Sen. Richard Burr, now chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is of the view that
no hearings on CIA activities should ever be held and all copies of the SSCI's torture 6,700-page
study should be permanently kept away from the eyes of the public.
At
The Atlantic, Conors Friedersdorf writes
The Wrong Senator to Oversee the CIA:
Senator Richard Burr is acting like a man who doesn't understand the role or duties that he now has. With the Republican Party assuming control of Congress, the North Carolinian is chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, the body charged with overseeing the CIA. His responsibilities are momentous. All senators are called to act as power-jealous checks on the executive branch. And the particular mission of the Senate intelligence committee, created in the wake of horrific CIA abuses, obligates Burr to “provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States" and "to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws.”
But as Senator Burr begins this job, he is behaving less like an overseer than a CIA asset. Rather than probe problems at the spy agency, of which there have been many, his first priority has been aiding CIA efforts to cover up past misdeeds. It is hard to imagine a more flagrantly inappropriate act by a head overseer.
Specifically, Burr is trying to help the CIA to suppress two reports on its torture of prisoners. Like the spy agency, he never wants the full reports to reach the public, and he is misusing his position on the oversight committee to advance that agenda. One report was commissioned by Leon Panetta, a former CIA director. Though it is classified, people who've seen it assert that it paints a scathing portrait of a spy agency that misled its overseers about the efficacy of tactics like waterboarding. No wonder current and former overseers on the intelligence committee, like Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, found great value in reading it.
But despite the significant value that some of Burr's fellow overseers insist that they gleaned from The Panetta Review, Burr wants to return the Senate committee's copy of the document back to the CIA. "The Panetta Review was never intended for the committee to have,” Burr told the Huffington Post. “At some point, we will probably send it back to where it came from.” On its face, the explanation makes no sense. Why would Burr speak as if the intentions of the CIA are dispositive? His job is to oversee the spy agency, not to respect its desire for privacy. What could be more antithetical to the proper posture of an overseer? (As if a bureaucracy would intentionally turn over evidence of its own abuses.) […]
Presently, Burr shows greater concern for protecting CIA secrets from FOIA and leaks than conducting rigorous oversight, despite his unique responsibility for the latter. Past and present CIA lawbreakers can rest easier thanks to his dereliction of duty.
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2014—Republican campaigners adding tax issue to their anti-abortion framing for the 2014 midterms:
After the electoral wreckage generated in 2012 by Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" and Richard Mourdock's "God-willed" pregnancy-via-rape comments, Republican leaders got the message that they need to change their message if they have any hope of narrowing the gender gap at the polls.
Voilà! For the midterm races, they're focusing on the money. Jeremy Peters writes:
Aware that their candidates at times have struck the wrong tone on issues of women’s health, Republicans in some states are now framing abortion in an economic context, arguing, for example, that the new federal health law uses public money to subsidize abortion coverage. In the House in the coming weeks, Republicans will make passing the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” one of their top priorities this year.
Democrats say their success this year will depend on how close they can come, given lower turnout, to President Obama’s overwhelming margins with female voters; in 2008, he enjoyed a 14-point advantage among women, and in 2012, it was 12 points.
|
That doesn't mean Republicans have given up on other approaches for attacking reproductive rights. Even as party elders try to push back on the taint of their "war on women" and offer sensitivity training to candidates so that there are no more Akin-Mourdock flubs, in Colorado, an initiative to confer "personhood" on fetuses is on the ballot and will likely spur higher turnout among social conservatives. And that, along with opposition to the Affordable Care Act, could make things tougher at the polls for Democratic Sen. Mark Udall.
Tweet of the Day
"I'm not a scientist. But luckily, gynecology isn't a science."
- Republicans
— @LOLGOP
On
today's Kagro in the Morning show,
Greg Dworkin rounds up top stories of the day. Mike Huckabee & cultural resentment. NY State Assembly Speaker arrested. Good economic news in housing. Way-too-early polling says Hillary's got a huge lead. House anti-abortion bill briefly derailed. More on the measles.
Armando takes the wheel on Sheldon Silver & NY political machines. A white "vigilante" tackles (and puts in a choke hold) a black FL man he spotted carrying a (legal) concealed gun into Walmart. We're back on cake controversies. Deflate-gate: has "too big to fail" arrived in the NFL? Undercover NJ State Trooper used to photograph protestors at Christie event.
High Impact Posts. Top Comments