Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Intel Bill Opponents: We Won't Change Our Minds

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Intel Bill Opponents: We Won't Change Our Minds

    Apparently many Repubs dont care if we have another 9/11 -- this is from a FoxNews/AP article:

    Reps. Duncan Hunter and James Sensenbrenner — who led opposition dooming legislation based on the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations — said they won't change their minds without Senate concessions.

    "It'll be tougher now because the well got even more poisoned by the senators and their supporters thoroughly criticizing Duncan Hunter and myself by name on the talking head shows yesterday," Sensenbrenner told The Associated Press on Monday.

    The two men turned back a last-second deal Saturday to pass stalled legislation to create a new national intelligence director and national counterterrorism center. The overhaul was supposed to help the intelligence community track terrorist threats and was one of the biggest legislative priorities of this year.

    There was nothing left but recriminations on Monday, with most of Congress heading home for Thanksgiving and Bush still on an overseas trip. No meetings of the bill's negotiators have been planned.

    The House and Senate scheduled Dec. 6-7 meetings just in case a deal is reached.

    Bush personally lobbied House Republicans and told reporters Sunday that "it was clear I wanted the bill passed." But Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke against the bill in a House GOP meeting Saturday afternoon, forcing Speaker Dennis Hastert to pull it.

    That defiance will have repercussions, John Lehman, a former Navy secretary who worked under President Reagan, said in a television interview.

    "This is the classic confrontation you see in Washington that they can sell tickets for," said Lehman, who also served on the Sept. 11 commission. "Because the president now has been challenged directly by the leadership of the Congress and by the lobbyists and by the bureaucracy. Now he's got to show who's in charge."

    Hunter, R-Calif., echoed Pentagon concerns that the realignment of intelligence authority could interfere with the military chain of command and endanger troops in the field. Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., demanded that the bill also deal with anti-terrorism laws and illegal immigration.

    Sensenbrenner said at first the Senate had refused to negotiate on his issues until two weeks ago. Then, in direct negotiation by phone with Bush on Air Force One, Sensenbrenner said he gave up on most of his demands — including tightening up driver's license requirements so illegal immigrants can't get them — after Bush called that a "poison pill."

    But when informed by Bush's negotiators of Sensenbrenner's concession, Senate negotiators refused to budge on his other issue — reforming asylum laws so terrorists can't use them to enter the country — ensuring his opposition.

    "The Senate's going to have to give in on some of this stuff," Sensenbrenner said after meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney.

    Hunter said they asked his opinion in the Saturday GOP meeting, so he gave it to them.

    "In a military situation, being confused about the chain of command is a dangerous thing," Hunter told The Associated Press Saturday night. "I was asked to give my opinion to the conference and the leadership, and it was having a bill with that part of the bill — the chain of command — pulled out of it would cause confusion and more casualties on the battlefield."

    Hunter said he knew the president and Hastert wanted this bill, but "what we have to do here is exercise our best judgment."

    "Having a son who just came back from a second tour in Fallujah, those are the folks I care about," Hunter said. "I just gave my best recommendation to the Republican conference."

    Sensenbrenner said criticism would just make it harder to negotiate.

    "It was tough to begin with. It will be even tougher after the Senate plus (GOP House Intelligence chairman Pete) Hoekstra had a press conference where they badmouthed Duncan Hunter and me, and everybody got on the talking head shows and pilloried Congressman Hunter and me," Sensenbrenner said.

    On Hunter's and his issues, "the American people are overwhelmingly on our side," he said.

  2. #2
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Intel Bill Opponents: We Won't Change Our Minds

    Tigerlilly - Although the specific details have not been published yet, they've apparently reached an agreement on the Bill and will likely go to full Senate and House by early next week.

    However, regardless of the nature of the compromise, your post re Republicans was grossly unfair. The members objecting had very real concerns, raised by the military, over the military's loss of control over significant portions of intel budget monies and assets - which the military warns could ultimately lead to situations where they don't have the intel info and/or assets at their disposal that they feel they need on the battlefield.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  3. #3
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Intel Bill Opponents: We Won't Change Our Minds

    Immigration issues are part and parcel of the 9/11 problem, TL.

    We have no control over our borders or portals in this country, and no one has had the balls to say anything about out of fear of being labelled racist. Well, 2005 is not an election year, so we're not only going to have a much-needed round of base closures, but we're going to have debate at the national level about our failure to address illegal immigration--which is a security issue.

    We can argue about the need for a DNI and how it's been overdue for 25 years--with only the Pentagon's momentum stopping its implementation--but that's not the only issue at hand. It's complex and complicated, so let's not get needlessly reductionist here.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  4. #4
    Banned LauraLove's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    429
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Intel Bill Opponents: We Won't Change Our Minds

    Immigration issues are part and parcel of the 9/11 problem, TL.
    Did she say it wasn't ? If so I didn't see it. Where did she say that ? Here's the quote of the only thing she posted that wasn't part of the article
    Apparently many Repubs dont care if we have another 9/11
    I guess you just lied then Casua,l now didn't you.

    I hope the Senate can get this ironed out and soon, it's important for numerous reasons.It so often seems to me that the rightwing opposes change and I think this is yet another example of this in government.
    Last edited by GirlFriday; 12-24-2004 at 01:52 PM.

  5. #5
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Intel Bill Opponents: We Won't Change Our Minds

    Did she say it wasn't ? If so I didn't see it. Where did she say that ? Here's the quote of the only thing she posted that wasn't part of the article
    TL's implication is clear and predictable; GOP reps ostensibly blocked passage of the bill because they don't care about national security. The reality is that there are a growing number of reps (and Senators) that want fundamental immigration policy changed--policy that would have been included in the final intelligence reform legislation being discussed here. It's right there in the article TL posted, though the WP and NYT have better coverage of it.

    Not my fault that you don't know the issue at hand or the personalities involved.

    And who are you calling conservative?
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Intel Bill Opponents: We Won't Change Our Minds

    Sensenbrenner's objection to the bill was that the compromise bill would still have allowed states to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Since it was driver's licenses which allowed the 9/11 terrorists to board their flights, and since driver's licenses are still used as primary ID at every single US airport (as well as for ID purposes at most other public and private agencies), Sensenbrenner is insistent that the federal law ban states from issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and I agree with his position. The only other effective alternative is to require all US citizens who want to fly within the country to obtain US passports, to abrogate the no passport treaty with Mexico and Canada, and to stop using driver's licenses as official ID. While the passport for everybody route would actually be even safer, the logistics involved of the State Dep't investigating every single person suddenly needing to apply for a US passport in order to fly from NY to LA would be extremely impractical.

    The other major bone of contention in the compromise bill is that the Pentagon has major problems turning control of spy satellite aiming over to the CIA/NSA. The Pentagon claims that by giving up control of satellite aiming that circumstances will arise where US troops in combat will not be able to get real time intel they need immediately because the CIA/NSA may have the satellites aimed at different "targets".

    IMHO the bottom line here is that it doesn't really do any good to pass a law which is actually ineffective in achieving the desired result just so the legislators can say "we passed something" during this congress and cover their own asses should a terrorist attack occur in the near future ! It also doesn't do any good to pass a law which solves some existing problems but which creates new problems as a side effect - particularly if those side effects will endanger US troops in combat. Personally I'm glad that Sensenbrenner had the balls to take political heat and raise these issues, forcing the bill to be scrutinized and deliberated further. We're going to get this bill before the end of december one way or another, and it will be a better bill.

    I also agree that the subject of illegal aliens is central to the issue of national security. It's also central to the issue of state budgets and taxes. One way or another we've got to get beyond the political correctness and racism accusations and address the subject of how to treat illegal aliens in the future at a federal level - the California Courts vs voters and the Arizona Courts vs voters have now proven on multiple occasions that this issue cannot be resolved at a state level.

    I'm virtually certain that the national security aspect is part of the motivation behind GWB's "guest worker" proposal. If this comes to pass, then it will be possible to categorize US citizens, legal "green card" holders and legal "guest workers" as essentially low risk, leaving the remaining illegal aliens as high risk and allowing our resources to be properly directed to where the real risk lies !
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-25-2004 at 03:37 AM.

  7. #7
    Banned LauraLove's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    429
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Intel Bill Opponents: We Won't Change Our Minds

    Sensenbrenner's objection to the bill was that the compromise bill would still have allowed states to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Since it was driver's licenses which allowed the 9/11 terrorists to board their flights, and since driver's licenses are still used as primary ID at every single US airport (as well as for ID purposes at most other public and private agencies), Sensenbrenner is insistent that the federal law ban states from issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and I agree with his position
    I disagree with this being a good reason to hold up this bill. Like gang guns, those who want to go under the radar will do so anyway. Not passing all the things that would make us safer because of that reason is absurd in my book. It's like the old saying throwing out the baby with the bath water.

    I think there is some serious value in "guest worker" program for both the worker and the U.S. It's a win- win. Those don't come around that often.

    the Pentagon has major problems turning control of spy satellite aiming over to the CIA/NSA. The Pentagon claims that by giving up control of satellite aiming that circumstances will arise where US troops in combat will not be able to get real time intel they need immediately because the CIA/NSA may have the satellites aimed at different "targets".
    From what I have gathered from listening to various branch officers with combat experience speak about this gripe is that it's bolonga. The opinion seems to be that's it's actually about the no bid contract funding that many feel is trickling into and lining some personal pockets of members of the administartion.
    Last edited by LauraLove; 11-25-2004 at 05:54 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. O/T To get our minds off of cam stress...
    By Dancing Days in forum Camming Connection
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-09-2011, 11:36 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-19-2007, 02:40 PM
  3. My mood won't change!
    By AlexxaHex in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-14-2007, 08:40 AM
  4. won't change for no one
    By delilla_suicide in forum Newbie Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-24-2005, 07:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •