You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
WaPo Woof: Pelosi Looks to Boost Oversight of Intelligence and Ethics
2006-12-15
I dunno about "oversight". She and the Donks could use massive infusions of both, Intelligence and Ethics.
House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that she will create a new panel within the Appropriations Committee to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies and a House task force to examine establishing an outside ethics panel.

The twin moves demonstrated the delicate balance that Pelosi (D-Calif.) is trying to strike to maintain her political power while fulfilling the promises of the Democrats' successful 2006 campaign. Both decisions fall short of recommendations coming from the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and from ethics groups. But they go well beyond what Republicans were willing to do while they controlled Congress and beyond even what some Democrats were anticipating in recent weeks.

"I think it's a significant step forward on improving oversight and a major step forward on correcting the dysfunction on Capitol Hill," former congressman Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said of the intelligence plan.
Posted by:.com

#7  True, OS, very true. But, I believe that could be handled (as was via the elections) within the Party. The Donks are covered in mud (and deeper in it) a LOT more often than the Pubbies. It's just the MSM doesn't point it out as often.

And, while I condemn all the lack of responding to ethical issues within the Pubbies' party, I also loathe selling our nation out during a time of war a LOT more!
Posted by: BA   2006-12-15 11:04  

#6  As much as I dont like the Dems & thier collectivist policies, at least they did do SOMETHING about Jefferson, unlike that idiot Hastert that protected him.

Thats why the idiot Repubs lost: they refused to be ethical at nearly every chance presented to them (Jefferson, Foley, earmarks, etc), and they stacked the rules and ethcis comitted to be a rubber stamp for DeLay and Hastert. The Repubs in congress have been gutless ever since Gingrich left. Look at the spineless attempt to placate us with 700 miles of border fence that will likely never be built. And they have the gall to wonder why people didn't come out and vote for them.
Posted by: OldSpook   2006-12-15 10:23  

#5  And IIRC, Meehan's Minions tried to get the term limit pledge description deleted from his Wilkpedia entry.
Posted by: Raj   2006-12-15 10:17  

#4  An explantion for the above:

Meehan successfully ran for the House in 1992 on a platform of reform, including a commitment to pushing through term limits for members of the House. As part of that platform, Meehan made a pledge not to serve more than four terms. On the House floor in 1995 he scolded members who might go back on their promise to limit their tenure in office. "The best test of any politicians' credibility on term limits," he said, "is whether they are willing to put their careers where their mouths are and limit their own service." Despite his pledge, Meehan again ran for Congress in the year 2000, exceeding four terms.


And I think he's working on No. 8.
Thanks, Mr. Ethical Point Man. Believe it or not, compared to this guy, Kerry look "genuine"...
Posted by: tu3031   2006-12-15 10:05  

#3  Fine, let's get it on over intelligence and ethics. Here's my proposed agenda:

(1) Why is a murderer still sitting in office (Sen. Kennedy)?
(2) Why was Jamie Gorelick, author of the famous "wall" memo between CIA and FBI allowed to sit on the 9/11 Commission, when she should've been testifying and grilled before it?
(3) Let's ask the incoming Chair of the Intel committee to define the difference between Sunni and Shi'a, and which group is al Qaeda and Iran made up of?
(4) Who's paying for Sen. Reid's real estate deals?
(5) Who paid for that Florida Senator's trip to Syria?
(6) Why is Jon Carry travelling through the Middle East, bad-mouthing our CinC (on foreign soil), and is this treason, or at least some other criminal act?
(7) How much did Rep. Jefferson (R-LA) have in his microwave, under the mattress and in his shoes (in addition to the $90k in his freezer)? Inquiring minds wanna know.

And, that's just "gettin' started." I'm beginning to believe in some STRONG moves that need to be made SOON to head these arsewipes off at the pass. Let's hand Senate elections back to the State Legislatures (not elected by the masses, but by the States) as Zell Miller has suggested. Or, passing into law a "balanced budget" Constitutional Amendment (as, I believe, Newt Gingrich once suggested) and enforce it. Or, requiring a basic understanding test of our form of Federal Gov't and how it (is supposed to) works according to the Constitution before allowing someone to vote (as suggested by Neal Boortz). Or Rep. John Linder's FairTax bill. Or, the requirement to outline which Constitutional Article allows for each earmark and who suggested it.
Posted by: BA   2006-12-15 09:57  

#2  Rep. Martin T. Meehan (Mass.), one of the Democrats' point men on the ethics package that will come to a vote in January, said last week that an outside panel would not be part of the initial wave of ethics rules but could come up later.

Speaking of ethics, Marty, how's that term limits promise you made a few years back working out?
Posted by: tu3031   2006-12-15 09:49  

#1  "I think this is a significant step forward in consolidating the power the American Voters gave us Democrats in the last election" sounds more like reality. More power to control what these agencies do and what they can leak to the press.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-12-15 09:45  

00:00