10. Who oversees the CIA? Does it act on its own initiative?
(This is a quote directly from the CIA faqs on the CIA website)
Both the Congress and the Executive Branch oversee the CIA’s activities. In addition, the CIA is responsible to the American people through their elected representatives, and, like other government agencies, acts in accordance with US laws and executive orders. In the Executive Branch, the National Security Council—including the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense—provides guidance and direction for national foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities. In Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as other committees, closely monitor the Agency’s reporting and programs. The CIA is not a policy-making organization; it advises the Director of National Intelligence on matters of foreign intelligence, and it conducts covert actions at the direction of the President.
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nancy Pelosi. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2009
Conservative Speakers Not Welcome?
Conservative Speakers Widely Shunned at Graduation Ceremonies
While Democrats are making the rounds as keynote speakers across the country, you won't see conservatives making addresses at graduation ceremonies just about anywhere.
It's not enough that Democrats have command of some key real estate in Washington. This month, they've also got the ear of just about every college student in the country.
Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White house chief of staff Rahm Emanuel all have multiple invites to be keynote speakers at graduations this spring.
And while President Obama is pulling a hat trick at Notre Dame, Arizona State and the U.S. Naval Academy, you won't see one of that last institution's most famous graduates on stage anywhere this year.
John McCain ... Sarah Palin ... Mitt Romney ... Rudy Giuliani ... they aren't on anyone's program in 2009. Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich? Persona non grata, thank you very much.
So whatever happened to conservatives?
Education watchdogs say it's nothing strange for conservatives to be shunned from the academy, and that the one-sided invitations have become a permanent fixture of the ivory tower.
"The colleges have been transformed," said David Horowitz, whose organization, Students for Academic Freedom, tracks ideological bias on campus. "They're now these partisan institutions. They're not going to change."
Horowitz ran a study in 2003 that looked at commencement speakers at 32 top institutions in the U.S. for the previous 10 years. He found that liberals and Democrats were favored over conservatives by a ratio of 15-1. And then he stopped counting.
"It's permanent. It's not going to change, partly because there's so little attention being paid to it," he told FOXNews.com.
A few conservatives have gotten invites this year, though you could probably cram them all into a compact car.
Gov. Bobby Jindal will be addressing Loyola University, Louisiana Tech, and Grambling State University, all located in his home state of Louisiana. Sen. Richard Lugar will be the keynote speaker at Ball State University, which is located in his home of Indiana. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, will be addressing USC.
Conservative speakers are often big targets for protest. Students and teachers literally turned their backs on President Bush during his annual addresses, and an English professor even resigned when Condoleezza Rice spoke at Boston College in 2006.
This year hasn't been much of an exception -- and the protests have started well before the pomp and circumstance.
Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay who's running for governor of California as a Republican, canceled her speech at UCLA's Anderson School of Management in the wake of protests over her support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
Conservative Ben Stein was uninvited as speaker at the University of Vermont because of his views on evolution. He was replaced by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean .
Conservative speakers are often big targets for protest. Students and teachers literally turned their backs on President Bush during his annual addresses, and an English professor even resigned when Condoleezza Rice spoke at Boston College in 2006.
This year hasn't been much of an exception -- and the protests have started well before the pomp and circumstance.
Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay who's running for governor of California as a Republican, canceled her speech at UCLA's Anderson School of Management in the wake of protests over her support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
Conservative Ben Stein was uninvited as speaker at the University of Vermont because of his views on evolution. He was replaced by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean .
J. Harvie Wilkinson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, is facing fire at the University of Virginia Law School, where he'll be speaking May 17. Students have objected to his views on issues like affirmative action and detentions of enemy combatants.
But the furor and froth have gone both ways this year. President Obama's coming address at Notre Dame has set off students and faculty at the Catholic university. And Sen. Bob Casey Jr., a Democrat, withdrew as commencement speaker from St. Vincent's College in Pennsylvania after a Catholic bishop criticized him for his support of funding groups that provide abortions overseas.
Conservatives, whose campus woes look to continue for the foreseeable future, may find a kindred spirit in at least one Cabinet member who seems to have fallen out of favor with the campus crowd.
Notably absent from the stage this year is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who would seem like a hot property in a year defined by the financial crisis. Geithner, who President Obama joked is being treated like a fire hydrant by the big dogs in Washington, isn't making the rounds at any universities.
Read Source Here
While Democrats are making the rounds as keynote speakers across the country, you won't see conservatives making addresses at graduation ceremonies just about anywhere.
It's not enough that Democrats have command of some key real estate in Washington. This month, they've also got the ear of just about every college student in the country.
Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White house chief of staff Rahm Emanuel all have multiple invites to be keynote speakers at graduations this spring.
And while President Obama is pulling a hat trick at Notre Dame, Arizona State and the U.S. Naval Academy, you won't see one of that last institution's most famous graduates on stage anywhere this year.
John McCain ... Sarah Palin ... Mitt Romney ... Rudy Giuliani ... they aren't on anyone's program in 2009. Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich? Persona non grata, thank you very much.
So whatever happened to conservatives?
Education watchdogs say it's nothing strange for conservatives to be shunned from the academy, and that the one-sided invitations have become a permanent fixture of the ivory tower.
"The colleges have been transformed," said David Horowitz, whose organization, Students for Academic Freedom, tracks ideological bias on campus. "They're now these partisan institutions. They're not going to change."
Horowitz ran a study in 2003 that looked at commencement speakers at 32 top institutions in the U.S. for the previous 10 years. He found that liberals and Democrats were favored over conservatives by a ratio of 15-1. And then he stopped counting.
"It's permanent. It's not going to change, partly because there's so little attention being paid to it," he told FOXNews.com.
A few conservatives have gotten invites this year, though you could probably cram them all into a compact car.
Gov. Bobby Jindal will be addressing Loyola University, Louisiana Tech, and Grambling State University, all located in his home state of Louisiana. Sen. Richard Lugar will be the keynote speaker at Ball State University, which is located in his home of Indiana. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, will be addressing USC.
Conservative speakers are often big targets for protest. Students and teachers literally turned their backs on President Bush during his annual addresses, and an English professor even resigned when Condoleezza Rice spoke at Boston College in 2006.
This year hasn't been much of an exception -- and the protests have started well before the pomp and circumstance.
Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay who's running for governor of California as a Republican, canceled her speech at UCLA's Anderson School of Management in the wake of protests over her support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
Conservative Ben Stein was uninvited as speaker at the University of Vermont because of his views on evolution. He was replaced by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean .
Conservative speakers are often big targets for protest. Students and teachers literally turned their backs on President Bush during his annual addresses, and an English professor even resigned when Condoleezza Rice spoke at Boston College in 2006.
This year hasn't been much of an exception -- and the protests have started well before the pomp and circumstance.
Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay who's running for governor of California as a Republican, canceled her speech at UCLA's Anderson School of Management in the wake of protests over her support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state.
Conservative Ben Stein was uninvited as speaker at the University of Vermont because of his views on evolution. He was replaced by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean .
J. Harvie Wilkinson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, is facing fire at the University of Virginia Law School, where he'll be speaking May 17. Students have objected to his views on issues like affirmative action and detentions of enemy combatants.
But the furor and froth have gone both ways this year. President Obama's coming address at Notre Dame has set off students and faculty at the Catholic university. And Sen. Bob Casey Jr., a Democrat, withdrew as commencement speaker from St. Vincent's College in Pennsylvania after a Catholic bishop criticized him for his support of funding groups that provide abortions overseas.
Conservatives, whose campus woes look to continue for the foreseeable future, may find a kindred spirit in at least one Cabinet member who seems to have fallen out of favor with the campus crowd.
Notably absent from the stage this year is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who would seem like a hot property in a year defined by the financial crisis. Geithner, who President Obama joked is being treated like a fire hydrant by the big dogs in Washington, isn't making the rounds at any universities.
Read Source Here
Pelosi VS The CIA
Panetta Urges CIA Staff to Focus on Mission, Tune Out 'New Decibel Level' in D.C. on Interrogations
CIA Director Leon Panetta writes to agency employees that it's time to turn down the volume on the debate in Washington and concentrate on the jobs they do, despite being called liars by the House speaker.
President Obama's CIA director on Friday urged agency employees to concentrate on their mission and not get sidetracked by the high-volume argument in Washington spurred a day earlier when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to Congress.
"There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress," CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a letter publicly released.
"My advice -- indeed, my direction -- to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country," he wrote. "We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is-even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
Panetta's letter was released as the debate grew over what Pelosi knew, when she knew it and whether she complained about it if she was so bothered by it.
Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that those briefing her in September 2002 gave her inaccurate and incomplete information. Pelosi's office issued a statement Thursday saying Pelosi had been told in September 2002 that waterboarding, or simulated drowning, had not been used, but was going to be used in the future.
On Friday, Pelosi issued a statement and said criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from her respect for those in the intelligence community.
"What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward," said Pelosi.
The timeline is the basis for the speaker's claim that the CIA lied to Congress -- because the CIA has confirmed later that it used waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah in August 2002.
Panetta repeated in his letter to CIA staff that the agency's response to congressional inquiries show that "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.' Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."
The White House refused to be drawn into the debate Friday, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declining to weigh in on whether the CIA lied to Pelosi.
"I appreciate the invitation to get involved, but I'm not going to RSVP," Gibbs said.
At the time of the briefing, Pelosi did not issue a complaint about possible future use of waterboarding. She said she was told five months later that waterboarding had been used. She said at that time, in February 2003, her concerns about the enhanced interrogation techniques were voiced in a letter written by California Rep. Jane Harman, who was the House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat.
But the Feb. 10, 2003, letter outlined Harman's concerns over policy, not concerns over the legality of the program. In the letter, Harman wrote to CIA General Counsel Scott Muller asking whether President Bush had authorized and approved the enhanced techniques because of the impact such methods may have on policy.
"What was described raises profound policy questions and I am concerned about whether these have been as rigorously examined as the legal questions," Harman wrote, according to a redacted copy of the letter released on Jan. 3, 2008.
"I would like to know what kind of policy review took place and what questions were examined. In particular, I would like to know whether the most senior levels of the White House have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the president?"
Harman also stated that she wanted videotapes of the interrogation of terror leader Abu Zubaydah to be preserved to serve as "the best proof that the written record is accurate, if such record is called into question in the future." In her statement of Jan. 3, 2008, Harman said her concern about the videotapes was her reason for releasing the letter.
Harman wrote that she was assured by intelligence officials at a Feb. 5, 2001, briefing she attended with then-Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss that certain methods had been approved by the attorney general and subjected "to an extensive review by lawyers at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice and the National Security Council and found to be within the law."
Harman went on to say that she appreciated the "difficult challenges" the CIA faced after Sept. 11, 2001, and that she knew that "the balance between security and liberty must be constantly evaluated and recalibrated in order to protect our nation and its people from catastrophic terrorist attack."
"I thus appreciate the obvious effort that you and your office have made to address the tough questions," Harman wrote.
On Feb. 28, 2003, Muller wrote back to Harman, saying that "a number of executive branch lawyers including lawyers from the Department of Justice participated in the determination that, in the appropriate circumstances, use of these techniques is fully consistent with U.S. law. While I do not think it appropriate for me to comment on issues that are a matter of policy, much less the nature and extent of executive branch policy deliberations, I think it would be fair to assume that policy as well as legal matters have been addressed within the executive branch."
At a press conference on Thursday, Pelosi told reporters that she supported the letter Harman drafted for Muller that raised concerns over the legality of the program.
Pelosi said her staffer told her in February 2003 that Harman and Goss "had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions. Following that briefing, a letter raising concerns was sent to CIA general counsel, Scott Muller, by the new Democratic ranking member of committee, the appropriate person to register a protest," Pelosi said
"But no letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do," she added.
Read Source Here
CIA Director Leon Panetta writes to agency employees that it's time to turn down the volume on the debate in Washington and concentrate on the jobs they do, despite being called liars by the House speaker.
President Obama's CIA director on Friday urged agency employees to concentrate on their mission and not get sidetracked by the high-volume argument in Washington spurred a day earlier when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to Congress.
"There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress," CIA Director Leon Panetta wrote in a letter publicly released.
"My advice -- indeed, my direction -- to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country," he wrote. "We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is-even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
Panetta's letter was released as the debate grew over what Pelosi knew, when she knew it and whether she complained about it if she was so bothered by it.
Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that those briefing her in September 2002 gave her inaccurate and incomplete information. Pelosi's office issued a statement Thursday saying Pelosi had been told in September 2002 that waterboarding, or simulated drowning, had not been used, but was going to be used in the future.
On Friday, Pelosi issued a statement and said criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from her respect for those in the intelligence community.
"What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward," said Pelosi.
The timeline is the basis for the speaker's claim that the CIA lied to Congress -- because the CIA has confirmed later that it used waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah in August 2002.
Panetta repeated in his letter to CIA staff that the agency's response to congressional inquiries show that "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.' Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."
The White House refused to be drawn into the debate Friday, with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declining to weigh in on whether the CIA lied to Pelosi.
"I appreciate the invitation to get involved, but I'm not going to RSVP," Gibbs said.
At the time of the briefing, Pelosi did not issue a complaint about possible future use of waterboarding. She said she was told five months later that waterboarding had been used. She said at that time, in February 2003, her concerns about the enhanced interrogation techniques were voiced in a letter written by California Rep. Jane Harman, who was the House Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat.
But the Feb. 10, 2003, letter outlined Harman's concerns over policy, not concerns over the legality of the program. In the letter, Harman wrote to CIA General Counsel Scott Muller asking whether President Bush had authorized and approved the enhanced techniques because of the impact such methods may have on policy.
"What was described raises profound policy questions and I am concerned about whether these have been as rigorously examined as the legal questions," Harman wrote, according to a redacted copy of the letter released on Jan. 3, 2008.
"I would like to know what kind of policy review took place and what questions were examined. In particular, I would like to know whether the most senior levels of the White House have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the president?"
Harman also stated that she wanted videotapes of the interrogation of terror leader Abu Zubaydah to be preserved to serve as "the best proof that the written record is accurate, if such record is called into question in the future." In her statement of Jan. 3, 2008, Harman said her concern about the videotapes was her reason for releasing the letter.
Harman wrote that she was assured by intelligence officials at a Feb. 5, 2001, briefing she attended with then-Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss that certain methods had been approved by the attorney general and subjected "to an extensive review by lawyers at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice and the National Security Council and found to be within the law."
Harman went on to say that she appreciated the "difficult challenges" the CIA faced after Sept. 11, 2001, and that she knew that "the balance between security and liberty must be constantly evaluated and recalibrated in order to protect our nation and its people from catastrophic terrorist attack."
"I thus appreciate the obvious effort that you and your office have made to address the tough questions," Harman wrote.
On Feb. 28, 2003, Muller wrote back to Harman, saying that "a number of executive branch lawyers including lawyers from the Department of Justice participated in the determination that, in the appropriate circumstances, use of these techniques is fully consistent with U.S. law. While I do not think it appropriate for me to comment on issues that are a matter of policy, much less the nature and extent of executive branch policy deliberations, I think it would be fair to assume that policy as well as legal matters have been addressed within the executive branch."
At a press conference on Thursday, Pelosi told reporters that she supported the letter Harman drafted for Muller that raised concerns over the legality of the program.
Pelosi said her staffer told her in February 2003 that Harman and Goss "had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions. Following that briefing, a letter raising concerns was sent to CIA general counsel, Scott Muller, by the new Democratic ranking member of committee, the appropriate person to register a protest," Pelosi said
"But no letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do," she added.
Read Source Here
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Nancy Pelosi "This is their policy"
While being annoyed while listening to Nancy Pelosi today, during her press briefing, I realized how over-the-top the blame game is becoming. It seems that everything that ever happened or is currently happening is the fault of the Republican Party.
So, I decided to write a transcript of the main portion of the briefing. Pay close attention to how nervous she is, how often she has to go back to her written "statement", and how often she blames the Republican Party for the problems and tells the press that the CIA lied to her and to Congress. Personally, I would not have wanted to open that can of worms.
Transcript...
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Official Press Briefing, May 14, 2009
(This begins her "statement" regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques)
I unequivocally oppose the use of torture by our government because it is contrary to our national values.
Like all members of congress that are briefed on classified information I have signed oaths not to disclose any of that information. This is an oath I have taken very seriously and I've always abided by it.
The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002 in my capacity of ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I was informed then that the department of justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal.
The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed. Those conducting briefing promised to inform the appropriate members of congress if that technique were to be used in the future.
Congress and the American people now know that, contrary to the opinions within...contrary opinions within the executive branch, concluded that these interrogation techniques were not legal. However, those opinions were not shared with congress.
We also now know that techniques including waterboarding had already been employed and that those briefing me in September 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information.
At the same time, the Bush administration...this is exactly the same time (waving hand in defensive stance, looking up from reading her prepared speech)...September of 2002...the Fall of 2002...(swallowing heavily)...at the same time, the Bush administration was misleading the American people about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
5 months later in February of 2003, a member of my staff informed me that the Republican Chairman and the Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions.
Following that briefing a letter raising concerns was sent to CI general council Scott Mullard by the new Democratic ranking member of committee...the appropriate person to register a protest. But no letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change leadership in congress and in the white house. That was my job...the congress part.
When democrats assumed control of the congress in 2007, congress passed legislation banning torture and requiring all government agencies to abide by the army field manual.
President Bush vetoed this bill barring the use of torture.
In an effort to overturn his veto failed because of the votes of the republican members.
We needed to elect a new president. We did. And he has banned torture.
Congress and the administration must review...I've always believed that congress and the administration must review the national security act of 1947...now we have a chance to do that with the new president...to determine if a larger number of members of congress should received classified briefings so that the information can be utilized by proper oversight...for proper oversight and legislative activity without violating oaths of secrecy.
I have long supported creation of an independent truth commission to determine how intelligence was misused. And how controversial and possibly illegal activities like torture were authorized within the executive branch.
Until a truth commission comes into being, I encourage the appropriate committees of the house to conduct vigorous oversight of these issues.
I'll be pleased to take any questions...Mike?
Mike: Regardless of the individual who told you that these techniques were being used and regardless of the venue in which you learned of this fact, does not the foreknowledge of the use of these techniques make you complicit in their use?
Pelosi: No. This is a policy that has been...was conceived and implemented by the Bush administration. The..the..they notified congress that they had legal opinion say that this was a...was legal but they would let us know whether they were planning to use them...is what they briefed us on.
Uh, I think you can see by what mister uhm Panetta has sent out that it's really hard to confirm what did happen and the committees on jurisdiction may have to look into that. But it does not make me complicit...no.
Mike: But you said that Mr. Sheety (probably spelled incorrectly) did tell you...you said that your staff did tell you...
Pelosi: He informed me that that briefing had taken place. We were not in a place where he could...that was all that he was required to do. We were not in a setting...we weren't in the...I'm no longer the ranking member of intelligence. He just informed me...and that the letter was sent. That is the proper person to send the letter...the ranking member of the intelligence committee.
So, my statement is clear (she looks down at her speech) and let me read it again. Let me read it again...Sorry. I have to find the...(reading) I was informed that the department of justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogations was legal. The only mention of waterboarding was in the briefing was that it was not being employed...(stuttering, gathering)...When, uhm, my staff person...I'm sorry, the pages...5 months later my staff person told me that there had been a briefing, informing me that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing. I was just informed that the briefing had taken place.
So, let's get this straight. The Bush administration has conceived the policy...uhm the CIA comes to the congress, withholds information about the timing and the use of this subject. We later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used.
This is a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight off of those that conceived, developed, and implemented these policies which all of us long opposed.
My action on it was to further to say we have to change the majority of congress. We have to win the white house so that we...
(The following insert is an excerpt from the online Wikipedia)
Mike: ...(mumbling, unable to decipher) he did not tell you that he was informed that they were actually using the techniques.
Pelosi: No he DID say that. He said that the...the committee chair, uhm ranking member and appropriate staff (at the time, she WAS the ranking member) had been briefed that these, uh, techniques were now being used.
They...that's all I was informed...that they were being used and that a letter was sent. And that is a complete...my responsibility is different. I'm no longer the ranking member (not now, but she was then). Appropriately, the ranking member sent the letter.
So...let me say this...of all the briefings that I have received, at this same time they were misinforming me earlier...now in September, the same time as briefing. They were telling the American people (raising her chin in superiority) there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it was an imminent threat to the United States (when did we get to this topic?). To the limit of what I could say to my caucus I told them that the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that this administration is contenting.
So, it's on the subject of what's happening in Iraq, whether it's talking about the techniques used by the intelligence community on those their interrogating every step of the way the administration was misleading the congress and that is the issue. That is why we need a truth commission. To look into that.
Mike: Madam speaker, just to be clear, your accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002?...
Pelosi: Yes. Misleading the congress of the United States. Misleading the congress of the United States. I am.
Mike: And doing it again now as they released this list of briefings that said you were briefed on the interrogation tactics...
Pelosi: I'm quoting what the head of the CIA said(she cannot possibly take any of the blame for her own actions and decisions. We don't know if this information is accurate. What they briefed us on...and perhaps they should release the briefings. I would be very happy if they would release the briefings. And then you will see what they briefed in one time and in another, house and senate and the rest...and perhaps with the intense interest that this has generated because of the distraction that the Republicans want to cause with this then you can make a judgement yourself at what you think these briefings were.
But, I'm telling you, that they had talked about interrogations that they had done and said "we want to use enhanced techniques and we have legal opinions that say that they are okay. We are not using waterboarding." That's the only mention that they were not using it. Any we now know that earlier they were. So, yes I am saying that they are misleading, that the CIA was misleading the congress. And at the same time, the administration was misleading the congress on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To which I said "the intelligence does not support the imminent threat". To which the press asked the same question you just did now. "Are you accusing them of lying?" I said "I'm just stating a fact".
Press Woman: Do you wish you had done more? Do you wish you had written your own letter?
Pelosi: NO. No, No, No, No, No. I mean the point is is that we had the conversation. They told us they had legal opinions. As I say in my statement (looking down to attempt to read from her "statement") we now know what they didn't inform us then that there were other opinions within the executive branch that concluded that these interrogation techniques were not legal. So, no letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they are going to do.
My job was to change the majority in congress and to fight to have a new president because what was happening was not consistent with our values. Certainly not true. And, and, and, uh, certainly something that had to be changed. We did that. We have a new president. He says he's going to ban torture. When we won in '06 and passed legislation in that congress, President Bush vetoed that bill. I think we're in a whole different phase.
Press Man: With your desire to have a truth commission....doesn't this make it harder to go forward in that regard because so many on the other side have churned this issue up?
Pelosi: Well, I have always been for the truth commission, as you know. Others in the legislative branch have thought maybe the committees of jurisdiction should do that job. And until we have a truth commission and unless we have a truth commission they must do that. But it isn't...uhm, I think the truth commission would be a good idea. I think the American People want it. I think they want to know how we got to this place.
And that's why I say in this (her statement) "until we have a truth commission, the committees on jurisdiction whether it's the intelligence committee or the judiciary committee are the appropriate places for that to go. But, understand...and I don't know how you can fall prey to this...this is their policy. All of them. This is their policy. This is what they conceive. This is what they develop. This is what they implement. This is what they denied was happening. And now, they're trying to say..."don't put the spotlight on us. We told the congress."
Well, they didn't tell us everything that they were doing. And the fact is that anything that we would say doesn't matter anyway. We had to change the majority in congress. We had to get a new president in order to change the policy. And that is what we have done. And I, as I say, have taken special interest in this issue over time, take pride in it, and the work that we have done on the issue of torture. So I was pretty sensitive to what they were briefing us and to what they said they were doing but they did not represent the facts.
Press Man: On healthcare, do House Democrats have the political will to raise taxes to reform healthcare?
Pelosi: We're putting everything on the table.
...
Well, that's about all of it I can take. Isn't it interesting that there is so much blaming and so little accomplishing that is really going to benefit our country.
So, I decided to write a transcript of the main portion of the briefing. Pay close attention to how nervous she is, how often she has to go back to her written "statement", and how often she blames the Republican Party for the problems and tells the press that the CIA lied to her and to Congress. Personally, I would not have wanted to open that can of worms.
Transcript...
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Official Press Briefing, May 14, 2009
(This begins her "statement" regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques)
I unequivocally oppose the use of torture by our government because it is contrary to our national values.
Like all members of congress that are briefed on classified information I have signed oaths not to disclose any of that information. This is an oath I have taken very seriously and I've always abided by it.
The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002 in my capacity of ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I was informed then that the department of justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal.
The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed. Those conducting briefing promised to inform the appropriate members of congress if that technique were to be used in the future.
Congress and the American people now know that, contrary to the opinions within...contrary opinions within the executive branch, concluded that these interrogation techniques were not legal. However, those opinions were not shared with congress.
We also now know that techniques including waterboarding had already been employed and that those briefing me in September 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information.
At the same time, the Bush administration...this is exactly the same time (waving hand in defensive stance, looking up from reading her prepared speech)...September of 2002...the Fall of 2002...(swallowing heavily)...at the same time, the Bush administration was misleading the American people about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
5 months later in February of 2003, a member of my staff informed me that the Republican Chairman and the Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions.
Following that briefing a letter raising concerns was sent to CI general council Scott Mullard by the new Democratic ranking member of committee...the appropriate person to register a protest. But no letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change leadership in congress and in the white house. That was my job...the congress part.
When democrats assumed control of the congress in 2007, congress passed legislation banning torture and requiring all government agencies to abide by the army field manual.
President Bush vetoed this bill barring the use of torture.
In an effort to overturn his veto failed because of the votes of the republican members.
We needed to elect a new president. We did. And he has banned torture.
Congress and the administration must review...I've always believed that congress and the administration must review the national security act of 1947...now we have a chance to do that with the new president...to determine if a larger number of members of congress should received classified briefings so that the information can be utilized by proper oversight...for proper oversight and legislative activity without violating oaths of secrecy.
I have long supported creation of an independent truth commission to determine how intelligence was misused. And how controversial and possibly illegal activities like torture were authorized within the executive branch.
Until a truth commission comes into being, I encourage the appropriate committees of the house to conduct vigorous oversight of these issues.
I'll be pleased to take any questions...Mike?
Mike: Regardless of the individual who told you that these techniques were being used and regardless of the venue in which you learned of this fact, does not the foreknowledge of the use of these techniques make you complicit in their use?
Pelosi: No. This is a policy that has been...was conceived and implemented by the Bush administration. The..the..they notified congress that they had legal opinion say that this was a...was legal but they would let us know whether they were planning to use them...is what they briefed us on.
Uh, I think you can see by what mister uhm Panetta has sent out that it's really hard to confirm what did happen and the committees on jurisdiction may have to look into that. But it does not make me complicit...no.
Mike: But you said that Mr. Sheety (probably spelled incorrectly) did tell you...you said that your staff did tell you...
Pelosi: He informed me that that briefing had taken place. We were not in a place where he could...that was all that he was required to do. We were not in a setting...we weren't in the...I'm no longer the ranking member of intelligence. He just informed me...and that the letter was sent. That is the proper person to send the letter...the ranking member of the intelligence committee.
So, my statement is clear (she looks down at her speech) and let me read it again. Let me read it again...Sorry. I have to find the...(reading) I was informed that the department of justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogations was legal. The only mention of waterboarding was in the briefing was that it was not being employed...(stuttering, gathering)...When, uhm, my staff person...I'm sorry, the pages...5 months later my staff person told me that there had been a briefing, informing me that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing. I was just informed that the briefing had taken place.
So, let's get this straight. The Bush administration has conceived the policy...uhm the CIA comes to the congress, withholds information about the timing and the use of this subject. We later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used.
This is a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight off of those that conceived, developed, and implemented these policies which all of us long opposed.
My action on it was to further to say we have to change the majority of congress. We have to win the white house so that we...
(The following insert is an excerpt from the online Wikipedia)
"Pelosi officially opposes the interrogation technique of waterboarding.[97] In one hour-long 2002 briefing, while Pelosi was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, she was told about enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding authorized for a captured terrorist, Abu Zubaydah.[98][99][100] After the briefing, Pelosi said she "was assured by lawyers with the CIA and the Department of Justice that the methods were legal."[101] Two unnamed former Bush Administration officials say that the briefing was detailed and graphic, and at the time she didn't raise substantial objections[102]. One unnamed U.S. official present during the early briefings said, "In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to September 11 and people were still in a panic. But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"[102]
Officials in Congress say her ability to challenge the practices was hampered by strict rules of secrecy that prohibited her from being able to take notes or consult legal experts or members of her own staffs.[103] In an April 2009 press conference, Pelosi stated, "In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel -- the Office of Legislative Counsel opinions that they could be used, but not that they would. And they further -- further, the point was that if and when they would be used, they would brief Congress at that time"[104][105] Pelosi's office stated that she later protested the technique and that she concurred with objections raised by Democratic colleague Jane Harman in a letter to the C.I.A. in early 2003."
Mike: ...(mumbling, unable to decipher) he did not tell you that he was informed that they were actually using the techniques.
Pelosi: No he DID say that. He said that the...the committee chair, uhm ranking member and appropriate staff (at the time, she WAS the ranking member) had been briefed that these, uh, techniques were now being used.
They...that's all I was informed...that they were being used and that a letter was sent. And that is a complete...my responsibility is different. I'm no longer the ranking member (not now, but she was then). Appropriately, the ranking member sent the letter.
So...let me say this...of all the briefings that I have received, at this same time they were misinforming me earlier...now in September, the same time as briefing. They were telling the American people (raising her chin in superiority) there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it was an imminent threat to the United States (when did we get to this topic?). To the limit of what I could say to my caucus I told them that the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that this administration is contenting.
So, it's on the subject of what's happening in Iraq, whether it's talking about the techniques used by the intelligence community on those their interrogating every step of the way the administration was misleading the congress and that is the issue. That is why we need a truth commission. To look into that.
Mike: Madam speaker, just to be clear, your accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002?...
Pelosi: Yes. Misleading the congress of the United States. Misleading the congress of the United States. I am.
Mike: And doing it again now as they released this list of briefings that said you were briefed on the interrogation tactics...
Pelosi: I'm quoting what the head of the CIA said(she cannot possibly take any of the blame for her own actions and decisions. We don't know if this information is accurate. What they briefed us on...and perhaps they should release the briefings. I would be very happy if they would release the briefings. And then you will see what they briefed in one time and in another, house and senate and the rest...and perhaps with the intense interest that this has generated because of the distraction that the Republicans want to cause with this then you can make a judgement yourself at what you think these briefings were.
But, I'm telling you, that they had talked about interrogations that they had done and said "we want to use enhanced techniques and we have legal opinions that say that they are okay. We are not using waterboarding." That's the only mention that they were not using it. Any we now know that earlier they were. So, yes I am saying that they are misleading, that the CIA was misleading the congress. And at the same time, the administration was misleading the congress on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To which I said "the intelligence does not support the imminent threat". To which the press asked the same question you just did now. "Are you accusing them of lying?" I said "I'm just stating a fact".
Press Woman: Do you wish you had done more? Do you wish you had written your own letter?
Pelosi: NO. No, No, No, No, No. I mean the point is is that we had the conversation. They told us they had legal opinions. As I say in my statement (looking down to attempt to read from her "statement") we now know what they didn't inform us then that there were other opinions within the executive branch that concluded that these interrogation techniques were not legal. So, no letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they are going to do.
My job was to change the majority in congress and to fight to have a new president because what was happening was not consistent with our values. Certainly not true. And, and, and, uh, certainly something that had to be changed. We did that. We have a new president. He says he's going to ban torture. When we won in '06 and passed legislation in that congress, President Bush vetoed that bill. I think we're in a whole different phase.
Press Man: With your desire to have a truth commission....doesn't this make it harder to go forward in that regard because so many on the other side have churned this issue up?
Pelosi: Well, I have always been for the truth commission, as you know. Others in the legislative branch have thought maybe the committees of jurisdiction should do that job. And until we have a truth commission and unless we have a truth commission they must do that. But it isn't...uhm, I think the truth commission would be a good idea. I think the American People want it. I think they want to know how we got to this place.
And that's why I say in this (her statement) "until we have a truth commission, the committees on jurisdiction whether it's the intelligence committee or the judiciary committee are the appropriate places for that to go. But, understand...and I don't know how you can fall prey to this...this is their policy. All of them. This is their policy. This is what they conceive. This is what they develop. This is what they implement. This is what they denied was happening. And now, they're trying to say..."don't put the spotlight on us. We told the congress."
(this insert is another excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Nancy Pelosi)
"In mid-July 2008, two days after President George W. Bush stated that Congress was relatively inactive and said, "This is not a record to be proud of, and I think the American people deserve better",[108] Pelosi responded by calling the president "a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the war, on the economy, on energy, you name the subject" and that Congress had been "sweeping up after his mess over and over and over again".[108]"
Well, they didn't tell us everything that they were doing. And the fact is that anything that we would say doesn't matter anyway. We had to change the majority in congress. We had to get a new president in order to change the policy. And that is what we have done. And I, as I say, have taken special interest in this issue over time, take pride in it, and the work that we have done on the issue of torture. So I was pretty sensitive to what they were briefing us and to what they said they were doing but they did not represent the facts.
Press Man: On healthcare, do House Democrats have the political will to raise taxes to reform healthcare?
Pelosi: We're putting everything on the table.
...
Well, that's about all of it I can take. Isn't it interesting that there is so much blaming and so little accomplishing that is really going to benefit our country.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
AIG Rage or Just a Diversion?
Do you think that the government is corrupt and that it all changed when Obama entered office? Think again. Sure, the situation has gotten worse, but the housing crisis started during Clinton's years and has had oversight through Barney Frank, encouragement through Barney Frank, and now Barney Frank is answering the American taxpayer's frustration and outrage over the AIG bonuses but is not addressing the whole housing issue that started with him. Barney Frank is the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services (or House Banking Committee). Here is what he is over.
overseeing the entire financial services industry including
securities
insurance
banking
housing industries
Federal Reserve
Department of the Treasury
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
etc.
Along with Frank, Christopher Dodd is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which deals with the following:
banks and banking
price controls
deposit insurance
export promotion and controls
federal monetary policy
financial aid to commerce and industry
issuance of redemption notes
currency and coinage
public and private housing
urban development and mass transit
government contracts
Here's an interesting list for you. It's a partial list of what AIG ($165 million in bonuses) did with their bailout money...can we say "money laundering"?
What taxpayer money did AIG give and to whom?
Goldman Sacs - $13 Billion
Merrel Lynch - $7 Billion
Bank of America - $5 Billion
United Kingdom - $13 Billion
Germany - $17 Billion
France - $19 Billion
Switzerland - $5 Billion
Note: 1. About $44 Billion went to America/American companies.
2. About $62 Billion went overseas/other countries/banks in other countries.
Do you want to know why they continue to harp on the $165 Million in bonuses? Because they don't want you to pay attention to the fact that our tax money has actually gone overseas instead of "stimulating" our own economy. Is the $165 million as big of a deal after you have seen this breakdown? Not really. Plus, do we want to lose the ability to make and keep contracts without the Federal Government interfering?
Don't get me started on this issue because it shows how our government is corrupt, laundering money, destroying the constitution, and so on. Oh, and by-the-way, shouldn't there be a term limit? Both Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd have been in office since 1981.
Additionally, there seems to be a never ending chain of corruption and greed that loops its way through Washington. Not only does the greed show its way in the Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Banking Committee, but also the Committee of Ways and Means, which is chaired by Charles Rangel (elected in 1971). Here is a list of what that committee is involved in:
all taxation, tariffs and other revenue-raising measures
Social Security
unemployment benefits
Medicare
enforcement of child support laws
temporary assistance for needy families (federal welfare)
foster care and adoption programs
Do you see a list of the "stimulus" in the bailout/spending bills?
It doesn't end there either. Nancy Pelosi, one of my favorite people as you may have read (who assumed office in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1987), served on the Appropriations Committee. Here is the "constitutional basis for the Appropriations Committee comes from Article one, Section nine, Clause seven of the U.S. Constitution, which states that:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
This clearly delegated the power of appropriating money to Congress, but was vague beyond that." Wikipedia
As one of the most powerful committees, its members are seen as influential and have the power to control the federal purse strings.
"how well the member secures rewards for his or her district is one of the best indicators as to whether or not he or she will be reelected. One way to achieve popularity in one's district is to bring it federal spending, thus creating jobs and raising economic performance. This type of spending is often derided by critics as pork barrel spending, while those who engage in it generally defend it as necessary and appropriate expenditure of government funds. The members of the Appropriations committee can do this better than most, and as such the appointment is regarded as a plus. This help can also be directed towards other members, increasing the stature of committee members in the House and helping them gain support for leadership positions or other honors." This essentially is why the spending bill had around 9,000 earmarks...those who placed those earmarks want to do so to be re-elected. Isn't that insane?!!!
Who is the current chair for this committee? David Ross Obey.
I'm sure that this post could go on for days with the information I've researched but one thing is clear...too much power, too little reality, too many committees, too little accountability, too much insanity!
overseeing the entire financial services industry including
securities
insurance
banking
housing industries
Federal Reserve
Department of the Treasury
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
etc.
Along with Frank, Christopher Dodd is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which deals with the following:
banks and banking
price controls
deposit insurance
export promotion and controls
federal monetary policy
financial aid to commerce and industry
issuance of redemption notes
currency and coinage
public and private housing
urban development and mass transit
government contracts
Here's an interesting list for you. It's a partial list of what AIG ($165 million in bonuses) did with their bailout money...can we say "money laundering"?
What taxpayer money did AIG give and to whom?
Goldman Sacs - $13 Billion
Merrel Lynch - $7 Billion
Bank of America - $5 Billion
United Kingdom - $13 Billion
Germany - $17 Billion
France - $19 Billion
Switzerland - $5 Billion
Note: 1. About $44 Billion went to America/American companies.
2. About $62 Billion went overseas/other countries/banks in other countries.
Do you want to know why they continue to harp on the $165 Million in bonuses? Because they don't want you to pay attention to the fact that our tax money has actually gone overseas instead of "stimulating" our own economy. Is the $165 million as big of a deal after you have seen this breakdown? Not really. Plus, do we want to lose the ability to make and keep contracts without the Federal Government interfering?
Don't get me started on this issue because it shows how our government is corrupt, laundering money, destroying the constitution, and so on. Oh, and by-the-way, shouldn't there be a term limit? Both Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd have been in office since 1981.
Additionally, there seems to be a never ending chain of corruption and greed that loops its way through Washington. Not only does the greed show its way in the Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Banking Committee, but also the Committee of Ways and Means, which is chaired by Charles Rangel (elected in 1971). Here is a list of what that committee is involved in:
all taxation, tariffs and other revenue-raising measures
Social Security
unemployment benefits
Medicare
enforcement of child support laws
temporary assistance for needy families (federal welfare)
foster care and adoption programs
Do you see a list of the "stimulus" in the bailout/spending bills?
It doesn't end there either. Nancy Pelosi, one of my favorite people as you may have read (who assumed office in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1987), served on the Appropriations Committee. Here is the "constitutional basis for the Appropriations Committee comes from Article one, Section nine, Clause seven of the U.S. Constitution, which states that:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
This clearly delegated the power of appropriating money to Congress, but was vague beyond that." Wikipedia
As one of the most powerful committees, its members are seen as influential and have the power to control the federal purse strings.
"how well the member secures rewards for his or her district is one of the best indicators as to whether or not he or she will be reelected. One way to achieve popularity in one's district is to bring it federal spending, thus creating jobs and raising economic performance. This type of spending is often derided by critics as pork barrel spending, while those who engage in it generally defend it as necessary and appropriate expenditure of government funds. The members of the Appropriations committee can do this better than most, and as such the appointment is regarded as a plus. This help can also be directed towards other members, increasing the stature of committee members in the House and helping them gain support for leadership positions or other honors." This essentially is why the spending bill had around 9,000 earmarks...those who placed those earmarks want to do so to be re-elected. Isn't that insane?!!!
Who is the current chair for this committee? David Ross Obey.
I'm sure that this post could go on for days with the information I've researched but one thing is clear...too much power, too little reality, too many committees, too little accountability, too much insanity!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
A Reality Check for Nancy Pelosi.
Is the Air Force an on-call airline for personal use by Nancy Pelosi?
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, has obtained documents from the Department of Defense (D.O.D.) through the Freedom of Information Act. These documents include email correspondence by the DOD staff to accommodate Nancy Pelosi's repeated requests for military travel, as well as cancellations and changes that happened at the last minute.
Essentially, Pelosi was reserving planes, placed on stand-by every weekend and then cancelling them, oftentimes at the last minute.
Now, since Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States of America, the American people do not want to see her without the proper protection in her transportation needs. However, we do not want to see taxpayer dollars wasted and the system abused by someone in Washington.
Again, this is an instance in which one of our Washington law makers is living in the reality that we are working for them, not the other way around.
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, has obtained documents from the Department of Defense (D.O.D.) through the Freedom of Information Act. These documents include email correspondence by the DOD staff to accommodate Nancy Pelosi's repeated requests for military travel, as well as cancellations and changes that happened at the last minute.
Essentially, Pelosi was reserving planes, placed on stand-by every weekend and then cancelling them, oftentimes at the last minute.
One DOD official complained about the "hidden costs" associated with the speaker's last minute changes and cancellations. "We have...folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc."
The documents also detail correspondence from intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi issuing demands for certain aircraft and expressing outrage when requested military planes were not available. "It is my understanding there are no G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable...The speaker will want to know where the planes are..." wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King writes, "This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker."
Now, since Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States of America, the American people do not want to see her without the proper protection in her transportation needs. However, we do not want to see taxpayer dollars wasted and the system abused by someone in Washington.
Again, this is an instance in which one of our Washington law makers is living in the reality that we are working for them, not the other way around.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Stimulus pared to $789 billion in race for deal - Associated Press
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON – House and Senate negotiators agreed to pare economic stimulus legislation below $800 billion and reached for a final deal with the White House on Wednesday on a bill designed to create millions of jobs in a nation reeling from recession.
"Time's getting short," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, one of a handful of Senate moderates whose votes are crucial to the bill's passage.
As if to underscore the urgency, President Barack Obama said executives at Caterpillar Corp. told him they would rescind some of the 22,000 layoffs they recently announced once the stimulus is signed into law.
Several Democratic officials said there was an informal deadline of Wednesday afternoon for at least tentative agreement on an overall bill, a time that coincided with a scheduled formal meeting of House and Senate negotiators.
The real decisions were made in Capitol office suites where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other key lawmakers, often joined by White House officials and their own aides, worked late Tuesday night and picked up again in the morning.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the negotiators, said there was agreement to hold the bill to $789 billion, tens of billions below the cost of both the House and Senate bills that had cleared in recent days, and that 35 percent of the total would be in the form of tax cuts.
The reductions in the bill's size caused grumbles among liberal Democrats, who described them as a concession to the moderates, particularly Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who are under pressure from conservative Republicans to hold down spending.
The principal components of the emerging measure included money to help victims of the recession, as much as $44 billion in aid for states, which face cuts of their own as a result of lower tax receipts, and the president's proposed tax cut for lower and middle-income wage earners.
Officials said there was agreement to accept the White House's call to provide the tax break to workers who pay Social Security taxes but do not earn enough to owe income taxes, although it was possible the amount would be scaled back somewhat. The president sought $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples.
Working to accommodate the new, lower overall limit of the bill, negotiators effectively wiped out a Senate-passed provision for a new $15,000 tax credit to defray the cost of buying a home, these officials said. The agreement would allow taxpayers to deduct the sales tax paid on new car purchases, but not the interest on loans for the same vehicles.
It also appeared a compromise was in the works on the administration's demand for school construction funds. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told reporters that $6 billion would be set aside, and officials said it would be limited to repair and modernization work.
With numerous demands for the funds in the bill, lawmakers worked to satisfy competing demands.
A Senate-passed provision giving $10 billion to the National Institutes of Health for research — a favorite of both Harkin and Specter, appeared likely to survive.
The officials who described the negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose the details of the closed-door negotiations.
Obama has spoken out repeatedly in recent days to urge Congress to act quickly in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"We're at the doorstep of getting this plan through Congress, but the work is not over," he said in Springfield, Va., where he visited a construction site.
Even after the measure becomes law, he said, the challenge will be to effectively make use of the funds in an "endeavor of enormous scope and scale."
Republicans, too, took note of the size of the bill, and they said it included billions that would be wasted.
The original House bill, with a price tag of $820 billion, passed without a single Republican vote.
The $838 billion Senate bill that cleared on Tuesday had the backing of only three of 41 Republicans — but that was enough to give it the 60 votes it needed.
Collins told reporters she hoped fellow GOP lawmakers would reconsider when the final compromise comes to a vote "rather than just reflexively oppose this."
She said the negotiators had "tightened and scrubbed it" to eliminate wasteful spending.
___
Associated Press Writers Andrew Taylor and Ben Feller contributed to this story.
WASHINGTON – House and Senate negotiators agreed to pare economic stimulus legislation below $800 billion and reached for a final deal with the White House on Wednesday on a bill designed to create millions of jobs in a nation reeling from recession.
"Time's getting short," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, one of a handful of Senate moderates whose votes are crucial to the bill's passage.
As if to underscore the urgency, President Barack Obama said executives at Caterpillar Corp. told him they would rescind some of the 22,000 layoffs they recently announced once the stimulus is signed into law.
Several Democratic officials said there was an informal deadline of Wednesday afternoon for at least tentative agreement on an overall bill, a time that coincided with a scheduled formal meeting of House and Senate negotiators.
The real decisions were made in Capitol office suites where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other key lawmakers, often joined by White House officials and their own aides, worked late Tuesday night and picked up again in the morning.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the negotiators, said there was agreement to hold the bill to $789 billion, tens of billions below the cost of both the House and Senate bills that had cleared in recent days, and that 35 percent of the total would be in the form of tax cuts.
The reductions in the bill's size caused grumbles among liberal Democrats, who described them as a concession to the moderates, particularly Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who are under pressure from conservative Republicans to hold down spending.
The principal components of the emerging measure included money to help victims of the recession, as much as $44 billion in aid for states, which face cuts of their own as a result of lower tax receipts, and the president's proposed tax cut for lower and middle-income wage earners.
Officials said there was agreement to accept the White House's call to provide the tax break to workers who pay Social Security taxes but do not earn enough to owe income taxes, although it was possible the amount would be scaled back somewhat. The president sought $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples.
Working to accommodate the new, lower overall limit of the bill, negotiators effectively wiped out a Senate-passed provision for a new $15,000 tax credit to defray the cost of buying a home, these officials said. The agreement would allow taxpayers to deduct the sales tax paid on new car purchases, but not the interest on loans for the same vehicles.
It also appeared a compromise was in the works on the administration's demand for school construction funds. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told reporters that $6 billion would be set aside, and officials said it would be limited to repair and modernization work.
With numerous demands for the funds in the bill, lawmakers worked to satisfy competing demands.
A Senate-passed provision giving $10 billion to the National Institutes of Health for research — a favorite of both Harkin and Specter, appeared likely to survive.
The officials who described the negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose the details of the closed-door negotiations.
Obama has spoken out repeatedly in recent days to urge Congress to act quickly in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"We're at the doorstep of getting this plan through Congress, but the work is not over," he said in Springfield, Va., where he visited a construction site.
Even after the measure becomes law, he said, the challenge will be to effectively make use of the funds in an "endeavor of enormous scope and scale."
Republicans, too, took note of the size of the bill, and they said it included billions that would be wasted.
The original House bill, with a price tag of $820 billion, passed without a single Republican vote.
The $838 billion Senate bill that cleared on Tuesday had the backing of only three of 41 Republicans — but that was enough to give it the 60 votes it needed.
Collins told reporters she hoped fellow GOP lawmakers would reconsider when the final compromise comes to a vote "rather than just reflexively oppose this."
She said the negotiators had "tightened and scrubbed it" to eliminate wasteful spending.
___
Associated Press Writers Andrew Taylor and Ben Feller contributed to this story.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Citizen Stimulus and Bailout Committee
"Stimulus", "bailout", whatever they call it, it is going to cost us a pretty penny (plus interest). Wouldn't we have a wise and "transparent" government if they were to incorporate a committee of citizens in various industries across the country to audit and evaluate who and how regarding stimulus and bailout? After all, it is the taxpayers' money.
In the circumstance of the auto bailout, wouldn't it be prudent that they incorporate an actual audit of those companies receiving consideration for the money? Or are they just going to take the executives at their word.
The actual $700 billion bailout (TARP) was supposed to receive an audit of sorts in early December. But, no matter where or how I searched, I could not find any specifics on the actual grade, review, audit, or otherwise. So, what has become of that money? Shouldn't we be privy to that information, since it is our money (plus the interest of at least 5% that we will owe some foreign country, most likely China)?
Without and audit, how does Congress expect to know how much total taxpayer money will be needed to help General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. to actually survive. After all, they are telling Congress that they need "a total of $14 billion to $15 billion to survive through early 2009". What happens after that?
Sure, they should make sacrifices, but what do they mean by "show they're willing to sacrifice"? Does that mean that they have to take business class airfare? Or does that mean that they have to drive themselves in their own brand of car instead of taking a limo? When you are talking about executives that "haven't adapted well to changing conditions", what are they going to consider change and sacrifice, versus what actually needs to be accomplished in our reality.
When there is a Washington machine committee put together to evaluate this issue of "concessions" and "sacrifice", are they really living in reality enough to evaluate the issue? Or would it be more prudent to have some actual citizens involved in this process...people who are in various working industries and conditions around the country? After all, it is our (the taxpayers') money.
If you are not worried about future ramifications of all of these "stimuli", you should be. If it were as easy as just printing more money, that would be easy and we would not have these recessionary, depressionary, devaluationary, deflationary concerns. However, in the end, the buck stops with you and I...literally. In the end, since the money is coming from you and I, wouldn't you rather see a committee of folks who are a part of the various working industries around the country, and not just those who are a part of the Washington D.C. system?
In the circumstance of the auto bailout, wouldn't it be prudent that they incorporate an actual audit of those companies receiving consideration for the money? Or are they just going to take the executives at their word.
The actual $700 billion bailout (TARP) was supposed to receive an audit of sorts in early December. But, no matter where or how I searched, I could not find any specifics on the actual grade, review, audit, or otherwise. So, what has become of that money? Shouldn't we be privy to that information, since it is our money (plus the interest of at least 5% that we will owe some foreign country, most likely China)?
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi touted the notion of a 'car czar' to supervise an auto industry bailout, saying Tuesday that Big Three executives haven't adapted well to changing conditions." -- December 9, 2008, Associated Press
Without and audit, how does Congress expect to know how much total taxpayer money will be needed to help General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. to actually survive. After all, they are telling Congress that they need "a total of $14 billion to $15 billion to survive through early 2009". What happens after that?
"Dec. 16 (UPI) -- Stakeholders in the U.S. auto industry must show they're willing to sacrifice if assistance funds are to be allotted, a White House spokeswoman said Tuesday." -- UPI.com, Business News, December 16, 2008
Sure, they should make sacrifices, but what do they mean by "show they're willing to sacrifice"? Does that mean that they have to take business class airfare? Or does that mean that they have to drive themselves in their own brand of car instead of taking a limo? When you are talking about executives that "haven't adapted well to changing conditions", what are they going to consider change and sacrifice, versus what actually needs to be accomplished in our reality.
"(If) we're going to use taxpayer financing to assist the automakers, all stakeholders are going to have to come to the table and be willing to show that they are capable and willing to make really tough decisions about the way forward," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "(We) need them to become viable, competitive firms in the future, and in order to do that, concessions are going to have to be made by stakeholders." -- UPA.com, Business News, December 16, 2008
When there is a Washington machine committee put together to evaluate this issue of "concessions" and "sacrifice", are they really living in reality enough to evaluate the issue? Or would it be more prudent to have some actual citizens involved in this process...people who are in various working industries and conditions around the country? After all, it is our (the taxpayers') money.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Democrats are preparing a massive economic recovery bill in the range of $600 billion.
It would blend immediate steps to counter the slumping economy with longer term federal spending on infrastructure like energy efficiency projects.
The California Democrat told reporters that economist Mark Zandi has recommended to Democrats an economic stimulus in that range -- including $400 billion in infrastructure and $200 billion for tax cuts.
Pelosi saysCapitol Hill Democratsare already "hard at work" writing a stimulus measure to pass next month. It's expected to combine tools like tax cuts and help to states suffering from big budget deficits with infrastructure projects like road and bridge repairs." -- The Associated Press, December 16, 2008 (note: italics added)
If you are not worried about future ramifications of all of these "stimuli", you should be. If it were as easy as just printing more money, that would be easy and we would not have these recessionary, depressionary, devaluationary, deflationary concerns. However, in the end, the buck stops with you and I...literally. In the end, since the money is coming from you and I, wouldn't you rather see a committee of folks who are a part of the various working industries around the country, and not just those who are a part of the Washington D.C. system?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Nancy Pelosi Can Save Us $5,760,000 Each Year!
Addressing an email that I was recently sent from a friend, which reads...
Well, it is true. She has been living a luxurious existence on our tax dollars.
According to a resource at Mens News Daily.com,
According to Outside The Beltway, this larger plane was requested because the one utilized by the previous Speaker wasn't large enough to fit all of her staff and supporters. Additionally, the same source states that the larger plane was requested so that Nancy Pelosi would not have to stop between Washington D.C. and California to refuel.
What an inconvenience. Not enough room to give the parties and luxury flights to friends, family, and others between D.C. and California? Not willing to stop to refuel on the way, even though everyone else has to do that? For some reason, I think that cutting costs in Washington would be easier than some may think. I see nearly $6 Million that can be reconsidered here.
"And they want to talk about Sarah's dress. Republicans! Are you out there?
MADAME PELOSI
Madame Pelosi wasn't happy with the small private jet that comes with the
Speaker's job, no, Madame Pelosi was aggravated that this little jet had to
stop to refuel, so she ordered a Big Fat 200 seat jet that could get her
back to California without stopping!
Many, many legislators walked by and grinned with glee as Joe informed
everyone that's Nancy's Big Fat Jet costs us, the hard working American tax
payers, thousands of gallons of fuel every
week.
Since she only works 3 days a week, this gas
guzzling jet gets fueled and she flies home to California, cost to the
taxpayers of about $60,000, one way!
As Joe put it, 'Unfortunately we have to pay to bring her back on Monday
night.' Cost to us another $60,000.
Folks, that is $480,000 per month and that is an annual cost to the
taxpayers of $5,760,000. No wonder she complains about the cost of this
war, it might cramp her style and she is styling, on my back and yours.
I think of the military families in this country doing without and this
woman, who heads up the most do-nothing Congress in the history of this
country, keeps fueling that jet while doing nothing
Madame Pelosi wants you and I to conserve our carbon footprint. She wants
us to buy smaller cars and Obama wants us to get a bicycle pump and air up
our tires.
These people are nuts."
Well, it is true. She has been living a luxurious existence on our tax dollars.
According to a resource at Mens News Daily.com,
"One would think he would have a field day with Ms. Pelosi’s request given the amenities offered on the Air Force C-32, a modified version of Boeing’s 757 commercial intercontinental aircraft, which boasts:
▪ Room for 45 passengers with business class accommodations
▪ A crew of 16
▪ A communications center
▪ A fully enclosed stateroom for the primary passenger
▪ A changing area
▪ A conference area
▪ An entertainment system
▪ And a divan that not only seats three but converts into a fold-out bed
This impressive aircraft – operated at an approximate cost of $22,000 an hour – is typically reserved for the First Lady, the Vice President and cabinet members and members of congress upon and subject to request. The Air Force has never made transportation of this caliber available to members of congress on a regular basis, Speaker of the House or not."
Are you kidding me? Isn't she working for us? It feels like we are working for her!
"Traditionally, members of congress have had to requisition the use of Air Force transportation through the Executive Branch. The allocation of a personal aircraft to the Speaker of the House only began after the terrorist attacks of September 11th and then it was only because the Speaker of the House was second in the line of succession to the presidency."
According to Outside The Beltway, this larger plane was requested because the one utilized by the previous Speaker wasn't large enough to fit all of her staff and supporters. Additionally, the same source states that the larger plane was requested so that Nancy Pelosi would not have to stop between Washington D.C. and California to refuel.
What an inconvenience. Not enough room to give the parties and luxury flights to friends, family, and others between D.C. and California? Not willing to stop to refuel on the way, even though everyone else has to do that? For some reason, I think that cutting costs in Washington would be easier than some may think. I see nearly $6 Million that can be reconsidered here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)