Loans | Mortgages | Mobile Phones | Life Insurance | Remortgages
Congress Angry That They Aren't Briefed [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : Congress Angry That They Aren't Briefed


**DONOTDELETE**
09-15-2001, 10:47 AM
September 15, 2001

Inside Report: Unhappy on the Hill

WASHINGTON -- Senior members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, maintain a unified public facade confronting a national crisis but are unhappy that they are not being fully briefed by the Bush administration.

They grumble that Cabinet members sent to Capitol Hill to brief the lawmakers are delivering political speeches to them instead of dispensing information. Attorney General John Ashcroft is designated as the worst offender. Old congressional hands unfavorably compare their treatment by the president with how well his father kept them informed during the Gulf War. Administration officials privately explain that they don't trust members of Congress to protect confidential information. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are both furious with Sen. Orrin Hatch, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for leaking information from communications intercepts.

CHANGE AT CIA?
The massive intelligence failure in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack is likely to prove the end of George Tenet's tenure as CIA director, according to members of congressional intelligence committees.

In the interest of national unity, Tenet's critics are keeping quiet. But there is a growing consensus both in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill that a change is needed at the Central Intelligence Agency...

DEFENSE DEBATE

The mood of bipartisan unity created by the terrorist attack may soon be broken by a Democratic effort to shift defense spending from President Bush's national missile defense to anti-terrorist programs.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has not abandoned his fight against national missile defense and may now have a stronger hand because of Tuesday's calamities.

Republicans in Congress face a dilemma. If they vote for the defense bill at a time of national crisis even though it reduces funds for national missile defense, they would be voting for a measure that severely cuts one of President Bush's top priorities.

Contact Robert Novak
©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

From Townhall.com (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20010915.shtml)

The_Sonarman
09-15-2001, 10:52 AM
Let the bastards grumble. Security leaks get our guys killed. We've already had a known leaker at the congressional level.

**DONOTDELETE**
09-16-2001, 01:53 AM
The administration has god reason to be furious. They didn't want the entire world to know they could beak the code that was used to contact Laden.

DesertFox
09-16-2001, 01:59 AM
Why would they be interested in what Ashcroft has to say on a matter of national defense? They should be homing in on Defense and State.

RogerFGay
09-16-2001, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pamela:
The mood of bipartisan unity created ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was so pleased when Dick Gephardt chose to strongly pronounce the word "non-partisan" (rather than bi-partisan) in his speech the other day. Finally learned an important lesson, I thought.

Didn't take long for someone to replace that with the word "bipartisan" again; like we could really give a damn at a time like this. Tell the partisans to shut the hell up. If they're so bloody stupid, we'll come to Washington and replace them ourselves -- right now -- if not sooner.

Warlady
09-16-2001, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Administration officials privately explain that they don't trust members of Congress to protect confidential information. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are both furious with Sen. Orrin Hatch, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for leaking information from communications intercepts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nuff said

Why are they surprised? Congress allows the likes of Gary Condit to remain on the House Intelligence committee. A House with no ethics is not trustworthy. They no longer have or deserve the public trust.

RogerFGay
09-16-2001, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pamela:
The massive intelligence failure in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack is likely to prove the end of George Tenet's tenure as CIA director, according to members of congressional intelligence committees.

In the interest of national unity, Tenet's critics are keeping quiet. But there is a growing consensus both in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill that a change is needed at the Central Intelligence Agency...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And nobody's memory is really short enough to have forgotten that the Clintonites were uncooperative in the transition -- one of the truely important responsibilities of the presidency. Al Gore and Joe Liberwitz extended the election period so they could collect more donations, reducing the time available for the trasition, while Clintony himself denied even the normal office space to the Bush transition team.

I said then that it was a direct threat to national security.

Warlady
09-16-2001, 06:27 AM
I had forgotten about that. Clinton wouldn't turn over the keys or the funds. Bush had to fund the transition himself.

Clinton had to know this was a huge threat to national security.

RogerFGay
09-16-2001, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
I had forgotten about that. Clinton wouldn't turn over the keys or the funds. Bush had to fund the transition himself.

Clinton had to know this was a huge threat to national security.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look back at the history, from the end of the actual election in early November, there's a fairly obvious pattern of destabalization that takes place, orchestrated by the Demoncrats -- directly from the White House. They were working hard to destabalize things both domestically and internationally, and were damned disapointed that they didn't get a nation-wide race riot going. Sharon won the election in the aftermath of Clinton's overly ambitious push and the middle east fell apart in good time.

The Demoncrats and others on the left even had Europeans feeling really scared of Bush's great evil empire coming into being. Ironically, they felt Bush would be worse - more violent and less understanding - than Clinton in dealing with international affairs. After the failed attempt to start race riots in the US, Hillary and Liberwitz and others continued working on Muslim anxieties -- Hillary even making an appearance in the parking lot of the UN to threaten Palestinians and all Arabs everywhere.

Warlady
09-16-2001, 06:48 AM
We haven't even touched on what Clinton and Gore did to the INS. How many criminals did they let in?

RogerFGay
09-16-2001, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
We haven't even touched on what Clinton and Gore did to the INS. How many criminals did they let in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They just wanted to get out the vote. That's always been the trouble with the Clintons. They never were anything but politicians. Someone like that should never win an election.

**DONOTDELETE**
09-16-2001, 07:42 AM
I feel a gas attack coming...muhahahahahaa

Warlady
09-16-2001, 08:20 AM
Let her rip Crow images/icons/smile.gif

The_Sonarman
09-16-2001, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Administration officials privately explain that they don't trust members of Congress to protect confidential information. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are both furious with Sen. Orrin Hatch, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for leaking information from communications intercepts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My previous point, exactly. We can all know "what's happening", after the fact. Our enemies have televisions and radios, in this age of instant communications and information. We deny useful information to our targets and enemies. If Congress is untrustworthy, then they have no business knowing exactly where and when we strike. At best, our enemies escape the strike zones, if they are given such knowledge by camera seeking Congressmen. At worst, traps are set for our guys, and our guys bleed.

We can all know "after the fact" when the strikes start. Our enemies already know "where and when" they are getting hit, with napalm and paras coming out of the sky in their midst. Same thing was done in the Desert Storm war. The Administration does not want to deny "us" information.... but they very much need to deny "them" information. Operational Security if extremely important.