This seems like one of those libertarian solutions to anything that ails ya: just let the market take care of it!
But seriously, I don’t see how journalists, relying on their own devices, would be more effective at digging into this subject than a panel that is empowered by law to demand the cooperation of government agencies. I couldn’t see how a news agency could generate a public furor about Rice refusing to talk to, say, Adam Clymer (the NYT reporter that Bush called a “major league asshole.”)
And I don’t understand this “partisan bickering” you keep referring to in this thread. The 9-11 Commission, with its 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, have been remarkably unified on just about everything but their views of Clarke’s testimony. I read an article yesterday that the chairman, Governor Kean, still expects to filea report with unanimous approval of all commissioners.
The only squealing I have really heard is from the White House, which seems to have all sorts of problems with letting the commission do its work.
“We don’t need a bunch of former politicians discussing things in front of cameras to arrive at answers; in fact, I think that putting a bunch of former politicians in charge of the hearings is more likely to mean that nothing useful will come of them.”
Then how do you explain Nixon’s fate? The media and the public were on Nixon’s ass, but he stood firm. It took a vote of impeachment by a bunch of politicians that forced Nixon to resign.
Those impeachment hearings were conducted in the open and in front of the cameras. Nevertheless, those politicians got the job done.
Because there isn’t any other way to impeach a President other than by a vote of Congress. That’s the nature of the process. It doesn’t show that public hearings are somehow superior to private discussion; it just shows that Nixon was impeached via the only process available.
And what prompted the Congress to impeach in that case?
The reporting of two private sector employees of the Washington Post.
Woodward and Bernstein published an expose on Watergate, and the public raised holy hell, so the House voted to impeach.
And why did Nixon step down?
Because he would likely have been voted out of office by the Senate, and he thought it better to resign than go through that process.
Nixon didn’t step down because of public hearings. And it’s beyond comprehension to suggest that the hearings surrounding his impeachment were not just the main reason, but the sole reason that he resigned office.
Look, I specifically said that Legislative hearings will sometimes be the best way to get things done. But your example shows that the private sector does a pretty good job of elucidating important facts and effecting change in government.
It’s naive to suggest that the Republicans had no say which Democrats are doing the questioning from the Committee.
And there wouldn’t be a public furor about Rice refusing to talk to Clymer. But there probably would be a public furor if the White House refused to talk to anybody.
Of course there’s been partisan bickering. And even if it’s only just begun, that doesn’t mean that legislative hearings are the best method for arriving at national security decisions.
I doubt I need to point out that the Constitution was drafted in meetings that were most definitely closed to the public. And I think that turned out pretty well.
Good golly, Miss Molly! You haven’t heard any squealing from the Dems, who have spent few breaths without accusing the Bush Admin of impeding and obstructing the work of the 9/11 Commission? And you haven’t heard any squealing from John Kerry? And you haven’t heard any squealing from the other Republicans that see these hearings as a political witch hunt, or who are so determined to blame Clinton that they’re willing to ignore their own cries of indignation whenever he tried to do something about ObL?
Everybody’s squealing. That’s the problem with letting politicians handle this. It becomes more about popularity and blame than about fixing what’s wrong.
Firstly I should say this forum is almost too active for me to participate in. I’ve participated in many high volume forums but the replies come in so consistently here I can’t hope to participate in more than 1-2 threads at once.
I haven’t given up on anything.
I do not think that finding who to blame for 9/11 will help this country. I think it will divide this country. I think we are all complicit in 9/11 so to blame any one person is hypocrisy. All of us who watched over 1,000 Americans die from 1980 to 2000 due to terrorism and consistently ignored it as a major threat are responsible. And that encompasses just about the entire population of this country.
I think we need to review what was done wrong structurally and functionally speaking. However I see no reason to air out intelligence matters in public, let the intelligence agencies do what they do best. The CIA, NSA, FBI, et al are not a bunch of clowns. They’ve stopped many terrorist actions in the past. The sad truth is we only know about their failures, their successes are unknown. There are heroes that fight and die for us inside the intelligence agencies and most of the time we not only never hear of their names we never even hear that they died.
I do work in the Federal Government, in Arlington and Washington typically. My duties as an economist are not of a political nature and what administration is in power has little to do with my day-to-day life. I worked under Clinton and I have worked for almost four years under Bush.
There’s no reason to start any conspiracy theories or act like I’ve been “bought” by Bush. I’m just one of 1.5m civilians that works in the same sort of jobs you would find out in the public sector. The only difference is my employer is the United States Government and I work for the American people. Plus I get better benefits than private sector counterparts, and at the same time make less money.
You do yourself even fewer favors by failing to notice that I put the word in quotation marks. It’s called “sarcasm”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
You dig yourself in deeper by dismissing inconvenient facts as “conspiracy theories”. Nothing I’ve said meets that description. The link I gave was from the frickin’ Washington Post, as you would have noticed if you’d read it. That’s the frickin’ newspaper of record for government matters. If you don’t like what they say, go right ahead and register your objections with them.
Now would you like to get back to discussing the business of the country, which has at the top of the list the need to find out what really happened and why? Or is nibbling at the edges just too much fun?
“Private talks” my pasty white ass. If, as a citizen, you really think that’s satisfactory, that’s a damn shame. You help yourself not at all with that assertion.
**furt ** and AQA, you two are also doing very well with your strenuous attempts to dismiss painful realities. You’re only convincing yourselves, though. If you think this is all partisan grandstanding, you haven’t been paying attention. The ease with which some of you can find ways to dismiss any sort of responsible conduct, not only in yourselves but in anyone else, is saddening.
Personally, I think Dr. Rice **should ** testify in public as other high level administration officials have done. Unlike you, though, I’m not making up reasons she has given for not testifying in order to criticize her. She is objecting on constituional grounds, not that she “doesn’t have time”. Get your facts straight.
I watched in awe the Senate Watergate hearings. It was very bi-partisan and helped me to regain respect for the Republican Party because they were willing to take a stand against lying and corruption. They would not allow Nixon to abuse Executive Privilege, claims of national security issues or Separation of Powers. Abuse of these would be unConstitutional.
I do not know yet if this situation warrants comparison, but to dismiss the Democratic process in one of its strongest hours in a 20 word sentence emphasizing investigative journalism is ludicrous.
When the Oval Office tapes were made available to the public at the National Archives, you had to register for an appointment ahead of time to a large group hearing of the playing of an hour or so of the tapes. There was a long line down the block to register. We wanted to judge for ourselves.
If Condi Rice can answer questions freely in TV interviews, she should be able to answer the same questions with the same answers under oath in public or explain why not. If she cannot answer a question, I trust the bi-partisan commission to judge the appropriateness of her refusal *based in large part in having seen the process work in 1974. *
Despite wanting to avoid taking an oath, Bill Clinton eventually did. The Bush Administration is well aware of what happens to Presidents who lie under oath.
In Tennessee we have a “Sunshine Law” which means that government meetings have to be open to the public. It has served us well and has resulted in our getting rid of one of the most corrupt governors ever. (I was never so happy to see a Republican sworn in as I was the day the corrupt Democrat got the boot.) And I am a liberal Democrat.
Our federal government is strong enough to bear constant scrutiny. In fact, it requires it to continue to function as an instrument of the people.
I don’t understand this. Do you mean that Republicans chose which Democrats to put on the commission? Because that’s wrong: the Democratic members of the 9-11 commission were selected by Tom Daschle (two picks), Nancy Pelosi (two picks), and one joint pick between them.
I note that the outrage expressed by members of the media about how few press conferences this president does has not had any real effect on Bush’s willingness to open himself to more Q&A sessions.
And just so I get this straight, you think a “public furors” are okay, but “partisan bickering” is not… I suggest there’s a awful lot of overlap between the two.
That’s not squealing - that’s principled opposition to an unjust White House policy! But seriously, I haven’t heard John Kerry say boo about any of this recently - there’s articles all over the place about Kerry refusing to comment about Clarke’s allegations. Like this.
I guess government is too important to be left to elected officials, eh?
I’d rather have my President running the country as opposed to doing Q&A’s with spin happy reporters. There is a reason we have a White House Press Secretary.
Who’s not straight? You your own damn *self * have already noted that the “constitutional grounds” she claims are lame. Those same grounds don’t seem to be preventing Rumsfeld or Cheney from testifying, do they? The reasons she’s offering for not testifying are “made up” all right, but not by me.
You can take the suggestion that I’m motivated more by the desire to see someone embarrassed than to find out the truth about what happened to the country I love most and insert it in some other orifice. There is a goal involving embarrassment involved here, obviously, but it’s the prevention of it. I know you must be peeved at having had a bullshit post exposed, but please get back to the subject, as I already asked you, m’kay? You’re better than this - or so I’ve thought.
But seriously, I haven’t heard John Kerry say boo about any of this recently - there’s articles all over the place about Kerry refusing to comment about Clarke’s allegations.