The flap over Mr. Panetta's recent disclosures reignites a broader debate between Congress and the executive branch over the limits of executive power. The release of the letters came the day before the House is scheduled to debate an intelligence bill that will test those limits once again.
The White House issued a veto threat on Wednesday over provisions in the bill that would require more expansive briefings of intelligence committee members on covert actions, taking a position against Democratic lawmakers and in line with what the Bush administration had advocated.
The provision would raise "significant executive privilege concerns," according to a White House policy statement. The broader bill contains several measures to bolster Congressional oversight of intelligence activities.
[Democrat House Member] Holt said he was surprised Mr. Obama continued to support the practice of more limited briefings.
Hello world!
7 years ago
6 comments:
When Cheney lies to Congress, it's ok.
When Pelosi even suggests it, it's treason.
Thanks once again for standing up for the wingnut principles of hypocrisy and authoritarianism.
I didn't say it was treason, the criminalization of policy disagreements is your ball game, "Anonymous."
That being said, get your own blog "Anonymous" and you can emphasize whatever you want on it.
Did you hear . . . the Obama administration is backtracking on another platform position?
Yes, it came out in the Inspector General's report that Bush's illegal wiretapping produced no results.
Bush and Cheney lied that these measures "prevented attacks and saved lives." We've not even seen the full extent of the lies of these criminals yet.
It also was revealed that Bush was squarely behind the episode where he sent Gonzalez to Ashcroft's hospital bed to try and get him to sign off on the illegal wiretapping (which he didn't, but they did it anyway).
The report concluded the program was built on a "factually flawed" legal analysis inappropriately provided by a single Justice Department official, John Yoo, in 2001.
And now Holder is bucking the Obama Admin and is expected to investigate Bush war crimes.
And you call these mere 'policy differences'? Ha. Reminds me of one president who said, "If the president approves, then it is not illegal."
Good thing that your accusations [appear] to have been not completely meritless, huh? Nonetheless, Pelosi is just stupid and craven, not a criminal, "Anonymous."
. . . . and did ya hear that Obama is backtracking--again, on a campaign promise?
Thanks for attempting to hijack, er, visiting the blog, "Anonymous"!!
And "surprise," the "no results" article to which you linked is a little bit more nuanced (which is saying something for the NYTimes). I hope people will take the time to follow your rabbit trail enough to appreciate your lack of credibility.
Anonymoussy.
(And I'm pseudonymous, before you even say it. OpenID recognizes me six ways from Sunday. Good people, whom I trust, know me personally. Everyone else, well, I don't plan on ever meeting in person, so why should they know or care who I am? JP, for instance; we know who he is, but why should we care? He's just another in a long string of Poofters and Cat Bloggers.)
Post a Comment