Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the Democratic Congress

By Brian Beutler, Media Consortium. Posted December 28, 2007.


A look at a year of trying to gavel the Bush administration into order.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Women's Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Brian Beutler

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

As the year draws to a close, it will be tempting for pundits -- liberal and otherwise -- to despair at the Democrats' inability to wield their new congressional leadership to affect real and swift change in the country. After all, the war in Iraq not only continues, but 2007 was its deadliest year. FISA presents a greater danger to American civil liberties today than it did when the Democrats took their gavels in January. And the radiant vision of Karl Rove being escorted down Pennsylvania Avenue to jail never came to pass.

But there have been successes, too. Many have emerged as part of an aggressive oversight effort, which has dragged a number of scandals out of the shadows and into the cleansing daylight. Democrats in both the House and Senate have led the way in rooting out corrupt leadership at the Department of Justice, in revealing just how shadowy the president's domestic spying program was (and how unpopular it was among members of the federal law enforcement community), and in alerting the country to the damaging and deadly role private military contractors play in war zones.

So as we all take the measure of 2007, here is mine: The good, the bad, and the ugly in a year's worth of congressional oversight.

Quiet as a mouse. There certainly have been gaffes, softballs, and missed opportunities. And the most obvious are found in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security -- the Senate's version of Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee in the House. Unlike Waxman's enthusiastic probing, the Senate chair conducted zero proactive investigations into Bush administration malfeasance. It's chairman? Connecticut's Joseph Lieberman.

Fit for a Prince. Likewise, when Erik Prince, the now-infamous CEO of private military contractor Blackwater, was called to testify before Waxman's committee on Oct. 2, many assumed he'd be slaughtered. Blackwater contractors had recently massacred more than a dozen Iraqis and had been implicated in a host of other atrocities. Waxman even came armed with a long and damning report about the company's misdeeds. But by the end of the hearing, Prince had found his stride. He shifted the focus from Blackwater to structural problems with the war effort in Iraq and refused to disclose how much of his company's billion dollars in federal contracts constituted profit. He closed by graciously thanking the committee for its hospitality. "Glad I could come here and correct some facts," Prince said.

Naming names -- of sources. Over the summer, the House Judiciary Committee created an electronic tip line for whistleblowers in the Justice Department. Do-gooders provided enough personal information to allow the committee to investigate, but were assured the information would be kept in confidence. And it was -- until the committee accidentally sent a list of the whistleblowers' e-mail addresses to every e-mail address that had been entered at the site, including Vice President Dick Cheney's public e-mail: vice_president@whitehouse.gov.

Foresight is 20/20. The blunders weren't confined to investigations. Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer helped Republican Judiciary Committee members endorse the nomination of then-designate Attorney General Michael Mukasey, despite Mukasey's equivocal answers to questions about torture. The full Senate confirmed him by a vote of 53-40 on Nov. 8. Just one month later, the Department of Justice revealed that CIA videotapes of two detainees being interrogated -- and allegedly waterboarded -- had been destroyed, despite widespread objections among members of the government in the know. Given Mukasey's unwillingness to describe waterboarding as torture -- and therefore a crime -- some, including Senator Joe Biden, D-Del., want an independent investigation of the matter. After all, can the Justice Department honestly lead an inquiry into a coverup of something it doesn't even regard as a crime?

But the year started on a better foot for Democrats. Mukasey's nomination was in fact the result of months of congressional tenacity in uncovering the administration's lies and distortions about its firing of U.S. attorneys and its warrantless wiretapping program. Throughout the spring and summer, the House and Senate Judiciary committees uncovered documents and held hearings that shook the Justice Department to its foundation.

Oops, did I say that? The U.S. attorneys scandal erupted almost immediately after the Democrats took over Congress, and, as such, became the focal point of their oversight. In their first weeks in power, Democrats interrogated Justice Department officials and obtained documents at odds with their testimonies. On May 23, under a grant of limited immunity, Justice's former director of public affairs, Monica Goodling, told the House Judiciary Committee that her one-time colleague, then-Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, had misled the Congress about the extent of White House involvement in politically motivated firings of U.S. attorneys.

Poor bedside manner. Just days earlier, on May 15, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey detailed for the Senate Judiciary Committee a 2004 attempt by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to make then-Attorney General John Ashcroft sign off on the National Security Agency's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. Delirious in his hospital bed, Ashcroft refused, referring Gonzales instead to Comey. Comey thought the warrantless domestic snooping illegal and did not approve it. When the White House attempted to go over his head, he and several senior Justice Department officials threatened to resign.

All in the family. Prince's graceful exit from Waxman's October hearing was luckily not the end of the Blackwater saga. A big part of Blackwater's job in Iraq is to protect State Department officers, but former Inspector General Howard "Cookie" Krongard had a peculiar allergy to watchdogging the relationship. On Nov.14, we learned why. Waxman's committee asked Cookie some tough questions -- among them, did he know that his brother, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, was a member of Blackwater's advisory board? Cookie first insisted that his brother had told him otherwise in a conversation six weeks prior.

During a break, he called his brother Buzzy and, he says, learned the hard truth, prompting him to vow before the committee to recuse himself of all Blackwater investigations going forward. The story didn't end there, though. Later that same day, reporter Spencer Ackerman of TPMMedia reached Buzzy by telephone and learned something interesting: Cookie, according to Buzzy, had known of his brother's role at Blackwater for weeks. In the wake of this revelation, Cookie stepped down from his position altogether. Whether he'll face a perjury inquiry remains to be seen.

The AG has no clothes. But perhaps the biggest oversight victory can be found in the dislodging of Gonzalez. On July 24, the brewing Justice Department controversies came to a head when Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and embarrassed himself badly on a number of fronts. In his testimony, Gonzales insisted, among other things, that the warrantless wiretapping program was a matter of little controversy within the Department of Justice -- that all disagreements had involved another, unidentified intelligence operation. But two days later, on July 26, FBI Director Robert Mueller, under questioning by the House Judiciary Committee's Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., admitted to having "serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program." The admission raised two possibilities: Either the wiretapping program had once been much more aggressive than we know or Gonzales had directly perjured himself.

The question may never be answered. The administration has refused to hand over documents outlining the wiretapping program's legal justification and, in September, following in the footsteps of a host of senior Justice officials, Gonzales tendered his resignation -- a capstone on a series of investigations so aggressively obstructed that three current and former administration officials may well be held in contempt by one or both houses of Congress in 2008.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: congress

Brian Beutler is the Washington correspondent for the Media Consortium, a network of progressive media organizations, including AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
No Runs, No Hits, ...No balls,
Posted by: gazooks on Dec 28, 2007 3:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and if American politics was a spectator sport, it wouldn't find it's way to Monday night, ESPN, a playoff or a bowl.

When the capstone for the year of oversight, in this is age of the criminal Executive, is the "sacrifice" of simply the least of the competent liars, 07' must surely rank as a Pro Bowl contender simply on the basis of smell.

Pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic isn't good enough
Posted by: Suzon on Dec 28, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most career politicians are too steeped in their elitist environment to see the big picture: betrayal of the constitution by Democrats and Republicans alike. Such cowardice!

Misuse of public office ought to be a criminal offence, covering negligence as well as other types of wrongdoing.

Where is the federal district attorney (elected, not appointed) to bring prosecutions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Campaign Error
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Dec 28, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political campaigns in this country have deteriorated into contests of who can raise the most money and who can get through the process without offending the media. Put another way, elections are a media event - the media controls all aspects of it. The media will not allow a candidate who lacks enormous funds to direct to the media in purchase of advertising. It will not allow a candidate who shows any sign of ever taking on the media or for that matter any corporate power.

The candidates react rationally, given this control of the media. They avoid saying anything that could offend the corporate powers. In fact they avoid serious issues as much as possible and the media conspires with them by not asking any serious questions. In the end, the winning candidate promises nothing to the voting public and those who are elected then deliver on that promise by doing nothing.

The problem is not just the politicians, it is the corporate media in even greater measure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not enough by a long shot
Posted by: willymack on Dec 28, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to be putting the bushies on the run with constant investigative pressure and the threat of impeachment, if not bringing the regime down altogether. So far, only Kucinich, Conyers, and a few others have displayed the courage to do this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I could just spit blood!
Posted by: Sushi on Dec 28, 2007 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has GOT to be incompetancy by design. For elected officials whose can be toppled by an errant word or being seen in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person or an unflattering photo, how can massive failures at what is supposed to be THEIR JOB be so glossed over? As in, "...move along folks, nothing to see here!" How can the paparazzi, who sift over every frame for the merest glimpse of celulite, miss entire horrorifying issue after issue that threatens the very existence of our country? (as well as their own livelihoods as journalists) I dunt get it.

They force us to seek alternative sources for information while they "report" meaningless gossip column "news." I used to make a game out of how fast I could hit the "off" button on my radio at the first sound of the O in O.J. or the Br in Brittany. (I mostly won that game.)

Fiddling while Rome burns, as people bringing thimbles of water to the fire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

on the dems watch
Posted by: pomes on Dec 28, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More "anti-terrorism" (freedom-killing) legislation
More wiretapping/surveillence powers
More war
More cops
More SWAT
More prisons
More police state
More really cute tv-friendly smart ass comments about how Pelosi is a big mom and Congress is a bunch of bickering children while nothing changes

Thanks democrats. Thanks Alternet, for chewing opinions down into little bite-size pieces and dribbling them into our mouths.

Sometimes I think we need to go back to the tradition of dueling. Political discourse was a lot less infantile when a flagrant remark could win you a lead ball in the gut from your fellow statesman, er, statesperson.

I also find it interesting that in developed countries, a "compassionate, nurturing" female leader is chosen like Maggie Thatcher or Janet Reno to get the ball rolling on the poverty and police state, the massacres, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: on the dems watch Posted by: CatDad
spineless
Posted by: gk13 on Dec 29, 2007 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought the Dems were trying to grovel the Republicans into line. They didn't do jack to 'gavel them' into line.

Also, why does Lieberman still head up a committee?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement