compare and contrast:

However, I'm also a strong believer in checks and balances, and this move by the White House is... well... imperial.

Worse, it encourages precisely the kind of misbehavior that the Dems displayed in the Intelligence Committee.

wow. okay...

so exactly what misbehavior are you referring to here, what do you propose as an alternative measure to promote checks and balances, and why is it worse to encourage that kind of misbehavior than to suppress inquiry?

coincidentally, Billmon has a pithy exploration of why this might be construed as more anti-democratic than anti-Democratic.

Whether or not the White House memo from this Mr. Campen person turns out to be "imperial" depends on whether the Congressional chairmen through whom questions are to be asked of administration officials have a due regard for Congressional tradition and comity.

Senators and Congressmen do ask a lot of questions of administration officials. They are often the same questions, or substantially similar questions. No great harm is done by a mechanism to allow such questions to be consolidated; this may in fact allow some questions to be answered more quickly. The catch is that for this to work, committee chairman have to be willing to forward all questions from their members on to the relevant administration officials, and also to hold these officials responsible for answering the questions.

That may be a tall order these days. Would Bill Thomas really make, let alone act on, a threat to retaliate against the administration if White House officials declined to answer some question from Charles Rangel or one of the other Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee? What about James Inhofe on Senate Environment? The appropriations committees in each house, at whom the Campen memo was evidently directed, have more deeply ingrained traditions of bipartisanship, or at least of communication across party lines, but the principle is the same -- it would be up to the chairmen whether or not the administration would have to respond to questions from members of the minority party.

Now, provided Chairmen Young and Stevens were willing, I would have no problem going along with what Campen is asking for. But if there is any doubt about that we are not looking at a close call here; the administration cannot duck Congressional oversight. One way or another our system requires administration officials to respond to questions from members of Congress about how money is spent. It this is awkward, inconvenient or politically embarrassing that is too bad.

A footnote: assuming the relevant chairmen were agreeable to being used in this way, and assuming the most benign motives for the ideas Campen advances, what would be the real world result? Well, it would involve a somewhat reduced workload for administration officials no longer forced to write duplicative responses to many similar questions. It would also involve a substantially increased workload and possibly greater influence as well for committee staff, who would actually be doing the work of collating, consolidating and passing on questions from committee members.

I'm amazed at how much that carrier landing bothers antiAmeican Democrats. They're obsessed with it. I've heard Sen John F Kerry criticize Bush, using it. Just tonight Neal Gabler filled in for Alan Colmes on Hannity & Colmes. He brought it up, as has Colmes many times.

Since when do the Democrats care a whit about the cost of something. They attack the symbol of Bush the Warrior and ignore the substance. They really believe that Americans are going to sneer at Bush for that carrier landing. John Wayne is still one of America's biggest stars 20 years after his death.

Give it up.

Dan,

Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.

If national security and intelligence become open season for all partisan purposes, Republicans will be quite free to accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic, anti-American and allies of the terrorists who kill Americans in America.

And the intelligence agencies will stiff all of Congress.

Hmm, it looks to me that Marshall is looking for something that's not there. Not for the first time, I might add (admittedly with prejudice on my part).

The W.H. is asking:

[T]hat all requests for information
and materials be coordinated through
the committee CHAIRMEN and be put
in writing from the committee.

Clearly, the W.H. is asking that the Republican and Democratic CHAIRMEN (majority and minority) streamline the questioning. This does not mean that Thomas gets to vetoe questions from the minority; only that the minority chairmen himself submit the questions to remove rendundancy and duplication. E.g., if three Democrats want to ask the same questions, instead of submitting three different sets of questions, the minority chairman can submit one list of questions.

No story here folks, move on.

Josh is a wonderful guy but he gets a little hysterical at times; the Krugman virus has worked its way through the liberal populace. Some are more affected by it than others.

SMG

Okay, I'll risk asking a stupid question or two.

Doesn't each committee have ONE chairman and ONE ranking member? Isn't that the basis for Mr. Drener's concern?

P6, yup. every committee has exactly one chairman, and ordinarily the chairman belongs to the majority party. I guess if I were SMG I wouldn't want to confront how corrupt my party has become either...

in fact, your question inspired a surprisingly difficult attempt to locate and decipher the congressional rules on the subject, and AFAICT they don't actually seem to require minority representation on committees. they simply require that the majority party have majority representation on each of the standing committees. (I gave up after senate, so no idea about house, joint or select comittees). anybody out there got a better grip on this?

maybe minority representation is another one of those quaint vestigial traditions Billmon was talking about.

Drezner's first paragraph is full of suppositions.

"Republicans are justly outraged by the contents of a leaked Democratic memo from the Intelligence committee that outlines a strategy for exposing contradictions between intelligence reports and Bush's claims about Iraqi weapons programs."

Why is the outrage of Republicans "just"? Drezner admits the contradictions between intelligence reports and Bush's claims that took America to war. Isn't righteousness on the side of those who wish to expose those contradictions?

This latest attempt to protect the cowards who sent troops in harm's way with a bait and switch con is pathetic. Just pathetic.

Had dinner and a movie the other night with a Democratic woman. She's a solid Dem, not one of the Reagen Dem's. Even she said without any encouragement, that the present state of affairs was in part because the Dem's have gotten too weak. Basically, they are in the minority or out of power in every Federal branch of government and the large majority of governorships - three more in the past month - have fallen into GOP hands.

And frankly, the GOP isn't playing fair and square. It's unpatriotic to do so however. Keeping the lid on this type of criticism, scotching sight unseen stuff like the Reagen mini-series (I honor the man as a great personage of history, but he had his faults and has anyone ever heard of something called the 1st Ammendment?), is only going to hurt us as a country. For instance, many Americans are unaware of how unglued things are becoming on the ground there in Iraq.

And it ain't just the choppers ... it's our Iraqi allies getting assassinated, it's soldiers getting so fed up they drive through town shooting up suspected houses, it's a rhetoric that don't match the reality on the ground when Republicans with sense like Collins, Warner, Lugar, Graham, and McCain are becoming increasingly disturbed by a policy that seems doomed to failure.

The center there is not holding. The new deployment schedule is a good idea - beefing up the boots on the ground up to 180k soldiers - but it may be too little too late. A day late and a dollar short. We may have as short as until Thanksgiving or Xmas to get a grip on the situation, or witness it degenerating into a spiral of violence there. The gyre keeps on turning.

"Since when do the Democrats care a whit about the cost of something.''

Since Clinton, my short-term memory impaired friend.

Since when do the Republicans care a whit about the cost of something.

Since the fraud got elected.

Keeping the lid on this type of criticism, scotching sight unseen stuff like the Reagen mini-series (I honor the man as a great personage of history, but he had his faults and has anyone ever heard of something called the 1st Ammendment?), is only going to hurt us as a country

The Reagan movie kerfufle had nothing to do with the First Amendment because it was not pulled in response to government pressure. I am continually amazed at the pig-headed resistance of people to the fact that the First Amendment only restrains the government. When private actors object to someone else's speech, that is the marketplace of ideas at work, not government suppression of speech.

If national security and intelligence become open season for all partisan purposes, Republicans will be quite free to accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic, anti-American and allies of the terrorists who kill Americans in America.

I hope this is sarcasm that I'm missing and that you're not seriously suggesting that this isn't already common practice.

A request on info how much the White House spent on the "Mission Accomplished" banner? Did I read this correctly? If you're reduced to such things you're either desperate or unbelievably petty.

One of Belgium more momentous governments in the 19th century (Frere-Orban's anticlerical cabinet) had a minister (Bara) who specified maximum lengths for candles to be burned in churches and insisted on a detailed accounting of how much money they spent on them. It earned him the nickname "Brother Sexton" ("Broeder koster"). Perhaps I have to start believing in reincarnation ;-)

What exactly is so terrible about this democratic memo? It lays out a strategy to try to get Republicans to actually investigate what went wrong with the use of intelligence before the war (and to go it alone if they will not), rather than scapegoat the CIA. Given that there appears to have been a lot of back-channel info sharing and pressure outside of the normal system, this is essential.

It is the Republicans who have upset the traditional non-partisan investigatory approach of the Intel committee: under the previous chair, serious questions got asked; under this chair, the investigation is muzzled.

And in any case the memo was a draft filtched from the trash or the computer of the Democrats by the Republicans (who now say it's a security issue!). It's being used as an excuse to stop the questions from being asked.

The Republicans are acting like people with something to hide. Any patriot should be concerned about this.

See Discourse.net for a very different view from yours.

Mea culpa, mea maximum culpa.

I totally misread the story.

Indeed, there are only ONE chairmen for each committee. I was confusing Majority and Minority committee leaders with chairmen. As we know, both parties have committee leaders (seniority) but that is different from the chairmen.

Hey, Radish. Nice cheap shot. If I were a left wing Democrat whose party was led by Bill Clinton I wouldn't go around talking about corruption. You know, stones and glass houses.

Hmm, maybe if I donate a thousand to the Clinton Library, he'll pardon me for my mistake above? Is a $1,000 enough? Don't know what the going rate is for buying pardons from the Clintons.

Steve

To perhaps both confuse and clarify this, several committees do have majority AND minority chairmen. On the Sentate Intelligence Committee, for example, Democrat Jay Rockefeller is the Vice Chairman of the Committee.

My initial thought was that some commitees have two chairmen. I believe that the House Appropriations Committee (chairmen Bill Thomas) does NOT have this setup. So, Mr. Marshall was correct in stating that all questions from that committee submitted to the W.H. would go ONLY through him.

So, looks like Mr. Clinton will not be getting that check from me for a pardon.

SMG

SteveMG:

I'll pardon you for just a couple hundred bucks. There's a couple of books I want…

P6:
Hmm, a couple of hundred? Can I committ a few more crimes, first? Wanna' get my monies worth.

Don't know how far $200 goes nowadays in buying pardons. What's the Clinton phone number for his Harlem Office?

SMG

I agree with Michael. What I've seen in the memo just seems to indicate that Democrats should use Administration exaggerations that led the country into war against the Republicans. If this is somehow "off limits" then we are basically giving the executive branch power to mislead at will and not be held accountable for it.

This reaction to the memo coupled with the policy on Congressional inquiries reveals an Administration looking to act without regard of the views of either the public or Congress. It brings to mind a previous Republican Administration that fell apart after a huge reelection victory. If the Bush Administration continues down this path, they are likely to have a scandal plagued ineffective second term . . . if they have a second term at all.

As for the Reagan movie brouhaha, of course it is not a violation of the first amendment; if it was a lawsuit would have already been filed. But when the party in power complains about a movie and the network pulls it, it smells like censorhip and sounds like censorship even if it isn't censorship.

SMG: you have my sympathy, but no retraction. and the cheap shot appears also to have been an accurate assessment.

"No story here folks, move on?" "Hysterical?" "Krugman virus?" "Chairman==Vice-Chairman?" "left-wing Democrat?" "Clinton pardons?" "Harlem office?" ain't no shame in having got fooled once, bro, but you got to chose to say dumb shit out loud.

Does the party of Casper Weinberger and Orlando Bosch really want to mention the Clinton pardons?

Former Belgian, the question was just a backhanded way to get the WH to admit they had spent any money at all on the banner. They would have you believe the sailors stayed up all night (well, they did slow the ship down so it wouldn't dock before the George Bush Flight Suit Prance) sewing it themselves.

SMG, I believe the Intelligence and Ethics Committees have a special structure with party parity, and none of the others.

Andrew:
Okay, what role (if you know it) does Rockefeller have as Vice Chairman? Is that merely a ceremonial title? Or does it carry with it other privileges, rights?

Thanks.

SMG

Radish:
As I noted, I erred in the statement re majority and minority chairmen. I vaguely recalled one or two committes having some sort of "shared" chairs - Senate Intelligence has the title of vice-chairman for Rockefeller. Whether that's just a ceremonial title or whether it carries additional power remains for other to enlighten us on.

I'll certainly stand, bro, by my other comments, most of which were, of course, tongue-in-cheek ones. But even mischievous statements, bro, often have some truth in them. That is why some here seen be so irritated, i.e., the tu quoque response. Bro.

E.g., when Mr. Krugman states that there's a good chance that elections will be canceled in America or he states that there's striking similiarities between American ca. 2003 and totalitarian regimes of Europe in the 1930s, I would think any reasonable person would find such statements examples of hysteria.

Reasonable people, of course, not buffoons. Bro.

SMG

Mr. RC Dean,

The First Ammendment is only a means to an end - a bar toward government doing what shouldn't be doing at all. It is not free market calculations that led to exiling the 'Reagans' to Showtime. The Free Market produces Tabloids, scandals like the Jon-Benet Ramsey case, that girl from Utah who got kidnapped, and the Laci Peterson case.

The fact is that some people only seem to like the free market when it produces stuff that agrees with their values - like Gibson's Passion. If we get to the point where speech or creative depiction is defacto censored because of the disapproval of small factional groups, then the whole point of the First Ammendment is already moot. The Founders didn't want the government to be used as a tool to censor speech. That doesn't mean that they were all that fond of non-governmental censorship either. Or haven't you heard of the 'free marketplace of ideas'? ala John Stuart Mills?

I'm not expert on this, but I believe that the top Dems on the Intel and Ethics committees have the same powers as the Republicans and the committees are 50/50. (I suppose the Republican chairs the meeting.)

Historically, the "ranking member" of the minority party was extended many courtesies. For example, the GAO investigation into Cheney's energy plan was instigated at the request of the ranking member; the law specifically provided that either he or the chairman could make such requests.

In re the "memo," Dee Mento asks why Drezner refers to the outrage of Republicans as "just"?

I can't wait to hear what the answer is.

While the Senate Intelligence Committee has seen less partisanship than other committees, there is simply no truth to the speculation that the Vice Chairman enjoys anything like parity with the Chairman.

In fact, Bob Graham, Rockefeller's predecessor in the role of Vice Chairman, nearly staged a revolt 2 years ago because he felt the Chairman (Shelby) was railroading the Democrats in re staff appointments. And this was in a 50-50 Senate.

Senate and House rules change over time, as do the rules set up by each committee. At the moment the Republicans have virtually total control over what the rules are -- and they haven't been shy about doing exactly what they want to do.

Some of you may recall the recent hearing, chaired by Rockefeller, in which 3 Republican CIA types were called to explain why they keep saying that the Bush White House is a threat to our national security. The hearing was not a committee hearing -- it had to be convened ad hoc -- and the reason is obvious.

I want to expand my comment made at 3:07 a.m. above where I called those who sent the troops to battle "cowards."

I called them cowards because they did not have the integrity to argue for their real purposes in attacking Iraq. They could have argued for a democratic Middle East. They could have argued for cornering the oil supply. They might well have pursuaded the American people to accept either of those as legitimate.

But they chose to insult the American people with brazen deceit and hubris. They subverted checks and balances by offering false witness and manufactured evidence.

Yes, there were political reasons for the deceit and for the haste.

But lying to send troops to battle for political or narrow ideological gain (rather than plainly stating your objectives to those whose children will die in war) is dastardly. Only cowards would choose such a path.

"justly outraged"? -- give me a break.

It is so transparently obvious that the Republicans are just using this rather innocuous memo as an excuse to shut down an investigation into the worst political scandal ever committed in American history.

We have just witnessed the most egregious hoax ever perpetrated upon our democracy in its entire history. The Bush Administration flat out lied about WMD in Iraq for the purpose of ginning up a war. All the Democrats are asking for is a real investigation.

The Republicans disgraced themselves when they lied about the WMD and now they disgrace themselves even more as they reveal that they care more about squelching a necessary investigation than they do about the national security of their own country.

This generation of Republicans will go down in history as the most nihilistic, deluded, irrational, mean-spirited, dishonest, corrupt pack of greedheads in American history.

Today's Republicans are a cancer on our nation.

Perhaps, The Fool, someone will save the Grand Old Party from this madness and mount a primary challenge.

(That someone would need to be fearless and bulletproof -- or have something on a Bush.)

Or perhaps true conservatives will come to their senses, listen to their consciences, and reject this corrupt and malevolent bunch of grifters now occupying the people's house and using the powers of the presidency without the consent of the governed.

I join with others in asking why Daniel thinks it's "just" for the Republicans to be outraged at the memo?

What is outrageous about Democrats identifying Republican obstruction of an enquiry that could well prove embarrassing to a Republican President, and discussing ways and means of getting the information needed anyway. That's not outrageous: it's what's supposed to happen in a bipartisan system.

To quote Kevin Drum: Republicans want to limit the investigation in order to protect the president. Democrats are fighting this because they think the president had a lot to do with the misuse of prewar intelligence. There's nothing wrong with this, and it wouldn't have happened if Republicans had been willing to conduct a fair and thorough investigation in the first place.

After all, if a fair and thorough investigation proves the President had nothing to do with misuse of pre-war intelligence, what harm does this investigation do? And if the President was involved with misuse of pre-war intelligence, isn't that something the US public have a right to know before November 2004?

I repeat: why are you describing Republic outrage as "just"?

It appears that no answer is an answer.

"A request on info how much the White House spent on the "Mission Accomplished" banner? Did I read this correctly? If you're reduced to such things you're either desperate or unbelievably petty. "

Uh, I seem to recall similiar questions from the recent past, on how much a certain president's Air Force One haircut cost the affected airport in diversions, and missed departure and arrival times. (Oh, by the way, It didn't affect airport operations) And while I think that particular congressional request was petty, I would defend a congressman's right to question any administration's actions or expenditures.

My biggest concern for the health of our long term public debate, is this increasing propensity to jettison established political rules for short term political gain, be it questions of congressional oversight, or judicial nominations (both filibustering AND changing the blue slip rules), or redistricting in the middle of a 10 year cycle, and throwing out the rules of the legislature in doing so.

Republicans benefited greatly from those rules over the years to moderate "bad" legislation and hold up appointees that a minority opposed.

Now as the majority, the GOP can certainly do away with these checks in the majorities' governing abilities. I would maintain that it's not in the best interest of our Republic to do so, because the worm will eventually turn, and when it does, it will be bitter indeed. I sincerely hope that Democrats, when given the chance, won't respond in kind, but that's not human nature.

Various posters have questioned the uproar over the memo. I originally posted this to Kevin Drum's site:

The memo summary states:

"Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods." (Emphasis mine)

Note that this isn't put into the form of a thesis or question; Bush's medancity/deception/etc. is asserted as a foregone conclusion. Therefore, this effort appears to be framed by the memo writer(s) themselves as a fishing expedition; the conclusion is foreordained so let's cast our line into the water and hope something, anything bites. Supporting my contention is the conspicuous exclusion from the summary -- well, the entire memo for that matter -- of any call to use the obtained information for any additional purposes like -- oh, I dunno -- enhancing national security by fixing any data collection and interpretation problems by the CIA so that future unnecessary wars may be prevented.

Jesurgislac:

I responded to Kevin's statement with the following post:

"Bottom line: Republicans want to limit the investigation in order to protect the president. Democrats are fighting this because they think the president had a lot to do with the misuse of prewar intelligence."

In a prior post,[note: I'm referring to my post above on THIS thread] I've highlighted a possible Democrative motive (politically motivated fishing expedition) based on the text of the memo. Kevin, please highlight points in the memo that support your conclusions regarding the motives of the various parties.

---------

An investigation that may identify and fix any problems that lead to the generation of faulty intelligence would be welcome, I'm sure, by all but the most partisan individuals. That is not what is being suggested in this memo. Hence the justifiable outrage.

An investigation that may identify and fix any problems that lead to the generation of faulty intelligence would be welcome, I'm sure, by all but the most partisan individuals.

Who are, unfortunately, in the White House and stonewalling the investigation.

That is not what is being suggested in this memo.

Actually, yes, it is. What is also being suggested in this memo is that a full investigation that identifies problems with the generation of faulty intelligence will lead to the Bush administration being a source of such problems. That in itself is fairly certain, and your outrage should justly be expressed against the Bush administration.

What is being suggested in this memo is that the problems caused by the Bush administration interfering in intelligence should be used against the Bush administration, as publicly as possible. It is unreasonable, in a two-party political system, to be outraged at one party resolving to use the mistakes of the other party against them.

What is also being suggested in this memo is that

Hence the justifiable outrage.

Hence the unjustifiable outrage. Republicans, it seems, can dish it out but can't take it.

"An investigation that may identify and fix any problems that lead to the generation of faulty intelligence would be welcome, I'm sure, by all but the most partisan individuals.

"Who are, unfortunately, in the White House and stonewalling the investigation."

Assuming, for purposes of argument, you are correct about stonewalling, that would stem from the partisan nature the investigation would take if the strategy and tactics of this memo were operationalized. Therefore, you still need to refute the conclusion I drew from the summary. Is there some other conclusion that can reasonably be drawn?

"That is not what is being suggested in this memo.

"Actually, yes, it is."

Then point to the relevant text.

What is also being suggested in this memo is that a full investigation that identifies problems with the generation of faulty intelligence will lead to the Bush administration being a source of such problems. That in itself is fairly certain, and your outrage should justly be expressed against the Bush administration.

I should take a particular action based on information whose existence is not even verified but, according to you, most certainly exists? I'll pass.

What is being suggested in this memo is that the problems caused by the Bush administration interfering in intelligence should be used against the Bush administration, as publicly as possible. It is unreasonable, in a two-party political system, to be outraged at one party resolving to use the mistakes of the other party against them.

Actually, it is quite reasonable to be outraged at partisan behavior in very narrow circumstances, one circumstance being where national security and, specifically, Congressional oversight of such is concerned. Partisanship has no place in Congressional oversight of national security matters which is why, for instance, unlike almost any other committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee has equal representation from both parties and the ranking minority member's title is Vice-Chairman.

Now, I have some homework for you. Research Thomas Dewey's response when offered classified intelligence information by George Marshall in 1944 that would have greatly enhanced his prospects in that year's election. Compare and contrast with the behavior advocated in this memo.

"Actually, it is quite reasonable to be outraged at partisan behavior in very narrow circumstances, one circumstance being where national security and, specifically, Congressional oversight of such is concerned. Partisanship has no place in Congressional oversight of national security matters "

Are you seriously saying that it is unreasonable to criticize the party in power for failures that damage national security? I'd say it's unreasonable not to. If anything is outrageous here it's the willingness of Republicans to overlook administration blunders in the name of party loyalty.