« FlipperPAC | Home | Thanks, Hugh »
Suddenly, Rushing Is Okay
By Matt Margolis | December 5, 2004
The whole “controversy” over the 9/11 Intel Reform Bill is starting to get on my nerves. Not because it hasn’t gone to a vote yet, but because of all the complaining about it.
I happen to recall huge bipartisan support for the PATRIOT Act. Both parties acting together, crafting this piece of legislation (even John Kerry wrote parts of it) and passed it without sweating. No problem then, but a major problem once the Democrats decided it was close enough to the elections that they could do a 180 on the bill and oppose it, all in the name of partisan politics.
So here we are now, with the 9/11 Intel Reform Bill, and both parties want to just rush into voting on it when perhaps more debate is necessary. All things considered, just because the bill is based on suggestions by the 9/11 Commission doesn’t mean all the suggestions are good ones. Any commision with Ben Veniste and Gorelick on it ought to signal to everyone to proceed with caution.
WorldNetDaily reports that a key reason for the bill being delayed is a debate over drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants.
[Congressional sources] point out that the Sept. 11 hijackers had acquired a total of 63 driver’s licenses, at least some of which were used to support their efforts to kill nearly 3,000 Americans.
While the issue of illegal driver’s licenses hasn’t received as much attention in the media as a reason for amending or defeating the bill, congressional sources tell WND that a bill without provisions for denying them will only provide the illusion of national security.
I think it is safe to say that there is bound to be atleast two sides to this issue, and if John Kerry is involved in the debate 3, 4, or 5 sides.
I personally want this bill to be debated over. If there is no debate, or not enough debate, guess who will become the scapegoat if provisions of the bill prove to be ineffective? Democrats were able to claim they never read the PATRIOT Act before they voted on it. Well, I don’t want them using their ignorance to absolve themselves of responsibility during the next election cycle.
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
December 6th, 2004 at 6:34 am
I’m not sure where you get your information but this is one impasse you can’t actually blame on the dems. This from CNN:
The opposition is within the Republican party why aren’t you writing witty reparte about that?
December 6th, 2004 at 7:39 am
“Well, I don’t want them using their ignorance to absolve themselves of responsibility during the next election cycle.”
Party before country, Bea. President Jeb and all. Please refer to the manual.
December 6th, 2004 at 9:35 am
Bea, if you’re asking that question, you’ve completely missed the point of what i’m trying to say. I am essentially saying that the Republicans are doing the right thing by not letting this rush off to a vote.
December 6th, 2004 at 4:32 pm
Well, I’ve resisted jumping into this…but here goes.
In the DC area, the Intelligence Community (or the IC) is made up of at least a dozen different agencies. CIA, NSA, NRO, NGA, and DIA are at the National level. The FBI and the State Department play a role. There are also Intelligence arms for each military branch. Parts of Justice and Homeland Security and even Treasury provide input and are sometime users of this intelligence. But it is the first five along with the military that are generally part of the IC. These organizations already cooperate to a great extent on intelligence gathering, analysis, and dissemination programs. A great reference is http://globalsecurity.org/ It has a generally liberal slant, but is full of facts nonetheless.
The organizations are complex and heavily bureaucratic. The budgets are large and secret. Vendors selling computer and communications equipment into the organizations themselves need to be cleared and they are considered part of the community. (I am peripherally involved in this community – meaning I support vendors who do business there – I am not currently cleared). And, the relationships within and between these agencies are incredibly complex. For many years prior to 9/11 many people have recognized a need for reform. But, the secretive or “black” nature of these organizations has made it impossible.
I believe that a few months of deliberation – so that the new Congress can examine this in detail would do no harm. That is what we’re talking about right? The new Congress starts next month. The questions are very complex. There does need to be a new central authority. And many parts of these agencies will resist change both actively and passively. We will not see a real behavioral change for a decade or more no matter what we do. I don’t want to see pork added and other agendas run through as attachments to this reform. It is too important.
So, does that mean I’m on the Dem or Republican side of the argument? Well first off, there should be no argument. But since the Republicans are resisting trivial and non-productive attachments and are arguing that this issue be taken up by the new Congress – then I guess I’m the Republican side. However, I DO want to see reform and I will not be happy if that debate turns into years of crap and no reorganization.