Obama wants to keep Bush policy on CIA briefings

[Karmadillo]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=43251

Obama wants keep Bush policy on CIA briefings

The Obama administration just lodged a strong objection to efforts by Democrats on Capitol Hill to remedy the problem of the CIA briefing too few members of Congress on top-secret subjects. Turns out Obama wants to keep Bush's policies.

Such secret briefings are what got House Speaker and San Francisco Rep. Nancy Pelosi in hot water just weeks ago, over what she was told when about torture. Typically, highly sensitive briefings are limited to the top Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress and the Intelligence Committees, known as the Gang of 8.

The problem as Democrats have described it is that the gang members are sworn to secrecy, making it impossible for any to mount legislative resistance to a White House policy or conduct effective oversight. That's the reason they said they were helpless when confronting former President Bush on torture, surveillance and the rest in the aftermath 9/11.

House Dems want to expand that briefing to more than 40 members. A bit unwieldy perhaps, but Obama's threatening a veto.

more...

[GodlessBiker]

1. Wouldn't all 40 of the new gang be sworn to secrecy? I'll cut the Prez some slack on this one.

[scheming daemons]

2. Prez is absolutely 100% correct on this one...

Covert operations are.... COVERT.


Congress is made up of a bunch of leakers.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

7. Um.... yes... it is. We've "done it that way here" since our nation was founded

National defense requires the capability to have some things classified as "secret".


From George Washington to Barack Obama, that has been the case.

[Indydem]

8. Wow only took 6 to get to Godwin... n/t

[DCKit]

12. Still a tough call.

If only four are (D)s and not DLC (that could happen), they have no way of stopping anything horrendous from happening. At best, they know, but are prevented from doing anything under threat of prosecution.

The (R)s and corporatists (aka, "the authoritarians") are going to go along every time, leaving the liberals and moderates swinging in the breeze - just as they have with Nancy Pelosi.

It's a broken system.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Is this really a "Bush" Policy? And if so, what did Clinton do before

that was different?

Hope I get a great answer!

[Uzybone]

5. anything Bush did is Bush policy

when he got sworn in on the bible that became Bush policy.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

10. The Intelligence Oversight Act dates back to 1980

The Intelligence Oversight Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Oversight_Act

The 1974 Hughes-Ryan Amendment, which it supersedes The Intelligence Oversight Act dates back to 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes-Ryan_Act

[Karmadillo]

14. It seems a fair way of describing it, although the policy didn't originate with Bush.

The Democrats, at least the ones who want a change, are reacting to the use of the policy during the Bush policy. Obama is acting to stop the alteration of the policy Bush abused.

[Uzybone]

4. Oh so the reason House democrats were ineffective was because CIA briefings were secret?

are they expecting anyone to swallow that rubbish?

[TheWraith]

9. Or you could say "Obama wants to keep Clinton/Reagan/Carter policy"...

But that wouldn't be inflammatory enough to draw readers to the SF Gate.

[Vidar]

11. Extra secret transparency.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Yes, how can secrecy be a secret if we all know about it?