Congress responsible re:intelligence?

[dilloduck]

The question of legislative oversight regarding intelligence crossed my mind (maybe to late). I simply wondering if congress shares any responsibilty in the problem with US intelligence.

I found this article interesting;

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/1.htm

" In 1991 the confirmation hearings of Robert Gates to be Director of Central Intelligence provided the first-ever public setting for a Congressional examination of intelligence analysis. The principal issue explored by the SSCI was whether CIA analysis had been distorted or slanted for political purposes during Casey's tenure as DCI and Gates' years as DDI and DDCI. After a long and wrenching inquiry into more than 20 disputed cases, the committee recommended approval of Gates' nomination and the full Senate concurred.

But the Gates hearings left an indelible imprint on the Intelligence Community, Congress, and the rest of the executive branch. While the production of objective, unbiased analysis had long been a precept of intelligence analysts, "politicization" took on new meaning for the managers and overseers of intelligence agencies, who were profoundly sensitized by the Gates hearings that "politicizing" intelligence was an evil to be avoided at all costs."

more in the article

 

[freeandfun1]

The question of legislative oversight regarding intelligence crossed my mind (maybe to late). I simply wondering if congress shares any responsibilty in the problem with US intelligence.

I found this article interesting;

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/lawmaker/1.htm

" In 1991 the confirmation hearings of Robert Gates to be Director of Central Intelligence provided the first-ever public setting for a Congressional examination of intelligence analysis. The principal issue explored by the SSCI was whether CIA analysis had been distorted or slanted for political purposes during Casey's tenure as DCI and Gates' years as DDI and DDCI. After a long and wrenching inquiry into more than 20 disputed cases, the committee recommended approval of Gates' nomination and the full Senate concurred.

But the Gates hearings left an indelible imprint on the Intelligence Community, Congress, and the rest of the executive branch. While the production of objective, unbiased analysis had long been a precept of intelligence analysts, "politicization" took on new meaning for the managers and overseers of intelligence agencies, who were profoundly sensitized by the Gates hearings that "politicizing" intelligence was an evil to be avoided at all costs."

more in the article

as some pundit pointed out on the tube the other day, since the Senators read (or could have if they woulda got off their fat, lazy asses) the same intelligence information Bush did, they cannot blame Bush as they didn't put up ANY debate or fight. They want to have it both ways.