It is, of course, an attempt to cover Pelosi's lies regarding the fact she was briefed on the aggressive interrogation methods being used to gather information. And now, these jerks want to limit future accountability by preventing the executive branch's ability to protect sensitive information.
"House Democrats have set out to hobble the CIA and further handcuff the executive branch. Republicans, naturally, were frozen out. At Speaker Pelosi's insistence, gone would be the right of the President to limit disclosure of sensitive information to the so-called Gang of Eight -- the House Speaker and Minority Leader, Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairmen and ranking Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. This authority would pass to Congress. The bill would also expand disclosure requirements for all sorts of intelligence activities.
This is a recipe for more leaks and more compromised CIA operations. Congress claims it needs to better monitor Presidential intelligence decisions. But the real lesson of the last few years is that Congress wants to know about, and often second-guess, intelligence decisions without being responsible for the result. Mrs. Pelosi could have objected to waterboarding but didn't at the time, becoming a critic only when it became a political uproar. Senator Jay Rockefeller could have resisted warrantless wiretaps of al Qaeda but instead wrote a letter and stuck it in a drawer.
....House Members who are willing to put the politics of protecting their Speaker above national security can't be trusted with adult decisions on intelligence and war-fighting."
"There's a truth issue, and there's a politics issue. On the truth, we need to hear from the head of the CIA, what he said.These cretins deserve all the damage they bring upon themselves.
He's not going to tell us in detail, obviously, what he said in a closed session, what was it, [but he can give] the general area, where in the world, what time, was something concealed or lied about? And he is the one who would know.
In the meantime, the politics of this are puzzling. The only advantage I can see that Democrats are gaining is to blacken the name of the Bush administration, which is, of course, an exercise in redundancy. There is no advantage in that. It's been done.
On the other hand, it hurts the Democrats in two ways. First of all, as Mara indicated, it puts the Democrats, who are in charge of the Congress and the executive, at war with their own CIA in wartime. It's insane. And it's going to undermine Panetta in the CIA he is supposed to actually lead.
And secondly, if it was an attempt—and it looks as if it was an attempt—to cover for Pelosi and her accusations of lying—(a) it doesn't work, because, as we heard earlier in the show, this lapse [in CIA disclosure], if it occurred, was not about interrogation, and her issue was interrogation.
So, (a) it will not help her in substance. And (b) it raises the issue of her veracity, her changing stories, which had hurt her a few months ago, and had been dormant. Now it's revived. It's on the table again."
Our national security doesn't.