Letters to the Editor

• Are there words to describe a Congress rendering itself irrelevant?

  [Read the article: David Broder: Embodiment of Beltway values]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I just listened to Thursday's Senate Democratic press conference regarding the SSCI Phase II Report about the rhetorical road to war vs. the underlying intelligence. Jay Rockefeller, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Ron Wyden were present.

  I've transcribed below three manifestly unbelievable (to me) excerpts (one of which was repeated on the Senate floor the same day) that I find simply unforgivable and horrifying coming from any Member of Congress, to say nothing of members of the SSCommitteeOnIntelligence.

  As far as I'm concerned, these statements by Senators Rockefeller and Whitehouse demonstrate a conscious effort and intent to declare the power to make the fateful decision to take our nation to war, or not, to be the sole province (save some sort of apparently pro forma concurrence from Congress) of the Executive Branch, in direct contravention of the plain language and meaning of our Constitution and the clear intent, borne of painful experience, of our Founders to vest that decision in the representatives of the people in their Congress, alone (absent, obviously, sudden emergency, which the unprovoked invasion of Iraq most certainly was not).

  http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/41756.pdf

  The first offender was Sheldon Whitehouse, in his opening statement [in which he infers he's simply repeating Rockefeller, though Rockefeller had not (yet) gone so far], as he denounced deception on such a solemn matter as going to war:

  "And as Chairman Rockefeller said so eloquently, there is no more serious decision a leader can make than to take its country to war, and to do it with less than the whole and unvarnished truth is a sad step away from what the public has a right to expect of their president and their administration." - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, 6/5/08

  Demonstrating that he wasn't misspeaking, this is how Senator Whitehouse said it on the Senate floor the same day:

  "Mr. President, the decision to take a nation to war, as Chairman Rockefeller indicated, is among the gravest and most momentous that a leader can make." - Sheldon Whitehouse, 6/5/08

  http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/05/whitehouse-bushs-lies-rot-the-very-fiber-of-democracy/

  Then Jay Rockefeller, responding to a 'rehashing history' question, did go that far:

  "If the people who actually make the decision to go to war, or not go to war, will not be guided by, or pay attention to, the intelligence which is available to them uniquely, uniquely - which is not available to the Congress or to the American people - um, then this is a particularly important exercise, and it becomes even more important that it be completed and that the lesson be learned." - Senator Jay Rockefeller, 6/5/08

  Finally, adding insult to the injury of this gross misrepresentation of our system of government, in response to the last question John D. Rockefeller IV said this (after having just finished the previous answer by explaining what a fraud the "really big deal" Niger uranium claim had been, as widely peddled by the administration):

  Reporter: "Would you endorse or support criminal investigation or possible prosecution...?"

  .

  Rockefeller: "Oh, no, I'm not into that."

  Reporter: "How come?" "Why not?"

  Rockefeller: "One, because you'd love it so much. Secondly, because it would mean that nothing else - whether it's clean air or, or, whatever, FISA - nothing else would get done. In other words, if you, if you press for that, it's like pressing for impeachment. It's a grand act with only, you know, five or six months to go, but it's a futile act and it's a wrong act because we do have business to do, and um, you know. Should it be done in the wide sweep of history? Yes. Should it be done by us now? No."

  rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq060508_dems.rm

  To his credit, Ron Wyden jumped in here before they left the room to reiterate that he, at least, was not ruling out criminal prosecution (of Rumsfeld) following "further review" - which Wyden wants to see the Senate Armed Services Committee conduct.

  But the lingering effect of Rockefeller's closing, categorical foreclosure of any actual accountability for the lies that led to war, that his own committee had just documented, is stunning, appalling and completely at odds with the supposed purpose of the issuing of this report in the first place.

  What was the media supposed to take away from that press conference? That voluntary compliance with the rule of law is the standard in Washington, at least if you're someone who travels in the same circles as Jay Rockefeller...? And oh, yes, "the leader" decides matters of war and peace for our nation (just ignore that inconvenient Constitutional framework...).

  This is an area - the power to declare and end war, under the separation of powers implemented by the Constitution - of immense import to our nation, especially in light of the failure of Congress to end our occupation of Iraq, and Sheldon Whitehouse, in particular, ought to be aware of and sensitive to the import of the phrasing he uses to describe that power. Yet, here, both he and Rockefeller, in an important press conference, inexplicably but distinctly describe that power as one belonging solely to the Executive Branch of government.

  Poor Lou Fisher. Talk about having your words fall on deaf ears, even when you've spoken them about this very issue while sharing a dias with Sheldon Whitehouse within the last month...

  http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/Events/Event.aspx?linkback=homepage&id=100072

  This obviously isn't just mere ignorance on the part of Whitehouse and Rockefeller. It is, instead, a stunning and egregious demonstration of a profound problem - the very one that led us into Iraq and has kept us there - inside the United States Senate and House of Representatives. A problem of Constitutional interpretation, or rather, Constitutional abandonment and disdain, in deference to an exaggerated, dangerous role for the presidency. A profound problem with which patriots - no matter their political party, if any - absolutely must grapple in order to restore the protections of Constitutional order to our nation.

  Permalink Sunday, June 8, 2008 03:14 PM