EFL-- hat tip Instapundit, The Volokh Conspiracy
The relevant history regarding the wall is well known, Gorelick has recused herself from consideration of her own actions and those of the Justice Department while she was there, and her fellow commissioners have spoken up in her defense. This is offered as Gorelick’s wind-up. If it is adopted as the new standard, the commission should stop wasting everyone’s time and money right now. - First, the relevant history of many aspects of the 9/11 investigation is extensively well documented; yet, the commission has insisted on calling witnesses — despite the fact that our nation is at war and many of the witnesses have been taken away from their wartime responsibilities for hours (and sometimes days) to comply with commission requests for information and testimony. To this point, no witness has been permitted to get away with a curt "you don’t need me — you’ve already got enough information."
- Second, Gorelick’s conflict is not so tidy as to be solved by avoiding inquiry into her time in the Justice Department. If that were the case, John Ashcroft could have been a commissioner — and just imagine the howling if someone had proposed that. Gorelick’s conflict, central to the matter of intelligence lapse, goes to the heart of the commission’s investigation. Whenever she asks a question on another subject — even if she does it in good faith — the public is entitled to wonder whether she is trying to shift blame or scrutiny away from herself. The legitimacy of the commission is thus critically undermined.
- Finally, the support of Gorelick’s fellow commissioners is irrelevant. Again, these are the same guys who were screaming for Rice three weeks ago, for no better reason than that Clarke had made allegations Rice was in a position to shed light on. Ashcroft has now made assertions far more central to the salient matter of institutional impediments to information sharing. That those same commissioners are not being consistent, that they are not calling for Gorelick to step down and be sworn as a witness, is inexplicable.
I’m sure they have all bonded; I’m quite certain they admire and respect Gorelick’s powerful mind and exemplary work ethic — they’d be foolish not to. But imagine for a moment that Gorelick had not been appointed to serve on the commission. Is there anyone on the planet who doesn’t think she’d have been subpoenaed to testify after her memorandum came to light during last week’s proceedings? Is there anyone who thinks she could have avoided testifying under such circumstances by writing an op-ed?
And much more |