| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| House revolt hands Bush surprise defeat on intel overhaul |
| 2004-11-21 |
| In a defeat for President George W. Bush, rebellious Republicans in the House of Representatives derailed legislation Saturday to overhaul U.S. intelligence agencies along lines recommended by the Sept. 11 commission. "It's hard to reform. It's hard to make changes," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, who sought unsuccessfully to persuade critics among the Republican rank and file to swing behind the measure. Hastert's decision to send legislators home without a vote drew attacks from Democrats and capped an unpredictable day in which prospects for enactment of the measure seemed to grow, then diminish, almost by the hour. Hastert left open the possibility of summoning legislators back in session early next month. As approved by key negotiators, the White House and the bipartisan the 9-11 commission, the compromise would create a powerful position to oversee the CIA and several other non-military spy agencies. A new national counter-terrorism centre would co-ordinate the fight against foreign terrorists. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney both contacted congressional negotiators by phone in hopes of nailing down an acceptable compromise that could clear Congress in the final hours of a post-election session. But U.S. representatives Duncan Hunter and Jim Sensenbrenner, committee chairmen, raised objections. Officials said Hunter, a California Republican, expressed concern provisions of the bill could interfere with the military chain of command and endanger troops in the field. Sensenbrenner wanted additional provisions dealing with immigration, the officials said. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #11 Hunter is the Military's watchdog over laws that will undermine their mission. When I see Jane Harmon (D-CA-ScavengerAvians) bitch about Hunter's opposition, there's something wrong with the law as written |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-11-21 8:54:50 PM |
| #10 The Speaker said it all when he said "It is easy to make recommendations... It is not so easy to make good law." The lameduck session is over. The next Congress will take it up. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-11-21 8:45:23 PM |
| #9 We don't need another "super-boss". What we need is an agency that can go in and dig up the dirt these intelligence agencies (especially the CIA) hide. The problem is a lack of accountability for their behavior, for their activities, and for their failures. If they were held accountable, they wouldn't be able to get away with so many spectacular blunders. Unfortunately, because they "operate in secret", they've managed to avoid accountability for the last 50 years. It's time for THAT to change. I don't see a necessity for any other changes. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-11-21 8:11:05 PM |
| #8 specifics - But Reps. Duncan Hunter and Jim Sensenbrenner, chairmen of the Armed Services and Judiciary committees, raised objections. Hunter, R-Calif., worried that provisions of the bill could interfere with the military chain of command and endanger troops in the field. "In my judgment, this bill, without strongly reaffirming the chain of command, would render that area confused to the detriment of our Americans in combat so I will not support it," Hunter said. Hunter said he knew that the president and Hastert wanted this bill, but "what we have to do here is exercise our best judgment." Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wanted additional provisions dealing with illegal immigration. "Unfortunately, the Senate has refused to consider many of the provisions, tagging them as extraneous or controversial," he said. A group of 9/11 families praised Sensenbrenner for holding out for his illegal immigration provisions. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-11-21 3:12:58 PM |
| #7 The problem with intel wasn't a lack of centralization, any more than the problems with the Iraqi campaign have to do with GWB not assuming dictatorial powers. The electorate needs to reform the political branch by firing those who won't scrap the PC restraints under which our security services have been operating. Centralization is dangerous to our national security for the long term. Our intelligence problems are political, not technocratic, in nature. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-11-21 2:52:02 PM |
| #6 I haven't seen a lot about the bill so can't comment on details. IIRC the administration wasn't thrilled at creating an overaching intel manager, but agreed to work with Congress. Odum and others don't like the idea either. Frank, is Hunter against the whole approach or against specific details? If it's the latter, I hope he balances that against the need to have some clarity about who's doing what as Bush shakes up the CIA and we're dealing with the next steps in the GWOT. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-11-21 10:05:39 AM |
| #5 Hunter's my rep - if he says it's not in America's benefit to ok it as-is, you can believe it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-11-21 8:41:37 AM |
| #4 Yes. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-11-21 8:11:46 AM |
| #3 Yeah, W needs to be taken out back. Do these recommendations pass the Constitution test??? |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2004-11-21 1:34:00 AM |
| #2 us intelligence is broken. can't be reformed. raze cia to the ground and start over. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-11-21 12:16:43 AM |
| #1 Someone needs to be taken out back. |
| Posted by: Snoluck Ulusing8632 2004-11-21 12:13:04 AM |