Pelosi: No oversight, Bush has "disturbingly expansive view" of his power

[Rose Siding]

The Gap in Intelligence Oversight

By Nancy Pelosi
Sunday, January 15, 2006; Page B07

The uproar concerning President Bush's admission that he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct certain electronic surveillance affecting people in the United States is a wake-up call for intensive congressional oversight of intelligence activities.

Review of intelligence-gathering and analysis is a critical responsibility of the legislative branch. But as the independent Sept. 11 commission concluded, "so long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need." As one who served on the House intelligence committee for 10 years and who continues to serve in a non-voting capacity, I know that the commission's concerns are justified and require immediate action.

Congress is not an afterthought in assessing intelligence activities; federal law requires that it be kept informed of all such activities. But despite that clear statutory directive, the Bush administration consistently acts as though it alone owns intelligence information.

The products of our intelligence agencies belong to the government, of which Congress is an equal branch. The executive branch operates intelligence programs and activities, and Congress oversees and pays for them -- and thus has a responsibility to ensure that they are effective and carried out in a manner consistent with the Constitution, our laws and our values. That's why the intelligence committees were created. But as the Sept. 11 commission noted, the way intelligence information is conveyed to Congress and the way Congress operates make rigorous oversight impossible.

....MORE....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301698.html

[joefree1]

1. She just does not understand our system of "Checks and balances"

“Ours is a government of checks and balances. The Mafia and crooked businessmen make out checks, and the politicians and other compromised officials improve their bank balances.”
~Steve Allen

[IndianaGreen]

2. Why do you oppose impeaching Bush, Nancy?

That's what you told your supporters in San Francisco.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2042505#2042562

[Rose Siding]

3. Doesn't that mean she recognizes that a majority would be required?

-at the very least, for impeachment to be accomplished. As well, she advocated hearings which would be a crucial early step.

I don't see any clear statement about opposing impeachment. Have you seen a different quote about that?

[IndianaGreen]

4. She was asked by a DUer (see link provided)

Her response was to wait for 2008.

[Rose Siding]

5. It looks like "2008" is the DUer's assertion.

-since it isn't included within that DUer's quote. By saying "just wait until elections", if she means '06, the implication is that a dem majority is what impeachment would require. That makes more sense; a congressperson is tuned in to the 2 yr election cycle.

In fact, another poster in that thread brought up the same question. I wish I could tell better what parts she actually said.