Comments on: Exclusive: House Dems Planning Major Changes To Secret CIA Briefings Of Congress

By: Duane

Duane — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:51:42 +0000

The House doesn’t need change the way the CIA briefs Congress. They just have to make sure Nancy is awake and coherent during the briefing.

By: lastrep

lastrep — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:12:52 +0000

Does this bill exclude Biden? He doesn’t even require brigery to divulge national secrets.

By: Wil Burns

Wil Burns — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:29:02 +0000

About that CIA doesn’t lie thing from Panetta.

Richard Helms, arguably the greatest spy in CIA history and the director, was convicted of lying to Congress.

Reagan’s spymaster Casey admitted to lying to Congress and running a secret war against Nicaragua despite a Congressional ban.

They are spies, after all, what they do is lie.

By: Champsummers

Champsummers — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:33:58 +0000

Alzheimers is Nancy’s problem.

By: Al Eisel

Al Eisel — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:07:03 +0000

Pelosi leading an effort to redefine CIA briefings? That’s like Dracula redefining procedures with the blood bank. Isn’t Pelosi the one who accused the CIA of regularly lying to Congress? Didn’t she fail to produce one iota of evidence of this charge? Didn’t she change her story four or five times?Didn’t she completely and totally get away with this charade? Didn’t the Republicans allow her to completely and totally get away with it?

By: Terry

Terry — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:48:40 +0000

Giving Cheney Shelby’s source with al-quaeda is more blaming the past administration. Demos had majority rule then, they have a stranglehold now with an inexperienced president who also is a democrat .Allowing 12 more people access to our intelligence in the spook world, and how we use it is a dangerous mistake. Besides, Pelosi has and likes her power and thinking she’s president (even though she’s third in the line of succession.

By: Amazingoly

Amazingoly — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:43:01 +0000

Leave Pelosi out of the briefings.

By: Terry

Terry — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:27:50 +0000

ToNell: Shelby’s al-Qaeda leak arranged by Cheney? People need to blame Congress for their stupidity, and Obama. Not the previous administration.
I understand the chairs of the house being allowed to be briefed on the goings-on in the spook world. But a dozen more including their staffs is another stupid and serious mistake. With so many people knowing our intelligence knowledge and how we collect it our National Security is greatly compromised.

By: Nell

Nell — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:47:00 +0000

Coverage and commentary of this bill seems to be proceeding from the point of view that this is a widening of briefing. What it is is an attempt to get rid of the ‘Gang of Eight’ exception that has, over time, swallowed the actual current rule, which is that only under exceptional circumstances, with a presidential finding, can briefings be limited.

Members of Congress were wrong not to publicly demand the presidential finding and insist on full committee briefing in its absence.

Allowing themselves to be split up into still smaller groups was a further tactical error, but the primary failure to insist on the law being followed was the fatal step.

It’s not at all beyond possibility that Shelby’s al-Qaeda leak was arranged by Cheney so the VP could publicly and privately browbeat the intelligence committees by threatening to withhold briefings entirely.

By: Lisa Pease

Lisa Pease — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:07:05 +0000

The problem is that the CIA feels it shouldn’t need Congressional oversight at all, that Congress should just trust them. If you add more people, the CIA will probably be even less forthcoming about their operations than they are currently. That’s not an argument against this though. The CIA needs to be brought to heel, and this is a small but deliberate step in that direction.

By: AndreaT

AndreaT — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:26:41 +0000

While it is an interesting notion to perhaps widen the circle of those in Congress being briefed, I can imagine it is not without risks.

However, something that I believe has been demonstrated to be critical, is requiring that those briefings are FAR more accurately documented than they have been. Those who are briefed should be able to take their own notes (and secure them appropriately), and an official record of all of the conversation that went on, along with those in attendance MUST be part of that briefing record. Having briefers continue to make up those reports after the fact, based on their best recollection, or based on what they decide they “want” to have documented, is simply negligent in the extreme. To my mind, until they change that standard, briefing records from the CIA have absolutely no credibility, and can’t even be legitimately called “records” at all.

By: sbj

sbj — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:33:59 +0000

@Greg: I suppose they could come up with that same old BS about not being consulted on the specifics. Or the Dems could unreasonably limit amendments and give the Repubs an opening. This could also be used as an opportunity to poke Pelosi again (pardon the visual) and propose a bipartisan commission to investigate whether the CIA lied to her.
.
I think those would all be losers and they should support reforming this seemingly dated rule. ABC makes a good point about the incessant problems of leaks and oversight – those specifics are important and deserve bipartisan agreement. I’m tired of leaks coming from the CIA and from Congress about ’spy’ stuff – let’s put some teeth into this so that CIA leaks intended to cause political damage can be meaningfully punished. At the same time let’s make sure that oversight can be effective.

By: Greg Sargent

Greg Sargent — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:09:24 +0000

sbj — very possible. Dems aren’t sure what to expect. the question is whether GOPers figure out a way to make an issue out of it, which doesn’t seem out of the question.

By: sbj

sbj — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:00:35 +0000

I don’t think the Republicans will have much of a problem with this (depending on specifics). Heck, even Cheney wanted more members of Congress briefed: “Cheney was adamant that the enhanced interrogations were needed to preserve national security, according to two participants. He advocated briefing more lawmakers about the program, against the wishes of National Security Council officials who sought to inform only the top members of the intelligence committees.”

By: Greg Sargent

Greg Sargent — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:46:08 +0000

great question, ABC. I’ll look into it. thx.