Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - A democrat never changes its spots

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - A democrat never changes its spots (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/111082-democrat-never-changes-its-spots.html)

A democrat never changes its spots

Seems that the pre-election campaign pledges of implementing the 9/11 panel suggestions was just another Democrat fakery. I think we're in for a wild ride for the next two years. What I'm interested in seeing is how this is going to be defended by the 'dems' in the MSM as well as this board.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901317_pf.html

Quote:

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Because plans for implementing the commission's recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.

"I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). "That is not going to be their party position."

It may seem like a minor matter, but members of the commission say Congress's failure to change itself is anything but inconsequential. In 2004, the commission urged Congress to grant the House and Senate intelligence committees the power not only to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies but also to fund them and shape intelligence policy. The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf.

But the commission was unequivocal about the need.

"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "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."

Now Democrats are balking, just as Republicans did before them.

The decision will almost certainly anger commission members, as well as families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, many of whom have pressed hard for implementation of the recommendations.

"The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them," said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.

Carie Lemack, whose mother was in one of the jets that hit the World Trade Center, echoed that sentiment: "It wasn't a Chinese takeout menu, the 41 recommendations. You have to do all of them."

Democratic leadership dust-ups this month severely limited the ability of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to implement the commission's recommendations, according to Democratic aides.

Pelosi strongly backed Murtha for House majority leader, only to see him soundly defeated by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). That chain of events made it difficult for her to ask Murtha, a longtime ally, to relinquish control of the intelligence budget from his consolation prize, the chairmanship of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, according to Democratic sources.

Likewise, a controversy over the choice of a new chairman of the House intelligence committee proved to be a factor in the decision. The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003. But in her search for a reason to drop the committee's most senior Democrat, Jane Harman (Calif.), from the panel, Pelosi fell back on the tradition of term limits. She has decided to pass over the intelligence committee's second-ranking Democrat, Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), as well.

To the Sept. 11 commission, the call for congressional overhaul was vital, said former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), the commission's co-chairman. Because intelligence committee membership affords lawmakers access to classified information, only intelligence committee members can develop the expertise to watch over operations properly, he said. But because the panels do not control the budget, intelligence agencies tend to dismiss them.

"The person who controls your budget is the person you listen to," Kean said.

Those people, the appropriators, do not seem to care much, he said. The intelligence budget is a small fraction of the nearly $500 billion overseen by the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Kean said that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an Armed Services Committee member, told the Sept. 11 commission that if his panel spends 10 minutes considering the intelligence budget, it has been a good year.

"We think this is extremely crucial," Kean said of a reorganization shifting budget authority to the intelligence committees. But, he added, there are "a lot of old bulls in both parties who just don't want to do it."

In 2004, the Senate tried to reach a compromise on the issue, proposing to create intelligence subcommittees under the House and Senate appropriations committees. The appropriators would maintain most of their power, but at least distinct panels would have to watch over intelligence spending.

The idea went nowhere in the House. To make it work, total spending on intelligence would have to be declassified, another commission recommendation that Congress has rejected. Besides, Young said, an intelligence subcommittee effectively exists in the form of the Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman and ranking member, who have taken serious interest in intelligence spending.

Democratic aides yesterday chose to talk up what they will do in the opening hours of the 110th Congress. Plans are not complete, but the incoming Democratic majority is likely to expand efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; ensure the interoperability of communications equipment so first responders can communicate more effectively; develop a comprehensive screening system for air cargo; and establish a civil-liberties board to protect the public against intelligence agencies expanding their reach.

So... Intra-party politics has interfered with one aspect of what they promised, such that it won't get handled in the first 100 hours of the session, and this EDITORIAL spins it as backpedaling on implementing the commission's recommendation? When the Republican Congress had more than TWO YEARS with the report and took no action on it?

I don't think so. It's a nice try, though.

All pols break their promises. Its in their nature to do so. Whats funny/disturbing/arrogant about this broken promise is that they actually broke it before even taking power. They continue to do this (and I suspect they will) and their reign of power will be a brief one

it's amazing how, as they realize how badly they've screwed up and how much work they'll have to do to regain America's trust, the pitch of the conservative editorials hurtles toward the ultrasonic.

Damn you Ratbastid for posting what I was going to say.

I think this shows how desperate the GOP is to start shit with the Dems. And since Congressional terms don't start until Jan. 3rd...... a lot can happen, be said and implied without even having an ounce of truth by the GOP, all done just to try to create a bad atmosphere, more hate mongering and further division in this country. Pathetic.

Sad and desparate from the GOP, who said they would be different than the Dems, who said they would be ready and willing to have bipartisan peace and would work with the Dems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

DK...the zealouness with which you decry "Democratic" fakery was good for a morning laugh. I guess its too much to expect that the Repub stalwarts would at least wait unitl the new Congress convenves before going into attack mode. :eek:

SO, Congressional reform to improve intelligence oversight/funding is not on the Dems first 100 hour agenda. Its easy to understand why, as Rat noted, both intra-party as well as Repub partisan objections wont make this recommendation an easy one to enact.

What is not so amusing is the report card on the implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations to-date (issued last December):

http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_summary.pdf

Be patient, Repubs.....you might even like some of what you see :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

This will male a great signature when it does actually come to pass

Can someone explain to me how we are criticizing the dems for not implementing something yet when they haven't even taken power yet? Give them 6 months to see what they do before you start complaining... after all you were willing to get republicans 6 years without complaining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Can someone explain to me how we are criticizing the dems for not implementing something yet when they haven't even taken power yet?

That's like asking why dog eats its own vomit. It's just something neocons do.

Quote:

Give them 6 months to see what they do before you start complaining... after all you were willing to get republicans 6 years without complaining.

6?

Try 18. you're forgetting Reagan/Bush 1

It would seem the original poster missed one key part atthe beginning of the piece, no one said they won't implement them, they said they won't implement them for now, here I'll show you:

Quote:

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly

See for now, not never as it seems some people are trying to make it appear, I guess people really do only read what they want to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

6?

Try 18. you're forgetting Reagan/Bush 1

What?

If we're doing that, then...

4 years under Lincoln
8 years under Grant
4 years under Hayes
Forget about Garfield
4 years under Arthur
4 years under Harrison
4 years under McKinley
8 years under Roosevelt
4 years under Taft
3 years under Harding
6 years under Coolidge
4 years under Hoover
8 years under Eisenhower
5 years under Nixon
3 years under Ford
8 years under Reagan
4 years under Bush the 1st
6 years under Junior (so far)

let's see...

That's 79 years.

I still don't see the point, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

It would seem the original poster missed one key part atthe beginning of the piece, no one said they won't implement them, they said they won't implement them for now, here I'll show you:

See for now, not never as it seems some people are trying to make it appear, I guess people really do only read what they want to see.

do you REALLY think that this means that they will definitely implement them later? or is democrat political speak different from republican political speak?

I'm betting that this will be a 08 campaign issue

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I never said they would or wouldn't, I merely said they haven't said they won't, they have said they won't for now, so saying they never change their spots is just a wee bit premature. I understand though, neo-cons are still smarting over the midterms so they need to drag up anything they can to make themselves feel better.

first off, i find it bizarre that the assumption that consolidating intelligence gathering functions is a rational response to 9/11 is simply accepted a priori. i dont see any possible linkage between this and any alternate reality in which the trade center/pentagon attacks could have been prevented. it seems to me mostly a therapeutic bone thrown to the families of those who died, and a rather cynical one at that. does anyone seriously believe that a more centralized intel gathering system would have made it more possible to be proactive about an attack that no-one was looking for? maybe one reason politicos have balked at implementing the idea is that the idea itself makes no sense, except in the abstract, and even that as a palliative.

second, the edito appears to be a typical rightwing hit piece and nothing more. its basic argument is a variant of the bush-cheney stump speech theme that the democrats are "weak on security" and that therefore neofascism wrapped up in republican fear-mongering is the only viable response to security concerns. i see nothing of any interest or importance in it.

but what i find *really* odd is that the thread was started by dk, who in most threads is among the first to outline paranoid responses to real or imagined encroachments on absolute autonomy as far-right libertarians understand the term.

so dk: why would you find a consolidation of intel gathering functions within the state, which in general you process as the Man (and that's about as far as it goes), to be desirable?
the premise seems to run counter to everything about your politics.
what would make you think that such a centralized intel gathering machinery would not expose people like yourself to much tighter, much more co-ordinated surveillance, for example?
this makes no sense to me.
please explain.

roach, to me it's not about the intelligence gathering, per se, but more about YET AGAIN, the OTHER major party paying lip service to voters about any issue and then not following through.....or 'not at the moment'. Like there is more important crap they have to deal with.

Like I said, I imagine we'll be seeing alot of this back and forth flip-flop crap for a couple of years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

So, in other words, this hack job editorial got your pavlovian partisan juices flowing, despite your not personally being in favor of the thing it complains about them not doing? Can you see how wacky that is?

Say what you want about the Democrats--at least they've got an eye on operating in a bipartisan manner. All you get from Republicans right now is sore loser nonsense like this editorial and this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I've not said I'm in favor of, or against it, in any of this thread. Read what I'm ranting about, Dems reversing on a campaign pledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Say what you want about the Democrats--at least they've got an eye on operating in a bipartisan manner. All you get from Republicans right now is sore loser nonsense like this editorial and this thread.

Did you miss me slamming republicans over the last two years? I see some of you democrats aren't any better than some republicans on here in that if I harp or criticize the republicans, then I'm a liberal and if I criticize on the democrats, then i'm a neocon. You appear to be just a mirror image of some of the more notorious conservatives on here.

dk:

i see the major political parties in the states as representing factions within the oligarchy and, by extension, the united states as being fundamentally a single-party state with two right wings.

even so, i still do not see why the issue raised via the op is of any particular interest or importance. like others have already said, the democrats have no even started exercizing such power as they have yet. and it is self-evident that a process of horsetrading would accompany that of taking congressional power, such as it is--particularly given the tightness of the percentages that are at play in congress. so i dont see this as a particular index of anything beyond that.

Upon reading the article more closely, I'm wondering why we would be angry at Democrats because Republicans say they won't do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Upon reading the article more closely, I'm wondering why we would be angry at Democrats because Republicans say they won't do this.

Yeah, I was wondering that too.

God, as a Marylander I love how Steny Hoyer has just screwed everything up in Congress :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Upon reading the article more closely, I'm wondering why we would be angry at Democrats because Republicans say they won't do this.

But then dksuddeth wouldn't have an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Yep, those saintly Democrats suffered in silence. I am reminded of Clinton and the air traffiic controllers.

It was said at the time that by the time he got into office, he had already broken all of his own promises (remember the "middle class tax cut?") and was having to start in on Reagan's.

George Stephanopoulos: "The president has kept all the promises he intended to keep."

It appears we are already learning which ones the Democrats intend to keep.

Yep, those Democrats sure are screwing up America... :hmm:

Its a miracle we've lasted this long, and we still have two years to go! Hopefully there will still be a nation left to salvage for the benevolent, trustworthy GOP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

What?

If we're doing that, then...

4 years under Lincoln
8 years under Grant (etc etc etc snip)

Well the difference is that the philosophies of the current Bush administration, while taken to a moronic extreme, are similar to the previous Bush administration and the Reagan administration. i.e. The USA is the best, everyone else needs to be like us or we need to make them, and trickle-down economics is a great idea.

Before Reagan that crap didn't fly - Reagan was the start of the neocon takeover of the formerly respectable (Nixon's antics excluded) republican party.