Contrasting Congressioal Oversight to Iraq WMD with US Attorney
It's important to notice the contrast. Congress is reviewing facts and conducting oversight. Decisions don't need to be made instantly.
What's happening now with the US Attorney situation and Walter Reed is what the GOP leadership refused to do on the eve of the Iraq invasion.
America's Republican Party chose to not do what it is required to do. They chose to not gather facts, but decided to support warfare without understanding whether they were justified with their decision.
Regrets of 2007 are meaningless. Congress shows it can do its job if it has the right leadership. The Republican party, left to itself, shows it cannot effectively manage its affairs, much less manage a nation.
The contrasting Congressional approaches to Iraq WMD and the US Attorneys shows the value of debate, consideration, and making timely decisions.
The 110th Congress is appropriately taking time to review the US Attorney situation. There is no demand for a quick resolution. The leadership is openly admitting there are many things they do not know.
The same could not be said of the 109th Congress when ti came to Iraq WMD. Unlike the US Attorney situation, there were artificial time lines and shouts to act based on ignorance.
Congress is taking its time, asking questions, and reviewing the situation with the US Attorneys. This is prudent. It is unfortunate the same kind of oversight did not occur prior to the Iraq invasion. Had the same approach to fact finding, oversight, and governance been exercised, we might have a far different mess to manage.