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.
Noteworthy:
Krauthammer:"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.
Pelosi almost definitely lied. However, the CIA did too (about an unrelated program, yes), but at the order of VP Cheney, in violation of laws that give Congress oversight of the CIA. I do assume that you believe this is as worthy of investigation as the firing of Walpin. The Executive Branch appears to have broken laws in both situations.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of it is political gaming, which I have little use for.
rahrah, there is just the slightest hint that possibly someone may have decided not to tell congress about something that it was not clear needed to be disclosed.
ReplyDeleteThat's a far piece from your claim that the CIA lied at the order of VP Cheney.
Your claim is stated as a fact, which it is not.
Pelosi, on the other hand, stated as a fact that the CIA had lied to her and then immediately refused to back up her unsubstantiated claim.
I'm with you on Pelosi. (See: "Pelosi almost definitely lied.").
ReplyDeleteAs far as the rest of it goes, what I've read suggest much more than a slight hint about the disclosure of the program and Cheney's involvement, but I'll give it to you as not yet confirmed as total fact.
Either way, I'd hope you'd agree that, like the Walpin situation, it warrants investigation because I'd hope that regardless of ideology you, like me, are anti-breaking laws.
I don't agree that any wild-assed politically motivated claim made as a distraction to far more serious issues obligates the government to spend taxpayer $$$ to chase a rabbit.
ReplyDeleteThe main substance seems to be that the U.S. government had a program to capture or kill our enemies, and that they didn't go front-page New York Times will all the details.
I certainly hope that's exactly what happened, it's what we pay them for.
I'm not sure this claim is 'wild-assed,' ...but Congress should have been informed...our system is based on checks and balances and an Executive branch that hides its activities from Congress undermines that system.
ReplyDeleterahrah, on what do you base your claim that Congress "should" have been informed? Are you an attorney specializing in intelligence matters? Do you sit on the Intelligence Committee? What is the source for the information you used to reach the conclusion that something wrong has been done? The mainstream media? Or do you have some other inside information on these matters?
ReplyDeleteYou're dangerously close to the Lex Alexander theory of attacking conservatives--If you don't like it, you call it illegal.
The info I glean from news coverage is that this alleged CIA program was never a "program" at all but merely a possible consideration for action. It was never implemented. It wasn't even important enough for Pres. Bush to be told about it.
Another reason Congress wasn't informed was that because it was still under consideration and not yet implemented they didn't want to risk exposure thru Congressional "leaks" which might preclude implementation at a later time. Didn't want to "tip their hand" on something still in the growing stages, as it were.
Congress this week proved the intel community's fears when just a couple weeks after being informed of this by CIA Director Panetta Congress blabbed the whole thing to the news media!
Much ado about nothing, in my opinion. Merely another political false flag run up the flagpole by Dems trying desperately to take the heat off of their dismal performance and other problems.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m011806.pdf
ReplyDelete"Under current statute,2 the President is to ensure that the congressional intelligence
committees are kept “fully and currently informed” of U.S. intelligence activities, including any “significant anticipated intelligence activity.”"
"In Senate report language accompanying the FY1991 Intelligence Authorization Act (P.L. 102-88), the SSCI wrote, “The requirement to report significant anticipated activities means, in practice, that
the committees should be advised of important new program initiatives and specific activities that have major foreign policy implications.” See S.Rept. No. 102-85, 102nd Congress, 1st sess., p. 32(1991)."
"Dems trying desperately to take the heat off of their dismal performance and other problems."
ReplyDelete...similar to Republican's flailing about Walpin, in attempts to overshadow their own ineptness?
rarah, are you a lawyer? Do you have any legal system experience? Paralegal, law enforcement, etc.? Do you have any formal legal training?
ReplyDeleteDo you have military experience in the intelligence field, or any experience with any intelligence agency?
Have you ever been tasked with interpreting law for a Senate committee, or any other organization which significantly impacts the operations of the U.S. government?
I ask because it appears you make your claims of "fact" based on some stuff you found on the internet, with no personal knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter.
It's not a "fact" that any law was violated unless and until adjudicated as such in a court of law. What you or I or the lamppost thinks is irrelevant, and only serves to spur exchanges such as this on local blogs. :)
Don't confuse your opinion with fact; people aren't guilty until a court says they are.
The Dems told us they'd save the world...all they done so far is spend our money with no results and make us a laughing stock around the world with Obama's inept bungling and blunders. The Dems have a lot to distract us from. The Republicans aren't in charge, they just sit and watch and wait...
jaycee, I realize that hold no important or knowledgeable position. I do try and read a variety of sources and stay up to date on what's happening...I like to discuss.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read and know, I'd say at the least we have something worthy of looking into...after all, nothing will be "adjudicated as such in a court of law" unless it's (1) investigated and (2) charges are filed. I think there's sufficient information available to move ahead with number one.
It is my opinion that laws were likely broken. I've shown you a memo discussing the relevant law. It is also my opinion that the Executive Branch should err on the side of informing Congress if there is any question as to if such is required. You may disagree.
"I ask because it appears you make your claims of "fact" based on some stuff you found on the internet, with no personal knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter."
All I know, or think I know, is what I have read and seen via video. At some point, all of us peons have to take somebody's word.
"From what I've read and know, I'd say at the least we have something worthy of looking into...after all, nothing will be "adjudicated as such in a court of law" unless it's (1) investigated and (2) charges are filed. I think there's sufficient information available to move ahead with number one."
ReplyDeleteFirst there needs to be a compelling set of circumstances which obligate the government to investigate. I haven't seen anything yet which convinces me that this is the case. Unsubstantiated allegations, politically motivated partisan claims, and innuendo do not cross this threshold, in my opinion.
"It is also my opinion that the Executive Branch should err on the side of informing Congress if there is any question as to if such is required."
From what I've seen and read, there was no question that this proposed consideration of some unspecified program to be possibly undertaken at some time in the future did not warrant disclosure. You, sir, may choose to disagree.
"It is my opinion that laws were likely broken. I've shown you a memo discussing the relevant law."
We laymen are woefully unskilled at interpreting the law as written. If everything was readily apparent upon reading a statute then there would be no need for lawyers. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. That's why law schools exist.
"It is also my opinion that the Executive Branch should err on the side of informing Congress if there is any question as to if such is required."
The very fact that Congress almost immediately ran to the mainstream media with this classified information (possibly violating secrecy/national security laws) in an attempt to skew it as something negative is EXACTLY why our intelligence agencies are circumspect with what they reveal to the sieve known as Congress.
In the end, I believe this "program" was nothing more than a suggestion or result of a "brainstorming session" that proved unfeasible and was shelved before implementation. In such cases I see little reason for the administration to run to Congress and tell them every little thought or idea that comes up.
eh, we disagree (obviously), and I think we've driven it to the ground.
ReplyDeleteI mean, as you seem to be pointing out, as laypeople neither of our opinions are any more valid than the others until (if) when the whole thing plays out. But the fact that we aren't highly trained technocrats doesn't mean that our opinions aren't valid at all...it just means we're probably only skimming the surface...throwing pebbles as opposed to pushing boulders...etc.
As far as oversight goes, its probably the best way to avoid corruption, along with the fact that its more in line with the limited (much more so than now) powers of the Executive Branch that our FF envisioned.
Either way, we disagree, but its been fun. (and Bubba didn't delete my comments!).
I agree, we've just about discussed this one to death.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with talking about intricate, involved, and often classified subjects is that the average citizen only knows what he sees and reads from the mainstream media.
For any event to which we're not a participant or eyewitness we must rely on the media for the information with which we form our opinions. Often, as with intelligence matters, we only know a fraction of the facts or the underlying structure of these organizations, and are therefore making our arguments from a grossly misinformed position.
In other words, we're arguing about what is public information when the basic cause/effect of the issue is hidden, and with good cause.
I'll let this one rest.