2008 Woodie Awards
Cabinet confirmations turning to counter-productive partisan bickering
Kujo Stewart
Issue date: 1/26/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
For an avid viewer of C-SPAN, there is an infinite cornucopia of programming choices with which to satiate one's political and/or intellectual appetite. Proverbial favorites include "Booknotes" and that really annoying call-in show where all the retired people in America phone in to complain about politicians, tax cuts, and social security. But no matter whether the program is from Washington, D.C. itself or from some university classroom in America's heartland, C-SPAN always brings the world of American politics into everyday citizens' homes. One of the greatest examples of that is the broadcasting of Senate committee hearings.
Sunday afternoon, as I was sitting down to enjoy a meal with my family in front of the television, we happened upon the Senate Foreign Relations committee hearings from Wednesday, January 19, 2005. This particular committee is one of the most powerful in Washington, but is also one of the most shrouded in mystery. On that fine afternoon, members happened to be questioning Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the current National Security Advisor. President Bush had just nominated her as the new Secretary of State, and she was going through the Senatorial confirmation process. Usually this process is a mundane formality for new or recently re-elected administrations. This hearing, however, was something quite different.
For several hours, the committee asked Dr. Rice a scant few questions about her past accomplishments, education, or qualifications. Nothing unusual there. They asked her a fair number of questions about her plans for the State Department and her means of solving several hypothetical scenarios. Those questions were both well warranted and greatly appreciated. However, the overwhelming majority of all questions posed to Dr. Rice were about her tenure as National Security Advisor and the intelligence she supported as valid and accurate in the administration's justification for war. Over and over, Democratic members of the committee, led by ranking minority member Senator Joe Biden and Senator Barbara Boxer, asked Dr. Rice if she believed her testimony to their committee, as well as the American people, on the issues of 9-11 and Iraq was completely forthcoming and accurate. While these questions may have been relevant in their intent, they seemed almost endless. Furthermore, the same questions were asked again and again, using different words or tact, by one minority member of the committee after another.
Sunday afternoon, as I was sitting down to enjoy a meal with my family in front of the television, we happened upon the Senate Foreign Relations committee hearings from Wednesday, January 19, 2005. This particular committee is one of the most powerful in Washington, but is also one of the most shrouded in mystery. On that fine afternoon, members happened to be questioning Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the current National Security Advisor. President Bush had just nominated her as the new Secretary of State, and she was going through the Senatorial confirmation process. Usually this process is a mundane formality for new or recently re-elected administrations. This hearing, however, was something quite different.
For several hours, the committee asked Dr. Rice a scant few questions about her past accomplishments, education, or qualifications. Nothing unusual there. They asked her a fair number of questions about her plans for the State Department and her means of solving several hypothetical scenarios. Those questions were both well warranted and greatly appreciated. However, the overwhelming majority of all questions posed to Dr. Rice were about her tenure as National Security Advisor and the intelligence she supported as valid and accurate in the administration's justification for war. Over and over, Democratic members of the committee, led by ranking minority member Senator Joe Biden and Senator Barbara Boxer, asked Dr. Rice if she believed her testimony to their committee, as well as the American people, on the issues of 9-11 and Iraq was completely forthcoming and accurate. While these questions may have been relevant in their intent, they seemed almost endless. Furthermore, the same questions were asked again and again, using different words or tact, by one minority member of the committee after another.