Just to be clear, the debate isn't "commissions vs. subpoenas" -- any commission would have to have subpoena power, or it would be worthless.

By the way, Scott Horton's cover story in this month's Harpers is excellent and a more fulsome presentation than his TPMCafe post.

Congressional hearings would be a joke...a total waste of time. Let's get serious interrogators and go forward with commissions that have teeth to them. I do hope this happens - there has to be accountability if only to restore our trust in government again (that's a very tall order!).

When a completely dismissive or evasive answer came, they went on to the next question. Questioning needs to be done by a professional interrogator who is focused on building a complete record, not playing to the cameras and the audience in the constituency back home.

And, of course, the ridiculous time limits so that the witness is can run out the clock. House/Senate committee members need to put aside their egos (ha!) and return to the days of Watergate when staff council did the bulk of the questioning in a professional and in depth manner. Any committee set up to delve into the horrors of the Bush admin has to operate this way to uncover the gore. That and subpoena power with enforcement.

Moving Waxman to Energy and leaving Lieberman in Homeland Sec and Gov Affairs pretty much tells you that these investigations are not a prioirty in Congress.

There are so many lingering questions surrounding the Bush administration, about things ranigng from gossip to possible crimes, that I fear we'll never know:

* Who let Jeff Gannon into the White House press pool?
* Who orchestrated the campaign to smear Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson?
* What exactly was Bush wearing under his suit coat at the debate?
* Was Bush really drinking when he claimed to have choked on a pretzel?

Questioning needs to be done by a professional interrogator [...] -- Scott Horton

In Gitmo, by preference. That way, we wouldn't have to worry about the possibility of the future prosecutions not resulting in a suitable punishment.

Let's get serious interrogators ...

Aaaah yes. What's a little waterboarding among friends? Those will be good times.

It seems to me that the argument against Congressional investigations is flawed on two counts:
First, it fails to take into account that the incoming DoJ would be much, much more responsive to prosecuting witnesses such as Meyers, Gonzalez, et al. It certainly couldn't be any less responsive. If the witnesses don't know that they won't be prosecuted, some very interesting things may come out.
Secondly, it is the duty of Congress, not some ill-defined commission, to investigate these matters. I realize that there are many things on the in-coming Congress' plate, but the refusal to initiate investigations because "we are too busy", shouldn't be allowed as an excuse.
The failure of Congress to fully investigate the Bush Administration will simply confirm many citizen's views that politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, don't think that they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Congress needs to be seen actively proceeding against lawbreakers, no matter how hard the pundits whine about "partisanship". There is nothing partisan about enforcing the law.
That would truly be "Change We Can Believe In".

The Dems acquiesced in all illegal activities. There was a time to speak out and show outrage, but the time is passed. Arlen Specter and John McCain wet their fingers to test how the wind was blowing, and discovered the sheeple were happier than not with Bush's innovative approach to the Constitution.

So a one-hand-washes-the-other type of commission would merely seem lame and mildly vindictive.