Did they look at ALL of the politicians in Washington? Republican and Democrat? If not, then the report is suspect at best.
Perhaps you would care to read the report before we discuss its methods and scope. As I said before, the report was limited to statements made by officials in the White House, Vice President's Office, State Department, Justice Department, and a few other executive branch offices specifically regarding the justification for the invasion of Iraq in the two years following September 11th, 2001.
Suggesting that the CPI limited the range of their investigation because of partisan interests is to miss the point of the report. It's perfectly legitimate journalism to examine public records for statements made by certain officials and compare the veracity of those statements with other government reports.
Finally, regarding Soros, the CPI's willingness to take his money certainly did not stop them from publishing a report in 2004 regarding his political donations during the elections as a part of its "Silent Partners"
project, which won an Online Journalism Association award
for its reporting on 527 groups that bypassed campaign finance disclosure regulations to funnel millions of dollars to both candidates.
One example is the attorney firings. That isn't anything the Congress needs to look into. Those attorneys work for one person only. The President, and he can fire them at anytime, for any reason.
That's not entirely correct. The President can dismiss them for no reason. The President cannot dismiss them for any
reason he likes, however. There are laws in place, for instance, that would prohibit the President from firing them on the basis of race or sex or for any other discriminatory reason.
That's not necessarily the case here, but it bears mentioning that the premise is flawed. The attorney firing incident in 2006 created controversy for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they were replaced by interm replacements that would have been de facto permanent replacements because of a provision of the Patriot Act, which took away from the Senate their advice and consent function described in the Constitution.
Investigations into the matter have focused on whether or not the Department of Justice and the White House dismissed the attorneys inappropriately. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters. I'm no lawyer, but, if true, that sounds suspiciously like obstruction of justice to me.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699882_webmckayforum09m.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301106.html
Finally, Congress began investigating the matter because the reason for the dismissals were given as contradictory, vague, and elusive. Several administration officials providing contradictory testimony or testimony contradicted by documents requested or formally subpoenaed by Congressional committees and subsequently made public.
Regarding that the attorneys were dismissed for poor job performance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701509_pf.html
Regarding the role played by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the firings:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032900352_pf.html
Regarding whether or not the attorneys' political affiliations were:http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/23/goodling.testimony/index.html
If the White House and/or the Department of Justice lied to Congress about the matter, it is certainly the role of Congress to investigate this and take any appropriate actions.