Democrats plan hearings that focus on hiring in Iraq

Friday, Sept. 22, 2006 | 7:30 a.m.

WASHINGTON - After failing to persuade the Republican-led Congress to investigate problems with the war in Iraq, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats have arrived at an unorthodox strategy: They will hold their own hearings around the country.

Democrats have been calling for great congressional oversight of the war for many months, but their push intensified this week after reading a story in the Washington Post on Sunday. The newspaper reported that the Pentagon screened candidates who applied for work rebuilding Iraq by asking them about their loyalty to Republicans and the party's ideals, even to the point of asking their views on Roe v. Wade.

"This cries out for attention," Reid told reporters this week. "We've asked. We've asked. They refuse to hold hearings."

Republican Senate leaders scoffed that the move was a political ploy. House leadership called it "hollow and absurd."

So Reid announced that starting Monday, Senate Democrats will launch a series of hearings via their party's policy committee. The proceedings will touch on all aspects of the war, including post-war planning, military strategy and the reconstruction issues raised by the Post.

The first hearing will be Monday, in Washington, followed by several more around the country in the weeks ahead. Nevada is a possible site for a hearing.

Reid said the goal was "to look and see what we can do better." He noted the historical role Congress has played in the oversight of wars, from the Civil War to the hundreds of hours of hearings that were held during the wars in Vietnam and Korea.

"These troops, like all Americans, deserve answers," Reid said. "They deserve accountability. And most importantly, they deserve to know we're fighting to find them a way forward."

The hearings, however, will be inextricably linked to the elections. Public opinion polls show that congressional Republicans are vulnerable on national issues, including the war. Democrats hope the election will turn on those issues.

As a rule, Republican candidates are trying to downplay national issues and are touting their achievements for their home districts. They pin their hopes on polls showing that despite the public's generally sour view of Congress, voters have favorable opinions of their own representatives.

The Democratic hearings will have no real authority. The Senate's Republican and Democratic policy committees, established in 1947, were created as forums for research and debate. They have no subpoena power and their membership is not bipartisan - though members of the opposing party are often invited.

Nevada's Republican representatives in Washington said the hearings were needless. Sen. John Ensign "considers the call for further 'oversight hearings' redundant, ridiculous and politically motivated," Ensign spokesman Jack Finn said.

"There have already been numerous hearings - at least nine in Sen. Ensign's subcommittee alone," Finn said.

Republicans in both houses cited dozens of committee hearings they have held, including a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing Nevada Rep. Jim Gibbons was attending Thursday morning to deal with protecting troops from improvised explosive devices.

Gibbons, who is running for Nevada governor, said the Democratic hearings would occupy military officials who could better spend their time to secure peace.

Gibbons said he had not read the Post story. The Nevada congressman said the notion that loyalty would be considered a job qualification was "laughable," and he doubted it was true.

Nevada Rep. Jon Porter said House oversight hearings should continue, but believes the "only way to have a true understanding" of the situation in Iraq is to speak personally with troops on the ground, as he has done.

The Post story was adapted by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, former Baghdad bureau chief for the newspaper, from his book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City."

The story said that applicants for jobs in Iraq "didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration."

The Pentagon screening staff "posed blunt questions about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror?

"A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance - but had applied for a White House job - was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange."

Potential hires had to pass through the Pentagon office of Jim O'Beirne, "a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts," the story said. Many CPA staff were hired as "temporary political appointees, which exempted interviewers from employment regulations that prohibit questions about personal political beliefs."

"The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2-year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors," the story said.

Reid invited Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, chairman of the Senate Republicans' policy committee, to attend Monday's hearing, which is expected to include testimony from retired officers "who have played a significant role in the prosecution of the war in Iraq," according to Reid's letter to them.

Kyl said the Democrats' hearings were not an inappropriate use of the policy committee. He does not plan to attend. He had not read the Post story.

"This isn't Mexico, where the loser declares himself the winner and he's going to go ahead and govern in a parallel way with the legitimate government," Kyl said in an interview Thursday, referring to the recent disputed election in that country.

Norman J. Ornstein, a leading congressional scholar, said the Democrats' hearings will give them a chance to bring a new level of accountability to Washington. "One of the great sins of the Congress of the last few years is the collapse of oversight," said Ornstein, co-author "The Broken Branch," a book that points to the lack of checks-and-balances as a reason Congress is in decline.

Ornstein said that he "got outraged all over again" as he read the Post story. "It's a smart move," he said about the Democrats' plan. They're "doing well and doing good at the same time."