Intel Bill
So many people have attacked Rep. Duncan Hunter over refusing to support the intelligence bill, because, in his opinion, it did not protect the access that battlefield commanders had to tactical information on the ground.
How is this worthy of being attacked? It's a perfectly valid concern, and obviously many other people shared it because they followed his lead. And now, as soon as that one issue is resolved, Hunter supported the bill, and the House passed it.
This is how legislation is supposed to work. Don't slam people for raising concerns and then voting accordingly.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner is another story. He is opposing the bill not because of what is in it, but because of what is not in it, and what is not in it is something that has nothing to do with the core purpose of the bill: reforming the intelligence community. He opposes it because the bill doesn't have provisions about immigration reform.
His immigration concerns are valid, but beside the point. There should be a separate bill about immigration reform, because it is a separate -- though related -- issue. Why refuse to pass a bill we have ready to go now to try to include something that will make the bill take much longer to pass?
The answer is clear: it will be harder to pass an immigration bill, and Sensenbrenner was trying to force people to agree to those controversial provisions by piggybacking on a bill they are ready to vote for.
Don't lump Hunter and Sensenbrenner together. One was blocking a bill that he believed would do harm. The other is blocking a bill because he was unable to attach controversial and off-topic provisions to it.
How is this worthy of being attacked? It's a perfectly valid concern, and obviously many other people shared it because they followed his lead. And now, as soon as that one issue is resolved, Hunter supported the bill, and the House passed it.
This is how legislation is supposed to work. Don't slam people for raising concerns and then voting accordingly.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner is another story. He is opposing the bill not because of what is in it, but because of what is not in it, and what is not in it is something that has nothing to do with the core purpose of the bill: reforming the intelligence community. He opposes it because the bill doesn't have provisions about immigration reform.
His immigration concerns are valid, but beside the point. There should be a separate bill about immigration reform, because it is a separate -- though related -- issue. Why refuse to pass a bill we have ready to go now to try to include something that will make the bill take much longer to pass?
The answer is clear: it will be harder to pass an immigration bill, and Sensenbrenner was trying to force people to agree to those controversial provisions by piggybacking on a bill they are ready to vote for.
Don't lump Hunter and Sensenbrenner together. One was blocking a bill that he believed would do harm. The other is blocking a bill because he was unable to attach controversial and off-topic provisions to it.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment