Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: "Jersey Girls" get suckered

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393

    "Jersey Girls" get suckered

    [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html[/url]

    All you libs that nickpicked everything about Republicans, read carefully. Your little, liberal utopia may experience slight delays. [Highlights below for the conservatively impared].

    [b][size=5]Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion[/size][/b][b][size=5][/b]
    [b][/size][/b]
    Neither Party Has an Appetite for Overhauling Congressional Oversight of Intelligence

    [size=-1]By Jonathan Weisman
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, November 30, 2006
    [/size]

    [color=red][b]It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement [size=5]all [/size]of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.[/b][/color]

    [b][color=red]But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now [u]against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies[/u].[/color][/b] Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

    Because plans for implementing the commission's recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. [b][color=red]But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress [u]would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress[/u].[/color][/b]

    "I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, [url="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m001120/"][color=#0000ff]Rep. John P. Murtha[/color][/url] (D-Pa.). "That is not going to be their party position."

    It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress's failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.

    But the commission was unequivocal about the need.

    "Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."

    [b][color=red]Now [u]Democrats[/u] are balking, just as Republicans did before them[/color][/b].

    The decision will almost certainly anger commission members, as well as families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, many of whom have pressed hard for implementation of the recommendations.

    [b][color=red]"The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them," said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.[/color][/b]

    Carie Lemack, whose mother was in one of the jets that hit the World Trade Center, echoed that sentiment: [color=red][b]"It wasn't a Chinese takeout menu, the 41 recommendations. You have to do all of them."[/b][/color]

    Democratic leadership dust-ups this month severely limited the ability of House Speaker-elect [url="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/"][color=#0000ff]Nancy Pelosi[/color][/url] (Calif.) to implement the commission's recommendations, according to Democratic aides.

    Pelosi strongly backed Murtha for House majority leader, only to see him soundly defeated by [url="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h000874/"][color=#0000ff]Rep. Steny H. Hoyer[/color][/url] (Md.). That chain of events made it difficult for her to ask Murtha, a longtime ally, to relinquish control of the intelligence budget from his consolation prize, the chairmanship of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, according to Democratic sources.

    Likewise, a controversy over the choice of a new chairman of the House intelligence committee proved to be a factor in the decision. The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003. But in her search for a reason to drop the committee's most senior Democrat, [url="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h000213/"][color=#0000ff]Jane Harman[/color][/url] (Calif.), from the panel, Pelosi fell back on the tradition of term limits. She has decided to pass over the intelligence committee's second-ranking Democrat, [url="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h000324/"][color=#0000ff]Alcee L. Hastings[/color][/url] (Fla.), as well.

    To the Sept. 11 commission, the call for congressional overhaul was vital, said former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), the commission's co-chairman. Because intelligence committee membership affords lawmakers access to classified information, only intelligence committee members can develop the expertise to watch over operations properly, he said. But because the panels do not control the budget, intelligence agencies tend to dismiss them.

    "The person who controls your budget is the person you listen to," Kean said.

    Those people, the appropriators, do not seem to care much, he said. The intelligence budget is a small fraction of the nearly $500 billion overseen by the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Kean said that [u][color=blue]Sen. John McCain[/color][/u] (R-Ariz.), an Armed Services Committee member, told the Sept. 11 commission that if his panel spends 10 minutes considering the intelligence budget, it has been a good year.
    "We think this is extremely crucial," Kean said of a reorganization shifting budget authority to the intelligence committees. But, he added, there are "a lot of old bulls in both parties who just don't want to do it."

    In 2004, the Senate tried to reach a compromise on the issue, proposing to create intelligence subcommittees under the House and Senate appropriations committees. The appropriators would maintain most of their power, but at least distinct panels would have to watch over intelligence spending.

    The idea went nowhere in the House. To make it work, total spending on intelligence would have to be declassified, another commission recommendation that Congress has rejected. Besides, Young said, an intelligence subcommittee effectively exists in the form of the Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman and ranking member, who have taken serious interest in intelligence spending.

    Democratic aides yesterday chose to talk up what they will do in the opening hours of the 110th Congress. Plans are not complete, but the incoming Democratic majority is likely to expand efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; ensure the interoperability of communications equipment so first responders can communicate more effectively; develop a comprehensive screening system for air cargo; and establish a civil-liberties board to protect the public against intelligence agencies expanding their reach.
    Last edited by Spirit of Weeb; 11-30-2006 at 05:50 PM.

  2. #2
    first of all, you sound like a sore loser..
    Second of all, no one said there would be a Utopia!
    The vote was a referrendum..Your party failed so badly a change had to be made..
    I'm an American first, and an independent second..
    You are a republican hack first, and an American second..
    That's a problem..

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [QUOTE=bman]first of all, you sound like a sore loser..
    Second of all, no one said there would be a Utopia!
    The vote was a referrendum..Your party failed so badly a change had to be made..
    I'm an American first, and an independent second..
    You are a republican hack first, and an American second..
    That's a problem..[/QUOTE]

    I know you put your patriotism over your party loyalty for the past six years, but that didn't stop you from spamming every hypocracy about Republicans you could find. Based on past experience with your party, the next two years is going to be quite an eye opener to the moderates out there. You better buy a good supply of rags to wipe the egg off your face.

    Bman, it seems like we have a bonafide case of the pot calling the kettle black. I know you're just jealous because I can cut and paste the correct way.

  4. #4
    fair enough..
    bastard!!

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    they are not even in charge yet but are already pulling back from campaign promises....

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    once again rat hypocrisy continues as once again they put party before country...

    [QUOTE][B]Democrats ignore key reform[/B]

    The 9/11 Commission recommended reorganizing intelligence committees. Now, Democrats say no.

    Members of the 9/11 Commission call it one of their most important recommendations, but Democrats won't push for a reorganization of congressional intelligence oversight when they take over in January.

    This is one of the key reforms the panel felt was needed to strengthen American security.

    "Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote in its final report.

    The key, according to co-chair Thomas H. Kean, is to make sure members of the intelligence committees -- who have access to classified information and develop the expertise to conduct genuine oversight -- also have control over the intelligence budgets.

    "The person who controls your budget is the person you listen to," Kean told The Washington Post.

    But Democrats, who criticized Republicans relentlessly for ignoring the commission's recommendations, apparently no longer see the urgency.

    [B]Those who will be in charge of defense appropriations --including Rep. Jack Murtha, recently defeated in his bid to become House majority leader -- don't want to give up their power to the intelligence committees, even though Kean also told The Post that lawmakers had testified that very little time is spent on intelligence appropriations.[/B]

    After their years in the wilderness, Democrats promised to bring a fresh attitude, but it looks like hanging onto the perquisites of power will continue to trump the best interests of the nation.

    Democrats are planning to move ahead with some of the other important recommendations of the commission, taking steps to improve the communications infrastructure for first responders and expand programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    But when it comes to reforming how Congress itself does business, Democrats seem as recalcitrant as Republicans.

    It's a disappointing start.
    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/wb/xp-94313[/url]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us