The Violence Worker!

Did They Lie II

We've already established that the Democrats will not pass all 43 recommendations of the 9/11 commission.  The truth is, they won't do 42 of them.  They probably won't do many of them, if at all.

First and foremost is that there are not 43 legislative recommendations.  In other words, some of the 43 are not legislative solutions.  Some fall directly either wholly or partially under the Executive Branch and some  are just too costly or unwieldy.

What the Democrats (and probably many Republicans) bank on is that the average person hasn't read them.  And to be honest, I hadn't, until now.  I spent yesterday and this AM reading through them.  The pdf is over 400 pages of reading plus notes and indices.  The recommendations are the last 100 pages or so.  I'm also willing to bet many Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle haven't read them all either. 

There are to links for you to read.  The first is the actual recommendations and the second is to a GAO report that gives an overview as to who can most likely do what.  I recommend you read them both.

1. The 9/11 Commission Report
2. The GAO Summary Report

So given the fact that Congress cannot pass all 43 recommendations because there is no way legally they can do so and given that they have access to the GAO report, I'd say someone lied.

Am I being disingenuous as alleged by Mudkitty?  Nope, I never said I was for adopting all 43.  I think there is some good points, but I think they are one committee's recommendations and they should be studied and implemented if they are feasible or modified or trashed if there are better ideas out there.  Disingenuous is making excuses as to why the Democrats, who made it a campaign issue and pledge, won't implement them.

I'm not naive enough to think that any political party is going to adopt them as they are.  You shouldn't be either.

VW

Did They Lie?

The Democrats wouldn't lie to us, would they?

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Didn't we hear that day after day, in ad after ad and on talk show after talk show?

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the panel wrote. "So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need."

Now Democrats are balking, just as Republicans did before them.

The decision will almost certainly anger commission members, as well as families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, many of whom have pressed hard for implementation of the recommendations.

"The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them," said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.

Why are they suddenly balking?

Two reasons

1.  "The intelligence committees' gains would come at the expense of the armed services committees and the appropriations panels' defense subcommittees. Powerful lawmakers on those panels would have to give up prized legislative turf."

2.  "Democratic leadership dust-ups this month severely limited the ability of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to implement the commission's recommendations, according to Democratic aides."  The Sept. 11 commission urged Congress to do away with traditional term limits on the intelligence committees to preserve continuity and expertise, a recommendation the House implemented in 2003. But in her search for a reason to drop the committee's most senior Democrat, Jane Harman (Calif.), from the panel, Pelosi fell back on the tradition of term limits. She has decided to pass over the intelligence committee's second-ranking Democrat, Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), as well.

So much for honesty and openness. 

I'm not so certain that the Congress needs to have that much power in the first place.  There are improvements that can be made and one of the biggest one was removing Gorelick's wall of the Clinton years.

Between Pelosi's absolute failure as a leader up to this point and now this disclosure, the Democrat majority might just be a two year burp

Thanks to The Diary of the Mad Pigeon for open trackbacks!

VW