Nancy Pelosi: How Dare the Administration Say they Would Veto Intelligence Reform?

[Joanne98]

In a an interview with me on intelligence reform on Saturday, Speaker Pelosi suggested that the White House should either accept real reform of the oversight function–including some version of House amendments on GAO review of intelligence programs and expanded intelligence briefing beyond the Gang of Four–or accept full responsibility if anything goes wrong with its intelligence programs, because the intelligence committee (or at least the House intelligence committee) cannot exercise effective oversight under the current rules.

Recent coverage on the intelligence reform routinely points out that Speaker Pelosi refuses to budge on these two issues. But it rarely explains why Pelosi is so adamant about these reforms. In our interview, Pelosi (and Jan Schakowsky, who was in the room) laid out some of the reasons: Pelosi discussed the times when Gang of Four members were briefed but could not tell others (including an oblique discussion of the games CIA played with their briefings of her on torture). Schakowsky reminded Pelosi that Congress did not know the intelligence “justifying” the Iraq War. The Speaker also described a time when expanding numbers of House staffers were read into a topic only briefed to the Gang of Four, even while the members of the committee were not briefed. Pelosi mentioned the investigation Schakowsky’s subcommittee did, which concluded that CIA had failed to inform the Intelligence Committee of five major incidents. Schakowsky described the resource and expertise limitations on the committee and explained how GAO could alleviate that. Pelosi described an unevenness between the way the White House treats non-compartmented intelligence requests from the Senate and the House–including deciding to prevent specific members from seeing particular intelligence.

And both women described the absurdity by which a quarter-million contractors can get Top Secret clearance but the members of Congress selected to conduct oversight over Executive Branch intelligence activities (including, in an ideal world, over those very same contractors) couldn’t get access to the same information the contractors got.

Pelosi and Schakowsky seemed thoroughly frustrated with the joke that has become of intelligence oversight, particularly since the Bush Administration found a bunch of new ways to game the system and now the Obama Administration has threatened to veto House efforts to eliminate the ways Bush succeeded in gaming the system

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/07/26/nancy-pelosi-how-dare-the-administration-say-they-would-veto-intelligence-reform/

[mopinko]

1. those 2 ladies should not be fucked with. i'm just sayin'

all these "intelligence" agencies should be cleaned out with a fire hose.

[Spheric]

2. Strike another blow for change. /nt

[Jefferson23]

3. Good for Pelosi, she must be really frustrated by this, and I'm glad

to hear she is pushing back.

[Drops_not_Dope]

4. and their staff

2. Congressional Briefings On October 25,2001, White House officials and Hayden conducted a briefing on the PSP for the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Nancy P. Pelosi and Porter J. Goss; and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, D. Robert Graham and Richard J. Shelby.

According to the NSA, between October 25, 2001, and January 17,2007, Hayden and current NSA Director Keith Alexander, sometimes supported by other NSA personnel, conducted approximately 49 briefings to members of Congress and their staff, 17 of which took place before the December 2005 media reports regarding what was called the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." Hayden told us that during the many PSP briefings to members of Congress no one ever suggested that NSA should stop the program.
http://washingtonindependent.com/50380/the-inspector-generals-report-on-warrantless-surveillance Pg.16
...........

If Nancy believes she was really Read Into this program by Hayden with Goss present, I'm LMFAO.

But here is an excellent representation of what she's talking about.

[tony51]

5. Nancy Pelosi: How Dare the Administration ...

"And both women described the absurdity by which a quarter-million contractors can get Top Secret clearance but the members of Congress selected to conduct oversight over Executive Branch intelligence activities (including, in an ideal world, over those very same contractors) couldn’t get access to the same information the contractors got."

Entirely understandable. Congresspeople and their staffs historically have been leakier than a sieve. If I were in any of the "intelligence" groups, I'd not tell them anything that was critically sensitive.