To Investigate or Not To Investigate . . . Is That the Question?

In my ongoing bewilderment over the utter stupidity and lack of any sense of what is right, I stand today with two perspectives, diametrically opposed, on the role of Congressional oversight of the executive. One, by the neophyte blogger cum journalist Glenn Greenwald, is both earnest and insistent, correct in both substance and detail about the implications of the ongoing Bush scandals and the role of Congressional oversight in revealing the horrid, fetid corruption rampant in the Executive Branch of government. Greenwald's perspective is identical to mine, as is his insight that the oversight being done is only in its early stages; imagine where we shall be in six months, or a year. In today's post at Salon.com (please read the whole thing) he writes in part:

And the fact that Alberto Gonzales and top DOJ officials simply got caught lying the minute that minimal amounts of oversight were exercised -- the minute that their statements were investigated for accuracy rather than blindly assumed to be true -- demonstrates just how pervasive this corruption and deceit has been at the highest levels of the Bush administration. And this has occurred principally as a result of a Republican-led Congress that did not just fail to investigate, but deliberately sought to help the administration conceal wrongdoing so as to politically prop up and protect the President.

In light of how quickly and powerfully evidence of wrongdoing and deceit is spewing forth with minimal amounts of prodding, it is just inconceivable that our Beltway stars -- including alleged journalists -- would be more worried about the unpleasantness and disruption that comes from uncovering corruption and illegality than they are about the corruption and illegality itself. But that is exactly the message they are conveying. (emphasis added)

On the other hand, there is alleged dean of political reporters, David Broder. Broder's been a target here before, so this should come as no surprise; yet, standing opposite the judgment of Glenn Greenwald, one wonders how Broder can continue to cash his paychecks with anything resembling a conscience. The fact that Broder is one of a passel who, like Michael Kinsley (on whom I wrote earlier this week), continue to attempt to prop up this disgraceful Administration and dump on Democrats at every possible opportunity should leave us all wondering about the application of the word "integrity" to anything Broder writes. Today's installment (h/t Eschaton) read in part (I suppose you could read the whole thing if you feel up to it):

There is little here that suggests voters' opinion of Democrats is much higher than it was when they lost Congress in 1994. It seems doubtful that Democrats can help themselves a great deal just by tearing down an already discredited Republican administration with more investigations such as the current attack on the Justice Department and White House over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

At some point, Democrats have to give people something to vote for. People already know what they're against -- the Republicans.

Wisdom, sagacity, insight, a moral sense - Broder or Greenwald?