« Geragos' Intentionally Non-Responsive Subpoena to Lisa Myers | Main | Christian Forgiveness »

November 27, 2007

Comments

EW, do you think Bond is genuinely trying to exert some fiscal restraint, or do you think he wants the authority to earmark his own pet projects for his own campaign contributors? Not sure I'm prepared to wrap my brain around the image of Kit Bond, Good Governance SuperHero quite yet ;)

phred

I think he really wants to exercise oversight. So part of it is doubtless a power issue--that the SAC-D gets to choose the earmarks, not the SSCI. But I do believe that he's trying to get to the problem of Duke Cunningham, money appropriated for projects with no real need.

Thanks EW, lets hope he succeeds...

Earmarks. The original issue of earmarks came into being because of the Intelligence Committee and the planning and funding of the Afghanistan war. USAID(CIA) money going to pals of the intelligence committee and professional associations. PC.

The earmarks for the Intellignce Committee were negotiated to gifts. Shays was re-elected and the earmark issue went everywhere but intelligence. The Intelligence Committee decided money and earmarks should be monitored by the Intelligence (Sub) Committee.

CIA hires families. It breaks all the laws corporations follow. Last we checked, the phone company checks to see if they are hiring family members. The NSA scandal and the other things Plame complained about were handled by moving CIA(analysts( to DoD - NSA and DIA(not operations because DIA, supposedly, isn't allowed the same US operations as CIA (Plame domestic survellaince and NSA assets; CIA always had a domestic mandate like NSA and, arguably DIA). Plame's dad was NSA, Air force. Joe's dad was a diplomat(CIA?), Spain.

The directors of CIA all have Air Force backgrounds. The speical ops and intelligence relationship between the military and the CIA was traditionally here. When Congress tried to close CIA, democrats, who create and run all federal employment, decided CIA should move to DoD. A legacy of jobs for families that was sent to 'retire' with DoD like most Congressional agencies.

DoD is supposed to monitor the Intelligence Committee earmark appropriations to CIA(USAID)? It's a legacy from the Intelligence Committee who doesn't want earmarks or a monitor. DoD's job is not to monitor the Intelligence Committee, who decided they should monitor themselves. The original concept for the planning and funding of the Afghanistan war should be taken into account. It's not USAID's job to monitor covert CIA funding to US NGOs who are friends with the Intelligence Committee.

The Intelligence Committee doesn't need memorandums of understanding with themselves, they need a monitor assigned to audit all those appropriations and DoD is not the monitor; they already 'inherited' the Intelligenc Committee's and Congress' CIA.

Congress is going to have to assign an outside government monitor, not another agency from Congress or DoD. Theoutside monitor is going to assign earmarks and monitor the ethics of the covert funding. Thefirst step is going to have to be a study of the planning and funding of the Afghanistan war and, until this is dealt with, Congress, the Intelligence committee, will continue to monitor itself.

This chicanery is distressing. It would be bad enough if we were talking about sneak appropriations for activities that are open to public scrutiny, but when the members of intelligence committees and subcommittees start to act slick, they deprive Congress and the people of the only control we have over "intelligence", which includes the most dangerous, damaging, and crazy actions this asshole government takes in our name. When "intelligence" gets act, it does so on incomplete information and analysis--lack of comprehension of the current situation, inability to predict the future (consequences).

It's the institutionalization of a system that enables rogues to do harm and protects them from control or consequences. It stinks, and we pay for it, in every sense of the word.

Upon return, Senate counsel informed me that the MOA was invalid as drafted for several reasons that you probably would not like me to lay out here...

Why does OLC get all the "effective" legel counsel while the Senate has none.

Kit Bond is not a Bush Republican. Let's see if he can make headway on funding intelligence with less waste and no graft.

Dear Santa--about that new SSCI Chair I asked for for Christmas?

You have been good. You deserve the whole set. Let it so that the time for thanks has passed and the time for giving is upon us.

Upon return, Senate counsel informed me that the MOA was invalid as drafted for several reasons that you probably would not like me to lay out here...

Why does OLC get all the "effective" legel counsel while the Senate has none.

LOL

A very good question on both points, Neil. You think maybe Bridge to Nowhere Stevens didn't want this MOA to work? And Jello Jay couldn't do the bare minimum to stop him from spiking it?

Thanks EW. If snark and cynicism lead to asking a good question, I'll take full credit; otherwise credit is due to those who research and unveil the methods of operation and political motivations of governemnt officials... "some people" have a real knack for it.

So, EW, what exactly is it that I should be asking my Senator, Daniel Inouye, to do, or to not do? Maybe I'm just being dense today, but I don't see the action piece here.

Bob in HI

Bob

I'd first ask why his subcommittee keeps allocating money for things that the Intell Committees don't think are needed.

Then I'd ask him how he's going to fix that in the future, and stop wasting your money.

Thanks. I get the picture now. Inouye and Stevens have been close for a long time because of the Alaska & Hawaii statehood thing. Inouye better watch out that Stevens doesn't become a tar baby.

Bob in HI

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad