Partisan Oversight?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

"But the Republican majority in the US Congress has rejected calls for a formal investigation, arguing that any such inquiry could harm the intelligence agencies."

This quote is from a BBC News (website) article.

My question, I find it incredibly against the principles of democracy that the majority can prevent investigations into potential crimes/problems within the party.  This would fall into the majority rule, minority right part.  I think it is the right of the minority to have information about whether our government was being completely truthful about their intelligence information.  By rejecting this investigation it reeks of large scale cover up.  It is a disgrace to the whole Republican party that there aren't enough of them stepping up on the side of the public and not their own party and asking for this investigation to go forth.

[jn.loudnotes]

Yes, except that a government investigation by a bureaucracy into another bureaucracy is hardly going to do much for either party.  The FBI and CIA already have jurisdiction spats - adding the one investigating the other (I'm assuming the FBI. . .I can't think of anything else that would work) would just bog down both agencies.

Furthermore, intelligence agencies are by their nature secret - and I don't think there's any group qualified to investigate them except themselves.  Of course, Congress should have necessary information, but to gain it in the form of an open investigation would be divisive.  It makes most people uncomfortable to have such secrecy, but IMO the only way for an intelligence service to work is for it to be able to work relatively unimpeeded.  In terms of gathering information, as opposed to actions based on it - I'm comfortable as long as that information isn't about me  

Basically, I'm trying to say that an investigation would reveal what is apparent enough.  National security would not be jeopardized had Bush given a concrete example of something intelligence supposedly had.  I.e.  - "we have to invade Iraq because they have such and such weapon that we believe they are going to use"

That's enough for the people to build trust on.  No jeopardizing details.  However, the vagaries given as justification for the war were barely outright lies, or anything an investigation would turn up - if the government acted on poor intelligence, it really isn't unacceptable for them not to have mentioned all the details to the public.  The simple fact that they had no details to release is damning enough.

An investigation would just clutter things, when the wrongdoing is likely in the interpretation of the intelligence,  not the collection of it.  I'm willing to accept that the administration had information the public did not, but had it been strong enough to justify the force used, it could have been at least partially released.  Furthermore, I don't think the public has to have that information now.  It's not really an issue of partisanship - that should be common sense.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I'm not so much thinking the CIA needs to be investigated, I haven't heard that their information was suspect.  What I've heard being improper is how the Bush Administration handled it.

There is a ton of information from CIA insiders commenting that most of their information had heavy qualifiers or in fact actually denied something...yet Bush removed qualifiers and ignored the contradicting intelligence and made strong claims that the intelligence just didn't support.  The wrong doing is on the part of the Bush Administration, not the CIA AFAIK and it is the Bush Administration that needs to be investigated much in the way Clinton was for his problems.

And while I understand not being able to get the intelligence for security purposes, I don't tolerate the President deliberately construing information.

[jn.loudnotes]

misconstruing Bondo.

And yes, it'd  be great to have the Oval Office investigated, even indicted and the president removed.  But we know how those things work.  You can kill all the Iraqi civilians you like (5500+ to date http://www.iraqbodycouunt.net) but you'll only lose your job if you commit adultery.

After all, since the 10 Commandments are the highest rule of law in the land, and "murder" doesn't count if you're just telling someone to do it for you - adultery is really the only crime a president has made.

[.::|N| SeRP]

Big words you people are using...

[tasty]

I think the Democrats should pursue this with all of the veracity that the Republicans pursued Clinton's sex life. If you can't beat them, join em I say. It will be perfect for the 2004 elections too.