White House Threatens Veto Of Bill To Alter National Security Briefings

[steelmania75]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/white-house-threatens-vet_n_228206.html

So much for Change we can Believe in, so much for transparency.

[spanone]

1. don't change the law. force the cia to tell the truth.

this is power that NO president or his administration is willing to give up.

[G_j]

2. jeezzz.....

White House Threatens Veto Of Bill To Alter National Security Briefings


First Posted: 07- 8-09 06:00 PM | Updated: 07- 8-09 06:16 PM

President Obama has threatened to veto a Democratic-backed bill that would likely expand the number of lawmakers who can be briefed by the White House on covert national security operations.

In a statement issued on Wednesday afternoon, the White House Office of Management and Budget said that it does support many provisions in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 currently making its way through the House of Representatives. But it had "serious concerns with a number of provisions that would impede the smooth and efficient functioning" of the intelligence community.

In particular, the administration opposed a provision of the bill that would give Congress greater authority to decide which members are briefed on covert actions. The Intelligence Authorization Act proposed restructuring the "Gang of Eight" briefings, which are currently provided to the House and Senate leaders from both parties and the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence panels. The House legislation, backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (a former intelligence chair herself), would give the intelligence committees, not the president, the authority to determine which members were briefed.

In its statement today, the White House argued that such a change would "run afoul of tradition by restricting an important established means by which the President protects the most sensitive intelligence activities that are carried out in the Nation's vital national security interests."

..more..

[Thrill]

3. Do you even know why they object? Or is that you just can't wait to throw in

the "So much for change" or "This is change we can believe in" nonsense. That was old after it was used a million times a week after the election.

[Winterblues]

11. What do you suppose their reasoning is to keep members of the Intelligence Committee from receiving

Do you suppose he is suggesting those memebers are not to be trusted with National security matters and if that is the case then why are they on such a committee? Or are you just defending Obama, just because???

[mmonk]

4. I support the House Dems on this one in light of this country's

behavior and executive branch behavior especially since 2001.

[eleny]

5. The more people who know, the greater the probability for leaks

I'm still mulling this over. So far, I'm siding with the president on this one. So long as the big wigs on the committee get the info and it's accurate from the CIA, that ought to be enough "in the know". As someone said up thread - "force the CIA to tell the truth".

I'm not jumping on your bandwagon.

[DCKit]

6. Congress wants more witnesses (to the lies), the CIA want none.

Unfortunately, the authoritarian Republicans, the DLCers and the spineless minority will likely make sure the bill isn't veto-proof.

[Tim01]

7. Tell more people about covert operations? I hope he vetos it. Christ, it's covert! nt

[Enrique]

8. what about oversight?

what about the abuses during the Cheney administration?

[Echo In Light]

10. When you're talking the phony "National $ecurity State" ruse, it's all good.

:sarcasm:

That fucking morons can't understand that "National $ecurity" is ALWAYS cited to protect the guilty says a great deal about this weak, illusory Rep Dem.

[scheming daemons]

9. LOL.... the White House is right here.... and .... "welcome to DU"