Back when the Democrats were campaigning to take control of Congress in 2006, one of the things they promised was that they would not be a party of perpetual investigations. That promise went much the way of the "most ethical" and "most transparent" Congress -- at last count, they'd broken triple digits into investigations, mostly fishing expeditions.

Well, as contrary as it might seem, I'd like to see them start a fresh investigation -- this time into themselves.

At least three times members of Code Pink have disrupted proceedings on Capitol Hill, to the point of having to be removed by force by the Capitol Police: at President Bush's 2006 State Of The Union Address, at General Petraeus' Report to Congress, and now one of them assaulted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with "bloody" hands.

(Yes, assaulted. Look it up. "A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault. Compare battery. " I'd certainly call some nutcase shouting at her and charging her with an unknown red fluid -- presumably blood -- all over her hands "threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person." And look at the second picture here -- Code Pink psycho Desiree Anita Ali-Fairooz has her hands AROUND Rice's head.)

I have a few questions that I'd like answered, and I'd like them answered by my Congress:

1) Were the Petraeus and Rice hearings open to the general public, or were they like the State of the Union address and only open to those with Congress-issued passes?

2) If the former, why aren't the Capitol Police taking pre-emptive measures and preventing member of Code Pink from entering these events with their disruptive garb and signs and banners and fake blood?

3) If the latter, what members of Congress are giving Code Pink these passes, and what should be done to prevent them from continuing?

I would also like to see the woman who assaulted Secretary Rice be put on trial for that crime, if a few problems can be worked out. First, Secretary Rice should NOT be required to testify, as that would most likely give the asshat a forum to argue "the necessity defense" and turn the whole thing into a circus pushing her agenda. Secondly, in most cases the FBI has jurisdiction over crimes committed on federal property, but after the William Jefferson fiasco, there could be a turf war with the Capitol Police --- and it's fairly obvious that they are being shackled by their congressional bosses in their dealings with Code Pink.

Code Pink has shown an evolution in their efforts. From Cindy Sheehan's wearing a T-shirt to the State Of The Union to the shouting and banner-waving at the Petraeus hearings to assaulting Secretary Rice, the pattern is clear: a steady escalation of efforts at disrupting the proceedings and drawing attention to themselves and their cause.

Congress needs to show their bosses -- the American people -- just who is in charge on Capitol Hill: the people elected to govern, or the activists who seem to have free run of the place and immunity to any sort of civilized restraint. Right now the answer seems fairly obvious -- and not a good one.

My own Congressman is a bit of a moonbat (sigh), but I think a call to his office might be in order.