Posted on 02/02/2004 8:41:47 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
The first rule of testifying before Committees of Congress, which I’ve done on several occasions, is this: Be polite to the Members of Congress. Last week during the testimony of Dr. David Kay, former Chief Weapons Inspector for Iraq, before the Senate Armed Forces Committee, at least four instances cried out for an exception to that rule.
The worst such example arose at the end of the questioning by Senator Mark Dayton, D-Minn. First, he asked Dr. Kay “How many nations have WMD capabilities?” Kay answered that “about fifty countries have such capacities.” Dayton then mused that the United States could not attack fifty countries all at once.
Rather than point out that the United States has no reason to attack nuclear powers such as France, Israel, Pakistan and India for instance, Kay indirectly pointed out the folly of Dayton’s question. Kay said that we “cannot control capability – intention is the key.” And later Kay said that we need to make accurate “judgments about real intentions.”
But the Senator persisted in his course of foolishness. At the end of his allotted time, he went into a rambling discourse that seemed on occasion like a question would break out. It was about Libya, classified as a rogue nation for decades, which has just agreed to abandon its biological, chemical and nuclear programs. In an apparent reference to the difference between Libya and Iraq, Senator Dayton suggested a “contrast [between] the success of that approach without the loss of American lives.”
At the end of his discourse, Senator Dayton said, “My time has expired.” Dr. Kay therefore did not respond to his question. However, the proper answer to his question would have been, “That was a very stupid question, Senator.”
Dr. Kay could have backed up that conclusion by noting that anyone who reads papers knows that Libya had recently reached and paid a billion-dollar settlement with the relatives of the Pan Am flight bombed out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland. He could have noted that Libya, long an “enemy” of the United States, opened its very secret negotiations nine days after the United States attacked Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and that the Libyan negotiations got very serious very quickly after Hussein’s regime collapsed like a house of cards before the swift and thorough attack of American forces.
He could have noted that two decades ago, Libya earned a good living by selling its natural gas in LNG ships (“liquified natural gas”) to the United States, through two ports built for that precise product in Boston and Baltimore. Dr. Kay should have stated for the Senator the obvious point that events in Iraq had self-evidently instructed the Libyan dictator that it is a terrible choice on the international stage to be on the bad side of the United States.
Dr. Kay could have quoted the shortest and perhaps best definition of diplomacy from President Teddy Roosevelt: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
In short, almost the entire discourse by Senator Dayton demonstrated an ignorance of recent history and logical analysis that is breathtaking in its stupidity. But all things considered, it was probably wise for Dr. Kay not to point out that stupidity in plain English, to the Senator.
But that was not the only example.
Before Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, had her turn at bat in the same hearing, Dr. Kay had already explained (both in his prepared testimony and in answer to questions from other Senators) the essential differences between the UN-sponsored inspections and the ones carried out by him and his staff. As Dr. Kay said, “the UN inspections were partially successful.” But he went on to point out that his staff, after the war, got much more information because “the Iraqis who had information were no longer in fear of their lives if they told inspectors the truth about what they knew.”
Senator Clinton demonstrated that she either wasn’t paying attention to the prior information, or didn’t care about it. In her questions, she persisted in suggesting that the “UN inspections might have succeeded, if permitted to do so.” Again, Dr. Kay was polite in his responses. Instead of pointing out that the Senator’s question was “stupid,” he patiently repeated the central point that only after the collapse of Hussein’s regime could Iraqis speak honestly about what they knew, without fear of execution of them or their families.
The third example of congressional stupidity on parade occurred during the questioning by Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich. Senator Levin went on at length about the pre-war failings of American intelligence. Dr. Kay, both then and elsewhere in his testimony, patiently explained that for decades, all the American intelligence agencies had been cut back seriously in their “human” intelligence. We were relying instead on statements by defectors and others outside Iraq, and also on other nations’ intelligence agencies and their conclusions.
Never did Dr. Kay refer to the “Levin Amendment.” This amendment, sponsored by the self-same Senator, forbade American agencies from employing various kinds of “bad guys,” war criminals and the like, as sources. Dr. Kay could have pointed out the obvious point that anyone who merely watches cop shows on TV knows the drill. You catch and “flip” the small fry in any criminal enterprise, in order to expose and nail the ones at the top. It is a process that works in breaking up drug rings, auto theft rings, and corporate swindles, among others. In short, if you want to uncover and stop the development of weapons of mass murder, the best way to do that is to find and “flip” some of the low-level participants in that very scheme.
In short, Senator Levin was complaining about a failure that led directly and inescapably from his own amendment to America’s intelligence laws. Levin’s false sanctimony about US intelligence failures resembled the plea of a son who killed his parents for mercy, on the ground that he was an orphan.
The fourth example of stupid questioning of Dr. Kay by a Senator occurred during the time allotted to Senator Teddy Kennedy, D-Mass. Dr. Kay had previously stated in no uncertain terms that “the intelligence information prior to the war was wrong,” but that to his knowledge, “no intelligence officer was ever pressured to change his analysis.”
Despite this, Senator Kennedy began with a long, pre-prepared statement that repeatedly alleged that “the Administration misled the American people” about the status of WMD in Iraq. Again, Dr. Kay was polite. He did not point out that Senator Kennedy’s questions were dishonest. Instead, he carefully repeated his prior testimony, that the Administration used the intelligence as provided, without change, compelled or otherwise, and that all the intelligence services of other major nations had reached exactly the same mistaken conclusions prior to the war.
While Senator Kennedy said that “no other conclusion could be reached” except that the Administration “misled” the American people, in fact a different conclusion is self-evident. The Senator had walked into the hearing with pre-prepared talking points (or shouting or growling points, for those who have seen the Senator’s recent appearances on the campaign trail with John Kerry). The Senator wasn’t about to let the facts presented in the hearing interfere in any way with the “conclusions” he wanted to draw.
And exactly as the Senator expected, his talking points were excerpted on most of the major news media accounts of the Kay hearing before the Committee. In fact, the cameras for the major news outlets all packed up and left early, all of them before Senator Dayton took the microphone, and most of them even before Senator Clinton had her turn.
That’s a shame. C-SPAN, of course, carried the hearing from gavel to gavel. But only about 0.1% of the American public are, like me, C-SPAN junkies who watch such things gavel to gavel. None of the major media, broadcast or print, carried any discussion of Senator Dayton’s exchanges with Dr. Kay.
I firmly believe that the quality of American politics would vastly improve if world-class instances of congressional stupidity were widely reported. It would require no editorialization. Just put the stupid statement side-by-side with the facts which demonstrate its stupidity. There are ample examples of this. Senator Mark Dayton, D-Minn., just happens to be last week’s poster child for congressional stupidity.
Readers of this who are located in Minnesota are encouraged to send copies of this column to Senator Dayton. Best you send it in printed form. The Senator demonstrates a blissful ignorance of modern facts and developments, and he may not be up to speed on e-mail. Presumably, he can handle the printed word.
And just so the good Senator doesn’t miss the point, “That was a VERY stupid question, Senator.”
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.
- 30 -
BTT
Think of that old Saturday Night Live skit when they used to parody Barbara Walters' daytime feminist chat show "The View." Now picture Star Jones in that skit (not the real Star Jones who is bad enough as it is but the SNL caricature of her) and give her a seat in Congress. Then you've got the real life Rep. Tubbs-Jones.
One would certainly think so if the voting public were rational people.
However, looking at the politically deaf, blind and dumb patrons that put these nincompoops like Kennedy in office, I don't think reporting on the stupid machinations of congress would help a bit.
Don't you mean "How is pre-prepared more 'pared' than prepared"?
If the good Senator would have stopped right there and thought about how a rouge nation with many sanctions came to posses so many prohibited materials and information.
Did they get this material and information from those nations that count themselves among the family of freedom loving nations or did they get this material and information from other rouge nations which had many sanctions impossed?
I would ask the Senator what he thinks prompted Libya to abandon these programs?
Decades of sanctions?
Trade restrictions?
Being labelled a rouge nation?
Or 300,00 US solidier close by and soon to be looking for work?
When I sit down to write my column each week, I have a standing goal. It is to deal with the subject of the week with better accuracy and quality than the lame stream media has done. Fortunately, that is a very easy goal to reach.
I do have a higher goal -- to write a column every now and again that is more than good, one that "sings." Now that one's tough. LOL.
John / Billybob
Please ping the Tar Heel folks for this column. Thanks.
John / Billybob
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a drink today !
Pinging the NC list now...
CD
Two possible explanations:
1. Quite often, congressional testimony is prepared in response to questions submitted to the speaker well in advance of the hearing; and, vice-versa, congressmen prepare questions in response to reports, statements, etc., made by the speaker in advance of the hearing (i.e. Kennedy, Dayton, et al could have actually read David Kay's preliminary report issued last October as background upon which to base intelligent questions, but chose not to. Therefore, the "pre-prepared" questions are those crafted (for base political reasons) prior to having read any background material that would have answered the questions (or told the congressmen how stupid they really were); OR:
2. It was a simple editorial error in an otherwise excellent piece of writing.
Two retorts I would give my eye-teeth to have given the little twit: 1) "Your party's time expired in the Fall of 1945, when it ceased to have any purpose that was in the interest of America;" or 2) "Then why are you still breathing?"
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.
