| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Election and Investigatory Powers of Congress | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 8 2006, 12:07 PM (487 Views) | |
| maple | Nov 8 2006, 12:07 PM Post #1 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Stratfor: Geopolitical Intelligence Report - October 31, 2006 The Election and Investigatory Powers of Congress By George Friedman There is now only a week to go before midterm congressional elections in the United States. The legislative outcome is already fairly clear. President George W. Bush lost the ability to drive legislation through Congress when he had to back away from his Social Security proposals. That situation will continue: The president will not be able to generate legislation without building coalitions. On the other hand, Congress will not be able to override his vetoes. That means that, regardless of whether the Democrats take the House of Representatives (as appears likely) or the Senate (which appears less likely but still possible), the basic architecture of the American legislative process will remain intact. Democrats will not gain much power to legislate; Republicans will not lose much. If the Democrats take control of the House from the Republicans, the most important change will not be that Nancy Pelosi becomes House Speaker, but that the leadership of House committees will shift -- and even more significant, that there will be upheaval of committee staffs. Republicans will shift to minority staff positions -- and have to let go of a lot of staffers -- while the Democrats will get to hire a lot of new ones. These staffers serve two functions. The first is preparing legislation, the second is managing investigations. Given the likelihood of political gridlock, there will be precious little opportunity for legislation to be signed into law during the next two years -- but there likely will be ample opportunity and motivation for congressional investigations. Should the Democrats use this power to their advantage, there will be long-term implications for both the next presidential election and foreign policy options in the interim. One of the most important things that the Republicans achieved, with their control of both the House and Senate, was to establish control over the type and scope of investigations that were permitted. Now, even if control of only the House should change hands, the Democrats will be making those decisions. And, where the GOP's goal was to shut down congressional investigations, the Democrat Party's goal will be to open them up and use them to shape the political landscape ahead of the 2008 presidential election. It is important to define what we mean by "investigation." On the surface, congressional investigations are opportunities for staffers from the majority party to wield subpoena power in efforts to embarrass their bosses' opponents. The investigations also provide opportunities for members of Congress and senators to make extensive speeches that witnesses have to sit and listen to when they are called to testify -- a very weird process, if you have ever seen it. Congressional investigations are not about coming to the truth of a matter in order for the laws of the republic to be improved for the common good. They are designed to extract political benefit and put opponents in the wrong. (Republicans and Democrats alike use the congressional investigative function to that end, so neither has the right to be indignant.) For years, however, Democrats have been in no position to unilaterally call hearings and turn their staffs and subpoena powers loose on a topic -- which means they have been precluded from controlling the news cycle. The media focus intensely on major congressional hearings. For television networks, they provide vivid moments of confrontation; and the reams of testimony, leaked or official, give the print media an enormous opportunity to look for embarrassing moments that appear to reveal something newsworthy. In the course of these hearings, there might even be opportunities for witnesses to fall into acts of perjury -- or truth-telling -- that can lead to indictments and trials. To reverse their position, the Democrats need not capture both the House and Senate next week. In fact, from the party's standpoint, that might not even be desirable. The Senate and House historically have gotten in each other's way in the hearing process. Moreover, there are a lot of Democratic senators considering a run for the presidency, but not many members of Congress with those ambitions. Senators who get caught up in congressional hearings can wind up being embarrassed themselves -- and with the competing goals of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and some of the other candidates, things could wind up a mess. But if the House alone goes to Democrats, Pelosi would be positioned to orchestrate a series of hearings from multiple committees and effectively control the news cycles. Within three months of the new House being sworn in, the political landscape could be dominated by hearings -- each week bringing new images of witnesses being skewered or news of embarrassing files being released. Against this backdrop, a new generation of Democratic congressmen would be making their debuts on the news networks, both while sitting on panels, and on the news channels afterward. Politically, this would have two implications. First, the ability of the White House to control and direct public attention would decline dramatically. Not only would the White House not be able to shut down unwanted debate, but it would lack the ability even to take part in setting the agenda. Each week's subject would be chosen by the House Democratic leadership. Second, there will be a presidential election in two years that the Democrats want to win. Therefore, they would use congressional hearings to shape public opinion along the lines their party wants. The goal would be not only to embarrass the administration, but also to showcase Democratic strengths. The Senate can decide to hold its own hearings, of course, and likely would if left in Republican hands. The problem is that, at the end of the day, the most interesting investigations would involve the Bush administration and corporations that can be linked to it. A GOP-controlled Senate could call useful hearings, but they would be overwhelmed by the Democratic fireworks. They just would not matter as much. So let's consider, from a foreign policy standpoint, what would be likely matters for investigation: What did the Bush administration really know about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did Bush dismiss advice from the CIA on Iraq? Did the administration ignore warnings about al Qaeda attacks prior to 9/11? These, of course, would be the mothers of all investigations. Everything would be dragged out and pored over. The fact that there have been bipartisan examinations by the 9/11 commission would not matter: The new hearings would be framed as an inquiry into whether the 9/11 commission's recommendations were implemented -- and that would open the door to re-examine all the other issues. Following close on these would be investigations into: Whether the Department of Homeland Security is effective. Whether the new structure of the intelligence community works. Whether Halliburton received contracts unfairly -- a line of inquiry that could touch Vice President Dick Cheney. Whether private contractors like Blackwater are doing appropriate jobs in Iraq. Whether the Geneva Conventions should apply in cases of terrorist detentions. Whether China is violating international trade agreement. And so on. Every scab would be opened -- as is the right of Congress, the tendency of the nation in unpopular wars, and likely an inevitable consequence of these midterm elections. We can expect the charges raised at these hearings to be serious, and to come from two groups. The first will be Democratic critics of the administration. These will be unimportant: Such critics, along with people like former White House security adviser Richard Clarke, already have said everything they have to say. But the second group will include another class -- former members of the administration, the military and the CIA who have, since the invasion of Iraq, broken with the administration. They have occasionally raised their voices -- as, for instance, in Bob Woodward's recent book -- but the new congressional hearings would provide a platform for systematic criticism of the administration. And many of these critics seem bruised and bitter enough to avail themselves of it. This intersects with internal Republican politics. At this point, the Republicans are divided into two camps. There are those who align with the Bush position: that the war in Iraq made sense and that, despite mistakes, it has been prosecuted fairly well on the whole. And there are those, coalesced around Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Warner, who argue that, though the rationale for the war very well might have made sense, its prosecution by Donald Rumsfeld has led to disaster. The lines might be evenly drawn, but for the strong suspicion that Sen. John McCain is in the latter camp. McCain clearly intends to run for president and, though he publicly shows support for Bush, there is every evidence that McCain has never forgiven him for the treatment he received in the primaries of 2000. McCain is not going to attack the president, nor does he really oppose the war in Iraq, but he has shown signs that he feels that the war has not been well prosecuted. This view, shared publicly by recently retired military commanders who served in Iraq, holds out Rumsfeld as the villain. It is not something that McCain is going to lead the charge on, but in taking down Rumsfeld, McCain would be positioned to say that he supported the war and the president -- but not his secretary of defense, who was responsible for overseeing the prosecution of the war. From McCain's point of view, little would be more perfect than an investigation into the war by a Democrat-controlled House during which former military and Defense Department officials pounded the daylights out of Rumsfeld. This would put whole-hearted Republican supporters of the president in a tough position and give McCain -- who, as a senator, would not have to participate in the hearings -- space to defend Bush's decision but not his tactics. The hearings also would allow him to challenge Democratic front-runners (Clinton and Obama) on their credentials for waging a war. They could be maneuvered into either going too far and taking a pure anti-war stance, or into trying to craft a defense policy at which McCain could strike. To put it another way, aggressively investigating an issue like the war could wind up blowing up in the Democrats' faces, but that is so distant and subtle a possibility that we won't worry about it happening -- nor will they. What does seem certain, however, is this: The American interest in foreign policy is about to take an investigatory turn, as in the waning days of the Vietnam War. Various congressional hearings, like those of the Church Committee, so riveted the United States in the 1970s and so tied down the policymaking bureaucracy that crafting foreign policy became almost impossible. George W. Bush is a lame duck in the worst sense of the term. Not only are there no more elections he can influence, but he is heading into his last two years in office with terrible poll ratings. And he is likely to lose control of the House of Representatives -- a loss that will generate endless hearings and investigations on foreign policy, placing Bush and his staff on the defensive for two years. Making foreign policy in this environment will be impossible. Following the elections, five or six months will elapse before the House Democrats get organized and have staff in place. After that, the avalanche will fall in on Bush, and 2008 presidential politics will converge with congressional investigations to overwhelm his ability to manage foreign policy. That means the president has less than half a year to get his house in order if he hopes to control the situation, or at least to manage his response. Meanwhile, the international window of opportunity for U.S. enemies will open wider and wider. © 2006 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved. |
![]() |
|
| apple | Nov 8 2006, 12:37 PM Post #2 |
|
one of the angels
|
well worth the time to read |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Nov 8 2006, 12:49 PM Post #3 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well, now Rumsfeld's resignation makes sense. I can't wait to see if the Dems are shrewd or if they bring on the "avalanche" of committee hearings. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Nov 8 2006, 01:45 PM Post #4 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Yes, Rumdsfeld's resignation denies the Democrat's use of him as a punching bag. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Nov 8 2006, 01:58 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
We're about to repeat history. At the worst possible moment strategically, America has set the stage for another defeat. I have a question for the cut and run democrats - we cut and run from Vietnam just at the point of winning, and millions were killed because of it. We cut and run just at the point of winning in the first gulf war, and millions were killed because of it. Now we'll be doing it all over again, and millions will die because of it. You can count on it. My question: Once we follow through on your party's idiotic "plan", tell me why *any* country on the face of the earth should ever trust us again? When the muslims begin to overpower them and they turn to others for help - why should they call us? Who will they call? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Nov 8 2006, 02:01 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Larry: Calm down. The Democrats took over both houses of Congress only early this morning. They aren't even in office yet. What makes you think you know what they will do? They don't even know that yet. |
| |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | Nov 8 2006, 02:03 PM Post #7 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Larry, you wanna 'splain to me just how the Dems are to blame for cutting and running in the 91 Gulf War? |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Nov 8 2006, 02:12 PM Post #8 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Larry, remind me again which Democratic Presidents "cut and run" from Vietnam and the Gulf war?? You know, we brain dead liberals can't remember anything for more than 3 days. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Nov 8 2006, 02:13 PM Post #9 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I am sure he predicted it a month ago in that mystery thread nobody can find. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Nov 8 2006, 02:19 PM Post #10 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
As long as the people killed are Iraqis and other Moslems--what's the problem? Let them decide their own fate. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Nov 8 2006, 02:20 PM Post #11 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hey Larry, get your gun. There's a muslim behind you right now. He's looking in your window. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Nov 8 2006, 02:29 PM Post #12 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Not really. They can still subpoena him. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Nov 8 2006, 02:32 PM Post #13 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
But there is a point worth noting here.. if we don't show solidarity as a nation against radical Islam, we set ourselves and the Middle East for a lot more violence. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| apple | Nov 8 2006, 02:46 PM Post #14 |
|
one of the angels
|
i don't know Larry - i think the Dems will wage war handily without themselves restricting progress every step of the way.. They will never be considered worthy of any following if they don't. i think they know that. |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| Nobody's Sock | Nov 8 2006, 02:47 PM Post #15 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Count me as one of those who never adhered to leaving until we clean up ourmess. It's only good manners. But I'm begginning to wonder if our mop is capable of cleaning up this ever growing pool of blood. I'm with Tom now. Let em be. It ain't our fight. Terror and hate only grows while we're there. The Bush notion that fighting them there stops them from fighting us here is silly. No we didn't learn our lesson from Nam. Nevershould havewent there inthe first place either. |
| "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." | |
![]() |
|
| OperaTenor | Nov 8 2006, 02:50 PM Post #16 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
NS is correct. Time only exacerbates the problem. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Nov 8 2006, 02:50 PM Post #17 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Hmmm. Thought something in that article or elsewhere I read said that he won't have to "cooperate". Not sure what that would look like if true or what kind of powers the hearing committee would have over him. |
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Nov 8 2006, 04:51 PM Post #18 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Agreed. I would add that I predict the Democrats will use their subpeona power more judiciously than have the Republicans since 1994. In fact, I will go WAY out on a limb and predict there will be no investigations of Presidential blow jobs. The shadey financial dealings of W in his past -- the savings and loan debacle -- the "profits" in oil leases while everyone else was losing money -- well, I guess by the standards set by the Republicans, all that would be fair game. I don't think that will happen. Maybe a few timely and relevant investigations...say...how did we get into this Iraq mess? Oh, I can hear the outcry!!! jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Nov 8 2006, 04:53 PM Post #19 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
And they will not be shackled by the blind stupidity and arrogance of Rumsfeld and the neocons. This election is THE turning point in this war. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Nov 8 2006, 04:54 PM Post #20 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
You ignore a subpoena from Congress, you go to jail. Period. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Nov 8 2006, 04:55 PM Post #21 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
"And they will not be shackled by the blind stupidity and arrogance of Rumsfeld and the neocons. This election is THE turning point in this war. - jf " And that will translate to what effect on the Commander In Chief? Now that you have the opportuiunity to push the Democratic agenda, just exactly what is it regarding Iraq? |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Jack Frost | Nov 8 2006, 05:00 PM Post #22 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
To be honest, I have not a clue. I DO know that the idiots who got us into this mess are not capable of getting us out. I have a lot of hope and faith in the Baker commission to look at the situation realistically--as it is today and not how the stupid neocons thought it would be--and come up with some practical recomendations. I am NOT a knee-jerk cut and run liberal, despite what Larry says. Getting Rumsfeld out is a HUGE first and positive step towards embracing change and a real solution, messy and unsatisfactory as it will be. I am not so arrogant as to think I know the answer. But I DO know stupidity when I see it. jf |
| |
![]() |
|
| apple | Nov 8 2006, 05:05 PM Post #23 |
|
one of the angels
|
do you think Katrina was George Bush's fault jf? not the storm itself of course. Can you show that the Bush's response was inferior to what another president would have done? |
| it behooves me to behold | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Nov 8 2006, 05:37 PM Post #24 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Not quite. Cheney has said he'd ignore a subpoena, on the theory that he is part of a co-equal branch of government. It's yet to be seen what would happen if a sitting Vice President ignored a subpoena. I'm thinking that this SCOTUS would not allow him to be held in contempt. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Nov 8 2006, 06:18 PM Post #25 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
Yes. He put a crony, who was unprepared for the job, in a position of leadership. That's about as negligent as it gets. If he couldn't find an appropriate Republican for the job, Bush should have found a Democrat or a Socialist or whoever could do the job. Instead, we got "heckuva job Brownie". |
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2











4:33 PM Jul 10