At least in terms of facts, although I understand the usual implication that because there's a majority of Democrats on the Committee, any conclusion it reaches must be false. You might remember that prior to the 2006 changeover, there was a majority of Republicans, a fact of equal significance, I'm sure.

As for the lack of links, it might be that the Republicans didn't want them. They seem decidely separatist, with <a href="http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/>their own separate Web site. If you change "republicans" in the address to "democrat", you simply get redirected to the Committee's main site. It's interesting to compare the two--the Republicans seem to be running an entirely separate committee with an entirely separate agenda. They're hot on the trail of compensation consultants for executive compensation, and congratulating themselves for having investigated steroids in baseball...several years ago, and they've published a sentimental retrospective on "TSA Security One Year Later".

It seems to be only the Democrats who are performing any actual governmental oversight, starting with the Bush manipulation of climate change science, and the White House obstructing Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation in the "Plame Affair", conficts of interest in the upcoming auction of the 700 MHz radio spectrum, and so on. They're a busy bunch, but then, it's a target-rich environment.

The Republican membership looks like the same old Party hacks who spent their six years in the majority resolutely refusing to investigate anything at all in the Bush Administration.

As noted in Wikipedia article on the Committe, during their tenure in Bill Clinton's second term, the Republicans were ever so diligent, issuing "1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million". Can you guess how many subpoenas the Republicans issued in the performance of their "oversight" of the Bush Administration?

1,000? No, way too high.

500? No, guess again.

Surely at least 100? Sorry.

10? Now you're getting warm...

3? Bingo! Give the man a cigar.

Can you say "dereliction of Constitutional duty"? Nice try.