Bush Threatens Veto of Intelligence Budget: Too Much Oversight

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:57:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The House has passed another useful bill for Senate Republicans to filibuster.

The bill, which passed on a voice vote, would block two-thirds of the federal covert operations budget until each member of the congressional intelligence committees is briefed on all secret operations under way. Panel members also would be granted access to any other details necessary to assess the value of intelligence operations.

If this refreshing concept of congressional oversight were somehow to make it past Senate Republicans, the president will make sure to crush it.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill because it says it would go too far and infringe upon the president's right to protect intelligence.

Protect intelligence? From our elected representatives in Congress? Is the president worried that they'll drop the intelligence and break it? Accidentally feed it into the paper shredder? Where in the Constitution does the president find a right to protect the entire executive branch from oversight? [more ...]

Other useful features of the House bill governing the next intelligence budget that the president opposes:

Other provisions in the House bill that provoked a veto threat include a prohibition on the use of contractors to interrogate detainees and a demand that the CIA inspector general audit all covert operations every three years.

The White House directed another veto threat at a perfectly sensible provision in the Senate version of the bill:

[U]nlike the House version, the Senate's legislation includes a provision by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would limit the CIA and FBI to interrogation tactics listed in the publicly available Army Field Manual on Interrogation.

A similar limitation on interrogation techniques prompted a veto of an earlier intelligence bill.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | Late Nite From JibJab: Time for Some Campaigning >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bush Threatens Veto of Intelligence Budget: Too Much Oversight | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Veto away Shrub. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:43:50 AM EST

Do your worst. The clock is ticking and there's an election on. A veto will highlight the issue for Obama and McCain, and while I'm sure Obama would love more power personally he will need to talk the talk on oversight and McCain is stuck supporting the puppet king.
Make it a campaign issue. I think years ago the people would have trusted the need to keep stuff secret but this admin has lied enough that the trust is gone so the oversight will be seen as necessary.

yeah, god forbid (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by cpinva on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:01:22 AM EST

congress actually do its job, just who do those guys think they are, anyway?

Tell me again why congress needs to (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by lizpolaris on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:24:51 AM EST

pass a bill to get information it's already entitled to?

You don't have to prove (1.00 / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:48:12 AM EST

yourself NOT a security risk to be elected to Congress.

Having over 600 people with knowledge of all our programs would be stupid.


Have you (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by cal1942 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:20:30 AM EST

ever read the Constitution?


Yes, and the Constitution (1.00 / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:59:29 PM EST

doesn't require an elected Congress critter to pass a security clearance.

And your point is??


: My point is (none / 0) (#19)
by cal1942 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:34:34 PM EST

that if you'd read the Constition you'd know that the Congress is granted more power than the President including absolute oversight of the executive branch.
If you don't agree with the Constitition then amend it, but until that's done the law is the law.
Ours is supposed to be a nation of laws not men. You seem to be suggesting otherwise since you feel that the President should be able to implement covert intel activity at will without any oversight.
The blunt truth is that all too many covert intel actions (OPS)should never had occurred and have in fact caused us great pain. A more alert Congress should have pulled the plug on many of these assine activities. Just a few examples include covert intel OPS in Iran in 1953, Guatamala in 1954 and one of the granddaddies of complete jacka$$ stupidity; the training and arming of virulent anti-western fanatics in Afghanistan in the 80s.
Without many of the utterly stupid intel OPS carried out over the years we would today be living in a more stable world.
The bottom line is our nation is a republic (aka a representative democracy) governed by its people through their elected representatives. An unchecked executive is not acceptable.

Clearly, I mean the (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by lizpolaris on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:24:43 AM EST

intelligence committe persons with security clearance. At any rate, this should already be standard operating procedure...


: So that would be what?? (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:04:08 PM EST

Ten people? Seems manageble, but then we have their staff...
Who will watch the watchers has long been a question.

Dizzy from the spin (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Lora on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:45:30 AM EST

(emphasis mine)

Remember not too long ago when "filibuster," when threatened by Democrats, was a dirty word?

: Still is. No change there. (none / 0) (#14)
by lizpolaris on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:26:05 AM EST

Harry Reid only recognizes holds on bills from Republicans. With Democrats, filibusters are no-nos.

Bravo (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by cal1942 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:32:00 AM EST

Where in the Constitution does the president find a right to protect the entire executive branch from oversight?

Great line TCHRIS

If the Dems had worked to pass (none / 0) (#1)
by shoephone on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:04:50 AM EST

a bill like this in the first 100 days of the new Congress it might have actually meant something (and it might have passed, because they had some real momentum in their favor at the time). Now they just look like clowns because they aren't fooling the Republicans and they aren't fooling the American citizens either.

Bush hides everything (none / 0) (#2)
by PamFl on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:55:07 AM EST

from Congress and the People.
One of his first Executive Orders was to revoke the security clearances of 91 Senators.

That's wonderful (1.00 / 0) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:43:13 AM EST

I didn't think he had it in him.

Do you have a link??

The puzzle in all democracies is just how much intelligence the law makers should know vs the executive. There are no easy answers, but the Demos, assisted by their minions at the NYT and other declining media outlets, have destroyed several valuable assists, including the ability to trace the funds needed by the terrorists.

That this was looked at with askance by the more intelligent of us never bothered them.

Now, having destroyed the intelligence asset they want to put lipstick on the corpse and bring her back to the dance.

How drool.


Heh (none / 0) (#15)
by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:41:59 PM EST

Even though no leak has been attributed to the Dems that approaches the significance of the information foolishly leaked by Richard Shelby, not to mention the Plame debacle that was most likely orchestrated by Cheney himself, you just know it's always gotta be those traitorous Dems, dontcha?


Actually it was the Dems who leaked the FISA (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:02:19 PM EST

and the money trail.... Unless, that is, you want to maintain that the NYT is a organ of the Repubs.


: I maintain only (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:05:28 AM EST

that you are making allegations with no proof, as anyone can see.
If "a Republican would never have done it, so it must have been a Democrat" is a good enough argument for you, then great.

heh (none / 0) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:33:57 AM EST

Is the president worried that they'll drop the intelligence and break it?

Perhaps T. Chris has forgotten how "Leaky" Leahy got his nickname.

;-)

T. Chris, (none / 0) (#12)
by Che's Lounge on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST

Bush does not regard the Constitution as a legal document. Never has.

And the Bush administration's history of protecting secrets is, dare I say, not exactly exemplary. See V. Plame, or Rice's blunder during the British terrorist sting attempt of 2002.

Time for the resident troll to trot out Sandy Berger in 3...2...1...