THE PLANK NOVEMBER 19, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
No, this post will have nothing to do with Sarah Palin. It concerns the hearing held this morning by the Senate Homeland Security Committee regarding the terrorist attack carried out by Maj. Nidal Hassan against his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, a hearing called by that Committee's chairman, Joe Lieberman. Given the gravity of this incident and the potential for future such attacks, it makes eminent sense that such a hearing would occur, in order to find out how such clear and visible signals of impending danger were ignored by the Army hierarchy. Apparently the Obama administration does not agree, as it refused requests for witnesses from both the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Attorney General Eric Holder's excuse, as relayed to Lieberman, was that while he would like to cooperate with the Committee's inquiry he does not want to "compromise the criminal investigation," as the New York Times puts it. The White House told House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes not to initiate an investigation, and so far, no other Senate or House committee has commenced with hearings into this vitally important topic.
Lieberman's going solo has frustrated some liberals, who see it as a cynical ploy to undermine the administration. (Here, it's important to note that Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Lieberman's ideological and temperamental opposite and the first Senator to demand that his committee chairmanship be revoked last year, has been insistent in his demands that the White House release information from its own investigation). Last week, TIME's Jay Newton-Small, for instance, characterized Lieberman's hearing as yet another instance of his "Going Rogue," grouping the event in with Lieberman's threat to filibuster the health care bill if it includes a public option, announcement that he would campaign for Republican candidates in 2010, and his intention to use the Committee to investigate some of the President's czars. I can understand how liberals would be frustrated with Lieberman for these things, but only in the mind of a relentless partisan is his holding a hearing on the greatest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 an act of partisanship. It's not "Going Rogue." It's responsible statesmanship.
6 comments
Hmm, perhaps those paranoid liberals wouldn't see Lieberman's call for hearings as a "cynical ploy to undermine the administration" if he hadn't threatened to do any of the other things that you mention in this post? After all, you note that no one thinks that Patrick Leahy is attempting to undermine the administration by asking for the same hearings.
- wildboy
November 19, 2009 at 4:51pm
I can understand how liberals would be frustrated with Lieberman for these things, but only in the mind of a relentless partisan is his holding a hearing on the greatest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 an act of partisanship. Wow . . . that sentence alone provides a good reason why delaying a Congressional investigation into the attacks until the criminal investigation is complete is a good idea. And that's all the "relentless partisans" are asking for: holding off until the criminal investigation is complete before the politicians start grandstanding. You know, so there can't be accusations that an investigation was tainted, or that there was witness coercion, or anything of that sort. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your rant.
- Girlwonder
November 19, 2009 at 4:52pm
It's only been two weeks and military-justice and civilian intelligence and law-enforcement investigations are ongoing. Attempting to open these executive processes to Congressional meddling at this early stage is not statesmanship, it's obstruction of justice. Surely, the Senate can afford to wait a few weeks, or even months, in order not to compromise actual criminal and counterterror operations. Also, Hasan claimed fewer lives than did John Allen Muhammad, whose 2002 terrorist campaign spanned 7 states and DC over a 2-month period. Which by any objective standard would make Fort Hood at best the "second-greatest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11."
- rhubarbs
November 19, 2009 at 5:25pm
Four thousand children will die today because they lack a toilet. Everyone here who gives a shit (i.e, is doing something materially about it), please speak now! [crickets] Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's get back to something really important: Major Nidal Hasan, come on down!!
- williamyard
November 19, 2009 at 5:51pm
Only Jamie really Gets It, Really Cares.
- WandreyCer
November 19, 2009 at 6:42pm
Though unintentional, Senator Lieberman, by identifying Hasan as a terrorist, made the case that we cannot defeat them (the terrorists) with a traditional military response. After all, Hasan was in the military, surrounded by the military, answered to the military, and yet perpetrated this terrorist act against the military. If the terrorists, right in front of the military, cannot be stopped, then what? Turn our military against ourselves?
- raylward
November 19, 2009 at 7:36pm