 |
 |
   Dan Savage, the brilliant and foul-mouthed sex columnist, has become one of the most important ethicists in America. Are we screwed?
 The federal government is supposed to issue new rules about debt levels for students in for-profit colleges. In the meantime, the states are working on their own regulations.
 Washingtons budget hawks want to decimate the federal workforce to shrink the deficit. It will have the opposite effect.
 There arent nearly enough counterterrorism experts to instruct all of Americas police. So we got these guys instead.
|
   |
|
|
July 17, 2009
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LAUNCHES PROBE.... Given what we've learned this week, this seems like the right call.
According to a press release issued by the committee, the investigation "will focus on the core issues of how the congressional intelligence committees and Congress are kept fully and currently informed. To this end, the investigation will examine several issues, including the program discussed during Director Panetta's June 24th notification and whether there was any official decision or direction to withhold information from the Committee." This week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said he agreed the agency probably should have briefed lawmakers on the assassination program, but disagrees that the CIA was legally obligated to do so, calling it a "judgment call" under the circumstances. Obviously, a full investigation will determine whether that's the right assessment or not. Regardless, that the committee's leadership is moving forward with a probe, whether the administration wants one or not, signals the willingness of at least some House Dems to take Bush-era accountability seriously, regardless of the politics as it relates to the White House. Also, as Greg Sargent noted, it suggests the GOP's concern trolling didn't work: "House Dems are ignoring the insistence by some Republicans and conservatives that continuing to raise questions about the CIA's conduct is bad politically for Democrats. House GOPers have repeatedly sounded the refrain that the continued focus on the CIA by House Dems is very, very bad news for Nancy Pelosi, because it plays into GOP efforts to paint her and Democrats as weak on national security. It seems Dems are forging ahead and ignoring the GOP's well-intentioned advice." It's almost as if some Democratic leaders believe Republicans don't really have their best interests at heart. Imagine that. —Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
Comments
"...Panetta told the committee about the program on June 24, a day after he first learned of the program..." In other words Panetta delayed informing the committee. Can we assume he will be investigated too, or only Republicans? Posted by: Al on July 17, 2009 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINKIt would make a nice investigative report for an enterprising journalist to dig up exactly what 'Al-Qaeda' means. The best info I can find [from a BBC documentary] suggests it really doesn't exist as depicted by the US government. It's not a real organization, has no membership, no chain of command, no officers etc. Just a loose association of splinter groups, often with their own narrowly-focused goals whose only commonality happens to be an anti-western stance. Remember the USA has claimed to have killed 'The #2 Al-Quaeda' commander about 20 times now. I think it must really suck to be #2 in Al-Qaeda. Posted by: Buford on July 17, 2009 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINKBuford's right about that loose definition. So think how dangerous and accident-prone a program devoted to assassinating everyone the US deemed "Al-Qaeda operative." Life could have gotten very exciting in the European capitals! Posted by: ceenik on July 17, 2009 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINKShit, just realized I need to investigate myself for my own stupidity. Posted by: Al on July 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINKAl, reading comprehension is essential to understanding what one reads: "CIA Director Leon Panetta told the committee about the program on June 24, a day after he first learned of the program and canceled it himself." The day after means the next day. Ex. He found out on Tuesday, reported it on Wedsnesday. What you may be talking about is the delay between when he found out about it, and when that information was made public. Posted by: majii on July 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINKHouse Dems are ignoring the insistence by some Republicans and conservatives that continuing to raise questions about the CIA's conduct is bad politically for Democrats. Yes, because Republicans are sooooo concerned about the Democrats political health. Posted by: Stetson Kennedy on July 17, 2009 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINKWhat (Al) may be talking about is the delay between when he found out about it, and when that information was made public. No, what Al may be referring to the 24 hours it takes between an idea germinating in his feeble, crack-addled brain, and reaching his lips. Posted by: Stetson Kennedy on July 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINKRemember the USA has claimed to have killed 'The #2 Al-Quaeda' commander about 20 times now. I think it must really suck to be #2 in Al-Qaeda. Posted by: Buford on July 17, 2009 at 4:15 PM HAHAHA! Exactly what I thought the last time I read that the US had apprehended yet another one of al-Qaida's "#2 commanders." Either that position pays well or they've got a rather odd organizational structure. After all, what does an al-Qaida "#3" do? Take dictation? Make coffee? Posted by: electrolite on July 17, 2009 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINKI think it must really suck to be #2 in Al-Qaeda Sort of like being the Grateful Dead's keyboard player. Posted by: G.Kerby on July 17, 2009 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINKI wonder if Admiral Blair thinks the CIA was legally obligated to brief its Director on this program before 5 months into his tenure -- or maybe he thinks that's a "judgment call" too. Between this water-carrying for Bushie moles and the Freeman nomination, I really wonder about this guy's judgment. By the way this is why Panetta had to cancel the program, even if its intent was reasonable: the people who are in charge of it are obviously untrustworthy. They acceded to Cheney's orders to keep it secret from Congress, and they somehow failed to inform the new Director for months and months... one wonders if they were ever planning to do so. "...one wonders if they were ever planning to do so." larry birnbaum @ 7:58 PM. "House GOPers have repeatedly sounded the refrain that the continued focus on the CIA by House Dems is very, very bad news for Nancy Pelosi, because it plays into GOP efforts to paint her and Democrats as weak on national security." - Greg Sargent That's their idea of an apology? We are not amused. Post a comment
May 2011
April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly
|
||||||||
