Obama threatens to veto intel bill

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

President Obama will veto a major intelligence funding bill unless lawmakers remove provisions that would toughen congressional oversight of spy agencies and require more stringent congressional notification of intelligence activities.

Three sections of the bill are of "serious concern to the intelligence community," OMB Director Peter Orszag wrote to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Vice Chairman Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Calif.) and ranking member Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.). The three sections are "so serious that the president's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill if they are included."

At the top of the list are Senate provisions that expand congressional notification requirements when the intelligence community changes to covert actions. Current law requires the president to notify the Gang of 8 — the top eight lawmakers on the two congressional intelligence committees — when the most dramatic actions are taken. The new funding bill would require the president to notify the eight when an administration makes any changes to covert action policy, and it would require intelligence officials to notify every intelligence committee member of the "main features" of all intelligence activities.

Obama also took aim at a section in the bill that would give the Government Accountability Office the authority to investigate the intelligence community. Current law exempts intelligence and counterintelligence activities from GAO review, leaving oversight to the inspectors general at the various intelligence community agencies. Allowing GAO into intelligence oversight would "alter the long-standing relationship and information flow between the and intelligence committee members and staff," Orszag wrote.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34447.html

[DJ13]

1. Reads like a rerun from a past Republican admin

[AlbertCat]

5. Reads like a rerun from a past Republican admin

It does.

But the problem in the Bush administration was not intel. It was how it was handled....mainly by the Executive Branch. I see nothing wrong with telling Congress more and sooner, but the GAO thing.... they could have a point. Still, they need to prove their claim, not just say "It will hurt us".


Congress and the Prez don't seem to dance well together do they? But at least it's not the ol' GOP lockstep.

[saigon68]

33. Enjoy the Chimp's 3RD term

"Bring Em On" shouted the AWOL CHIMPANZEE

[howaboutme]

2. We need change not same ole.

Am I reading this wrong? Tougher Congressional oversight of of our intelligence is bad? I'm not sure I agree with that or OBama. It seems that our problems have been caused not by oversight but by lack of oversight.

[nyy1998]

10. It's expected of the Executive Branch

Virtually every President since FDR(and plenty of Presidents before him) have been protective of their turf from the Legislative branch.

[No Elephants]

25. Typical or not, it's wrong.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[notadmblnd]

4. Did anyone really think that once the executive office usurped that particular duty of congress

that it would relent and give it back? Nope, not gonna happen.

[No Elephants]

26. Unless Congress and/or the people make it happen. Or some President gets a conscience about it.

[SlingBlade]

6. Deja-Vu All Over Again, Huh.

"unless lawmakers remove provisions that would toughen congressional oversight of spy agencies and require more stringent congressional notification of intelligence activities"

Obviously SOMEBODY does !

[The Northerner]

7. Sad, isn't it?

[tomm2thumbs]

8. It is at times like this

I have a hard time seeing who's who

[emilyg]

9. +1

[shraby]

11. I see this is from politico. nuff said

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Raw Story is reporting this too:

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/protecting-agencies-oversight-obama-threatens-veto-intelligence-funding/

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Bloomberg is also reporting it:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-15/obama-veto-is-threatened-on-2010-intelligence-budget-measure.html

[No Elephants]

27. LOL

[w4rma]

12. They can syphon the funding from the military budget then. (nt)

[depakid]

13. Send it up and let the constitutional law lectuer veto it.

Make a teachable moment out of it.

Put the separation of powers issue on display for all to see.

[Better Today]

14. A few months ago I would've pointed out that "senior advisors would recommend..."

didn't mean shit because Obama is capable of going against his advisors and make the decision that was best for USA. I was initially so impressed he hadn't surrounded himself with yes-men. But through Iraq, Gitmo, Afghanistan, TARP, war budget, failure to prosecute Bush admins, and of course the Health insurance bills, . . . I no longer have faith in Obama to do anything more than what his owners tell him to do. Heartbreaking.

[No Elephants]

28. IMO. Obama is calling the shots--and he DID surround himself with "yes men" .

and women. Obama is a New Democrat. Most of his appointees are from his Chicago supporters or from the DLC (or both). (That was the first shot he called.) There isn't a whisker's worth of difference between New Democrats and DLCers. And Obama is not a dumbass sheeple, being led around by those he hired..

[Better Today]

32. Ah, I should have clarified, his owners are bankers, corporate bigwigs, and

the military industrial complex.

[PSPS]

15. Bush's third term strikes yet again

[Svafa]

18. The more things "change" the more the stay the same...again.

I thought maybe Obama would be at least somewhat different from Bush, at least on domestic issues, but he is proving me wrong.

[Luciferous]

20. Yep.

[No Elephants]

29. I see it as a cross between Clinton's third term and Bush's third term.

Then again, since Clinton left office, he's been acting like the long lost Bush Bubba. And Obama hired most of the Clinton Administration. So, it's all one big blur.

[galileoreloaded]

19. This he will veto!? Seriously, I give up. The internets are officially over...n/t

[jonathon]

21. Gross

[jmowreader]

22. I don't disagree with this

The Gang of Eight are currently Pelosi, Boehner, Reid, McConnell, Silvestre Reyes, Peter Hoekstra, Dianne Feinstein and Kit Bond. I don't know much about Peter Hoekstra or Kit Bond, but I would be very uncomfortable with telling Mitch McConnell or John Boehner what time it is, much less the status of any covert operation. Boehner especially--that fucker probably agrees with outing Valerie Plame to this very day.

On edit: The worst part is, when the Democrats lose one or both houses of Congress (it's bound to happen--if not in 2010 or 2012, eventually it'll happen because politics is a pendulum) some seriously loose-lipped jackass could wind up as Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader. If there's a Democrat in the White House and a Republican running either house of Congress, the Republican will do everything he possibly can to screw up as much as he can then blame it on the Democrats. It won't really matter if a $25 million operation just evaporates or a bunch of agents we're running get killed--it won't even matter to him if our own officers die--just so long as the Democrats come out of it looking bad. Just imagine Michelle Bachman as Speaker!

[lamp_shade]

23. +1 These were my thoughts also. Trust Boehner? McConnell? I don't think so.

[No Elephants]

30. Yeah! Screw the Constitution! Getting the Republicans is all that matters!

[jmowreader]

35. Or the Democrats, for that matter

If an anti-CIA Democrat was put into the House Intelligence Committee chair, that person is going to sit there and go no, no, no to everything they need to do.

Here's a bit of MI history for you: right after World War I, Herbert Yardley founded the American Black Chamber as a cryptologic organization. After Henry Stimson was named Secretary of State in 1929, they showed him the Chamber. Stimson shoved his nose real high in the air, said "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail," and closed down the operation. Set us back decades.

Congress can pull the intelligence community's funding any time it pleases, which is bad because we need those guys. (And do NOT mention 9/11 to me; I have always said, with authority, the "intelligence failure" in that case was between George Bush's ears.)

[No Elephants]

24. Too bad. Congress has the right to know what it is funding.

[No Elephants]

31. If Congress caves on this out of party loyalty, stick a fork in what's left of the Constitution.

Unless maybe you think right to bear arms and free exercise of religion are the only parts of it that really matter.

[Flaneur]

34. Okay, go ahead and veto it. Make the spooks use their black budget slush funds.