Obama wants keep Bush policy on CIA briefings

Onceler said:
Yurt, I don't respond to a lot of your posts, because it's like talking to a brick wall. You never acknowledge when you are wrong or mistaken, and continue with the same line of reasoning even after it has been shown to you repeatedly to be false. This thread is an excellent example; DH could not have been more clear a few posts back, but you are still badgering him for how he "really" feels.

Post the list - cut & paste it & I will respond. I couldn't open the link.
Click to expand...

that is flat out lie

your MO is to give a tiny debate, then run away while hurling insults over your shoulder
 
Yurt said:
please show me where he said he no longer stands by the statement that obama was merely following the law...all he did was post the law and obama's reasoning, maybe i missed where he said that obama is not merely following the law, rather choosing to continue bush and other president's policies....
Click to expand...

Are you being intentionally dense?

Go back a dozen posts. Re-read the long response from DH. Once again, you mischaracterize - "he no longer stands by the statement that Obama was merely following the law". His statement was a statement of fact, not opinion, but you keep portraying it as the latter.

People shouldn't have to jump through such enormous hoops to get through that skull of yours. Use your brain. THINK.
 
Onceler said:
Are you being intentionally dense?

Go back a dozen posts. Re-read the long response from DH. Once again, you mischaracterize - "he no longer stands by the statement that Obama was merely following the law". His statement was a statement of fact, not opinion, but you keep portraying it as the latter.

People shouldn't have to jump through such enormous hoops to get through that skull of yours. Use your brain. THINK.
Click to expand...

so his statement of fact is that obama was following the law and had no choice...is this right? i never claimed it was an opinion or a fact, i said it was a statement, i mischaracterized nothing.
 
Onceler said:
see post above, you friggin' lunatic.

Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong....
Click to expand...

moron...i even told you in this very thread to give me evidence that bush was following other presidents exactly and i would change my statement...and what do you do, more childish insults....why don't you just shut up and show me that bush's tradition was just like all the others instead of wasting your time with insults :pke:
 
Since you still really don't get it (did you go back and read DH's long post?), I concede. You win; I'm done. Declare all the victories you want, and let everyone know that you have definitely shown me as the hack & hypocrite I really am.

Rejoice.
 
By the way, we have no idea what Obama's practice or policy has been with respect to congressional briefings on covert actions or other intelligence activities. We just know what his position is with respect to the proposed change in the law. Surprisingly, he wants as much discretion as other presidents have had.

For a good discussion of the Bush Administration's abuse of discretion with respect to reporting to only the Gang of 8 and the distinction between "covert action" and "intelligence activities" and the reporting requirements for each, go here :

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m011806.pdf
 
Onceler said:
Since you still really don't get it (did you go back and read DH's long post?), I concede. You win; I'm done. Declare all the victories you want, and let everyone know that you have definitely shown me as the hack & hypocrite I really am.

Rejoice.
Click to expand...

wow, just wow...instead of that waste of energy all you had to do was show me and yes i did go back and read. how much simpler it would have been if you or dungheap, instead of tossing lame insults, would have just clarified it.

but no, far, far easier to claim you're right and i'm stupid....

wuss
 
Dungheap said:
It isn't even Bush policy. It's what the law requires and has required since, I believe, the intelligence committees were created.
Click to expand...

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




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):
Click to expand...

looks to me like he is still saying obama has no choice, he is doing what the law "requires"....the bare minimum....NOT ADMIN POLICY but what the law requires....that is not true

but that is not so, obama has the "choice" to limit it to the 8....i fail to see where dungheap changes his stance from obama being forced to do this, so not obama's fault...to obama does not have to fight this. all he says is that of course obama wants to keep tradition, of course....

i'm sure dungheap will continue to ignore this and onceler will come back with lame insults :rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
looks to me like he is still saying obama has no choice, he is doing what the law "requires"....the bare minimum....NOT ADMIN POLICY but what the law requires....that is not true

but that is not so, obama has the "choice" to limit it to the 8....i fail to see where dungheap changes his stance from obama being forced to do this, so not obama's fault...to obama does not have to fight this. all he says is that of course obama wants to keep tradition, of course....

i'm sure dungheap will continue to ignore this and onceler will come back with lame insults :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I still don't see where I said anything about Obama having no choice or Obama being forced to do this.

All I said was that Obama's position on this bill is consistent with presidential practice as required by law over the past several decades, which is unequivocally true.
 
Dungheap said:
I still don't see where I said anything about Obama having no choice or Obama being forced to do this.

All I said was that Obama's position on this bill is consistent with presidential practice as required by law over the past several decades, which is unequivocally true.
Click to expand...

what do you mean by the following (i underlined them in full context above):

It's what the law requires and has required
Click to expand...

it isn't an administrative policy at all but is the minimum that the U.S. Code requires
Click to expand...
 
Dungheap said:
I still don't see where I said anything about Obama having no choice or Obama being forced to do this.

All I said was that Obama's position on this bill is consistent with presidential practice as required by law over the past several decades, which is unequivocally true.
Click to expand...

Obama's position is not required by law and he is completely free to agree with the democrats and demand greater accountability from our own terrorist organization.

Your argument is that Obama is doing the status-quo .. which is not what he promised.

... "change" and "transparency" were just the mindfuck .. as evidenced by the Salon piece..
 
Yurt said:
what do you mean by the following (i underlined them in full context above):
Click to expand...

I meant that informing the Gang of 8 is the minimum that current law requires and that Obama's position on this bill (as opposed to his administration's policy with respect to congressional briefings) to maintain that minimum requirement is consistent with what the law requires and has required for decades.

Why is this so damned difficult to understand.
 
blackascoal said:
Obama's position is not required by law and he is completely free to agree with the democrats and demand greater accountability from our own terrorist organization.

Your argument is that Obama is doing the status-quo .. which is not what he promised.

... "change" and "transparency" were just the mindfuck .. as evidenced by the Salon piece..
Click to expand...


I never said his position is required by law. All I said was that he position is consistent with decades of presidential practice. And we are talking about the minimum that the law requires, not the actual policy or practice of the Obama Administration versus the Bush Administration on congressional briefings.

Further, you have no idea what Obama's actual policy is. We only know his position on this particular bill which sets minimum requirements. Shockingly, he wants the discretion afforded to other presidents, whether he uses or abuses it like Bush is another question altogether. It is entirely possible for Obama to decide to inform all members of the intelligence committees of all CIA actions and never limit it to the Gang of 8 while keeping the law as it currently is where the minimum is for the apprise only the Gang of 8 of covert actions.

And I agree that there are various areas where Obama is too much like Bush than I would hope for, but pointing to individual points of similarity with Bush and saying "where's the change" without looking at the big picture is disingenuous.
 
Dungheap said:
I meant that informing the Gang of 8 is the minimum that current law requires and that Obama's position on this bill (as opposed to his administration's policy with respect to congressional briefings) to maintain that minimum requirement is consistent with what the law requires and has required for decades.

Why is this so damned difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

it is difficult because your first statement says he is just following the law, coupled with your second statement that it is not his policy, rather he is only following the bare minimum of the law....

fact is, he does not have to follow the bare minimum, therefore, it is his policy to follow the bare minimum, as did bush and from what you say, other presidents as well.
 
Dungheap said:
I never said his position is required by law. All I said was that he position is consistent with decades of presidential practice. And we are talking about the minimum that the law requires, not the actual policy or practice of the Obama Administration versus the Bush Administration on congressional briefings.

Further, you have no idea what Obama's actual policy is. We only know his position on this particular bill which sets minimum requirements. Shockingly, he wants the discretion afforded to other presidents, whether he uses or abuses it like Bush is another question altogether. It is entirely possible for Obama to decide to inform all members of the intelligence committees of all CIA actions and never limit it to the Gang of 8 while keeping the law as it currently is where the minimum is for the apprise only the Gang of 8 of covert actions.

And I agree that there are various areas where Obama is too much like Bush than I would hope for, but pointing to individual points of similarity with Bush and saying "where's the change" without looking at the big picture is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

As always, I respect your opinion .. but "you have no idea what Obama's actual policy is" is hardly a glowing endorsement of the policy. You don't know what it is either .. but shouldn't you know? You voted for him.

Why keep the fraud of the "gang of 8" then tell the entire congress? That makes no sense. What makes sense is good policy and oversight of our own very dangerous covert organization.

The "gang of 8" is a fraud, top to bottom.

Tell 8 people what you're going to do, then threaten them with imprisonment if they tell what you revealed to other memebers of congress.

That is a fraud and it allows the CIA to do whjatever the hell they want to do until it's too late to stop them. Then the next president will come along and classify everything .. while promising "transparency."
 
blackascoal said:
As always, I respect your opinion .. but "you have no idea what Obama's actual policy is" is hardly a glowing endorsement of the policy. You don't know what it is either .. but shouldn't you know? You voted for him.

Why keep the fraud of the "gang of 8" then tell the entire congress? That makes no sense. What makes sense is good policy and oversight of our own very dangerous covert organization.

The "gang of 8" is a fraud, top to bottom.

Tell 8 people what you're going to do, then threaten them with imprisonment if they tell what you revealed to other memebers of congress.

That is a fraud and it allows the CIA to do whjatever the hell they want to do until it's too late to stop them. Then the next president will come along and classify everything .. while promising "transparency."
Click to expand...


1) "You don't know what his actual policy is" is not intended to be an endorsement. It's a simple statement of fact. You don't know. I don't know. Yurt doesn't know. In fact, according to the law we are not supposed to know as such information is classified. We can talk about whether it should be classified and whether Obama's position on changing the minimum reporting requirements is good (it isn't) but we can't knowledgeably talk about his policy.

2) I have said repeatedly that the Gang of 8 is stupid (designed to gain co-conspirators not oversight) and that the law should be changed over Obama's veto if necessary.
 
maineman said:
hey yurt...you whiny little bitch.... why did you get me banned for posting personal information if the information I posted was not personal?

liar:pke:
Click to expand...

Hope you enjoy your MONTH off from the other board MFM. :) Now the folks here will get even more of your "charm and wit"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top