Bernstein: "Congress No Longer Performs Its Oversight Role"

[kpete]

Bernstein says congressional oversight more lax now than during Watergate
By Mike Soraghan
October 06, 2007

Watergate would not have played out the same way today because Congress no longer performs its oversight role, said Carl Bernstein, one of the journalists famous for uncovering the story.

“The difference with today is that the system did its job. The press did its job. The court did its job. The Senate committee did its job,” Bernstein said Saturday. “There’s been great reporting on this president. But there’s been no oversight. We have a Democratic Congress now and there’s still no oversight.”

Bernstein also said that “35 years of ideological warfare” could also change how the public would react to such a scandal.

“We live in a very different atmosphere today,” Bernstein said. “With Watergate, eventually the people of this country looked around and decided Nixon was a criminal president. I’m not sure the same chain of events would have taken place today.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bernstein-says-congressional-oversight-more-lax-now-than-during-watergate-2007-10-06.html

[Le Taz Hot]

1. Ya think????

The man's a genius, I tall ya! :eyes:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. Where the hell has he been in the last 6 years? Is he only saying that now becacuse there's

a Democratic majority (I use the word majority loosely)???

[Captain Hilts]

3. Bernstein's an ass. nt

[Whisp]

11. you sure you got the right ass?

I KNOW Woodward is one, but Bernstein too?

[Captain Hilts]

13. Yes, they're both asses.

Woodward's more dishonest about it, though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Well, they're busy protecting us ads that question our glorious military leaders.

[MiniMe]

5. The fact that *co has stonewalled them on every front should count for something

They won't release any information, many don't show up to testify. How can the Secretary of State get away with not testifying before congress?? You could also say that Watergate wouldn't have been possible without the press. Where is that same press now?

[Solly Mack]

6. No shit?

[porphyrian]

7. Nice of someone else to notice, I guess. - n/t

[Lugnut]

8. Unfortunately

He's right. I disagree with his statement about the great reporting unless he's referring to the internet and Keith Olbermann.

:kick:

[unblock]

12. he might be making a distinction between reporting and editing

there has been great reporting in the sense that the vast majority of the ugly truth about shrub and the gang has been reported and has been out there. it's not like there's some deep dark secret that no one knew about. in watergate, there WERE some deep dark secrets that needed good reporting to unearth.

what has been horrible this go-round is the editing in the sense that the major media outlets have systematically chosen to minimize, belittle, and joke about these many KNOWN ugly truths and instead emphasize the trival, the irrelevant, the sensational, and so on.

[spooky3]

9. "great reporting on this President"?????

Guess he hasn't visited DU or MediaMatters.org.

[etherealtruth]

10. DUH

[WillyT]

14. Big K & R !!!

:kick:

[Disturbed]

15. Waxman, Leahy, & Conyers need to garner the guts to issue

Inherent Contempt upon the people that are refusing to testify. Subpoena will mean nothing, otherwise.