Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/pelosis_slap_at_security_opedcolumnists_josh_manchester.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nypost.com/seven/11 202006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/pelosis_slap_at_security_opedcolumnists_josh_manchester.htm</a> >>HOUSE Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi intends to install Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) as chairman of the House Intelligence Com mittee. But Hastings poses an incredible security risk. He was removed from office as a federal judge in 1989 for taking a $150,000 bribe to render light sentences and other perks to two mobsters. And his latest disclosure forms list $2 million to $7 million in liabilities (mostly for legal fees). Were Hastings a regular Joe applying for a security clearance of the lowest kind for a job at the CIA or FBI, he'd be rapidly and roundly denied. His history of public corruption, coupled with his precarious financial situation, makes him ripe to be targeted for espionage. Most complaints about Hastings' possible installation hinge on the Democrats' hypocrisy - after all, they just won Congress by complaining about the GOP's "culture of corruption." Others note that Rep. Jane Harman, now the committee's top Democrat, is more qualified. Yet the national-security issues are far more important. Those who know Hastings may protest, and loudly. But people with patterns of financial irresponsibility or corruption such as Hastings have proven to be security risks since time immemorial. Consider the kind of information that would become immediately available to a Chairman Hastings - the most secret of top-secret information. Intelligence Committee members have access to what's called "top-secret special compartmentalized information" (TS-SCI). This stuff is so sensitive that its aspects are divided into four "compartments" so that anyone privy to one compartment will not have access to the other three. The subject matter includes cryptography, satellite intelligence, data on our intel agencies and details of our nuclear arsenal. Even if Hastings has access to only one of these areas, it would be incredibly risky. It's hard to believe that such sensitive info could be so easily accessed by a man who once sold his office to two mobsters for $150,000. It's harder to believe that a responsible leader of either party would gladly want Hastings to take the reins of the intel committee.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper As a Floridian I can tell you there isn't much love lost here for Hastings. There are better Democrats from Florida.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think Harman would be a better choice than Hastings, who I have no admiration for - however... "Intelligence Committee members have access to what's called "top-secret special compartmentalized information..." It says committee members, not just the chair. Is there any evidence that Hastings as chair would have access to anything that Hastings as member would not? They don't say. And certainly he will remain a member. So this editorial seems more intent on criticizing Pelosi for her choice for the sake of criticizing Pelosi, than in legitimate concern for a possible security risk.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer >>He was removed from office as a federal judge in 1989 for taking a $150,000 bribe to render light sentences and other perks to two mobsters. And his latest disclosure forms list $2 million to $7 million in liabilities (mostly for legal fees). << Culture of Corruption......
Originally Posted By DlandDug Elections are over, and it's back to business as usual. Nancy Pelosi and her party won. Now they get to make as much mischief as they can get away with, as their more partisan supporters alternate between writhing and justifying their actions. Sound familiar?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Isn't it amazing that as stupid as Democrats are, they still whupped Republican booty in the most recent election? People must REALLY HATE the Bush administration.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Same old, same old. The parties differ on some important matters, but when it come to cronyism, they are very similar.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper RoadTrip...that just shows you how stupid the American public is for voting for state elected officials strictly on how liked or disliked the President is.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Funny, when his popularity numbers were up, it was a valid reason to vote for the same state officials. It's almost as if it's political or something.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I've never voted for a President based on what his party was doing in my state...or vice versa. Why would I?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RoadTrip...that just shows you how stupid the American public is for voting for state elected officials strictly on how liked or disliked the President is.>> No it doesn’t. The only meaningful way Joe Citizen has of expressing his approval or disapproval of how things are going is through the ballot box. Bush was not up for reelection this time so the dissatisfaction was expressed in the other races. That response is perfectly acceptable and in fact is how the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Isn't it amazing that as stupid as Democrats are, they still whupped Republican booty...<< If the individual elections had been blowouts, I would agree this was a valid point. But the majority of them were squeakers, just like 2000 and 2004. And nowhere did I say the Democrats were stupid. Just capable of mischief.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...how the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994.<< '94 was more about change than dissatisfaction with Clinton. He and the Democrats made "change" a big, big issue in 1992. The GOP was happy to exploit the theme in '94.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And nowhere did I say the Democrats were stupid.>> No you didn't, but I will. What Pelosi did was stupid. I can recognize stupid actions by a Democrat just as easily as I can recognize stupid actions by a Republican.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Saying what someone DID is stupid and saying that they ARE stupid are two different things. Again, I don't think Democrats, per se, are stupid. But I do agree absolutely that they do stupid things.
Originally Posted By friendofdd That Pelosi did something stupid may only mean that she doesn't care about the reaction. I have rarely agreed with her, but I've never considered her stupid. Perhaps the demands of the job are beyond her ability to be a canny politician.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Elections are over, and it's back to business as usual. Nancy Pelosi and her party won. Now they get to make as much mischief as they can get away with, as their more partisan supporters alternate between writhing and justifying their actions.> I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I haven't seen anyone here do that. I said Harman would have been better, and she would have - this was not a good decision by Pelosi.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009277" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ best/?id=110009277</a> >>Nancy Pelosi faces a new challenge. Fresh from the stinging rebuke that 63% of her fellow House Democrats handed her last week by voting against John Murtha, her hand-picked but ethically challenged candidate for Majority Leader, Ms. Pelosi is in danger of cementing a reputation for being willing to excuse almost anything in the name of political loyalty. At issue is whether Ms. Pelosi, who controls committee assignments, will select Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings to become the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a sensitive body that exercises oversight over all CIA and National Security Council budgets. The current ranking Democrat is Rep. Jane Harman of California, a respected moderate who has clashed with Ms. Pelosi in the past. Ms. Pelosi is under strong pressure to anoint as the new chairman Mr. Hastings from the Congressional Black Caucus, which makes up almost one-fifth of the House Democratic caucus. But there is a real problem of both perception and policy. In 1988, Ms. Pelosi along with Steny Hoyer, the new House Majority Leader, and John Conyers, the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, voted to impeach Mr. Hastings, then a federal judge in Florida, who had been accused of conspiring to take a $150,000 bribe from a defendant in a case before him. Mr. Conyers is now solidly behind Mr. Hastings, who has served in the House with him since 1993. He and other members of the Black Caucus point out that while Mr. Hastings was removed from office by the Senate, a Miami jury actually acquitted him of the bribery charge. But others say the evidence against Mr. Hastings was compelling and clear, regardless of what the jury found. Having campaigned against what she called the GOP's "culture of corruption" for much of the last year, Ms. Pelosi is in an exquisite bind. She either alienates one of the most important parts of her political coalition or she gives the appearance of being indifferent to ethical concerns. My prediction is that she will choose Plan C, skipping over both Ms. Harman and Mr. Hastings and instead appointing Texas Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a former Border Patrol official, as chairman of House Intelligence. Not only does Mr. Reyes have a record of probity and discretion, but he would become the only Latino to chair a House committee in the next Congress. But should Ms. Pelosi fail to take that escape hatch, many moderate Democrats are openly saying it will be hard evidence that she learned nothing from her humiliation in the Murtha disaster. -- John Fund<<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The only thing I learned from the above, other than the WSJ editorial board can consider a "disaster" something that will be forgotten outside the beltway by next Tuesday, it that apparently Pelosi hasn't actually chosen anyone yet. The OP made it sound like she had.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <WSJ editorial board can consider a "disaster" something that will be forgotten outside the beltway by next Tuesday> Some people believe it was a disaster for Rep. Pelosi.
