Congress in Wonderland

If anyone wonders why American poll respondents rank Congress lower even than President George W. Bush in terms of job performance, a review of the past two months in Congress may be enlightening. Much of that time has been devoted to debating, drafting, revising and promoting versions of a non-binding resolution of non-support of the president’s surge policy in Iraq. Think about that for a moment. With a host of serious problems, foreign and domestic, facing the nation, the legislative branch of government lavishes time on a resolution that is essentially meaningless.

Supporters argue, of course, that it is not meaningless but rather an attempt to change national policy regarding the conduct of the Iraq war which they feel empowered to do by the recent congressional elections. The war, going badly, is something that most of them who supported it in 2003 are now sorry ever happened. They wish it would just go away. But it did happen and changing their minds about its justification is not going to change the fact that we are militarily committed.

The troops and their commanders involved in fighting this war authorized by the Congress do not have the luxury of changing their minds about its justification. Neither can their dead comrades. They are already committed to succeed in their mission. Some members of Congress may not fully understand the meaning of commitment. Let me illustrate with a simple example. Take, for instance, the production of bacon and eggs. In this process, one might say that the chickens are involved. The hogs, on the other hand, have made a serious commitment.

So it is in the conduct of war. The politicians are certainly involved but the troops are actually committed. Once they are, we all have a duty to support them with whatever they need to succeed because we committed them. Giving up on their mission and saying that it was all a mistake is not the sort of “support” they have in mind. As my old shipmate, Sen. John Kerry, said, how do you ask the last men left fighting to risk dying for a mistake?

Members of Congress engaged in the crafting of a non-binding resolution of non-support while our troops are engaged in battle are behaving much like chickens. They scratch and cluck over meaningless words in a resolution. They are far from agreement on an alternate strategy that would benefit the nation. They are unified only by a common desire to criticize the president and distance themselves from an unpopular war. Chicken-like characteristics are also evident in attempts by some to seek legislation to rescind the earlier congressional authorization of the war so their earlier support could be expunged from the record, as if it were all simply a bad dream from which they have now awakened, magically in synch with public majority opinion and ready for the 2008 elections. If they really had the courage of their convictions, they could have exercised their real authority and moved to cut funding for the war. But that would entail enormous risk of voter backlash and members of congress are famously risk adverse.

While the outcome of the struggle to save Iraq and salvage the U.S. mission lies in the balance, a half dozen of our distinguished legislators have taken time off from their day jobs to run for president, a full two years before that job is scheduled to become available. What a deal! They now get to spend most of their time campaigning instead of doing the job they were elected to do. They get the opportunity to tell the public what a terrible job the president is doing and how they could do a much better job. Oh, I forgot. That’s what they spend most of their time doing anyway, in spite of the fact that serving in Congress provides little executive experience in running anything other than a committee.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a rare independent voice of courage and integrity from my home state of Connecticut, who understands the meaning of commitment, has urged his colleagues to back off, think about what they are doing and instead of undermining our new troop commander in Iraq, Gen Patraeus, give him a chance. With our troops on the line, this is the very least that Congress and the rest of can do.

Leak of CIA data angers officials Sen. Hatch denies revealing secrets

By John Diamond and Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau

Published September 14, 2001 WASHINGTON -- A senior senator's disclosure of
highly classified information about the U.S. terrorism investigation has
infuriated Bush administration officials and led to a clampdown on how much
the White House will share with lawmakers.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, told reporters hours after terrorists crashed hijacked jetliners
into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that U.S. intelligence had
intercepted a telephone call from a suspect reporting to his handler that
the targets in New York City and near Washington had been hit.

"They have an intercept of some information that includes people associated
with [Osama] bin Laden who acknowledged a couple of targets were hit,"
Hatch told The Associated Press. He made similar comments to ABC News and
said the information had come from officials at the CIA and FBI.

Electronic intercepts represent some of the most sensitive intelligence
possessed by the government. U.S. officials rarely discuss their content
because to do so would reveal to adversaries, including foreign
governments, that American intelligence had penetrated their sensitive
communications.

Hatch's disclosure, with the possibility it would tip off terrorists that
their communications had been compromised, left senior officials of the
administration dumbfounded and angry.

"Well, that helps a lot!" exclaimed one official, who added an expletive
for emphasis, after learning of Hatch's comments.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, without mentioning Hatch's name, said
Wednesday that such public statements risk undermining the investigation
into Tuesday's attacks by terrorists.

"It's important to underline that, when people deal with intelligence
information and make it available to people who are not cleared for that
classified information, the effect is to reduce the chances that the United
States government has to track down and deal with the people who have
perpetrated the attacks on the United States and killed so many Americans,"
Rumsfeld told reporters.

He described "people who ought to know better" who would disclose such
information as being "willing to violate federal criminal statutes and
willing to frustrate our efforts to track down and deal with terrorists."

A Pentagon official said Rumsfeld was concerned by Hatch's comments as well
as others.

In an interview with the Tribune, Hatch testily denied he had disclosed any
classified information.

"I have been here 25 years and I have never violated a classified matter,
and I never will," Hatch said. He said no one with the Bush administration
had contacted him about his comments about the telephone intercept.

Hatch has not been the only lawmaker to emerge from classified briefings
this week and discuss sensitive information.

One side effect of such leaks, said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has been
that the administration's briefings in Room 407 of the Capitol, a secure
facility, have become gradually less informative.

Amid all of the leaking, McCain said, "I can understand then why we go to
these meetings in 407 and I receive much less information than I do from
turning on the television set."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called the briefings "a colossal waste of time."

Copyright © 2001, Chicago Tribune

Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT

FROM THE DESK OF:

*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.