Today we had the Senate Armed Services Committee interviewing the two top generals in the Central Command in Washington DC. They were investigating the problems at Abu Ghraib, and talking about Iraq in general. Meanwhile, while our two top commanders for the war in Iraq were answering questions in Washington DC, who was minding the store? Nobody called a time-out in Baghdad......

And then in New York City, the 9/11 commission met this morning with Rudy Guiliani and Mayor Bloomberg about what happened on 9/11. This afternoon, they talked with Tom Ridge. It was during that discussion that something came up that disturbs me somewhat and I thought it might be a good idea to see what y'all thought about it. One of the questions asked to Sec. Ridge concerned the Department's cooperation with Congress. Ridge testified about the number of times he or one of his senior staff had met with Congress in formal testimony and one of the things that came out was that they had already passed 100 times this year alone! A commissioner did the math and calculated that that amounted to 1 out of 3 working days for the senior members of the Dept of Homeland Security were spent testifying to Congress! That is incredible!

Now, I've posted here often about my strong belief in the system and support for Congressional oversight of all kinds of things, and I stand by those statements 100%, but are things getting a little on the ridiculous side here? Actually, a LOT on the ridiculous side. When we are having people charged with doing some very important things spending fully 1/3 of their time testifying before Congress about what they are doing the other 2/3 of the time, that's just flat stupid! I'll pose a question for debate in a moment, but first I have a story for y'all....

Back when I was running an engineering group at Lockheed, I was required by upper management to have a weekly "staff meeting" where all 25 of my engineers would get together and talk about what they were working on. I made those meetings "stand up meetings" meaning there were no chairs in the room, everyone stood the entire meeting. That seemed to make my staff meetings considerably shorter than the other groups' were. My point to doing it this way was that it wasn't important that everyone "share" what they were doing, what problems they were having with everyone else. It was only important that they share that with me as the manager - that was my job. If Scott was having a problem with something, I might suggest he talk with Jeff about it because I knew Jeff was working a similar problem, but there was no need to bother everyone else with it and waste their time. I just hated to waste time talking about what we were doing instead of doing it.

That brings us to the question for discussion.....






Are we overdoing Congressional hearings and detracting people from actually doing what we hired them to do?

I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Are you saying that officials are wasting time testifying at Congressional hearings OR that there are too many investigations going on into possible illegal, improper or questionable acts by the military, government agencies or the Bush Administration?

If it's the latter then congratulations! Now you know how we on the Left felt during the numerous investigations during the Clinton years.

If it's the former, all I can say is that Congressional oversight is often the ONLY way we can find out what is being done in government.

I am saying it's the latter. I agree that Congress has an oversight responsibility and they should exercise it, but it does seem that much of the testimony is redundant. If this is some sort of "payback" for the investigations during the Clinton years, then it is highly irresponsible. It just seems to me that spending 1/3 of the time of senior officials in the Dept of Homeland Security talking about stuff with Congress is excessive.

Thanks for clarifying Aquilla. I take the position that the people who are spending most of the time testifying before Congress are the heads and top bureaucrats of the agencies. I doubt the war in Iraq is hampered in any way if Joint Chief of Staff General Myers or Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are being grilled on Capitol Hill instead of sitting in their offices back at the Pentagon. Its not like Rummy has to personally approve every move made on the battlefield.

There's no chance that there's any "payback" going on for the investigations that occurred during the Clinton Administration (some that were justified and some that were just witch hunts). Remember, you've got Bill Frist in the Senate and Tom De Lay and Denny Hastert in the House and they aren't going to spend a undue amount of time investigating their own guy and his administration. Democrats can scream for investigations, but unless the GOP signs off on them like the 9/11 Commission or the Valerie Plame investigation, it ain't gonna happen.

Finally, holding hearings and inquiries and oversight commissions and committees and sub-committees is part of what Congress is. It's just part of the price of the ticket. That's why all the government offices are located in Washington not far from Capitol Hill.

Aquilla, I see your point to some degree.

The Homeland Security testimonies, for instance. I don't understand, either, why they would need to be in various committees every one day out of three, to get things done. But, you didn't mention - what kind of testimony in front of what commissions? Could be that they are needed for one reason or another, but maybe they could all be grouped together on one day.

Seems like even a once-a-week type thing would certainly suffice, if nothing else. After all, how much could change in government from one Monday to the next?

As for the number of different commissions investigating stuff, what would you have us do?

Abu Ghraib: Yes, the war is still going on. So what? We are trying to find out how far up these problems came from, and these Generals are at the top of the ladder. We're supposed to wait until the end of the war (or their retirement) before we're allowed to ask them about how they are prosecuting it? Isn't that just a tad late?

9/11: Almost over, and hopefully we'll get some ideas of what happened, and how to keep something similar from happening again.

Valerie Plame: Somebody leaked her name to reporters. Considering her position, we need to find out who, so it doesn't happen again.

Bear in mind, Aquilla, that these are about the only "real" investigations going on. All the rest of the "scandal" investigations are being done by the press for the most part. The Environmental Policy, the Energy Policy, the Science Policy, the reasons for going to war with Iraq, etc., are all being conducted through the courts or in the newspapers because of a lack of forthcoming information from the White House into how those policies came to be decided. Those "scandals" are strictly of the administrations own doing, because of their "need for secrecy" in making "public" policy.

I also agree with Nightimer to a degree. I can understand your frustration, but it apparently didn't bother many conservatives over how much of a distraction all of the investigations into the Clinton administration were. Now, all of a sudden, it's just all to much for the White House to deal with, and run the country too. Kind of hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

By the way, just so you know you're not alone, my first management job in hotels required a daily room-rate management meeting with the GM and sales department, that regularly went for 2 to 3 hours. In my current hotel, which I now manage, when I first arrived, they had a similar setup. By the end of the first week, these meetings lasted no longer than about 10 minutes, and are usually conducted standing. Isn't efficiency a great thing?

I think that some perspective on Ridge's job may be in order. The Dept. of Homeland Security is one that strongly affects numerous congressional committees, including those dealing with commerce, banking, immigration, foreign relations, etc. It's not just investigations that require his testimony; just day-to-day interactions with the different congressional committees requires his appearance before them.

It's also the newest toy on the block for the Congress-critters, so they're still trying to figure out how to get their hands on the prize (money) inside.

Perhaps Tom Ridge just needs to appoint a stronger #2 person to handle many of these committee appearances.

I don't know what testimony in front of what committee, the information provided in the hearing was just that the Department senior members had met over 100 times with Congress. But, this question brings up an interesting thought. The Homeland Security Department was basically a massive re-organization of the Executive Branch that brought together specific organizations from other parts of that branch. This was done for the purpose of efficiency and I think it was a good idea. Is it possible that Congress hasn't caught up and each committee within Congress that has a specific part of Homeland Security is demanding an oversight hearing? Maybe that's what happened! Perhaps Congress should create a new committee with specific oversight responsiblity of the Department of Homeland Security? Maybe that's the problem! I'm writing my Congressman! Good question, NiteGuy!



Maybe it would be better to teleconference the hearing? That way our generals don't lose a couple of days in traveling. It would be a little slower due to the satellite lag, but perhaps more efficient? This is the 21st century! We gotta start thinking out of the box on things!



We weren't at war then. Back in those days, I figured the more time Congress spent talking, the less time they were spending figuring out how to take more of my money. But, this is a different time, and these are serious issues. I don't have a problem with Congress being involved, I WANT them involved and the American People need for them to do their jobs. I just want them to be involved in a responsible fashion and that may mean changing some of the ways they operate. We just can't be sitting around holding hearings and entertaining Aquilla on C-Span.




You are a gentleman and a scholar, NiteGuy.

Edited to add a response to amf.....



Committees generally want to hear from the head guy. What I would propose would be to create a new committee in both the House and Senate that had oversight responsibility of the entire Department of Homeland Security. The Executive Branch re-organized, why shouldn't Congress do so as well?

The problem that is systemic of a democratic government is that internal oversight is the only remedy to internal problems; with the exception of an election. Since waiting two years is obviously not a viable option then internal machinations such as what we are seeing are the only viable option. What would you suggest as an alternative? The fact remains that there are SERIOUS problems facing the government right now, and they need to be adressed.

In Canada we do the same thing. There have been more Blue Ribbon comissions than there have Prime Ministers; but the alternative is legislative patchwork and quick-fix populist elections.



I trust I don't need to highlight the irony of this sentiment when it has been remarked countless times on these forums that Clinton didn't take action in various situations. Perhaps he was too busy looking over his shoulder?

Kidding aside, what suggestions do you have for improving the way Congress operates? I have one simple one; remove the power held by the White House and restore it to the Congress. The shift that has ocurred over the last 50 years has crippled the checks-and-balances system to the point that endless oversight is necessary to maintain ANY level of transparency in government.

Congressional hearings occur all the time, even during times of war. Harry Truman became famous when he took corporations to task over failing equipment that would putter out in combat, which led to the deaths of more than a few G.I.s. The hearing process is needed to help flush out "cogs" that are impeding our effort to improve as a nation only at home, but abroad as well. I wouldn't worry about generals being taken away from "minding the store" There is more than one general who is running the store and more than one employee who is busy trying to scurry away the rats. Accountability and tough answers are needed, even in times of war. I suppose that we could become more like a Baathist Iraq by not having so many investigations, but that would just encourage more Baathist like activity in our own nation.

Nice Nebraska. As even pointed out in the hearings today the generals were offered to have satellite feedings to them in Iraq, but all of them were going to be in the area anyways because they were going to be visiting the pentagon for the rest of the week. So the senate armed service committee did not pull them out of Iraq.

As for hearings like several people have stated there is some hearing happening almost everyday of the week whether we see them or not like behind closed door meetings. As for the Dept. of Homeland Security being in several hearings being over board I don't think so at all like Amf pointed out since the dept. covers so many different aspects of our government the different committees need to have hearings for over-sight. For the making a new committee to cover the whole Dept. of Homeland Security it will never happen because there would have to be so much restructuring needed to be done which could not.

If Generals Abizaid and Sanchez were in town anyway, that's fine. I don't have a problem with Congress using that opportunity to invite them to testify. As I have stated in this thread and in others in this forum, I don't have a problem with Congressional oversight at all. I think it is a vital thing for our system. However, what really bothers me is the amount of time that Sec. Ridge and his senior people spend on these Congressional hearings, and I disagree that adding a committee for Homeland Security would be too complicated. It should be one of the easiest things in the world to do. You just create a committee, assign a chairman and ranking member and then pick the committee members. Simplest thing in the world to do. All it takes is an act of Congress..... Departments that formerly fell under the oversight responsibility of other committees are re-assigned to the Committee on Homeland Security and you're all set. I really don't see the problem in doing something like this.

I hear ya Aquilla, it does seem excessive but as others have pointed out it’s only out of necessity and I would consider this part of our checks and balances. I kind of like your idea of the committee but something could get lost in the translation and like the Iraq prison investigation you need to get as high up the ladder as possible. After all the point is to find those responsible.

You should be thankful there isn’t an Independent Council around.

Couldn’t find any information regarding the amount of time during the day that Ridge actually spends testifying, to me a critical point in this argument. But I would venture to say that 1 of the 3 days a week that he spends in front of a commission doesn’t eat up his entire day.

Does he spend 8-10 hours every time he testifies? Probably not, and if he has to work 12+ hours on the days he does testify in order to maintain his work load then he’s like any top professional, only doing his job.

I don't see how these investigations could be considered "payback" for the Clinton years, considering the majority of our government positions are held by Republicans. If this was just a few Democrats making some noise I firmly believe they would have been shut down by now and probably politically embarrassed.

Why is it so hard to believe that there are so many investigations going on because maybe the government is doing things it shouldn't do?

If the American people didn't also believe some of the allegations then this wouldn't even be news anymore, because no one would be listening.

Certainly we are and it is, no doubt, costing us American lives. On NPR this AM an expert related that the ‘prisoner abuse” scandal has been long dead in the Arab media. And he went on to say that he did not believe that this or our occupation in Iraq was creating more recruits for al Qaeda. They get plenty of recruits and, he said, only accept about 15%.

Of course the main reason we are hated has little to do with Iraq and much to do with Israel. But this is not a popular topic in the press. There is no good spin for the Dems in this reality. Perhaps this is why the beheading of an American Jew went so quickly off the front page.

I believe that you have touched upon something important here. If the American public felt that the investigations were sham, or that the politicians were overdoing it, they would react negatively to the investigations. Look at the Clarence Thomas grilling, Ollie North hearing, and the Clinton impeachment. All three were terribly unpopular because most people felt that they were being caried out for political reasons, rather than serious ones. The American people haven't pulled the cord on this one yet, we'll see in due time.

Yes. The point of the 9/11 commission was to reveal all the flaws that led up to the 9/11 attack. Now it's turning into a political gauntlet


Aquilla


The head guy is busy running an agency to protect Americans, specifically dealing with many agencies responsibile for keeping that in line. He shouldn't be running up and down to the Hill to tell Congress something a #2 man can

No, I don't believe we are investigating to death.

There is a reason for all these investigations.

The Bush adminstration is one of the secret government that ever existed. The only way to get information from this adm. is to have a investigation. For example the energy commission. The people in California were gouged concerning energy rates which was brought to them by courtesy of Enron, which helped to determined energy policies in California. I know if I lived in California I would be as mad as hell.

By the way, the Republicans control Congress,executive branch, and the Supreme Court, so there is no way they would be investigating unless it was necessary.

As far as having the top generals or #1 person in charge of a organization spending time on Capitol Hill. Usually most organizations would never skip a heartbeat when the top dog is gone. The work and decisions are made by others.

As a citizen I want an answer to some of the following questions:

1. The energy commision

2. The outing of a CIA operative( a federal crime)

3. Iraqi prisoner abuse.

Last of all, if this adminstration would be more honest and refrain from covering up situtations, there would be less demand for investigations. They have no one to blame except themselves.

We have lots of investigations, but The Administration refuses to answer questions. Some officers may be spending 1/3 of their time testifying, but I bet it would be 1/9 of their time if they would just answer the questions. Obfuscation takes longer then being straight-forward.

The Administration's members often start a non-answer with "That is a complicated question..." or some useless gateway statement. They do this to keep from giving a sound bite. If they said what they meant, the news could run stories about stonewalling.

No Soundbite = No Story

Also, now that everything is being made "top secret" (at huge government expense), investigations are necessary just to keep the government slightly accountable. FOIA was the best law we ever passed: an open government is less likely to betray us.




Nobody objects to the investigations of criminals.

I see the partisan bug has bitten yet another thread. Quite frankly I'm surprised that nobody has suggested yet that keeping people like Tom Ridge busy testifying before Congress keeps him from committing further crimes.....

This isn't a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be. I have stated repeatedly in this thread that I think Congressional oversight is necessary and I support it. The point that I was attempting to raise though is what constitutes legitimate oversight and when does it turn into pure politics and inefficiency. How many times do we need a question asked? Once per Congressman and once per Senator? I did some checking and guess what? There is a House Committee on Homeland Security, although there isn't such a committee in the Senate. Why can't that single house committee handle the oversight of the entire department? I know they aren't calling Tom Ridge up there every three days, heck, they wouldn't have enough time for fund-raising if they did that. If you want oversight, fine, let them handle it. I don't see how having a bunch of other committees demanding Ridge's time does anything other than waste all of our money and time.

Aquilla



I resent your statement that implies no matter how many reasons and facts each AD debater gives for having these investigations, you always come up with the old tired excuse of "partisanship".

I and many others have given you valid reasons for these investigations,but we continue to get the same old reply. Really is there no way I can criticize this adminstration( as I have done other adminstration in the past) and be seriously considered as having a legitimate complaint.

And as for the last part of your comment, that really was a unbiased opinion and I would consider it partisan baiting.

I disagree. People have given valid reasons for Congressional oversight, and that's fine, I agree with that. But, I'm talking about the shear volume of "oversight" that's been happening taking top administration officials away from doing what they are supposed to be doing. The House has a Department of Homeland Security Committee. Why can't they handle the oversight of that Department by themselves as far as the House is concerned? Why do all these other committees need to chime in with their own investigations/hearings?

I did a quick search on the Department of Homeland Security website for the search term "Ridge testimony before Congress" and it returned 351 hits.

Senate Budget Committee
Senate Judiciary Committee
House Judiciary Committee
Senate Committee on Government Affairs
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology
Senate Appropriations Committee
House Select Committee on Homeland Security
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security

That's eight different committees! Tom Ridge is one popular guy, everyone wants to talk to him. Congressional oversight and fact-finding is fine. I just fail to understand why it takes at least 8 different committees to do it.

The Majority controls the rules, and they have been putting hard limits on questioning times, and then letting The Administration officers filibuster. I must say it is obviously partisan to think that they don't need to answer the questions, and that all that matters is that they spend time with congress "chatting".

It is a partisan issue only because the majority has been turning our investigations into a bunch of PR appearances. Also, I don't think that the partisan label truly fits, as it is Republicans Vs. everyone who cares about the governmental balance of power.


Aquilla,
You may remember that Rumsfeld "forgot" the chain of command documents when he appeared before congress, and that isn't stonewalling?
(Many would have wanted to ask questions based off the content of that document.)


In fact, this could be considered denying judicial oversight (unconstitutional). Considering that the Republican majority is cooperating in denying themselves the truth, I doubt the unconstitutional label would stick.

Aquilla, if you will look at the list that you yourself have provided, you will see that there are several distinct areas that the different committees operate in. Appropriations, budget, judiciary, government affairs, and science and technology. Is there a certain overlap between house and senate groups? Perhaps. The best way for you to prove your case would be to examine the groups' individual mandates to see where they conflict, overlap, and differ.

There is not a bit of difference between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to policy and legislation in government.

Can't you people see that all these "investigations" are a ruse. Just like the Warren Commision they are a joke! The 9/11 commssion is not and will not ask the pertinent and important questions, and neither will any investigations done by our government. The shadow government (banks/corporations) that has run this country since Andrew Jackson's time are playing you people for fools. Wake up and read some real history. Read what the actual people in history said and wrote about WHY things in history happened, not some "historians" with an agenda, of who and what history and those in it were all about.

PS That is one of the reasons I don't usually visit these kind of forums. The topics are all so predictable. They talk all around the issues and never talk about the true issues and causes. You people are GIVEN acceptable main stream causes for the problems and like the herd you stay in line with what is the acceptable explinations.

Aquilla,

I agree that investigations seem to be at an all time high, with the exception of the Clinton Administration. Yet, I disagree that this argument has gone partisan. So far there are lots of accusations and unanswered questions which are coming hard to find answers.
These are serious investigations of known problems.

I have posted before , in your same vein, why is Condi Rice especially, and Colin Powell and in emergency Dick Cheney (to Rush of all people!) farmed out to stations constantly to cover tracks by this admin? Who is doing their jobs when they spend hours rehearsing for television spots and making appearences? Isnt Condi Rice THE National Security Advisor? In a time of war and high terrorist threat, shouldnt SHE be attending to national security issues and not on television spewing sound bytes on behalf of the admin? Does she have a real JOB or is she just a government shill to the media? Dont they have 'spokespeople'? Yes , they do.

I have no problem with Congress wanting to know what is going on, and these investigations appear to me to be because the Whitehouse has purposefully kept Congress in the dark, and noone likes their power usurpted, even though the invertibrates they were allowed it to happen. I think they are taking back what they had too easily given up, maybe late in the game, but better late than never.

Its more than interesting that we dont have to deal with a partisanship issue here, because the Congress is Republican controlled, hence, same party is asking answers from their own, but not getting enough cooperation or placation to make it a neat and tidy write off. Imagine that.

It would be partison Aquilla, if, um, it wasn't the republican party in charge HAVING to have these investigations on a continual basis.

I think there are obviously NOT ENOUGH investigations going on- considering the problems with this regime.

I especially don't like the fact that the whole Ken Lay/energy task commision transcripts are being hidden so tightly- I think we need an investigation there for sure!

That is the entire point of this thread, UltimateJoe. I think there is too much over-lap and redundancy in the oversight process and it should be streamlined. That's the reason I've been concentrating on the Department of Homeland Security in this thread. That department was created by taking other agencies from other departments and putting them under a single entity. The purpose behind that was to make the process of homeland security more efficient and I think it was a good thing to do. What I'm wondering though is if Congress didn't keep up and if the various oversight committees that had jurisdiction over the various agencies prior to Homeland Security have maintained that jurisdiction since the creation of the new department. So, Tom Ridge has to testify before this committee because one of his agencies used to be under their jurisdiction and then he has to testify before another committee because another agency used to be under their jurisdiction and so on and so on. I wonder if that's what's happening.

I will answer this question in two parts since it is a two part question.

"Are we overdoing Congressional hearings... "

NO, we're not overdoing Congressional hearings. We are overdoing bogus Congressional hearings. And the American people are far too apathetic, selfish, and self absorbed to know any difference. As Allen Dullis said; "the American people don't read."

"...detracting people from actually doing what we hired them to do?"

NO, because these people don't do the job they were supposed to do and took an oath to do. The oath they took said that they would "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." They broke that oath and became traitors to the United States by giving the executive branch the power to make war without congressional aproval (Constitutional violation) and passing the Patriot and Victory acts. ( MAJOR violations of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.) They have destroyed the very thing they took an oath to defend. If this is the way we can expect them to do their jobs, I think we should keep them in hearings for their entire terms, and apointments.