Centerfield

Particularly remarkable how? Do you have an opinion on the issue at hand?

Classic NYT though, the reader gets whipped up and only learns any substance of the issue at tail end of page 2. They even put a Nancy Pelosi diatribe ahead of any quotes from the people at the center of the story who stopped the legislation. Sadly, as usual you're going to have to look beyond the NYT to get the real story.

"Particularly remarkable" to the extent that any House Republicans are, at this point in time, ready to ignore "pleas" from the White House. My (attempted) point relates to politics, not substance.

Looks like a concerted effort to keep control of a large part of the bureaucracy (and accompanying budget!) in the hands of Congress rather than ceding it to the White House.

The basic problems originated with Congressional bungles with intelligence oversight. But that doesn't mean that handing control to the White House would solve the problem, just politicize it in a more exclusively partisan fashion, with efficacy dependent on the administration in power.

WaPo is reporting that it's not just bureaucracy control, but also the stripping from the bill of provisions to crack down on illegal immigration.

That last has House conservatives led by Sensenbrenner dragging their feet.

Is there a meaningful bill in the works that the House will support?

I guess I understand the power struggle. But, I know we need major reforms to fight 21st century threats.

Yup, Bush is in bed with those wing nuts... Whatever. I just want to point the administration sided with Democrats and moderates on this one.

What's that German word for delight in an others misfortune. I'm sure the Dems are feeling it now.

Found it!! Schadenfreude

Damn!! Wouldn't you know it. There's even a liberal website for it. From a Google search:

A web log (blog) dedicated to taking pleasure in the misfortune of wingnuts,neo-conservatives, and the Bush administration in general.
www.schadenfreude.info (soory didn't try the link instructions)

From the NY Times, 11/22:

"I don't think it was only House Republicans," Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who heads the Intelligence Committee, told Fox News on Sunday. Mr. Roberts added: "There's been a lot of opposition to this from the first. Some of it is turf, you know, quite frankly. Some of it is from the Pentagon. Some of it, quite frankly, is from the White House, despite what the president has said."

My guess is that the administration is both trying to craft a compromise that would get the bill passed (Cheney's legal counsel apparently drafted a provision that was added which would have strengthened the Pentagon's hand), but is not entirely opposed to getting a slightly different version out next year.

I saw Sen. Bob Graham at a book signing here in Washington shortly before the election and he said that if Congress didn't pass an intelligence reform bill before the election, it never would. Of course, he is partisan, but he seems to have a good take on the politics of this thing.

I have always been a bit concerned about the potential for "group think" involved in centralizing intelligence. In other words, you might fix one problem and create the exact opposite.

I have to admit that I am enjoying the divisions within the GOP. But this is pretty consistent with Amy Zegart's thesis in "Flawed by Design" (written in 1999) that intelligence would be very hard to fix because of the entrenched interests involved, one of which seems to be the possible loss of influence for particular congressional committees.

What I find interesting in some ways is how fragmented the political system has become, to the point at which even legislation with strong public support has to struggle for passage in the face of intense opposition from the various interests.

Wow... A quote from the junior Senator of Utah... That's valid.

I'm confused. Who is the junior senator from Utah? And why isn't his quote valid?

Anyway, Rumsfeld seems to be saying now tha he supports reform, or the White House position. On the other hand, that's not the impression I've gotten from quotes from both parties of Congress.

He's Junior, and from Utah... forget it, his point of view is valid, but it is just one.

Woops... Nevermind, he is from Kansas, you said that. I thought Pat Roberts was the Junior guy under Orrin Hatch... My bad.

Well, he is chairman of the select committee on intelligence. Tho, granted, he's criticized the administration occasionally in the past.

FTR, I'm just observing that the administration and some of the Republicans seem ambivalent over some aspects of the bill -- and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. A little more deliberation wouldn't hurt, in my opinion, unless it doomed reform.

But if one wants more evidence that the Bush administration's position might be difficult to characterize simply as one of support for the bill itself:

``But the president's position is evolving as the negotiation evolves,'' Rumsfeld said, without explaining how Bush's position is changing.
(NY Times today).

And, re Rumsfeld's position: 11/23 NYT:
"This is a turf battle and folks in the armed forces don't want to give up their turf,'' said Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut and an early supporter of the work of the Sept. 11 commission. Describing Mr. Rumsfeld as "blatant'' in his opposition to the bill, Mr. Shays said that in a private meeting with lawmakers this fall to the discuss the war in Iraq, the defense secretary "trashed'' the proposed legislation.

Although Rumsfeld himself says:
"Asked if he lobbied behind the scenes against the bill, Rumsfeld said, ``The answer is absolutely not. And it's just plain inaccurate to say, as the New York Times editorial does, that I have.''

There's other statements, from McCain and Snowe.

Granted, these are from the NY Times, but I doubt they're inaccurate, since they're completely consistent with everything else I've read.

My guess is that most people are willing to entertain the idea of intelligence reform. But it doesn't surprise me -- and it's not necessarily a bad thing -- that they might debate the details. But clearly that debate is taking place.