Boehner, King Distort Pelosi Quote, Falsely Claim She Has Broken 9/11 Commission Pledge
Boehner, King Distort Pelosi Quote, Falsely Claim She Has Broken 9/11 Commission Pledge
Top House conservatives are attacking incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over comments she made today about her new plan for intelligence reform, which involves creating a “hybrid” panel with members of the intelligence and appropriations committees.
The 9/11 Commission report called on Congress to overhaul the congressional intelligence system, but offered two options for achieving this goal (Pelosi chose the second):
For intelligence oversight, we propose two options: either a joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or a single committee in each house combining authorizing and appropriating committees.
At a press conference today, Pelosi was asked why she had decided against “creating a joint House‑Senate intelligence body.” Pelosi explained that the 9/11 Commission had provided multiple options for intel reform, and “if they are giving you different alternatives, then implicit in that is that you can’t do them all.”
The right wing has now jumped on this quote, claiming it is evidence that Pelosi has abandoned her pledge to enact all of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations.
Peter King (R-NY), the outgoing House Homeland Security Committee chairman, issued a statement claiming Pelosi had “admitted she won’t be able to enact all the 9/11 Commission recommendations,” and called it a “direct contradiction of statements Ms. Pelosi has made in the past.” Outgoing House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) referenced Pelosi’s quote and said he “appreciate[s] the candor she has demonstrated” with respect to her “promise of enacting all of the remaining unresolved recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.”
These claims are misleading and wrong. Pelosi’s intelligence proposal is in line with the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. Already, 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer has said Pelosi’s plan would “achieve the commission’s two major goals,” calling it “a major step forward.” House conservatives, meanwhile, refused to take such a step and earned a “D” for their efforts on intelligence reform from the commission.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The neocons continue to redefined the definition of the term “Sore Losers”…
Sheesh!
December 14th, 2006 at 5:44 pmOnce again, ignorance is their only argument.
December 14th, 2006 at 5:50 pm.
“The right wing has now jumped on this quote, claiming it is evidence that Pelosi has abandoned her pledge to enact all of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. ”
What a bunch of disingenuous knee jerk… jerks.
When are they going to “jump” allover Bush and their own for not even attempting to enact many of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations or for trying to block it in the first place for that matter.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that the Whitewash Commission was mostly full of crap, but many of their recommendations are commonsense initiatives and are a decent place to start… A shift in foreign policy (and Administrations) should be considered the #1 detterent of “terrorism”.
December 14th, 2006 at 5:57 pmThese right-wing idiots will do whatever it takes to discredit Pelosi.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:20 pmI find this lack of candor….well, how should I say it….somewhat familiar?
-
December 14th, 2006 at 6:22 pmBoner is just upset because now he might be able to get those pay off checks from big business. Boner thought when he took over the Whip’s job and started getting the 10,000 thousands dollar payoffs checks. Look Boner is only in it for the money and he’ll say anything to keep the illegal money coming to his pocket for pay offs.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:30 pmBoehner, King Distort Pelosi Quote, Falsely Claim She Has Broken 9/11 Commission Pledge
My gawd, you’d have to be a perfect dolt not to understand it:
Unity of Effort: Congress Congress took too little action to adjust itself or to restructure the executive branch to address the emerging terrorist threat. Congressional oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism-is dysfunctional. Both Congress and the executive need to do more to minimize national security risks during transitions between administrations.
For intelligence oversight, we propose two options: either a joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or a single committee in each house combining authorizing and appropriating committees. Our central message is the same: the intelligence committees cannot carry out their oversight function unless they are made stronger, and thereby have both clear responsibility and accountability for that oversight.
Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security. There should be one permanent standing committee for homeland security in each chamber.
We propose reforms to speed up the nomination, financial reporting, security clearance, and confirmation process for national security officials at the start of an administration, and suggest steps to make sure that incoming administrations have the information they need.
Someone should tell them that the election for president of the Junior High School debate team was held years ago. They lost.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:31 pmWell, at least the GOP losers are showing the spirit of bipartisan co-operation that they’re going to bring to the House in January. Pelosi knew it already, I bet, but the GOP losers are going to be undermining the new Congress from day one, in the sleazy way they know best.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:38 pmWhy the hell do they care anyway… they had every chance to enact the recomendations themselves but didn’t… fuk-em!!!
December 14th, 2006 at 6:41 pmI for one am happy that these neo-con GOP idiots keep yapping. I need my daily dose of laughter. After all my tax dollars, and yours, paid for these comedians and it is about time they worked off that money.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:41 pmthe republicans need to just stfu.
‘We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’
December 14th, 2006 at 6:42 pmBoehner-Sorry, I just can’t see the greatness in that guy.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:51 pmBoehner, the pedophile enabler, had better watch his P’s and Q’s. The more he foists himself into the public eye, the greater the scrutiny and rememberance of how he aided and abetted Mark Foley. Boehner is as complicit as Hastert in all of this and the people know all about him. Check him out yourself: what does he look like to you? It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?
December 14th, 2006 at 6:51 pmabsolutely – the Repugnants need to STFU or they’ll be roasted like stuck pigs by Pelosi.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:52 pmGuess they didn’t call him “pretty boy boner” in high school for nothing then!~
December 14th, 2006 at 6:53 pmThe Repukelicans expect Dems to choose two solutions to a problem. They will demand the impossible from the Dems, and blame them for not performing miracles. The Dems haven’t even taken office yet, and already the opposition has bared their fangs. They have been utter failures for 6 years, and now they sanctimoniously pronounce criticisms of the Dems by selective misrepresentations of fact.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:58 pmSo typical of them – more desperate than ever to sway public opinion to make the Dems look worse than Repukes; watch them on every news broadcast, and the media allows their outrageous comments without challenge. In fact, the media is also demanding immediate and impossible solutions from Democrats. If Dems speak about one topic, they are criticized for not speaking about another.
I still say that Boehner is the flesh and blood incarnation of the Grinch
December 14th, 2006 at 7:11 pmWhy do republican men all comb their hair like Trent Lott? Didn’t the roadkill toupee look go out with the 50s?
December 14th, 2006 at 7:26 pmI hope that the same narrow-minded fools squawk as loud when Speaker Pelosi contradicts her statement about not impeaching DUHbya and Company. Actually such a stand is admirable given her position. Any other position and she would be open to “conflict of interest” charges since when, NOT IF, Dick and Dumber are gone Speaker Pelosi becomes Madam President. Her first words, after “Thank You,” as Speaker should be “I excuse myself from any Congressional business, including voting, involving impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney and will not comment on the Bill of Impeachment against them I filed fifteen minutes ago.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:31 pmI guess it depends on the meaning of “either”.
Some would read this as meaning the two options are mutually exclusive. Republicans read “either” and “both” as synonyms. Obviously, one of these definitions is wrong.
I fall in the “mutually exclusive” camp.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:31 pmWho is this Boner King?
December 14th, 2006 at 7:45 pmWhat a bunch of whiny babies. (the repugs)
December 14th, 2006 at 7:57 pm#23 DallasNE
In this case it is “either” A “or” B in my interpretation hence I would agree that the two are mutually exclusive. However, logic has never been a key factor in the thinking (a stretch I will admit) process of the Repugs. They just play to the knee-jerk 30% who take as gospel any utterance from the Alpha Fools of the pack. They do not need facts to attempt to discredit any Democrat as their minds are made up and the facts just confuse the hell out of them.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:02 pmThe 911 Commision Report was such an Obvious Lie.
The report does not once mention building seven.
NOT ONCE!
Americans who continue to believe the lie called 911 will be the pariahs of history.
Americans who believe that Every Single Support Column of Building Seven failed SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that a hundred or so huge steel columns can fail at the exact same instant?
Do you believe that building seven fell 500 in 6.5 seconds because of a few scattered fires?
Every Single Support column moved out of the way so fast that the building fell as fast a a billiard ball dropped fro the same height.
EVERY SINGLE COLUMN in the entire building moved out of the way so fast that the entire building could fall as fast as a billiard ball dropped from the same height.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:43 pmWhat happened to building 7 in the 9/11 Commision Report.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:41 pmCareful, folks…9/11 discussion isn’t allowed on this board.
At best, you’ll see your posts disappear like snowflakes in July. At worst, you’ll be banned…all without a word of explanation.
Just a friendly warning from one who knows.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:04 pmBoner IS Steve, the neighbor on Married with Children. If I remember correctly, he was kind of a weiner.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:36 pmJust another whiney coward Republican. Boehner never honored his pledge to uphold the Constitution of the US unless he thought that holding up a paper copy of the Constitution above his head honored his pledge.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:40 amThe louder they bitch, the deeper they did their own hole. I, for one, will not take their shovel from them. As a matter of fact, I would like to give these neocons a bigger shovel so that they can dig their hole deeper and faster.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:44 amBecause that`s what fine upstanding \â€Christian\†media men are supposed to look like…..sarcasm{off}
No wonder their wives take drugs and are frigid. There is nothing sexy about that “fine upstanding\Christian\ media” man look.
December 15th, 2006 at 8:49 amI’ve seen this face in some maffia movie whose title I can’t remember…
December 15th, 2006 at 8:58 amFor intelligence oversight, we propose two options: either a joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or a single committee in each house combining authorizing and appropriating committees.
Me thinks Boehner needs to go to revisit grammar school.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:19 amPoint to remember, whenever a republicans mouth is moving, he or she is lying.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:52 amSuppose a fiscally responsible commission had said back in 2000, one had to choose between two alternatives: either (a) either raise taxes to go along with those spending increases being called for by George W. Bush; or (b) cut spending as one cuts taxes. I guess Bush choose both – increasing spending and cutting taxes. The either/or distinction was just over his head, I guess. Same goes for this rightwing horse****regarding what Pelosi said.
December 15th, 2006 at 1:05 pmOh, why bother spinning this? It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that you can’t enact every recommendation if some of them conflict. It was stupid of Pelosi to make such a sweeping promise in the first place.
December 15th, 2006 at 1:05 pm