Rush Holt's Inquiry of Resolution

Common Dreams has a John Dean article explaining and analyzing Representative Holt's recently filed "Resolution of Inquiry" regarding the Valerie Plame case.

In part:

Such resolutions have been around since the founding of the nation, but they are only used by the House of Representatives. Any member of the House can introduce such a resolution. Under House Rules, a resolution of inquiry is addressed to the head of an executive department, including the president, and must be limited to seeking only factual information. It is considered a "privileged" resolution because it cannot be ignored, or easily buried.

After being introduced, the resolution is referred to the House committee with jurisdiction over the matter. The committee must report back to the House after fourteen legislative days. At that time, it is voted on by the full House.

The current resolution relating to the Plame Wilson leak has been referred to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which almost certainly will react unfavorably.

Since Special Counsel Fitzgerald is actively pursuing the investigation before a grand jury, the committee will doubtless say that producing such information may interfere with the criminal investigation. And the full House will agree.

Nevertheless, those who sought the resolution will have made their point -- and made it strongly.

...Forcing Republicans to vote against the resolution is a smart move on his part. After all, the resolution merely asks the executive branch to provide factual information about what is plainly a breach of national security.

Arguably, then, the resolution should be a no brainer for any patriot. Accordingly, voting against it will have negative political repercussions for some House Republicans. It will not be an easy vote to explain, for the information the resolution requests plainly should be provided and, more than this, should be made public.

In a society which demands democracy and accountability that would be true. That is not the society in which we find ourselves today, however. From my reading of the climate these days, it is obvious that Republicans, all the way to their top weasel, do not believe they need to explain anything (with apologies to weasels - but, geez, Webster's calls them "bloodthirsty" carnivores). And the American public is much too slowly objecting.

In the book "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward...asked if Bush ever explained "what he was doing."

"Of course not," he said. "I'm the commander. See, I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."  source

Washington, D.C. - House GOP Leader Tom DeLay stormed out of a Washington, D.C. restaurant recently after being asked not to smoke cigars in a building owned by the federal government, according to today's Washington Post. When informed that smoking is illegal in federal buildings, DeLay replied, "I am the federal government."  article

The possibility (perhaps probability) of allowing guilty parties to avoid prosecution exists no matter what avenue is explored in this case. The grant of immunity for information is always a possibility, and perhaps, as the article explains, particularly in a case where there is a Justice Department investigation infringed upon by an inquiry resolution, as happened in the Iran-Contra case where North and Poindexter couldn't be prosecuted by the DoJ for their obviously illegal dealings after being provided immunity by Congress in exchange for information. At any rate, official criminals on the loose is not all that rare (Nixon, Lay, Bush plural, Perle, to name a few). That's a problem that needs to be fixed in our legal system.

But the more urgent problem is exposing the White House's dirty tricks, and in the Plame case, the extra pressure and publicity provided by Mr. Holt's resolution may provide the fuel to keep this thing in the air and in the news. I'm not a person who cares for revenge, and I'm not a person who cares to see people behind bars or forced to suffer punishment. I'm just very, very interested in having the truth made known. How can you make independent well-founded choices on your own behalf, let alone on behalf of your entire nation, if you don't have the truth? Maybe people won't even make reasonable choices when faced with the truth - that's my suspicion. But at least they need to be given the opportunity. There is no democracy without truth.

And I can't go any further than that without getting into the philosophy of truth (a totally subjective thing), so understand that I am using "truth" there to mean "facts". And, truth be known, I admit that the idea of Double-face, his cronies and puppeteers behind bars isn't an unpleasant one. But, in the end, I just want them stripped of the power they wield. Let them be who they are. Just don't let them have control over the affairs of the nation.

And isn't it funny that John Dean is out writing about ethics and transparency in the White House? I don't know. Just seems a bit ironic.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.