for Saddam's attack on the UN.

Ultimately, Bush and Blair stuck with the WMD lie, apparently assuming that the war would be quick, a new Iraqi democracy would spring up, and no one would remember all that WMD stuff.

Meanwhile, more than 4,000 Americans have died, Iraq is a bloody mess, and George W. says his war of lies will continue indefinitely.

In addition to providing us with the legal rationale and possible jurisdiction for such a prosecution of the President, Bugliosi also provides examples of how monstrously callous Bush has been since the war began in March of 2003. He provides several pages of photographs of scenes of carnage from Iraq juxtaposed with pictures of a grinning, clowning President Bush, having the time of his life. He also provides several quotes from President Bush made during a variety of stages in the war showing that the President was more concerned about running, fishing or going to a ball game than about the thousands killed in the war that he started. As Bush said in a press conference on December 4, 2007, he's been feeling "pretty good about life."

In the Acknowledgments section of the book, Bugliosi provides a valuable insight into the world of book publishing when he claims that many people at the largest publishing houses in the country told him that although they agreed with the conclusions in the book, and thought that the book would make money, they wanted to have nothing to do with it out of fear. It was, they said, "too hot to handle." In fact two liberal law professors of his acquaintance were scared to even look at the book! Bugliosi claims that this is all due to the climate of fear created by the current right wing in America, which brands anyone who believes George Bush's actions to be criminal as a "pro-terrorist," "anti-American" sufferer of "Bush Derangement Syndrome." One is hard-pressed to disagree with him.

In a political environment where impeachment of President Bush is "off the table," those who wish to bring the man to justice may have to look to the courts, but the question is, of course, who would step up and prosecute him? There are not too many prosecutors today who posses Bugliosi's passion for justice. Even if no charges are ever actually filed against Bush, at least The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder stands as an historical record of one more American President's mendacity on the issues of war and peace.

Bush's ascent to power has meant tragedy, failure and death. His arrogance and his administration's imperial grandeur have alienated what Jefferson called the decent opinion of mankind. His tactics have been pursued with contempt for alternate views, corruption of our democratic system, and condescension toward those who know far more about military affairs than he does.

While deliberately deceiving his nation into war, Bush championed the politics of fear, desperately seeking to frighten the people to justify his attacks on freedoms guaranteed by statute and constitution.

Like no administration before it, team Bush has mastered the media with its use of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, to muster mass support for his elite agenda. With Bush as the prime player, his administration staged photo ops whose choreographed drama and camera-ready visuals ("Mission Accomplished"!) were intended to play to the emotions and overrule objections; reducing complicated geopolitical issues to black-or-white dualisms: Good Team America vs. the Axis of Evil.

The Bush administration represents the apotheosis of government by spin control. The philosophical takeaway here is the historical shift from the Enlightenment, whose commitment to reasoned debate and empirical truth used to be the cornerstone of our little experiment in democracy, to the faith-based worldview of fundamentalism -- not just the Christian fundamentalism of the religious right, but fundamentalisms of every sort.

The Iraq War came about, in large part, because of a harmonic convergence of personal passions, political agendas and ideological crusades, all faith-based rather than fact-driven. Bush, Bugliosi reminds us, is a man who "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment" and who "to this day ... seems unbothered by the disconnect between his chief rationale for war and the driving motivation behind it. Empowered by God to democratize the Middle East and police the globe as part of the constabulary duties of the Last Action Superpower, Bush has clearly delighted in establishing a star-spangled imperium. America's an empire now, and when we act, we reinforce Bush's own reality.

Today, Bush is busy covering up his dirty laundry, all the while planning for the next war. But Bugliosi is hot on his case, and the clock is ticking, the day is coming, when a grateful nation will soon celebrate Bush's complete and total removal from the high councils of government, once and for all, and hopefully, one day, be called to judgment by an awakened America for the great tragedy he has wrought.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

...I'll make my comment here re: "Not getting the Healthcare we pay for"

We don't get the healthcare we pay for. Nor do we get the Congress we voted for. It seems that We the People are getting the short end of the stick all the way around.

Accountability? There is none in the Bush administration and there's a far cry less coming from a Congress that continues to give a "get out of jail free" pass to an Administration that refuses to follow laws that are already in place to guarantee that ALL records generated by a Presidential Administration are archived?

So where does Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Conyers stand? Somewhere off to the side of the table that they took impeachment from...the voters may hold them accountable when their term for renewal comes up.

A snake oil salesman is called a CON man precisely because he says one thing, promising miracles, all the while he knows that what he is delivering is not what he's selling or promising.

GOT IMPEACHMENT?
GOT ACCOUNTABILITY?
GOT TROOPS HOME?
GOT RULE OF LAW?
GOT OPEN GOVERNMENT?
GOT ROVE?

Honestly John, why should anyone believe you? You've demonstrated clear mental reservation about upholding your Oath of Office. You've excused you're responsibility to exact the heavy hand of Justice by wholly exorcising a strict evasion to act accountable both to your constituency and the Republic. If you aren't cowered by higher influences, I'd say you're in collusion WITH these forces. What else would be a logical explanation?

Rove told you to go fuck off, and so you did. Is that how a man of great stature handles things... meekly? His five days are up.... HAVE BEEN UP! Yet you continue to live up to your moniker of... "NO ACTION!" Has anyone ever informed you that you CAN exorcise the Rule of Law? What does it mean when you cower from the Rule of Law? Which are you... a fine standing citizen elevated to a High Office sworn to defend the Republic's Rights, Freedoms and Liberties... or a coward?

CONgressional approval ratings are "in the tank"... 9%
How are you bolstering these damning figures with NO ACTION?
THE WORST CONGRESS... EVER! ON YOUR WATCH!

At which point should Americans demand YOUR impeachment? After all, you've aided and abetted an obstruction of Justice as underscored by your lack of courage to pursue said Justice. When international forces come for the criminals of these deeds; TORTURE, WARS of AGGRESSION, ILLEGAL JUSTICE, MURDER... Where shall we tell them where the person who decided to take NO ACTION shall be found?

CONgressman,
I heard an interesting tale today. I heard that CONgress meet secretively in full last March of 2008 to discuss a National Security issue, the impending demise and collapse of the US economy and how CONgress can best protect themselves(as if it never is about them) from the marauding Republic coming for members of CONgress who lead us into this state. Is this true? When was the last secret full session held where the general public was NOT informed about the outcome?

Thanks to Tom Delay, I can assert what I have to say:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, unless John Conyers proves otherwise, he is in collusion WITH these war criminals. Why else would you, John NO ACTION CONyers, provide tacit cover for what is already being described as WAR CRIMES? Your book is all you need as your proof gathered for the basis crimes stemming from THE SUPREME CRIME.

==============
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N!!!

Which are you CONgressman, the dog or the pony of this three ring circus?

==============
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N!!!

Flashback to 1974:

II. The Historical Origins of Impeachment
B. The Intentions of the Framers

The following is from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis.

B. The Intentions of the Framers

The debates on impeachment at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia focus principally on its applicability to the President. The framers sought to create a responsible though strong executive; they hoped, in the words of Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, that "the maxim would never be adopted here that the chief Magistrate could do [no] wrong." 22 Impeachment was to be one of the central elements of executive responsibility in the framework of the new government as they conceived it.

The constitutional grounds for impeachment of the President received little direct attention in the Convention; the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was ultimately added to "Treason" and "Bribery" with virtually no debate. There is evidence, however, that the framers were aware of the technical meaning the phrase had acquired in English impeachments. Ratification by nine states was required to convert the Constitution from a proposed plan of government to the supreme law of the land. The public debates in the state ratifying conventions offer evidence of the contemporaneous understanding of the Constitution equally as compelling as the secret deliberations of the delegates in Philadelphia. That evidence, together with the evidence found in the debates during the First Congress on the power of the President to discharge an executive officer appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate, shows that the framers intended impeachment to be a constitutional safeguard of the public trust, the powers of government conferred upon the President and other civil officers, and the division of powers among the legislative, judicial and executive departments.

I like the last part because it refers to historical context...

Impeachment, as Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution in 1833, applies to offenses of "a political character":

Not but that crimes of a strictly legal character fall within the scope of the power; but that it has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual involutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law They must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty. They must be judged of by the habits and rules and principles of diplomacy, or departmental operations and arrangements, of parliamentary practice, of executive customs and negotiations of foreign as well as domestic political movements; and in short, by a great variety of circumstances, as well those which aggravate as those which extenuate or justify the offensive acts which do not properly belong to the judicial character in the ordinary administration of justice, and are far removed from the reach of municipal jurisprudence.83

(emphasis mine)

==============
I M P E A C H

Hi John.

In the thread "We Don't Get What We Pay For"

you wrote:

This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
Submitted by JC on July 17, 2008 - 7:22am.

There is an article in this morning's New York Times about a study being released today on the state of health care in America. In a nutshell, the Commonwealth Fund study shows that despite the fact that we pay more for care in this country than in most other industrialized nations, the quality of care does not measure up.

While this simple statement would be readily apparent to the millions of people struggling to pay for basic medical care or to senior citizens choosing between paying for their prescription drugs and their groceries, it is also important to quantify the disparity. It is yet another sign pointing to how badly we need to universal health care coverage.

* JC's blog
* Email this page
* Printer-friendly version
* Delicious
* Digg
* Reddit
* Newsvine
* Google
* Technorati

-----------------------------

My question, if I had one, would be "If we don't get what we pay for, do we at least get what we vote for?"

I am of course speaking to the issue of impeachment of the very administration that you appear to be squeeking about in this thread.

What the Dems need is something like Viagra for the mind, the memory, even ethics, don't you agree John? But how could you make such a product look sexy enough to sell?

In 1995, during the Attack Of The Giant Salamander (Jim Wright's main persecutor) I watched some of the dems win the debate and then vote against the position they just advocated.

What's up with that?

And guess what? Now that they have no excuse, I still see them doing the same things. For example, who'd -a guessed Obama would have voted FOR the retroactive (read "ex post facto") legalization of illegal wire taps?

Where the hell are we John?

Or who the hell are these people?

Let me offer this as a bit of attempted advice: I hear you complaining but your complaints are evidently once again a million miles off the mark.

May I explain?

Tangentially these issues are fine, but correcting them would not produce what is needed in the post-Civil War era.

Post Civil War. I'm talking about, where's the steadfastness Lincoln sought in his Gettysburg address? We honor him but it's all in vain, if we do not understand what he meant, do we not?

If you are not familiar with what he said, how about "Florida 2000". Got anything on that? Or "Ohio 2004"? ES&S, Diebold, etc? Anything there jog a memory cell? Maybe the words "Constitution In Crisis". Ring any bells yet?

I'm talking about the infiltration of mammon or whatever you want to call it that Eisenhower warned us about.

Mammon. How ironic that these pretenders end their oaths of office with "so help me God".

And young Dubya even managed to stack his hypocrisy three Bibles deep. Matt 5:34 et seq puts this kind of activity into clear focus in terms of honest to goodness Christianity, as defined in any one of those Bibles. If you are unhappy with political capitalism as per our decider-in-chief, do look up that Bible reference. You'll be glad you did.

I'm talking about the danger which was not thwarted, but rather became the norm a few years later as demonstrated by way of several high level political assassinations inside the US.

Were those legitimate targets of black ops? I'm talking to you, John. I'm asking you, if domestic hits are valid political processes anywhere, much less in the world's standard for democracy.

Eisenhower used the words "disastrous". He spoke of "influence". And he said "whether sought or unsought" that this issue would be a big one.

Was it all just theatrics? For effect? What would Eisenhower gain from such a display?

Well then tell me why didn't those words have any effect? Do crooks just get tired of being dishonest and straighten up spontaneously?

We haven't even removed the payoffs, John. The incentives are now utterly reversed, aren't they.

So, dear Congressman, you are again hacking at leaves and leaving the root untouched.

But what can I do or say that would make any difference to you or any other alleged champion of the people.

Let's try another approach then.

"Smoking Gun". Do those words mean anything to you?

Is that an EKG or their EEG? -- envelope please.

Furthermore, if you, as Chairman of the House Judiciary are as clueless as your peers, or so inane that you too would agree render the 'truth' effectively OFF TOPIC (duh), how in the world is anyone else in Congress going to have a clue as to what is expected of them?

Knock knock!

Hey! Anybody home? Help us out here, would yuh?

There is a psychological term used for people who aid and abet an alcoholic. They're called "enablers".

Housespeaker Pelosi and Congressman Conyers are starting to stand out as two huge enablers of Bush's "power bender" as both of them continue to give Bush, Cheney, Rove and all the rest of the dilettantes and synchophants of this Administration a "do not have to show up when subpoenaed, get out of jail free" pass.

In this game of chicken, it's the Dems who are coming off as the ones who've been emasculated by a lame duck President.

sendkarlrovetojail.com

...psssst... John, DO SOMETHING!

Diebold tampered with 2002 election...and 2000 and 2004 and 2006 and soon, 2008...

GOP cyber-security expert suggests Diebold tampered with 2002 election
Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday July 18, 2008

A leading cyber-security expert and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says he has fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections.

Stephen Spoonamore is the founder and until recently the CEO of Cybrinth LLC, an information technology policy and security firm that serves Fortune 100 companies. At a little noticed press conference in Columbus, Ohio Thursday, he discussed his investigation of a computer patch that was applied to Diebold Election Systems voting machines in Georgia right before that state's November 2002 election.

Spoonamore is one of the most prominent cyber-security experts in the country. He has appeared on CNN's Lou Dobbs and ABC's World News Tonight, and has security clearances from his work with the intelligence community and other government agencies, as well as the Department of Defense, and is one of the world’s leading authorities on hacking and cyber-espionage.
more here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

No kidding...

Iglesias: Rove Won’t Testify ‘To Keep Himself From Being Indicted’»

Last week, Karl Rove ignored a subpoena and refused to testify before Congress, choosing instead to take a trip abroad. This morning, David Iglesias, one of the U.S. Attorneys politically purged under Alberto Gonzales, told MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle he believed Rove “had information that…would show illegal activity” and thus will refuse to testify “to keep himself from being indicted”:

IGLESIAS: Which I believe is the reason why he is refusing to testify in front of the Congress. He has information that I believe would show illegal activity, interfering with ongoing federal criminal investigations. So Rove is not testifying I think basically to keep himself from being indicted.

Barnicle also asked Iglesias whether Rove played a role in his firing, to which Iglesias replied, “Absolutely”:

BARNICLE: Do you think he has anything to do with your being dismissed?

IGLESIAS: Absolutely. The evidence is clear that he relayed, he took a call from Pete Domenici about me that he talk to the state party chairman here. He was very involved in something he had no business being involved in which is, you know, the oversight of a federal investigation and a federal prosecutor.

click here

--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a republican to the truth, but you can't make him think it...

I don't think Hollywood scriptwriters could write a more exciting "time fuse", as they are called. Right down to the wire and the race is on -- the good guys and the bad guys... a photo finish.

Gimme a break, Honorable Congressman.

Smoking Gun, remember?

What do you think of your constituents if you can believe that this new and improved BS act of yours will pass muster?

John, you were in the right place doing the right thing during the Nixon impeachment. You were on the right side in your attempts to reign in the Alzheimers Republicans (creative traditionalists).

But you have thoroughly squandered your credibility when you shafted VIPS and the rest of us with your hairpin turn in 2006 to get behind Nancy (what did she know and when did she know it) Pelosi, and Steny (repeal Presidential term limits) Hoyer.

Hoyer. God golly Mr. Molly, don't you have anything on "Imperial Presidencies" laying around here somewhere?

Take an IQ test. There's a chance you're demised and just don't know it yet.

It can happen, I'm told. In fact I once had a preying mantis that got its head bit off by our cat. He seemed to at least sense that something was amiss though, unlike you guys.

So there apparently is some cause for concern.

An American Empire.
by Howard Zinn

Sad, but true...
America has become what it loathed enough to break away from, some 235 years ago.
What will it take to break these latest chains that bind...?

==============
I M P E A C H
Rove Abscond Day Count: 10

Take your choice of Screen Gem. The Beach. the Tree. The Creek. Or the Drive.
Each is around 1.3MegaByte.

Re: Next page :
The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System does a great service to the People of the Several Countries the overview covers. In pointing out where we are and are not leaders clarified is from whom to take and to whom to offer which lessons. Advantage of this, is, I hope, taken.

Re: This Page : Revision of history :
It seems a time to recall from the files. 'Scuse me a minute.

§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b),
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

This is the law specifying the jurisdiction of our Courts in cases of war crime. You will note that it is slightly differant from what is described in the storybooks. You will note that it subjects foreign nationals to our Courts jurisdiction. And that it applies to soldiers just the same as anyone else. It's right there in the bond.

Damn fair too, I have to admire. Same standard whether our guy is the victim or the perp. Often overlooked is the possibility both the victim and the perp could be friends of ours, and that the Law, as written, could be appealed to for protection by foreign civilians subject to abuse by our military. All of this, in the Bond.

A thing to fear? Possibly, if you should. And these know who they are. And hope we never find out. So shut their mouths, the smaller, the tighter. Vice-presidents, for example, merely scowl when caught, ask what yer gonna do 'bout it. Foot soldiers on the other hand, get roasted alive, by Vice-Presidents, if their names should ever come up.

So what to do?

Well. If you offer immunity to anyone who will stand up and say he is guilty and will tell all from the witness stand...some little guy is likely to. This tends to make the Emperors Clothes vanish. Along with scowls from the Vice-president. And should stiffen any bone softened by the thought of exposure of past ill judgments (caused by bent Intel). Lots of folks spilling much bigger pots of beans.

Whether this is a good or bad idea may turn on whether it is more important to you the guilty be punished, all of them, to the full extent of the law, even if the very insistence on the point be what prevents the solution of the conundrum, or whether your real concern is whether or not America be a free Country.
Frosted Flake

http://judiciary.house.gov/index.html
I Like the new look, but... even I have a bigger monitor than that. You can go a little wider than that. This too.

http://judiciary.house.gov/news/071708.html
I am looking forward to this hearing. I hope some will ask then and there why Rove yet roves.

Rove, one of those few 'elite' Bushies that are allowed to exclude themselves from any of the lawful rules that govern the actions of mere mortal Americans, skipped out on Congress: an empty seat and an exotic getaway:

"...the members found themselves talking to an empty chair. What they didn't know is where Rove was that day: on a jet flying to a speaking engagement at Yalta, the historic Black Sea resort in Ukraine Rove, who generally charges a reported $40,000 per talk, appeared on a premier panel..."