Obama wants keep Bush policy on CIA briefings

Yurt, give me a break. This is foolish.

ANY GIVEN PRESIDENT will carry on dozens of policies from their predecessor, because that's the way administrations operate, Democrat or Republican. It's like arguing that Obama wears a tie & suit, so he's just like Bush!

Fact is, on a great many vital issues of the day - foreign policy, energy, the environment, education, fiscal policy, healthcare, college tuition, aid to families: he is not JUST LIKE BUSH.

I know you'll keep finding things, to prove ol' Onceler wrong, but if anyone of serious intellect really tried to make an argument that Obama is JUST LIKE BUSH, they'd be laughed off the planet, and rightfully so.
 
Hey, guess what, Yurtie - Bush was just like Clinton! EXACTLY like Clinton, in YurtWorld!

Who woulda thunk it?

We really need to do something about the IQ level of this board...
 
Obama wants keep Bush policy on CIA briefings

The Obama administration just lodged a strong objection to efforts by Democrats on Capitol Hill to remedy the problem of the CIA briefing too few members of Congress on top-secret subjects. Turns out Obama wants to keep Bush's policies.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=43251&tsp=1

poor, poor onceler..... :cof1:


It isn't even Bush policy. It's what the law requires and has required since, I believe, the intelligence committees were created.
 
link to what the law requires, and you are aware that it is the law (legislative branch) that wants to change this policy....and obama said it was his policy...

deal with it onceler, you laughed the other day claiming this is all you have...well, i told you it was more. i never said bush did not continue anything from clinton, you just don't like that even the leftist media is pointing out all the similarities of "change"....
 
No President will ever relinquish any of the expanded power gained by the previous Commander-in-chief. To the best of my knowledge it has never happened and I can not imagine a situation in which it would. Probably the reason Obama the Senator voted to renew FISA, figured if he were elected, he might want to play with it.
 
link to what the law requires, and you are aware that it is the law (legislative branch) that wants to change this policy....and obama said it was his policy...

deal with it onceler, you laughed the other day claiming this is all you have...well, i told you it was more. i never said bush did not continue anything from clinton, you just don't like that even the leftist media is pointing out all the similarities of "change"....


This, you ignorant shit, is the Obama position on this portion of the bill:

Report on Covert Actions (Section 321). The Administration strongly objects to section 321, which would replace the current “Gang of 8” notification procedures on covert activities. There is a long tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters, and the Administration has emphasized the importance of providing timely and complete congressional notification, and using “Gang of 8” limitations only to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting the vital interests of the United States. Unfortunately, section 321 undermines this fundamental compact between the Congress and the President as embodied in Title V of the National Security Act regarding the reporting of sensitive intelligence matters – an arrangement that for decades has balanced congressional oversight responsibilities with the President’s responsibility to protect sensitive national security information. Section 321 would run afoul of tradition by restricting an important established means by which the President protects the most sensitive intelligence activities that are carried out in the Nation's vital national security interests. In addition, the section raises serious constitutional concerns by amending sections 501-503 of the National Security Act of 1947 in ways that would raise significant executive privilege concerns by purporting to require the disclosure of internal Executive branch legal advice and deliberations. Administrations of both political parties have long recognized the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the Executive Branch's legal advice and deliberations. If the final bill presented to the President contains this provision, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto.


Unless President Bush is a time-traveler, this isn't the continuation of the Bush policy but a mere continuation of the policy that has existed for decades. And there should be absolutely no surprise that Obama wants it to remain the policy. And really, it isn't an administrative policy at all but is the minimum that the U.S. Code requires.

I understand full well that Congress wants to change it, and for good reason. I support the efforts to change this rule and for Congress generally to reassert its prerogatives as an institution. I hope the under the leadership of the Democratic Party the institution of Congress would work to take back much of the power that Congress has ceded to the Executive Branch over the years. It can start by passing the Intelligence Bill as it is and overriding any veto by Obama.

Finally, since you asked, here is what the current law requires pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 413b(c)(2):

If the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.
 
so the law "requires" the president to fight this? that is what you indicated above...and it is pure crap if that is what you are indicating...

it is an agreement, not the law...obama does not have to fight this simply because of "tradition"...

i actually support obama fighting this, i find it humorous that libs are the ones making the big deal over this, go over to dailykos, their ripping obama over this and saying just more bush...LMAO

it doesn't matter if it continued for decades, he is still implementing bush policy in fighting any openess, and in this case, i support it. so you can take your ignorant comment and shove it up where the sun don't shine....
 
it is interesting how all the liberal sites i see call this "bush policy"...

why exactly do you think bush's policy was exactly like the others?
 
So much for Yurt being willing to admit when he's wrong...

on what? see post above....do you have proof bush's policy was the same as all others before him? why are all the libs calling this "bush policy?"

until you show me more, stop your lying silliness dunceler....must i show you another one of your lies again today
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make a Republican accept reality.

Jesus.

Better wing-nuts, please.
 
in other words, it is NOT law that obama limit it, it is up to him....IOW, yurt was right, he does not have to fight this...

you were wrong dungheap, no wonder all you have are insults....
 
i'm still laughing my ass off that the vast majority of libs are bashing obama for this and calling it a continuation of bush's policy....why is that?
 
in other words, it is NOT law that obama limit it, it is up to him....IOW, yurt was right, he does not have to fight this...

you were wrong dungheap, no wonder all you have are insults....


I grow tired and weary of the new batch of wing-nuts. It just isn't fun anymore. It's puerile nonsense that goes nowhere fast.

And Yurt's one of the better ones for Christ's sake.

I need a new time-killer. This place isn't cutting it anymore.
 
i'm still laughing my ass off that the vast majority of libs are bashing obama for this and calling it a continuation of bush's policy....why is that?

I doubt you're laughing your ass off. You sound really annoyed & petty & stupid right now.

It's no surprise to me that the left-wing isn't really happy with Obama. They weren't happy with him during the campaign, and they're not really happy with his Presidency. BAC articulates their case well, but Obama is not a leftie President. He is much more like Clinton - a centrist, who seeks compromise.

One thing he is NOT, on just about any level, is Bush. You seriously hurt whatever case you could make to be a serious debater here by continuing down this line of reasoning, but have at it. As I said, there are dozens of policies which continue through any Presidency, regardless of party. That doesn't make Bush I Reagan, or Clinton Bush 1, or Bush Clinton, or Obama Bush.
 
Back
Top