Democrats took control of Congress on the promise to launch investigations into the Bush administration, and they are fulfilling that pledge. The subpoenas themselves do not surprise much, although the one to Comdoleezza Rice might run into some legal wrangling depending on the subject matter. Everyone widely expected the investgations to take the widest possible viewpoint and get conducted in the most confrontational style possible.
The fact that the Democratic majorities got so much Republican support in each instance may come as a shock to the White House, though. Goodling's immunity only got opposed by six Republicans on the committee, where 17 GOP Representatives serve. Seventeen Republicans sit on Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee, and only 10 opposed the Rice subpoena. We have no word on the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on teh Sara Taylor subpoena, but given the hostility of the Republicans during and after the Alberto Gonzales testimony, it's doubtful that it passed on a 10-9 vote.
This does not bode well for the White House. The President's insistence on keeping Gonzales in place has apparently angered his GOP allies on the Hill. It also has provided no barrier to other investigations, and it appears the Democrats have no problem staying aggressive regardless of whether Gonzales stays or goes.
Practically speaking, though, these subpoenas will have little effect. Rice will go before Congress and tell them -- again -- that they saw the intelligence prior to the Iraq invasion, and that it was basically the same as it was during the Clinton administration. No one faked anything, and the one piece that people use to claim Bush lied (a) was based on Joe Wilson's misrepresentation of his findings in Niger, and (b) still backed by British intelligence, where it originated. Goodling may say something damning, or all they may have bought with immunity is a confirmation that the entire mess was nothing more malevolent than incompetence.
But get used to this. We have two years to live in Subpoenaville.
Ed's right, of course. The Democrats are showing that they are clearly not interested (and unable) to pass legislation, so they are going to use the next two years to bludgeon the Bush administration, hoping it will lead to landslide victories for them in '08. I'm not convinced that will happen, but we will see.
Ed links to this interesting piece explaining why no Republicans are defending Gonzales.
Throughout her tumultuous tenure as attorney general, Janet Reno could always rely on Democrats and liberals to circle the wagons when critics ripped her judgment, competence, and forthrightness. They’d close ranks when the opposition claimed her Justice Department elevated political considerations over legal ones. By contrast, in Alberto Gonzales’s present hour of need, his only enthusiastic supporter appears to be the president. Why?
Because of politics. Not politicization, as in partisan obstruction of particular investigations. Rather, good, old-fashioned politics in the best sense of the word: namely, an administration’s accountability to its supporters and its fealty to the policies that induced their support.
The Reno Justice Department, whatever else you may think about it, cared passionately about signal “progressive” causes and backed them to the hilt, regardless of criticism. To the contrary, the Gonzales Justice Department and, indeed, the president, often turn spaghetti-spined when the priorities of their base are at stake. How surprising, then, that when friends are most sorely needed there are none to be found.
In my opinion, this is the reason Republicans lost the 2006 elections. It wasn't the war. It was the overspending by Congress, the pro-illegal alien stance of the White House, the incompetent nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, the president's tin ear with concern to Republican interests. If Rove has been misusing the White House for Republican political manipulations, he has done a poor job of delivering the very sorts of items that would have made such manipulations unnecessary. In short, the president has lost the base because he never took the base seriously.
In my opinion, this is the reason Republicans lost the 2006 elections. It wasn't the war.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't been paying attention. By an overwhelming majority, voters said it WAS THE WAR.
Of course the corruption, incompetence and lies may have contributed also.
they are going to use the next two years to bludgeon the Bush administration, hoping it will lead to landslide victories for them in '08.
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't it? The public has been clamoring for accountability ever since the WMD turned out to be a lie, and only the Democrats promised to give them any.
If Waxman, Conyers, Leahy et al continue to expose the corruption of K Street, Rove, The White House, Halliburton, Gonzales (wow the list goes on and on and on and on...) they will certainly be in a strong position in 2008.
How many GOP congressmen have resigned over corruption? Ney, DeLay, Cunningham... How many are now on the bubble and going soon? Renzi, Doolittle... Every one of those seats will go to the Democrats, in addition to Pombo, who already lost his seat due to his corruption.
It's a target-rich environment for Democratic investigation. Shoot in any direction and you can't miss.
I don't want to go into a poll war with you, but it depends on who you talked to as to why people voted for Democrats.
ReplyDeleteEven among people who said "the war" was a major factor, not all of those people wanted us to cut and run. A substantial subset wanted more troops in the field. Disagreeing with the conduct of the was doesn't necessarily mean surrender.
And really, "the public" that has been "clamoring for accountability" are leftwingers who have cried and whined for six years. WMD wasn't a lie (how many times do we have to go over this?). You might want to go look up that word in the dictionary.
The investigations Democrats want to conduct aren't designed to "discover" anything new. Just look at the Pat Tillman thing. The point is to embarrass this administration and Republicans in general. There isn't new information to be had from these events, and they aren't designed to garner new information.
What happened to that terrific Democrat agenda for legislation?