Sen. Bob Graham Just Called for Impeachments On MSNBC Over Supposed Intelligence Failures

MSNBC ^ | July 17, 2003 | Buchanan and Press

[ewing]

MSNBC is running it as breaking news.. Graham said that there is no way that Tom Delay and the House will have impeachment hearings over the supposed intelligence failures (I assume he is talking about VP Cheney) so 'the people' will have to vote the offending partes out in 2004.

A desperate act of a Presidential candidacy and a political career expiring

[CFC__VRWC]

You're right. Accused and convicted.

It could be worse - he called me a Michael Weiner groupy (at the very least you'd think he could at least spell the words right when hurling lame insults). Let's face it, we pinko-commie-symp-tri-lateralist-bootlicking-neocon-sycophantic-Bushbot-third-way-socialist-one-worlder sheeples (did I leave any out?) are just too brainwashed and stupid to go up against a Constimatooshinal skoller of JR's caliber.

Oh well, a man's got to know his limitations. As for me, I've got to do some tweaking on my dental fillings - the reception's been kind of scratchy lately, and sometimes I've actually been missing my marching orders as the White House broadcasts them.

[George W. Bush]

Actually I believe it is, cabinent level that is. CIA isn't part of any other agency and the head of the CIA is more than just the head of the agency, he's also the head of the "intelligence community", which includes other agencies, and portions of the military as well.

No. Not cabinet level. And never will be. And CIA has nothing to do with DIA, the Pentagon's much much larger and better funded military intel division. CIA also does not have authority over NRO (spy satellites) or the NSA. There is some staff interchange and some cooperation between these agencies but CIA doesn't run the others. No one is 'head of the "intelligence community"' strictly speaking. When Tenet speaks of his staff's evaluation of the intelligence community with regard to vetting the Bush SOTU, he was speaking of how they reviewed the submitted analyses of the other agencies and nothing more.

[vannrox]

It is important to properly document the article and the source of the article. FYI.

The issue and one that increase with each month is that items are pulled off the internet after a period of time. The links then become nonexistant. That is why it is important to post as much of the article as one can, provided that there are no legal issues, on this site. Free Republic is and will become a most amazing resource for Conservative historians...period. Don't believe me...

Look at these archive collections!

1999.A Bookmark Archives.
2000.A Bookmark Archives.
2001.A Bookmark Archives.
2002.1 Bookmark Archives.
2002.3 Bookmark Archives.
2002.5 Bookmark Archives.
2002.E Bookmark Archives.
2003.2 Bookmark Archives.
2003.4 Bookmark Archives.

---

FREE REPUBLIC BUMP LIST

[ewing]

I may be wrong but I think in the wake of 9/11 that CIA was elevated to cabinet level.

[Roughneck]

The corruption of democrats does not excuse the corruption of republicans. The "everybody does it" defense has never worked

Oh really? "everybody doe it" phrasing began during the scum-klinton admin.

The rhetoric of socialist dems will not work anymore. The people of the United Staes are sick and tired of the evil stupidity that drives the dem party.

I cant wait until all the socilaist dems have egg on their faces! and they will...because when evil is exposed to light - it dies. Of course, the socialist dems are putting up a pretty good fight..it is VERY fun to watch. Cant wait till the squirming begins. . .

In the meantime..have fun with your postings.

[Roughneck]

Not only do you mischaracterize life in Iraq prior to the war, but you speak falsely about the state of life in Iraq under the occupation

Oh great! another saddam apologist. If iraq is so great, please stay there.

[Admin Moderator]

You are a loon.

[El Gato]

No. Not cabinet level. And never will be. And CIA has nothing to do with DIA, the Pentagon's much much larger and better funded military intel division. CIA also does not have authority over NRO (spy satellites) or the NSA

I carefully did not say the DCI was part of the cabinent, but that it was a cabinet level office. From CIA site ... Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). The DCI serves as the head of the United States Intelligence Community, principal advisor to the President for intelligence matters related to national security, and head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The CIA is an independent agency, responsible to the President through the DCI.

The later is pretty much the definition of cabinet level, that is reporting directly to the President. The Intelligence Community leadership page states that the DCI is the head of the intelligence community. NSA, NIMA, DIA and NRO are all parts of the intelligence community of which the DCI is the head. It's somewhat analogus, but not quite the same relationships as the individidual services have to the overall military operational chain of command, which does not go through the service heads, but rather through the vaious CINC's of the joint and specified commands.

CIA does task the other agencies, and at least in the past was involved with developement of such aircraft as the U-2 and the SR-71. In the case of the U-2, they operated them before the USAF did so.

[George W. Bush]

The later is pretty much the definition of cabinet level...

DCI is not in the cabinet. Therefore, he is not "cabinet-level".

Most people would say that National Security Advisor is at least "cabinet-level". It isn't because it is not a cabinet post. (It's actually above cabinet-level.)

The cabinet is well-defined. A president can generally add or remove cabinet positions, generally to emphasize a policy or pay back a constituency like Carter did when creating the cabinet position of Education Secretary.

DCI is a director. FBI is headed by a director. Cabinet posts are headed by secretaries.

It ain't rocket science.

[George W. Bush]

I may be wrong but I think in the wake of 9/11 that CIA was elevated to cabinet level.

Sorry. You're wrong.

Look CIA and National Security Agency are pretty much answerable only to the president and advise him pretty directly. They help him evaluate all the different stuff that comes from State, Pentagon (DIA), NRO and NSA. If you made it a cabinet position, it would make the appointee subject to more congressional and public scrutiny. Besides, just as we changed our Department of War to a Department of Defense after WW II, for diplomatic reasons we would not include a spy intelligence agency in the cabinet because that would signal publicly to other countries (and our own citizens) just how much we rely on intel work, spying, underhanded and sometimes illegal methods.

It really makes a lot of sense. It would be stupid to make any intel chief a part of the cabinet. There were, and still are, sound reasons why it is an advisory executive agency and not a cabinet position.

[George W. Bush]

I may be wrong but I think in the wake of 9/11 that CIA was elevated to cabinet level.

Sorry. You're wrong.

Look, CIA and National Security Agency are pretty much answerable only to the president and advise him pretty directly. They help him evaluate all the different stuff that comes from State, Pentagon (DIA), NRO and NSA. If you made it a cabinet position, it would make the appointee subject to more congressional and public scrutiny. Besides, just as we changed our Department of War to a Department of Defense after WW II, for diplomatic reasons we would not include a spy intelligence agency in the cabinet because that would signal publicly to other countries (and our own citizens) just how much we rely on intel work, spying, underhanded and sometimes illegal methods.

It really makes a lot of sense. It would be stupid to make any intel chief a part of the cabinet. There were, and still are, sound reasons why it is an advisory executive agency and not a cabinet position.

[El Gato]

DCI is not in the cabinet. Therefore, he is not "cabinet-level".

That does not follow, while DCI is indeed not in the cabinet, there is a difference between "cabinet level" and "in the cabinet". However it appears that while I thought DCI was once "cabinet level", if he was, he no longer is. See White House's Cabinet page for examples of "cabinet level" officials not legally "in the cabinet"

DCI is a director. FBI is headed by a director. Cabinet posts are headed by secretaries.

Then I guess Attorney General John Ashcroft is not in the cabinet? He is not a director or a secretary. Examples of "cabinet level" folks who are not in the cabinet include: Vice President Dick Chenney, Director of the OMB Joshua Bolten, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, John P. Walters and Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

It ain't rocket science.

Speaking as former rocket scientist (well missile seeker engineer, close enough) are you sure about that?

It would be more correct to say that cabinent members are heads of departments, but cabinet level officers can be most anything the President wishes. The President cannot create a new department without Congress' approval, but he can create a cabinet level office, and can create organizations within the executive office of the President. Congress had approved Mr. Peanut's creation of a federal Department of Education, which they did of course.

[El Gato]

Look, CIA and National Security Agency are pretty much answerable only to the president and advise him pretty directly.

NSA, NRO, NMIA, and DIA are all part of DoD, and thus formally report via SecDef Rumsfield. CIA is an independent agency, but the DCI is dual hatted as head of CIA and head of the Intelligence Community as a whole.

[George W. Bush]

Then I guess Attorney General John Ashcroft is not in the cabinet?

He holds a constitutionally prescribed office, one that dates back to the thirteenth century and an office which is found in almost all the former British colonies around the world.

I could go on but the difference is obvious. You could get rid of almost every cabinet position except Attorney General. It has the most history and English legal tradition behind it.

It would be more correct to say that cabinent members are heads of departments, but cabinet level officers can be most anything the President wishes.

I think most political junkies know this stuff in general terms. I'm not sure you're actually making a point.

At any rate, if you want to call DCI 'cabinet-level' for some reason (as though most people know or care his precise ranking in the pecking order or as though the formal description actually matches his real power and influence in a given administration), then go ahead. Whatever turns your crank...