Tuesday, November 01, 2005
I have to commend the Democrats on their brilliant plan to force a committee (that already exists) to review the work of a committee and report back to the Senate. I mean, lets look at what people looked at and tell other people about it, because it will obviously make all the difference in the world. If the same thing just gets looked at by enough committees, things will eventually come out in their favor.
In the article Harry Reid tied the move to the Scooter Libby indictment, which "provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions." Ummm, ok Harry, too bad the indictment was for allegedly lying to the grand jury in the investigation (the left suddenly thinks this is serious, not that it isn't, but given their love of rooting out hypocrisy...) and not any actual "unmasking" of an agent. The Libby indictment isn't not a big deal, but this is clearly an unsubstantial political stunt.
Look, in going to war, our intelligence may have been bad, but so was everyone else's. On the issue of Saddam seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, the subject that Joe Wilson "investigated" on his tea sipping African trip, the fact that Saddam never obtained the yellowcake doesn't mean he never sought it, and British intelligence stands by their finding.
Interestingly Joe Wilson was discredited by the Senate Intelligence Committee's report.
Maybe Senate Republicans should use this as an opportunity to point out (again) that Joe Wilson was a terrible investigator.
Lets have a little sense here, not that this is original, but just a refresher. If "Bush lied" about WMD's to go to war, actually knowing that none existed, he would have known (or if you want to believe that he is an absolute moron, his staff would have known) that we wouldn't be able to find any, and would know that that would be damaging politically. The opposition just cannot stand the notion that mistakes can be made in anything other than bad faith, even when the same mistake was made by those they trust so much (i.e. non-Americans).
What does this have to do with the Federalist Society? Partisan screeds (even when fairly well-written, as is the case here) reflect poorly on the whole Federalist Society, making it harder for them to claim that they’re a principled organization rather than a collection of party-loyalists.
Moreover, does anything you have said mean there shouldn’t be an investigation? Evidence of innocence doesn’t obviate the need for an investigation when there’s also countervailing evidence. I think there’s a principled Federalist argument to be made in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive generally, what with checks and balances being likely to ensure the individual liberty that is the rallying cry of the Federalist Society. Unless, of course, the Federalist Society’s principles change when a particular party holds the Whitehouse.
[I do realize it’s possible to make an outcome-based argument for generally cutting the Bush administration slack, but that’s not the tact you’ve chosen.]
What does this have to do with the Federalist Society? Not much, probably, but then again, if we were only to discuss the society and its immediate interests, well now that would be far too boring. I just wanted to make some observations on an important news story of the day.Post a Comment
The dictionary defines screed as a long, monotonous speech or piece of writing. I am sorry that I bored you, but thanks for calling it well written. I agree that there should be Congressional oversight, and I believe I pointed out that the investigation that the Democrats (and you) called for is and was already underway, which in my opinion tends to show the closing of the Senate for what it was, a partisan temper-tantrum with almost no substance. I am sorry if I sounded like a party loyalist, but I cannot help it if sometimes the party (that is pretty much the only home for conservatives in government) is right, but again, that is just MY opinion, as the disclaimer on the blog says "The opinions expressed on this blog are solely those of each individual author and are not approved, endorsed, or denied by the National or University of Minnesota Federalist Society."