WATCH OUT Leon, here comes the DNC Bus

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:55 am

So! first Speaker Pelosi says the CIA Lied about the use of water boarding, then CIA Director Paneta, a Democrat, says the the information that the CIA gave congress was accurate there was no lying.

SO NOW we have 7 more Democrats coming out and saying yes that the CIA did lie. so which is it???
did the CIA Lie????? or is the DNC backing the Bus up over Paneta to protect their precious speaker??

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07 ... -congress/

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:25 pm

When didn't the CIA lie ?

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:16 pm

Grendel wrote:When didn't the CIA lie ?

They have never lied about lying.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:06 pm

I think it's rather comical actually. Here's Leon Panetta, a Democrat- most recently Chief of Staff for President Clinton, standing up for the CIA.

Right about now he's feeling around for the knife handle that Pelosi plunged into his back.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:24 pm

Well there's an easy way to find out, charge the CIA with lying to Congress, which is a Federal crime. there will need to be a trial and Ms, Pelosi can testify that she was lied to by the CIA, at that time she can produce all the minutes from the meetings where the CIA lied to her. they will at that time find out IF the CIA did lie, if so charge them. or if they find Ms. Pelosi is lying then charge her with Purjury before Congress.

enough of this he said she said crap. PROVE IT.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:33 pm

*APPLAUD!*

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:26 am

CUDA wrote:Well there's an easy way to find out, charge the CIA with lying to Congress, which is a Federal crime. there will need to be a trial and Ms, Pelosi can testify that she was lied to by the CIA, at that time she can produce all the minutes from the meetings where the CIA lied to her. they will at that time find out IF the CIA did lie, if so charge them. or if they find Ms. Pelosi is lying then charge her with Purjury before Congress.

enough of this he said she said crap. PROVE IT.

Exactly!

The fact that the democrats control congress, claim a serious crime has been committed BUT REFUSE to have any investigation should be the big story!

It SHOULD have the media all over their backs for their obvious negligence...or...all over their backs for their obvious complicity in the false charges being made for their own political gain!

But that won't happen because the media isn't looking for the truth, they are looking for the truth that doesn't hurt the democrats....

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:05 pm

CUDA wrote:Well there's an easy way to find out, charge the CIA with lying to Congress, which is a Federal crime..

CIA lying. I don't think an Agency can lie. I think an individual from an Agency can. So bring on the charges for that individual. I highly doubt that will happen either. So I wonder what charges can be brought forth on Speaker Pelosi for lying to congress about the lying the Agency did. I do suppose that congressman or woman do lie to each other all the time. Where is the charges there? The real crime should be when congress lies to US citizens as they have been doing that for a half a century or so.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:04 pm

Well, what's apparent is SOMEBODY is covering up SOMETHING to protect their rear ends. The CIA is not so full of squeaky clean agents as most people believe and who's lying to whom depends on the source of the information. It's all FUD right now.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php ... ction/1397

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/071009Lindorff.shtml

Now if the CIA is lying, somebody's gone rogue and is trying to keep it secret. If Pelosi is lying about what she knew and when, we have a different problem. Since she's sworn to secrecy as a member of the Intelligence Committee, she can't even tell us what she really knew back then even if she WANTED to without violating her sworn oath, can she?

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:17 am

double post

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:19 am

The plot thickens:

Is this the event that the Democrats refer to in their letter?

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

Mr. Hoekstra, the intelligence committee’s ranking Republican, said he would not judge the agency harshly in the case of the unidentified program, because it was not fully operational. But he said that in general, the agency had not been as forthcoming as the law required.

“We have to pull the information out of them to get what we need,” Mr. Hoekstra said.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:25 am

Pandora wrote:The plot thickens:

Is this the event that the Democrats refer to in their letter?
The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

Mr. Hoekstra, the intelligence committee’s ranking Republican, said he would not judge the agency harshly in the case of the unidentified program, because it was not fully operational. But he said that in general, the agency had not been as forthcoming as the law required.

“We have to pull the information out of them to get what we need,” Mr. Hoekstra said.

Withholding info is not the same as lying.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:55 am

Is the work Cheney wanted them to keep from congress something that is illegal or just something that he didn't want congress to leak to the media? The prospect that informing congress of too much detail is dangerous is something that even Obama understands:

The allegations come as Democrats in Congress are trying to push through new rules that would increase the number of members of Congress who are told about covert operations.

The White House is threatening to veto the bill, fearing that operational secrecy could be compromised.

from here

That is a big distinction that will most likely be ignored in the reporting.
Since we have the allegations from Pelosi that the CIA flat out lied about the waterboarding all the democrats have to do is suggest the evil lord Darth Cheney instructed the CIA to keep a secret and it sounds like proof that Pelosi's allegation is truthful! It simply gives cover to Pelosi's supporters to keep on believing her bull★■◆●.

The simple solution is still the same, HAVE AN INVESTIGATION THAT EXPOSES THE BRIEFINGS WITH PELOSI!
she has accused the CIA of SERIOUS CRIMES...why no investigation when she and her party CONTROL CONGRESS!! They could have the investigation anytime they wanted it!

And the Cheney story provides all you lefty's a chance to observe what so many of us conservatives despise about the left leaning media. Just watch how far and furious they dig into the Cheney/secret story and then ask yourself did the media go after Pelosi with the same fervor?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:29 am

Will Robinson wrote:And the Cheney story provides all you lefty's....

Sorry Will. No more debates. Maybe you haven't noticed but in this forum all political posts started get instant applause. Everyone agrees with everyone and everyone takes turns patting each other on the back. Everyone is madly in love with Palin, Cheney, McCain, and Bush and continually prays for Obama to fail or be impeached. Watch how the thread turns from the typical Obama bashing to immediate Cheney protecting.

It's a GOP forum. Nothing more.

Bee

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:45 am

That’s right Will, they are in power now so just STHU!

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 5:54 pm

AlphaDoG wrote:
Grendel wrote:When didn't the CIA lie ?
They have never lied about lying.

How would we know?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:22 pm

If they told ya...they'd have to kill ya

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:32 am

Bet51987 wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:And the Cheney story provides all you lefty's....
Sorry Will. No more debates. Maybe you haven't noticed but in this forum all political posts started get instant applause. Everyone agrees with everyone and everyone takes turns patting each other on the back. Everyone is madly in love with Palin, Cheney, McCain, and Bush and continually prays for Obama to fail or be impeached. Watch how the thread turns from the typical Obama bashing to immediate Cheney protecting.

It's a GOP forum. Nothing more.

Bee

I think you can find plenty of debate here if you are looking for it...
By the way, self pity is self destructive and otherwise ineffective.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:07 am

I'm in agreement with Bet. Most people here tend to directly attack the Dems and everything they do, (Pelosi's a good example of someone the GOP is attacking who can't fight back by proving what she was told without violating the law) but give a pass to the shenanigans of the GOP and their leaders.

Now I'm not defending the Dems, they've messed up things big time with their wishy-washy, bumbling governance lately, but no one is pointing out the absolutely arrogant, hypocritical and illegal crap the Bush Administration has gotten away with fighting their little War on Terror and the Iraq War.

But Cheney has clearly violated the law by keeping Congress in the dark about goings on in the CIA. It's not technically a lie, but it's deception by omission. So that begs the question, what was going on the Cheney felt he couldn't reveal to Congress? Something highly illegal maybe? Should the VP and CIA be colluding together? Is that even constitutional? If the VP were a Democrat (Biden maybe) doing this to a Repulican Congress, would you be yelling foul then, hmmmmmmmmm?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/po ... intel.html

How about President Bush himself? It's been revealed that he did an end run around Ashcroft while he was sick in the hospital by using Gonzales (he was NOT the Attorney General at that time ladies and gents) to sign the legal OK in order to get his spying on Americans program going. Ashcroft didn't think parts of the program were legal anyway and might not have signed off on it to Bush's satisfaction.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:16 am

Will Robinson wrote:By the way, self pity is self destructive and otherwise ineffective.

Exactly. But when are the republicans here going to figure that out.

Bee

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:00 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:And the Cheney story provides all you lefty's....
Sorry Will. No more debates. Maybe you haven't noticed but in this forum all political posts started get instant applause. Everyone agrees with everyone and everyone takes turns patting each other on the back. Everyone is madly in love with Palin, Cheney, McCain, and Bush and continually prays for Obama to fail or be impeached. Watch how the thread turns from the typical Obama bashing to immediate Cheney protecting.

It's a GOP forum. Nothing more.

Bee
I think you can find plenty of debate here if you are looking for it...
By the way, self pity is self destructive and otherwise ineffective.

No, Bee is right.

People are more likely to defend against attacks on their ideas, then defend their attacks on the ideas of others. Thats what has happened here. When it was the few attacking Bush, you got some well reasoned responses/defenses.

When I actually played decent and was often in those chat rooms people would ask me why I wasted my time here: "You wont change any of their minds." I never came here to change minds of people who I didn't know and will never meet. I came here to understand how people on the other side justify their positions.

I think Jeff can articulate more moderate-liberal arguments better then many of those whom I read that do so professionally. But to often of late he will post, and it wont even get quoted, or if it does, the response will be "blah blah blah." (literally)

It's infuriating.

Complete contradiction of facts don't even serve as a speed bumps anymore.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:34 pm

tunnelcat wrote:....(Pelosi's a good example of someone the GOP is attacking who can't fight back by proving what she was told without violating the law)...

Quite a bit of spin there! Are you expecting me to believe that Pelosi was lied to by the CIA in an official briefing regarding interrogation techniques...allegedly they denied or withheld details of their actions and the Speaker of the House of Representatives has to keep quiet about it instead of calling for a complete investigation?!?!

That is a total steaming pile of bull feces!
If her allegations were true she would be shining like a supernova in front of the camera doing the I told you so smarty pants dance on a regular basis! It would be a dream come true for her to be in the position to give a first hand witness accounting of the Bush team lying about something like that and anyone with half a lobe in their head knows that!

THE ONLY THING STOPPING CONGRESS FROM EXPOSING THE TRUTH IS THE FACT THAT THE TRUTH DOESN'T SUPPORT PELOSI'S LIES!!

TC you are really shameless, and quite frankly it is insulting for you to expect us to believe that crap!

tunnelcat wrote:But Cheney has clearly violated the law by keeping Congress in the dark about goings on in the CIA. It's not technically a lie, but it's deception by omission....

How is it you know Cheney "clearly violated the law"? What law exactly did he violate?

Most of the reporting on this story begrudgingly includes the detail that the program in question was to find ways to assassinate al Queda leadership.

Before you get ready to find a hanging tree for Cheney for wanting to do that remember that Obama has already done the same thing...also without briefing congress on it.
It seems you have some very selective standards you hold these politicians to, Cheney, in your mind, has broken a law because he didn't tell Congress about planning a program to find ways to kill the enemy but the program hasn't actually been put into action.... yet Obama can carry out the very same assassination and you don't mind at all.

After reading the article you linked I'm still confused as to your assertion that Cheney broke a law since your own article seems to support my understanding of the events not your wild biased interpretation....

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:07 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:And the Cheney story provides all you lefty's....
Sorry Will. No more debates. Maybe you haven't noticed but in this forum all political posts started get instant applause. Everyone agrees with everyone and everyone takes turns patting each other on the back. Everyone is madly in love with Palin, Cheney, McCain, and Bush and continually prays for Obama to fail or be impeached. Watch how the thread turns from the typical Obama bashing to immediate Cheney protecting.

It's a GOP forum. Nothing more.

Bee
I think you can find plenty of debate here if you are looking for it...
By the way, self pity is self destructive and otherwise ineffective.

Actually Will is right. Bee is the classic example of someone who cannot coherently have a discussion with opposing view points without her ego getting bruised and then getting all emo over it. If one does not agree with Obama, in Bee's mind, you are a racist.
Too many times I read far too many reply's from those on the left posting here that are based on innuendo and garbage from way left blogs. For Gooberman/Bee/tunnelcat, did you ever get upset when Senator Murtha called the Hadifa marines "murderer's" before a shred of evidence was reported?
Did you believe the Valarie Plame episode was anything other than blogosphere witch hunting...up until of course the special presecutor could find nothing to substantiate it?
Now we have Cheny being the distraction point. Have you discovered yet all Cheny was keeping a lid on was a plan that was never operational? That:

"Members of Congress have differed on the significance of the program, whose details remained secret and which even some Democrats have said was properly classified." (from TC's link}

Do you knee jerk posters ever try and fully comprehend the info contained in what you are linking? Perhaps those of you who feel ganged up by the like of me, Will or Lothar, perhaps it is because we try to understand the substance behind a headline....and not just the headline itself. Don't be manipulated by the press because a big block is nothing more than a rah rah megaphone for the democratic party.

{Sorry Will for duplication of thought as I didn't scroll down all the way to see that you had posted.)

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:03 pm

This thread is starting to be the perfect example of short memorys combined with the ole double standard.

Once again proves to me, which side can’t stand to have their opinions challenged!

I also didn’t hear any complaining when this board was dominated by people like Roid, Birds etc…and I have been ganged up on plenty of times, and never said a word.

I have also been left out to dry, by people who I know agree with me, and still never said a word.

…………………………

And I also want to add, that the guys on the right have had to put up with a lot more abuse from people here, and have taken it like a champ. (more gracefully, than I ever could)

And there is still a lot of innuendo about lack of intelligence, I won’t say from who…

Fortunately, most of those are gone now. (abusers)

So come on…buck it up..huh…it’s all in good fun…right?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:58 pm

OK Will, how can Pelosi prove she was lied to by the CIA? She can't reveal what she knows without violating her oath of secrecy. Catch 22?

If Cheney's little planning was so squeaky clean and above board, why wasn't Congress informed of his actions with the CIA and why did the CIA keep quiet about it? Is that in itself a violation of the law? The Senate Intelligence Committee is sworn to secrecy and should be informed of what the agency is up to as a check and balance.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:32 pm

tunnelcat wrote:OK Will, how can Pelosi prove she was lied to by the CIA? She can't reveal what she knows without violating her oath of secrecy. Catch 22?

She has no obligation to protect a crime from exposure. If the CIA lied it is a crime! The records are there for them to examine and it would be easy enough to hold a closed hearing to keep sensitive info out of the media they do that all the time. the congressional investigation could find the member of the CIA that lied to her guilty of the crime and recommend a special prosecutor to follow up with a criminal proceeding ALL without Pelosi having to publicly divulge the minutes of the secret briefing.

The notion that she caught a criminal in the act but can't tell anyone without breaking the law herself is a silly excuse to be accepted only by someone desperately looking for a rationale to explain away the failure of Pelosi to follow up after a CIA member LIED in a NATIONAL SECURITY BRIEFING to a high ranking MEMBER OF CONGRESS who's very job at the meeting IS TO PERFORM OVERSIGHT!
Your logic says the CIA can lie at every briefing with impunity because no one can repeat the details of what their testimony is! Incredible reach into the bull ★■◆● bag to try and sell that one!!

If Cheney's little planning was so squeaky clean and above board, why wasn't Congress informed of his actions with the CIA and why did the CIA keep quiet about it? Is that in itself a violation of the law? The Senate Intelligence Committee is sworn to secrecy and should be informed of what the agency is up to as a check and balance.

If Cheney's action was really against the law let them take criminal action against him too!

Would you like to bet a hundred dollars they never will? I know why they won't. Because they all know he did nothing illegal!!
They merely needed to provide the illusion that Pelosi was lied to so her constituents won't throw her out for being less than totally liberal in the face of the harsh reality of governing during war time and elect someone like Cindy Sheehan to replace her next time around! So who better to support their smoke and mirror deception than the specter of Darth Cheney the man the loony lefties love to hate!

If you really believe the crap you have come up with in Pelosi's defense then you should move to Berkeley because she needs voters like you....

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:17 pm

tunnelcat wrote:

If Cheney's little planning was so squeaky clean and above board, why wasn't Congress informed of his actions with the CIA and why did the CIA keep quiet about it? Is that in itself a violation of the law? The Senate Intelligence Committee is sworn to secrecy and should be informed of what the agency is up to as a check and balance.

TC, not all operations by the CIA are to be reported to the Intelligence Oversite Committee. Specific plans to kill someone like Bin Laden are kept dark so word of it won't be leaked to the press and lord knows how many times that has happened. Also there may be the factor of "Plausable Deniability"

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:30 pm

Spidey wrote:Once again proves to me, which side can’t stand to have their opinions challenged!

You mean like this?

CUDA wrote:so it appears while our economy is losing 600,000 job a week, our "Stimulus" plan will be spending 787 billion to create 1 weeks worth of lost jobs (600,000). but OOOOPS its seems 125K of those jobs will be summer jobs. the kind that high school kids usually get.

so if my math is correct that is $131,166.000 PER JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff wrote:Your own link contradicts you:...Which is 11,500 a day, or 80,500 a week. Aside from the mistake you made above, you're assuming that the entire stimulus plan will be spent during the summer, which won't be the case. Here is a link that I quickly google'd that shows that only 6% had been spent by mid-May:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archiv ... ng_so_far/

Since your link says that they will be upping the spending, we will see it increasing past 6%, but there is no reason to think it will be close to 100%.

CUDA wrote:President Obama's favorite song:

ATTENTION ALL PLANETS OF THE SOLAR FEDERATION.
ATTENTION ALL PLANETS OF THE SOLAR FEDERATION.
We have assumed control.
We have assumed control.
We have assumed control.

link

I'm not picking on CUDA, this is the norm. We agree Spidey, I can't stand this.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:54 pm

I don’t see the parallel, he made a math error, and covered it up with a joke…a typical human response.

And no, we don’t agree.

It’s funny that you should choose that thread tho…there is one of those little “intelligence” jabs in there. (one of the ones I was thinking of too)

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:57 pm

woodchip wrote:TC, not all operations by the CIA are to be reported to the Intelligence Oversite Committee. Specific plans to kill someone like Bin Laden are kept dark so word of it won't be leaked to the press and lord knows how many times that has happened. Also there may be the factor of "Plausable Deniability"

Here's some history for everyone, especially Will and Woodchip.

It's looking more and more that Cheney BROKE the law, specifically, the National Security Act of 1947. This act REQUIRED the oversight of CIA actions by Congressional Intelligence Committees, including anticipated actions. Mind you, these committees are sworn to secrecy, so any CIA operations revealed to them is NOT something the press would ever hear about until years later.

National Security Act of 1947

Scroll WAY down and read specifically (especially the first line) - TITLE V - ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES - GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PROVISIONS - SEC. 501. [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1)

Now some murmurs have started circulating that this secret CIA program that Cheney kept from Congress MAY have been an assignation program to kill civilian suspected terrorists. Now, we need to remember some recent history to dredge up the specter of the CIA's past that BOTH Democratic and Republican Presidents were guilty of using, namely the Phoenix Program.

Phoenix Program

This nice little program was terminated by a Republican President, Gerald Ford, but not before thousands of civilians were killed in the name of national security.

Ford

I'm all for killing Bin Laden, but it should be at least monitored by Congress as the 1947 law intended. Do we want a rogue CIA? We already had a rogue VP. And a rogue CIA is very likely to lie to Congress to protect it's rear end.

And now it's looking like Holder is thinking of investigating CIA-sponsored contractor torture done in other countries that went ABOVE AND BEYOND what the Bush Administration outlined, resulting in the deaths of quite a few suspected terrorists. So don't be so quick to say the CIA doesn't lie to Congress.

But I'm beginning to wonder if Obama's unwillingness to prosecute any Bush Administration officials for his or their probable illegalities is because HE'S now using these programs as well. Absolute power always corrupts.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:20 pm

LOL…

In the red corner…we have the organization founded to do all of the nations dirty work, and everyone’s favorite scapegoat.

And in the blue corner…we have the sleaziest organization, since the above aforementioned.

Pick your poison…give me a break. I wouldn’t be caught dead in an alley defending either one.

Pssssst…hint…they all lie. (but you already knew that, didn’t you)

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:40 am

tunnelcat wrote:

Mind you, these committees are sworn to secrecy, so any CIA operations revealed to them is NOT something the press would ever hear about until years later.

Perhaps TC you should also understand this history and why some CIa operations are kept from congress:

"Senator Pat Leahy was annoyed with the Reagan administration's war on terrorism in the 1980s. At the time he was vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

# "Leaky Leahy," allegedly threatened to sabotage classified strategies he didn't like.

# Leahy ‘inadvertently' disclosed a top-secret communications intercept during a 1985 television interview.

# "The intercept … made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens. …"

# "The reports cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation."

# In July 1987, it was reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Libya's Moammar Gaddhafi.

# U.S. intelligence officials said Leahy, along with the Republican panel chairman, sent a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey.

# Weeks later, news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted.

# A year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, Leahy had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter. "

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... 2146.shtml

So while Leahy was booted from his position on the committee, he was never criminally charged. With all the leaked information by the leftinisto's, it is no wonder the CIA was reluctant to inform congress on a very sensitive plan. Tell you what though, if they want to charge Cheny, then they should go back and charge Leahy and Sandy "In Your Pants" Berger.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:48 am

tunnelcat wrote:...
Now some murmurs have started circulating that this secret CIA program that Cheney kept from Congress MAY have been an assignation program to kill civilian suspected terrorists.

Obama has already killed civilians suspected of being terrorists...and personally I hope he continues the good work.
Just because he used a drone to bomb the camp they were in and the CIA was looking for other ways to make them dead doesn't change the fact that BOTH the CIA and Obama were trying to make them dead....

Cheney had good reason to want to keep the planning stage secret because as Woodchip showed you liberal Senators and Congressmen will illegally leak the details of these operations to stop them from happening or to simply gain stature in the eyes of their loony-left constituents the later of those is exactly what happened in this case and you are gobbling it all up with obedient zeal.

And now it's looking like Holder is thinking of investigating CIA-sponsored contractor torture done in other countries that went ABOVE AND BEYOND what the Bush Administration outlined, resulting in the deaths of quite a few suspected terrorists. So don't be so quick to say the CIA doesn't lie to Congress.

Do you ever stop to think about the reason they used foreign contractors? Did you ever ask if the Congress was aware they used foreign contractors?

Here's a little scenario for you: Congress, just like the President (any President) and the CIA all want results from their interrogations. They also want the enemy to fear them. They also know that Muhammad Carbomb Dirkarag will not be as intimidated by Americans and their waterboard as they would be of an Egyptian with a rusty machete. So Pelosi, Obama, et al can vote approval for the outside contractors then back home feed you a line of crap about how outraged they are at the events that unfolded.

You have to choose to believe that line of bull ★■◆● though, that is where the breakdown is. Not that politicians lie, but that you decide to support their lies because you think you know which party gives better bull ★■◆●.

But I'm beginning to wonder if Obama's unwillingness to prosecute any Bush Administration officials for his or their probable illegalities is because HE'S now using these programs as well. Absolute power always corrupts.

Of course he's using many of the same tools Bush used, IT'S A FRICKIN WAR and also his constituents for his next election aren't all flaming liberals, he needs to swing a percentage of conservatives his way next time and so trying pull the same crap that Pelosi is pulling won't help him because only a frickin moron would believe she didn't know and the big bad CIA lied to her! BooHoo Darth Cheney used jedi mind tricks on poor Nancy boohoo..

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:26 pm

Lord John Acton expressed this opinion in 1887:

\"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.\"

It's of my opinion that when we as a nation allow those in power to have absolute unchecked power, no matter which political party they're from, we as a people, our sons and daughters and our nation shall inherit the evil they bring upon us. If 'All's fair in love and war', then we shall become as evil as those we fight against when we fall back upon 'the ends always justify the means'.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:31 pm

In war evil exists simply for the fact two groups of people are trying to kill each other. In WW2, Korean conflict, Vietnam and modern day War on Terror, Soldiers have committed great evil simply by bombing, squeezing a trigger or pulling a lanyard. People die as a result. Captured enemy soldiers lie moldering in all sorts of places as they were shot by our troops or by enemy troops. Queensbury rules fly out the window when your best bud has just been dinged and gets shipped out in a body bag.

Yet these same \"monstors\" come home and are good fathers and good members of their community. So to do our leaders. I suspect all our presidents have authorized evil acts but those same acts are rationalized to be needed to protect our country. Lucky for us we only allow a president 2 terms. To bad we cannot say the same for congressional members.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:48 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Lord John Acton expressed this opinion in 1887:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."....

If you are so aghast at unchecked power why do you want to fabricate nonsensical excuses for Pelosi to let the alleged CIA lying to go unchecked?
You are completely partisan in your outrage.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:42 pm

tunnelcat wrote:...Here's some history for everyone, especially Will and Woodchip.

It's looking more and more that Cheney BROKE the law, specifically, the National Security Act of 1947. This act REQUIRED the oversight of CIA actions by Congressional Intelligence Committees, including anticipated actions. Mind you, these committees are sworn to secrecy, so any CIA operations revealed to them is NOT something the press would ever hear about until years later. ...

Andrew McCarthy makes the case at NR that this is a phony scandal

Andrew C. McCarthy wrote:... Democrats have trumped up a charge that the CIA, on the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney, failed to notify Congress that it was contemplating — not implementing, but essentially brainstorming about — plans to kill or capture top al-Qaeda figures.

This is their most ludicrous gambit in a long time — and that’s saying something. ...

...But there is no law that requires, or could practically require, the CIA to brief Congress every time some agency component considers the feasibility of some security initiative. ...

...The 1947 National Security Act is a good example. It requires that Congress be kept “fully and currently informed” of intelligence matters, including any “significant anticipated intelligence activity.” But it does not define what “fully and currently informed” means, nor at what point a contemplated plan of action becomes significant enough that the obligation to inform congressional leaders is triggered....

...But it turns out the secret plan wasn’t so secret: The agency was thinking about how to carry out a post-9/11 Bush administration finding about the need to kill or capture al-Qaeda leaders. Congress knew all about the finding, but it wasn’t told about various possibilities, including targeted assassinations, that were bandied about to accomplish the goal. These were conversations — the ideas were not acted on....

So I guess I'll wait to see when some dispassionate analysis is done of what happened when and who knew what and when. Sorry, but some allegations of what Leon Panetta said to someone else just aren't going to cut it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:39 am

dissent wrote:....
So I guess I'll wait to see when some dispassionate analysis is done of what happened when and who knew what and when. Sorry, but some allegations of what Leon Panetta said to someone else just aren't going to cut it.

You will never see it done. The Democrats merely needed some artificial red meat to feed to the likes of TC and the rest of Pelosi's wavering supporters. The damage is done, the political goal has been reached, no facts are needed, no journalist welcome, move along nothing to see here...

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:03 pm

First of all, I personally dislike Pelosi, but a lot of this dirt being thrown at her is fallout from the Bush Administration, of which very few of you guys criticized and I personally think WAS the most crooked administration to date, unless, of course, Obama tops it (and he's headed that way). Eventually, the truth WILL come out and we'll find out one way or another if she is covering her A$$.

By the way, NO ONE in our government has declared a WAR in ANY theater. So everything we're doing in the name of national security is not under the cover of war. If we're going to kill people, lets at least officially declare war on them.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:42 pm

Hah…Declare war on who? That’s a semantic battle you just can’t win.

War “has” been declared on “Terror”, so anybody that fit’s the definition is our enemy, but again that’s only semantics.

Who should we declare war on?

I would start with the 21 or so Arab nations…but hell, that’s only me.

WATCH OUT Leon, here comes the DNC Bus

WATCH OUT Leon, here comes the DNC Bus

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: