Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Bipartisanship!

The level of political discourse takes yet another turn for the worse:
The topics Reps. Rob Simmons and Zoe Lofgren are charged with considering are among the gravest - homeland security, national intelligence, government wiretaps.

Lately, though, the exchange between the House intelligence subcommittee's top members and staffs has been straight from the schoolyard.
...
Simmons, the chairman, is "wimpy," says Lofgren, the panel's top Democrat.

Lofgren, D-Calif., "would rather debate in the sandbox," counters Todd Mitchell, Simmons' chief of staff. "What's she going to say next, that Rob has cooties and gives wedgies?" (Lightman)

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not receive a wedgie from an ex-CIA officer.

What's worse is that there is a very serious issue underlying this apparently ridiculous fight:
Their clash began in earnest in January, about six weeks after news broke about the National Security Agency electronic eavesdropping on civilians in this country without first seeking court warrants.

Lofgren ... wanted a hearing and called the subcommittee's inaction on the NSA reports a "failure."
...
Simmons and King countered that he does not have the power because other committees, notably Judiciary and Intelligence, had authority over NSA spying and were pursuing the matter. Homeland Security, he said, does not have jurisdiction.(Lightman


I guess it could be worse. In 1856, Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina objected to Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts delivering a stidently anti-slavery speech, in which he insulted a South Carolina senator.

So Brooks beat the crap out of him on the Senate floor.

Things aren't that bad yet. But they certainly aren't good, either.

Source

Lightman, David. "Californian, Simmons In A Squabble." Hartford Courant 5 July, 2006.

23 comments:

disgruntled_republican said...

This is old news...I am surprised the Courant wrote anything on this to be honest. Simmons is correct on this issue...his Committee does not have the power to call a hearing...merely election year politics here by the Democrats...

And just for the record, she started it...lol

turfgrrl said...

Old news perhaps, but the DHS was given the authority by Congress in 2002 to be the primary domestic intelligence coordinator. So in fact the DHS committee would have jurisdiction. It's off that Simmons would argue otherwise, since he's been pushing greater anti-terrorism intellgience gathering capabilities through the DHS all along. For example, H.R. 1817

disgruntled_republican said...

turfgrrl-

You aren't comparing apples and apples there...you are talking about border security versus wire tapping...c'mon be real here.

The ACTIONS of the CIA would not fall under Homeland Security in this instance.

turfgrrl said...

disgruntled_republican -- I hope not! No, farther down in the bill I linked to it switches to terrorism intelligence. Are you making the argument that Simmons hasn't been supportive of anti-terrorism intelligence gathering within DHS?

BRubenstein said...

Actually there is probably concurrent jurisdiction betwen a few congressional committees...that being the case it will up to the republican leadership to decide who calls the meetings on spying and what the groundrules will be.

Anonymous said...

Thank God we have one real progressive we can count on- Hillary said what had to be said- she won’t support Joe if he loses to Ned (which he will). I only wish Chris Murphy could be so courageous- check out this from Republican-American today “Lieberman has campaigned with Murphy, and a grateful Murphy is backing the Senator in the primary.”

bluecoat said...

DG: the CIA is not the NSA and vice versa; and the NSA surveillance program provides actionable intelligence to the FBI, which happens to be one of the agencies responsible for domestic intlelligence - if they had any..

BRubenstein said...

Dear Anonymous, while i agree with her stance about supporting the Democratic winner of the primary i totally disagree that Hillery is progressive...maybe 10 years ago she was but certainly not now...She is as supportive of the war as Joementum...is for a flag burning legislation...wants to weaken Roe Vs. Wade...and is supportive of the Patriot Act...etc....in any Senate progressive ratings she is now squarely in the middle of the pack.

HuskyFan06 said...

I saw the Republican American Article where Chris Murphy is grateful to Lieberman for helping him on the capaign trail and Murphy is backing Lieberman in the primary. That's politics at its worst! You scratch my back-I"ll scratch yours. TAht's the exact reason we need Ned-Chris your support of Joe "W" Lieberman is shameful- I thought you were different but I guess your're just like all the rest.

CTswingvoter said...

Dear Anonymous,
That is Outrageous!

Anonymous said...

So What's the deal, I heard him (Murphy) say he's backing Ned

coffeeaddict1234 said...

Chris is backing Joe.

HuskyFan06 said...

I posted a Blog to his campaign site asking him who he is behind and he never replied.

chevygirl1492 said...

He's blocking his blog.

janes1978 said...

Why have one?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Anonymous said..."
So What's the deal, I heard him (Murphy) say he's backing Ned"


That works for me.

Previously Joe was the only Dem alive that had helped Murphy and not gotten stabbed in the back for his trouble.

It was just a matter of time.

MikeCT said...

Murphy is not endorsing Lamont until he wins the primary. Nor is any other Congressional candidate. My understanding is that Lieberman went door knocking with Murphy during his state legislative campaign. They've had little to do with one another in this year's campaign.

The article also clearly says:
He will not support Lieberman if Lamont wins Aug. 8. "Our position is still we are going to support the winner of the primary -- whoever that is," Murphy said.

NewEnglandsRisingStar said...

I noticed a few posts earlier about Chris Murphy not posting things sent to his Blog-I too sent him a question and they never answered it. This is exactly why Joe Lieberman is in trouble- HE DIDN’T LISTEN TO HIS BASE!!!

IAmBatman537 said...

Blocking blogs is treasonous in the blogosphere.

BigGulpzHuh said...

I thought Bush was bad- full disclosure Chris!

RockCatChick83 said...

I checked- he posted some questions in late June- so you’re wrong.

brasscitypatriot said...

He is dodging questions posted on his Blog by his base- its July 6th- he hasn’t answered any questions in eight days- why have a Blog if you’re not going to answer.

Anonymous said...

He ought to come out for Ned- I see he’s endorsed Joe officially but then says I’ll back whoever wins the primary. Not the kind of friend you can count on. That’s like rooting for both the Red Sox and the Yankees.