Intelligence reform

Foxy
Having been in midlevel management for many years and subjected to management change due to ownership and administration change several times I am aware of the upheaval these can cause. I am also aware that you can catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Antagonizing the current staff buys you nothing but the loss of talent, experience and working knowledge. In addition the people who leave are usually the best and most knowledgeable.

0 Replies

How do you know that honey wasn't used? If you have been in the position of hiring and firing, and you have people who absolutely refuse to follow new directives and who are disruptive and trouble makers and are throwing up roadblocks to any effort to repair a policy or procedure, what do you do? Say, oh we have to accept the disruption and moralel crushing behavior because they have talent, knowledge, and experience?

I've worked for bosses who were that timid and I was the one who opted to go elsewhere.

Unless you have an inside track the rest of us don't have here, you (or I) don't know what the situation is inside the CIA or why the people who are leaving are leaving.

0 Replies

Foxy
Read the article. I am the boss and I know it all don't tell me anything. Humm sounds a little or a lot like the Bush attitude.

0 Replies

I read the article Au and took from it that the NY Times writer has no more information than you or I do about the internal operations of the CIA. Nice deflection though.

0 Replies

Twice in the last week or so, the Republican-run Executive and Legislative branches have done something that was later universally pilloried in the media (and subsequently the general public). Both times, the people in charge have not only denied involvement, but any knowledge whatsoever of how these events even occurred!

First we have the last-minute clause slipped into the pork-laden appropriations bill that would have allowed the Appropriations Committee chairman to view the tax returns of any American without notifying them. Here's what the chairman had to say about it:

Quote:

Doubts remained yesterday over exactly how the controversial tax-return provision -- which allows Appropriations Committee chairmen or their "agents" access to Internal Revenue Service facilities or "any tax returns or return information contained therein" -- got into the omnibus spending bill late last week. House Republicans blamed committee staff aides and the IRS.

Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the IRS, denied any role.

What really is a mystery is how Rep. Istook had the temerity to stand up and say he has no idea how something got into the appropriations bill. It's not like it's his friggin' job or anything. No, wait... it is.

The second incident was the scuttling of the so-called 'Intelligence Reform' bill. It was reported (in the right-wing rags, no less) that the reason the bill didn't make it to the floor was because of Pentagon's behind-the-scenes pressure:

Quote:

House and Senate leaders yesterday blamed the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for the demise of the intelligence-reform bill and called on the White House to lobby harder for passage of the legislation during a final lame-duck session, set for December.

So it's with a great deal of, oh let's call it amusement, that we find out what Donald Rumsfeld has to say:

Quote:

"Without question, I favor reform of the intelligence community, as the president does, and I have a feeling that they're [Congress] close."

He [Rumsfeld] also denied that he was lobbying in private against the reform bill.

So there you have it. Nobody knows anything. Not a clue. Nobody knows who slipped the IRS provision in the spending bill and nobody in the Republican-dominated Congress knows who lobbied to kill the Intelligence Reform bill that Republican President George W Bush supported.

What we're witnessing here is the legislative equivalent of the Virgin Birth.

0 Replies

And as usual, Tom Burka has the most accurate take:

Quote:

Bush To Seek To Revive Intelligence Bill He Blocked
Pledges To Work Harder To Push Agenda He Pulls

President Bush pledged today that he would "take a running start" at crafting an intelligence bill that he will later totally shitcan.

"I am very disappointed that I stopped the intelligence bill from making its way of out committee and I vow to work harder to see that that bill goes farther before I once again make sure that it never becomes law," Bush said, returning to his ranch in Crawford,Texas. Bush said he was planning on clearing the brush in an area that he had grown brush on last week.

The intelligence bill was to enact 9/11 Intelligence Commission recommendations for intelligence reform that Bush had at first decried and then embraced. Bush had earlier opposed the creation of the Commission before calling for its immediate assembly. He then completely stonewalled its investigation until fully cooperating with it.

Bush denied today that he had blocked the intelligence bill on Friday.

"I didn't block it," said Bush. "I asked ranking House leaders to pass it while making absolutely sure that they knew that I didn't want it to be passed," he said. "That's totally different."

See? Bush flip-flops. He flips the bird to anyone who disagrees with him, and flops on his face whenever he tries to think and walk at the same time.

So we can count on our President to do what he can to fight to undo the things that he promised us he couldn't do because we knew that he never would.

The real problem, of course, is that Bush has no clue about anything having to do with intelligence.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

What we're witnessing here is the legislative equivalent of the Virgin Birth.

Gasp!!! Has anyone called Dan Rather?

0 Replies

I hope we can continue this thread. I appreciate the long term observation of an unfolding issue.

In some threads, the contributors have managed to remain somewhat neutral. I find such threads more informative.

From your experience or news sources, what report, article, etc, paints the most accurate picture of US intelligence services of the decade

0 Replies

Well Mape, we can wait awhile and see if JW brings in a link (to CBS, maybe). I won't hold my breath.

Another kind of incredible part of the intel reform debacle is that the Speaker of the House admitted he had the votes to pass it. Just not enough Republican votes to avoid making the Democrats look good.

From the NY Times:

Quote:

[Speaker Dennis] Hastert did not want to split his caucus and did not want the bill to pass with less than "a majority of the majority," said his spokesman, John Feehery.

"What good is it to pass something," Mr. Feehery said, "where most of our members don't like it?"

Well, there is a little thing called "the public good." But that would require putting governing ahead of politics. And that's not how the GOP got to where it is, so why start now?

Of course, saying the bill doesn't have support of the "majority of the majority" is a fancy, self-serving way to say a loud minority is opposed.

Hmmm. Do you suppose the same principle will apply to, say, judicial appointments?

It seems to me that any attempt to claim simple majority rule as a consistent principle of the Republican Party is now shot to hell. So when the GOP tries to use it later, it should be quickly shoved down their throats.

0 Replies

Well now, with what do you propose we replace the majority rule concept as it pertains to bills passed by the House and Senate? Who do you trust to decide when the "public good" should supercede the majority will?
And how do you propose to accomplish this in our bicameral form of government?

Personally, as nobody on the 9/11 Commission had the inside track or any special knowledge of the workings of the FBI, CIA, or other such agencies and therefore no magic insight into how best to reform these agencies, it seems to me that it is prudent not to make a Bible of the 9/11 report. It seems to me that the intellectually honest would give credit that the report has been taken under advisement and has been carefully considered and has not been summarily shunted aside and that reforms are underway.

And maybe it is just possible that being careful to get it as right as possible just might be the best chance for 'the public good' to prevail.

0 Replies

According to the article I read there was a majority of representatives who supported the bill -- but not a majority of republicans. In other words, it would have been voted for by mostly Democrats, so Hastert kept it off the floor.

I agree that it's important to get it right, but I don't see how scuttling it for lack of Republican consensus is helpful.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39770&highlight=

0 Replies

It seems the issue that is holding things up is the issue of immigration policy and particularly the policy of issuing drivers licenses to illegals, a policy most of us would very much like to see resolved.

0 Replies

I appreciate the posting of articles, news sources,...

I am one of those individuals who is not burdened by claiming either party; I suppose Independent may be the closest label...

To me, folks who ride the Democratic/Republican animal tend to miss snippets of information which may be key to the overall picture. There, my prejudice is registered.

My readings have lead me to believe that there is some credence to the 9/11 Commission. Also, I feel the CIA and other organizations need to be revamped. As to how much or whether some experienced individuals should have been retained...is open for discussion. To further paint my opinion, I should say I am somewhat leary of an administration who assigned our past Attorney General to a position of authority.

0 Replies

Intelligence reform

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know