Investigating Katrina

There is only one right way to perform an investigation of the Katrina disaster: keep the politicians out of it.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Article created by the Center for Defense Information

Both Republicans and Democrats are well into their finger-pointing over the horrors in New Orleans in early September.  The nation’s capital has been awash with proposals to study the disaster and lay blame.  Recent history demonstrates why every model suggested for the investigation is a phony.

Particularly transparent is the “Hurricane Katrina Joint Review Committee” proposed by the Republican congressional leadership, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.  Their effort would include Democrats but only as a minority, thereby preventing Democrats from issuing subpoenas and calling witnesses.  With partisan votes in the House and Senate, the Republicans are imposing their will.

The Democrats want independent investigatory powers, but after hearing House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Calif., shrilly demand numerous Republican resignations in advance of any investigation, does anyone seriously think a Democrat-controlled investigation will be any better? 

Vice President Richard Cheney elegantly described the Republican-controlled charade as bipartisan and bicameral, modeled on the Iran-Contra Investigation he served on as a House Member in the mid-1980s.  That exercise culminated in convictions of officials in the Reagan presidency, i.e. Republicans; so that must be a good model, right?  It probably slipped Cheney’s mind that the Iran-Contra examination was run by Democrats. 

Like the other proposals, the Iran-Contra study had a fatal flaw: it was run by members of Congress.  Either a whitewash or an easily dismissible partisan swipe is the predicable result, depending on who controls the White House and Congress.  Despite a long and distinguished history of competent investigations, today’s Congress is incapable of performing a proficient inquiry under its own control. 

Visit a congressional hearing, especially one on national security, where you’d expect some seriousness.  The hearing will start with long and decorous “opening statements” by the chairman and ranking Democrat.  The more important the hearing, the more likely every member present will insist on giving a speech of equal length, either before the witness testifies or when it is that member’s turn to ask questions. 

Once the witness has testified – his or her statement usually limited to 10 or fewer minutes – the hearing gets to its oversight. The inquisitors are usually limited to about six minutes apiece, and in those cases when a member chooses not to give a speech, questions usually come in one of two forms. 

In the Senate Armed Services Committee, for example, questions will often be about defense spending in the questioner’s home state (pork).  When not about pork, the question is often read directly, or paraphrased, from a staff memo.  Such mouthed inquiries alert the witness that the questioner literally does not know what he or she is talking about and the respondent can get away with vague, if not misleading, answers. It is an opportunity seized all too often.  I have frequently listened to non-answers, waiting for an informed questioner to pounce, citing facts. 

Such exchanges are extremely rare.  Much more often, a congressional questioner will follow up with another scripted question, moving on, robotically, to another subject and a new opportunity for non-oversight.

Given the partisan stakes at issue with Katrina — and the opportunity for more flood, hurricane, tornado, fire and other calamity spending for members’ home states — there is little reason to expect a departure from the familiar pattern of porking, posturing, and studied ignorance. 

That leaves the other type of inquiry:  the non-congressional commission.  President George W. Bush has proposed one, but the Democrats, with reason, sense a whitewash.  More adept is presidential hopeful Sen. Hilary Clinton’s, D-N.Y., suggestion of a 9/11-type commission.  The original 9/11 Commission wowed everybody with its adult behavior. 

But, the 9/11 Commission was run by politicians, a former Republican governor and a retired Democratic congressman — a model to be avoided now.  And, in hindsight, that commission’s stature has shriveled.  We now know it rejected, as inconsistent with its preferred findings, evidence that some of the 9/11 terrorists were known to the Defense Department before the attacks.  More troubling, we also know today the commission’s staff director now serves as a senior adviser to the very same Condoleezza Rice, as secretary of state, that he was investigating when she was White House National Security Adviser.

There is only one right way to perform an investigation of the Katrina disaster:  Eschew the politicians — from both parties.  Find instead people with lesser political motives who also have real expertise.  The last Clinton FEMA director, James Lee Whitt, and the first Bush one, Joseph Albaugh, certainly have their personal political biases, but they both also performed in the job with enough competence to know a real answer from a dodge.  Moreover, give them a professional staff, perhaps career professionals from FEMA’s Inspector General, and bar that staff from ever accepting a political appointment.  Then, perhaps we will have an inquiry we can trust.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate