Political Stars

Almost four years after President Bush ordered troops into Iraq, there is serious talk of Congress holding robust, aggressive investigations of the Bush administration's handling of the war with Iraq.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) wants to hold extensive hearings demanding accountability on the Iraqi War beginning January 17. Since more than half of the House Democrats voted against the war, Murtha is likely to get a lot of support. Some in the Senate, who voted for the war and now regret it, are also championing a full investigation of Bush's war conduct.

We might not be listening to fresh news reports that the death toll for American soldiers topped 3,000 if the Democrats had dominated just one of the Houses. But that's the way our system works. More and more history is decided by how the political stars happen to align rather than the constitutional system of checks and balance actually working.

Bill Clinton wasn't as fortunate with the way the political dice rolled. Imagine how history might have been altered if the Democrats instead of the Republicans had controlled Congress when the president misbehaved in the Oval Office in 1995-1996 with his young intern Monica Lewinsky and then lied to his wife and the rest of the country. There would have been no impeachment hearings in the House in 1998.

George W. Bush had the good fortune of scoring a political trifecta with Republicans dominating the House, the Senate and the White House since 2000. That combined with Bush constantly claiming a national security defense has eroded any system of checks and balance. For the last six years, the executive branch has run roughshod over the legislative branch, totally eclipsing its power to force the president to be accountable.

What a difference it might have made if the Democrats had been in control of the House or Senate in 2002 when the first hints of war were heard. Or if the Democrats had dominated either house in 2004.

Not that the Democrats can be counted on to do the right thing, but with Republicans running the show, there was no chance of Congress investigating the Bush presidency the way Congress examined the Nixon presidency 34 years ago. The point is that if the House, the Senate and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are dominated by either party, the American public loses.

People often forget that it was precisely the balance of power in Washington in 1973 that led directly to Republican Richard M. Nixon's downfall. After the November 1972 elections, Democrats dominated the Senate 56 to 42 (with two independents.) In the House, the split was 242-192 in favor of the Democrats.

What that meant was that Nixon, although winning re-election in a landslide (only Massachusetts went against him), could not be the imperial president he so wanted to be. In February 1973, seven months after five burglars broke into the Democratic national headquarters at the Watergate, the Senate formed the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities with Sen. Sam Ervin (D-NC) as chairman.

Lots of credit for Nixon's resignation, in fact too much, often goes to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein for the role their Washington Post stories played in exposing corruption inside the Nixon White House. The stories were valuable but there's only so much the press can do. It can't convene a grand jury. It can't subpoena people. It can't take depositions or hold hearings with sworn testimony. Woodward and Bernstein's role has been forever favorably exaggerated by the enduring 1976 film made about them, All the President's Men.

It was the Senate Watergate Committee that made the real difference. It was during the summer months of 1973 that former Nixon aide Alexander Butterfield told the world the one secret Nixon most wanted kept quiet: that in 1971 he had ordered a clandestine taping system installed inside the Oval Office. Only a handful knew, including H.R. Haldeman, and he and Nixon weren't about to tell.

It was Butterfield's revelation on July 16, 1973 that changed the course of history. Nixon would never have been forced to resign (and Ford become president only to pardon him a month later) if the existence of the taping system had stayed secret.

If either the House or the Senate really does investigate Bush's handling of the war, will there be a Butterfield? Who will it be? And will it matter to the parents, spouses, siblings and children of the 3,000 men and women who are no longer among us?