Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion

[cal04]

Neither Party Has an Appetite for Overhauling Congressional Oversight of Intelligence

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

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now 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. 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. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.

"I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.). "That is not going to be their party position."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317.html

[Erika]

1. I wonder if the panel will be bipartisan

Surprise, surprise.

[AlamoDemoc]

2. honestly, I have this gut feeling we'll end up with much-ado-nothing congress with all-do-or-do-not

brawl that is beginning to take shape.

[papau]

3. that was a lousy idea that the 9/11 group had - and wouldn't have been all that effective IMO

That panel was slanted toward cover-up IMO and while most of the suggestions were good, they failed to address a lot - again IMO.

We will get the rest of the suggestions I believe - but I could be wrong - and if wrong then I'll be pissed.

But no need to be pissed yet - IMO.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. If it was such a bad idea, perhaps candidates should not have promised to

implement it. If this story is accurate, this will not win Peolsi and Reid any popularity points with voters.

[papau]

7. The promise I heard was to vote on the 9/11 proposals-perhaps that

implies passing them all -

if so, in a perfect world, they should have said that the Party takes the stand as a Party that such and such proposal must pass.

I doubt that Peolsi and Reid popularity is at stake on this one.

[CJCRANE]

4. Don't need a wholesale reorganization

just need what Clinton was good at: "knocking heads together" and "shaking the trees" to ensure everyone's doing their jobs, sharing information and following up leads as much possible.

[Igel]

11. It's a good recommendation.

Nobody, repub or dem, likes to cede power. Hence the problem.

Currently oversight over the various intelligence agencies is spread over a few committees, and no committee wants to cede authority over their little corner of the intelligence community.

But it raises the question of who's responsible for overseeing communication *between* the agencies, and advising to structural changes that affect agencies overseen by different committees--if one congressional committee advises that some authority be shifted from one agency to the one under its purview, while another committee advises that the agency they oversee retain its authority ... what to do? What about funding recommendations? Remember: No committee, lic. congressperson, wants to cede power ... unless they get something for it (if only saving their asses from public ridicule).

Whose going to knock the Congressfolk's head together? Who's going to "shake the trees" to get the committee chairs in line? The executive branch? *That* would go over well with the Congress.

[savemefromdumbya]

17. maybe they should ask Bill Clinton to oversee it

[leesa]

6. The 9-11 commission was a joke. They should not have made that promise

They should have made a promise to investigate 9-11 and to implement real anti-terror measures.

[pberq]

9. Agreed - the "Commission" was nothing but a cover-up group

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Why did they promise to enact the findings of a 'cover-up' group?

:shrug:

[pberq]

12. Good question - makes no sense to me

[librechik]

15. indeed--I am very skeptical of their motives

and I hope every issue is studied thoroughly for outcomes before implementation. We could be rushing into a police state, which the Dems don't want, no matter how much the hawks taunt them. I hope.

[sampsonblk]

8. Great, I was hoping so!

Some of the recommendations were outright ridiculous. Campaigning on this issue may have won a few votes, but actually implementing all the recommendations is a very bad idea.

Of course, its crooked to campaign on something you don't intend to do.

[petgoat]

13. A lot of them used "Implement the Recommendations" as a

response to deflect the question of a new investigation.

"Oh we don't need a new investigation, we just need to implement the
recommendations we already have, which the Republicans have been
very slow to do."

[savemefromdumbya]

19. it dosn't help the victims' relatives

we still want answers

[petgoat]

14. They didn't reject it--they postponed it.

Reorganizing the oversight apparatus is complicated--do you want them to
do it without studying the issue?

Also it's still subject to political considerations. They still haven't
decided who's going to chair the Select House Intel Committee.

It's interesting that they quote former Rep. Roemer on the issue because
he was a senior member of the Intel Commitee before he retired in 2002.
I wonder if he's anticipating that if he was returned to the House that
he would get his seniority back?

[savemefromdumbya]

16. Democrats you have to mean what you say! reopen the 9/11 commission

no use backtracking.

pledges are pledges!

rep[en the 9/11 commission

[madfloridian]

18. Please show me a Democratic they quote in that article?

That is just all supposition by Republicans...wishful thinking.

[some guy]

20. there is quite a lot of nothing in that story.

I'm content to wait until January and see what the new Dem-led Congress actually tries to do, rather than all this predictive, speculative, filler the press is using to avoid talking about anything substantive.

[retread]

21. Bill Young is now the go-to authority on Democratic party positions? n/t