Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
PLA40

Senators: Obama admin keeps Congress in dark on intel

Rate this topic

21 posts in this topic

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ss-dark-intel/ mad.gif

 

 

"Having to fight over access to counterterrorism information is not productive and ultimately makes us less secure," wrote Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and Vice Chairman Christopher S. "Kit" Bond in a letter to President Obama on Thursday.

 

Is B.Hussien playing CYMA , and protecting his Muslim buddies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about that but I am confident in saying he would never want to offend anyone other than US Citizens when it comes to our security.

 

In other words we come in second.

 

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody please tell me that those fargin cork soakers have not already fogotten the the hard, painful and deadly lessons learned from 9/11 mad.gif

 

The lack of communication between goverment, justice, enforcement and intelligence entities leading up to 9/11 was deadly and now these iceholes seem to be repeating the same mistakes. mad.gif

 

Let us pray we don't get another 9/11 style wake up reminder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostSomebody please tell me that those fargin cork soakers have not already fogotten the the hard, painful and deadly lessons learned from 9/11 mad.gif

 

The lack of communication between government, justice, enforcement and intelligence entities leading up to 9/11 was deadly and now these iceholes seem to be repeating the same mistakes. mad.gif

 

Let us pray we don't get another 9/11 style wake up reminder

 

 

Unfortunately, it appears that 9/11 is the farthest thing from this administrations mind right now....I mean really, when they prosecute 3 navy seals for doing their job perfectly....it is a disgrace. When they cry foul for a states attempts to stop illegal immigration because the feds won't do it....it's a disgrace. When we mirandize terrorists....it's disgrace. And you can't tell me that all this isn't coming from higher up....as in the executive branch. They are laughing at us, and applauding their friend in the white house.

 

At this rate, their will be another 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holder Tightens Grip on Intelligence Agencies

By Jed Babbin

 

Attorney General Eric Holder has tightened his grip on our intelligence agencies, requiring them to get Justice Department permission to release classified information to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, according to Senate sources.

 

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo), Ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and three Senate staffers working for other members have recently asked the Director of National Intelligence for information on the interrogation of the failed Times Square bomber, Faisal Shazad. (Some of questions may have been directed at other intelligence matters as well.)

 

All four were told the information will not be provided until the Justice Department approved the transaction.

 

The National Security Act (50 USC Sec 413 and 413(a)) requires the Director of National Intelligence and all intelligence agencies to keep the House and Senate Intelligence Committees "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities" other than covert operations and furnish those committees any information regarding the intelligence agencies' activities which the congressional committees request.

 

The Attorney General has no role in that process. But Eric Holder has - with the president's support -seized control of that and other intelligence agency functions.

 

Last week, the accumulated distrust of Holder erupted in a bipartisan backlash. The immediate cause was the Shazad case and his blockade of information about the newly-formed "High Value Detainee Interrogation Group."

 

Quickly after his inauguration, President Obama banned the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used to great effect during the Bush administration to interrogate al-Qaeda bigs. (About the use of those techniques, former CIA Director George Tenet wrote, "What [the terrorist detainees] gave us was worth more than the CIA, NSA, the FBI and our military operations had achieved collectively.")

 

Under criticism for doing away with that valuable source of intelligence, last August Obama authorized the formation of the HIG which the administration assured would produce the same quality and quantity of intelligence information as EITs.

 

But when the Christmas Day underwear bomber's attack failed, it was revealed that the HIG - though promised -- hadn't been created. Now, according to press reports, the HIG is in operation and has some undefined role in questioning Faisal Shazad, the failed Times Square bomber.

 

But when members and staff of the SSCI asked for details about what the HIG's mission and general makeup were, they were told that Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, couldn't release the information without Holder's approval. That approval wasn't forthcoming.

 

As a result, last week the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment to a supplemental appropriations bill that requires the Director of National Intelligence to provide the House and Senate Intelligence Committees with the charter and operational procedures of the HIG within thirty days of its formation. The amendment, sources told me, passed the Appropriations committee on a bipartisan voice vote.

 

Though the terms of the amendment seem bland, the fact that it pushes Holder back out of the loop and that it was passed with support of Democrats combine to make it a vote of no confidence in Holder and a signal to Obama that distrust of Holder is growing.

 

Holder's reputation among the Intelligence Committees' Republican members sank from dubious to downright awful in one short year. In pre-confirmation hearing meetings with senators on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, several sought Holder's assurance that he wouldn't investigate or prosecute the CIA interrogators who had used the "enhanced interrogation techniques." As two senators told me - one on each of those committees - Holder promised them directly that there would be no such investigations or prosecutions.

 

Soon after Holder was confirmed, he and the president moved the supervision of detainee interrogation out of the intelligence agencies and into the White House. That move told the CIA -- and probably foreign intelligence agencies as well -- that the White House didn't trust the spy agency to run terrorist interrogations.

 

Holder broke the promise on investigating CIA interrogators last August when he announced the appointment of special prosecutor to conduct a preliminary inquiry into allegations of CIA abuse of detainees during interrogation.

 

According to an ABC News report, that announcement came the morning after a "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House involving Holder, CIA Director Leon Panetta and a highly-placed White House staffer. Panetta was in the midst of a months-long defense of the CIA against from Speaker Pelosi's accusations that the spy agency was lying to Congress about what and when it had briefed her on waterboarding of terrorist detainees. Fearing that the investigation would further damage CIA morale - and lead interrogators to excessive caution - Panetta fought against the Holder investigation and lost.

 

The White House supported Holder then, and continues to do so now. By defeating Panetta in August and Blair now, Holder has established de facto control over the intelligence community.

 

Holder is Obama's point man on the most controversial aspects of the president's anti-terror agenda. He's responsible for the decision to "Mirandize" terrorists and trying to move the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed from Guantanamo Bay to Manhattan. By helping him stonewall Congress on critical matters of intelligence oversight, Obama is expanding Holder's authority in a manner most likely to cause legislative retribution aimed directly at reining in the AG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostWhy is the left so Quiet?

 

Because nobody is going to waste their time with your white guy tin foil hat wishing for another 9/11 to prove yourselves right diatribe.

 

Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy Likwid, just another lamprey on the azz of B Hussein Obama. You've been blinded by the light emminating from the Annointed One, peace be upon him. I'll pray for your recovery.kooky.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostBecause nobody is going to waste their time with your white guy tin foil hat wishing for another 9/11 to prove yourselves right diatribe.

 

Carry on.

 

 

Spoken by a true American Patriot.....NOT kooky.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostBecause nobody is going to waste their time with your white guy tin foil hat wishing for another 9/11 to prove yourselves right diatribe.

 

Carry on.

 

 

Why do you hate White People so much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostBecause nobody is going to waste their time with your white guy tin foil hat wishing for another 9/11 to prove yourselves right diatribe.

 

Carry on.

 

 

Those that fail to learn the lessons from the past failures are doomed to repeat those same failures.

 

Go ahead and wear your blinders just don't act surprised when we catch a full broadside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because nobody is going to waste their time with your white guy tin foil hat wishing for another 9/11 to prove yourselves right diatribe.

 

Carry on. posted by likwid!

 

Cinicical you ain't. Sounding droll and unaffected doesn't work in serious situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not responding because fights over access to intelligence are the norm, administration to administration. The notion that the President's protecting his fellow Muslims is idiotic: this is the President who has multiplied the war effort being made in Afghanistan and extended the reach of drone warefare to corners where it wasn't practiced before (like Yemen. Anyone hear of it besides me?)

 

The hard lesson of 9/11 is that bin Laden and the Taliban were, are and will remain the most immediate risk to the United States. Not Saddam's non-existent WOMD. President Obama understands that far better then his predecessor.

 

The fight over Mirandizing suspects is a Republican fraud. Not one of them has balked from talking yet. Not one. The "issue" is a means to spread fear, which is (after all) the GOP's greatest asset. Vice-President Cheney has a clear grasp of that; he's been muttering "be afraid .... be very afraid" since he finished deleting his office emails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcow, this liberal won't be surprised in the least when we get hit again. When you're attacked, either you get your attacker or he gets you again. Did we get bin Laden and the Taliban when they attacked us? No. We got Saddam, an evil dictator who had not attacked us, instead. This constitutes a Good Thing, but made at the expense of the effort needed to get bin Laden.

 

That genie looks increasingly like it's out of the bottle for good. Anti-American jihad has been globalized, and while getting every jihadi in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, too - it appears our latest bomber was in touch, even as he parked his car in Times Square, with a major in Pakistani Intelligence) would be satisfying and bring us some justice and some peace, it wouldn't be sufficient. I don't know if Afghanistan is now winnable, I suspect we just don't have time. As far as a comprehensive defeat of global jihad, that hour is past, if in fact we had the chance. Now we get shot at into the indefinite future.

 

Liberals have a better grasp of war as an instrument of policy then conservatives do. We understand that it's a policy tool that is the mother of the unforeseen consequence. We also understand that if you enter into it, you need to make a national effort that pre-empts all else. President Bush and V.P. Cheney did not understand this, made no attempt to mobilize the country for the war they needed to win AND the other war, in Iraq, that they needed to fight; they thought they could do it on the cheap (tax cuts! tax cuts! tax cuts!) Unfortunately there are no do-overs in war. Obama got left the short end of the military stick by his predecessor. We will all be enjoying the consequences of getting Saddam and not the Taliban for a generation or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.