Paul,
Let's continue this conversation for another moment or two.
I'm arguing that there is more than one good here: the one you focus on is improving the intelligence situation. I agree with that but there is also the goal of an open society (shades of Karl Popper, I don't know how that one popped out of my keyboard). That is, a goal of informing the full membership, in so far as it's possible, of mistakes in great moments and various alternatives to fix them. Public commissions are one of the ways in which that can be done.
I grant you "oppenness" is terribly messy. It is, by its very nature, political, partisan, rancourous, conflictual, you name the adjective here. But the result, say as in the Watergate hearings or in the Iran Contra hearings, is a much better informed electorate.
Naming these two goals does not address the issue which flits around in our conversation of what to do when they are in conflict.
As for the role of leadership in all this, I would not quarrel with the overall argument. What surprises me most about the present leadership is their addiction to secrecy, particularly when it so evidently runs against their short and long term political interests.
Good talking to you. |
