Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush the Decide…Uh, Push-asider?

Not to beat a dead horse, but is there any end to the depravity and horror that was the Bush 43 presidency? Or should I say the Dick Cheney presidency? It might seem like a small bit of semantics, but last time I checked Cheney was the vice president, not the president.

But that can’t be, because the CIA apparently took orders directly from Cheney during Bush 43’s demented psycho-circus administration. The CIA reports solely to the president, no-one else. They are supposed to be the president’s primary intelligence agency and yet, during his reign, Bush let Cheney run the show. A show, by the way, that included Cheney making the decision to mark targets for assassination, and assign the CIA military operations throughout the world. Not to mention the fact that he chose to lie to congress and not tell them anything he was having the CIA do under his direct control. Who can possibly imagine what else this beast did with Bush’s nonchalant approval?

I know, Bush is out of office, Cheney no longer has his fangs on the pulsating jugular of America, but does that mean we should push their crimes under the rug and “let the past stay in the past?” Hell no! I’m sorry, but there are way too many people, even on the left, who think we should just shake our heads and say “oh Bush, you silly kid” rather than uphold the American constitution and dole out justice where justice is due. The facts are rapidly becoming crystal clear; Dick Cheney, through the incompetence, impudence and, at the very least, willful ignorance of George W. Bush, ran the country as if he were president while Bush sat with his boot heels on the most important desk in the world and threw darts at a picture of Saddam Hussein.

And while it is true that we are passed this atrocity we are still suffering from it. At least we should be. Every American—well, I guess not Conservatives—should be demanding Cheney, and even Bush be brought up on charges. Here in America you are innocent until proven guilty. Well folks, the proof is slowly leaking out like a cancerous sludge. A murderer cannot be prosecuted until after he commits the crime. Bernie Madoff spent a lifetime ripping people off only to end up with a sentence of one hundred fifty years. Why is it so outlandish an idea to prosecute the former Bush administration for its varied and numerous crimes?

Some say it would just muddy up the justice system. Others say it would look bad, both home and abroad. But how can we look worse? If we know these men committed crimes, or at the very least are guilty of actions that deserve serious inquiry, how can we look any more like fools as a country if we do not demand such inquires?

The notion that we should just “get over” what the Bush administration did and “move on” actually scares me. It scares me because the very concept of justice presumes that a criminal be tried for their crimes after the fact and that we judge their actions in retrospect according to what is lawful and right. If we let these monsters get away with their crimes then we might as well let Bernie Madoff, Charles Manson, and all the Nazi war criminals out of their jail cells with a big fat apology signed by every American.

Posted by Michael Falino at July 13, 2009 8:28 PM
Comments
Comment #284425

michael

you really should to lay off the koolaid. these conspiracy stories just get more bizzar as time goes on. we know you guys hate bush, and cheney, but it really is time to give it a rest. keep it up and the men in white coats will be at your door.

or could this whole thing be an attempt to act as cover for that dipsh#t nancy pelosi.

Posted by: dbs at July 13, 2009 8:50 PM
Comment #284426

You’re not serious, right? I recommend reading a good book by Vincent Bugliosi! I would really enjoy seeing the proof to support your claim that the emerging truths of how the Bush administration conducted illegal business is a conspiracy theory.

Posted by: Mike Falino at July 13, 2009 9:12 PM
Comment #284427

Mike, you are really going to back all of that up with ‘go read the Bugliosi book?’

Posted by: James at July 13, 2009 9:18 PM
Comment #284428

I apologize for posting a bum link above. This one should work. If not, I seriously apologize!

Vincent Bugliosi

Posted by: Mike Falino at July 13, 2009 9:38 PM
Comment #284429

Mike
If you are talking about that program that the Democrats are are wondering about now that was supposed to assinate al quida big wigs that never became a program. The Democrats are just creating a smoke screen for Pelosi,.

Posted by: KAP at July 13, 2009 9:44 PM
Comment #284430

No, that wasn’t my only rebuff. I had nothing to respond with because nothing was provided for me to argue against. I’m just saying that you can’t claim anything is a conspiracy theory and not back it up. I can point to any number of books to “prove” anything. And should I just assume all the stories coming out are lies? Are the democrats getting people to come out by waterboarding them because they have nothing else to wast time with? Ok, we know they’re not wasting their time with anything else, we can agree on that at least!

And what’s wrong with Bugliosi? He shut the JFK conspiracy wackos up!

Posted by: Mike Falino at July 13, 2009 9:46 PM
Comment #284431

There is some dispute over what Cheney said or did. What is not in dispute is that the program never got beyond the idea stage. The idea was to kill or capture Al Qaeda leaders. Democrats in Congress objected to this idea and were even angrier that they didn’t have the opportunity to leak it to the New York Times.

Of course, we see how reliable they are now. When they heard about a possible program, their first stop is the media, before they bother to figure out all the fact.

SO it looks like Democrats in Congress, at least some of them, object to the idea of a program aimed at killing or capturing Al Qaeda leadership. Typical.

Posted by: Christine at July 13, 2009 11:07 PM
Comment #284433

The V.P. nor the President, has the authority to keep intentions, for CIA activities from the Congress. That is a clear violation of the statutes regarding such matters.

KAP, dbs, and James have provided talking point responses without any apparent awareness at all of the actually statute in question.

This is a very, very big deal. And Obama is not going to be able to pass this one over. This one is a clear violation of Congress’ statutory oversight authority resting at the heart of the checks and balances between co-equal branches of government. Making it an enormous constitutional issue.

Doesn’t matter if the program was ever implemented. The statute requires plans and intentions for CIA activities and expenditures for same (which were incurred) to revealed to the Congressional representatives overseeing intelligence agency matters.

Sorry, fellas, but, Cheney and Bush are not going to spin their way out of a Congressional investigation on this one. Do you really want Obama to exercise a secret government and intelligence agency programs and plans without Congressional or Judicial oversight?

What’s bad for the goose is bad for the gander as well. Doesn’t surprise me one whit however that ya’lls comments missed the legal and constitution issues for the knee jerk partisan politics spin.

Thank you for the opportunity to explain why this is a very much bigger and serious issue than your defensive and reflexive responses indicate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 13, 2009 11:43 PM
Comment #284435

David, thanks for pointing out more clearly what I obviously missed in my original post; that this is not a matter to push under the rug. If we cannot get these criminals on so many other charges at least bring them down on this one. How did they get John Gotti again?

Posted by: Mike Falino at July 14, 2009 12:22 AM
Comment #284436

Christine said: “What is not in dispute is that the program never got beyond the idea stage. “

Your comment is misinformed. Agents were trained and assembled to implement this secret covert strike force. Which means tax payer dollars were spent on the program. Which makes it subject to Congressional oversight, as established in the Constitution, which so many on the bleedin’ right rail about protecting and defending, except when one of their own violates it. How bloody convenient, hypocrisy, eh?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 12:23 AM
Comment #284437

Mike, they are not criminals until they have been tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers, or, Congress. That too, is in the Constitution as one of the original Amendments, and a very big deal not to be compromised or dismissed.

But, yes, this one will not be bypassed, as the investigation does not rest with the President’s AG’s office, but, with the Congress itself, initially.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 12:38 AM
Comment #284438

Panetta, the head of the CIA, terminated the program last week. The following day, he felt the need to inform the Congress in order to comply with the law. The law is explicit in granting Congress oversight over intelligence activities. Panetta felt there was an oversight or a violation, and acted immediately to comply with the law.

We don’t know much beyond that.

There are some conclusions we can draw. The program violated the law, in Panetta’s opinion, and his actions support that. He acted immediately to rectify the problem. He was unaware of the program for his first four months as head of the CIA. That raises questions about the failure to inform Congress in the past, and possible violations of the law.

Posted by: phx8 at July 14, 2009 12:46 AM
Comment #284441

D.R.R.
If the plan was set to become a reality I could see telling congress but while it is still on the drawing board, NO. So what law has been broken except congress wanting to waste tax payer money on more witch hunts.

Posted by: KAP at July 14, 2009 6:29 AM
Comment #284442

KAP, I remember reading that the CIA is supposed to inform congress even during the planning stages as the law says something about “future plans”. But I could be mistaken.

And David, yes you are correct, innocent until proven guilty. I, like most others, do get a little carried away when things come to light. But it’s one of those instances where it’s very hard not to imagine these mongrels in orange jumpsuits.

Posted by: Mike Falino at July 14, 2009 7:33 AM
Comment #284443

Innocent until proven guilty is applicable in the eyes of the law - and is cited way too often. I see nothing wrong with individual and public opinions being formed from available evidence.

Nobody has a problem jailing serial killers although they are ‘innocent’ until after a lengthy trial.

Posted by: Schwamp at July 14, 2009 8:31 AM
Comment #284444

KAP, it was not still on the drawing board. It was in place, trained and geared up and ready to go, according to some CIA sources. What was lacking was the hard intel on strike targets. That, was the only reason the strikes were not carried out by this paramilitary strike force.

Which means, funds were expended on the program, and that puts the this incident well beyond just a half-baked idea in someone’s head, and well into the statutory requirement for reporting those expenditures and task force creation to Congress.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 8:44 AM
Comment #284446

michael, david


believe whatever you choose. IMO in the end nothing will come of it. first off like kap said more than likely it is just another witch hunt, second it will create a precedent of attacking and seeking to destroy the previous administration and those involved when that party is no longer in power.

the dems tried this before, and all it did was make pelosi look like the fool she is. you noticed after her meltdown at the press conference the whole thing just quitely went away. this will be no different. same thing new angle. enough said.

Posted by: dbs at July 14, 2009 8:50 AM
Comment #284447

Schwamp, who said innocent? If one commits an offense, one is guilty of that offense. Whether they are a criminal or not, however, is determined by our judiciary and penal system. I am guilty of having laid down these words in a public forum. The evidence is overwhelming. But, that’s a whole different thing from becoming a criminal as a result. In China, I might become a criminal for putting words on a web page. But, even there, a trial and incarceration are required before one becomes a criminal.

I agree with you, the oft quoted phrase regarding “presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” is misused and not well understood. Technically, it only means citizens are safe from punitive measures at the hands of government for crimes UNTIL they have been found guilty in a court of law.

But, video-tapes prove that is not true as subdued suspects are beaten mercilessly by police, and as you say, incarcerations without a speedy trial based on nothing more than allegations, is common place in America.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 8:52 AM
Comment #284448

My dbs, I do believe we will have the opportunity to prove your crystal ball is truly defunct, after all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 8:54 AM
Comment #284449

david

only time will tell. the thing i have to wonder is, why use this tactic now? why not bring it out first, seems like an afetrthought? looks like an inside smear job to me. they’re just hoping it doesn’t backfire and get them caught up in it again.

i was fine with an investigation the last time they threw this one at the wall. the problem was it splattered back on them, and i bet this one will too. thats why i believe it will go away. remember i told you that the last time. and my crystal ball was right them hmmm.

Posted by: dbs at July 14, 2009 9:04 AM
Comment #284450

Wow, you guys amaze me. Cheney had Bush lie to the American people and to congress to get us into an occupation we’re having trouble getting out of. But Nancy Pelosi didn’t want to start impeachment proceedings because it would look like she was getting even for Clinton. Then when Joe Wilson went public and told people Bush was lying, Cheney ousted a whole string of counter proliferation spies. (“Boris come in here.” said the dictator “We heard Joe Wilson’s wife is a CIA spy. Every time the Wilsons come to town you’ re very friendly with them. I think you’re an American spy. You die at dawn.”) But again Pelosi didn’t want to do anything because it might hurt the Democratic Party.
Then we had revelations that Cheney was illegally wiretapping America without any judicial oversight, and Pelosi helped make what he was doing legal. Then we find out that (Cheney’s dark side) was torturing prisoners in direct violations to our laws and international laws. But again Pelosi didn’t do any thing.
Now we have revelations of more of Cheney’s law breaking, and you say it’s just cover for Nancy Pelosi. What did she do that was so bad, oh yeah that’s right she said the CIA lies to congress. Wow, you guys amaze me.


Posted by: Mike the cynic at July 14, 2009 9:36 AM
Comment #284451

mike

“What did she do that was so bad, oh yeah that’s right she said the CIA lies to congress. Wow, you guys amaze me.”

seems i remember different accounts of what happened being told from both sides. it was only after she was accused by the right of knowing about the methods being used that she had her little melt down, and then accused the cia of lying to congress. why not have a full investigation? thats not what happened though, is it? it just faded away.

now all of the sudden we have these new revelations that there was a secret program being discussed that congress new nothing about, or so they say. how convenient. sorry the left can’t see the irony of this new revelation, but the rest of us can. same partisan game, just a new spin that hopefully gets dingling out in the clear……uh ok….nothing suspicious here.

Posted by: dbs at July 14, 2009 11:07 AM
Comment #284460

If I remember right Bob Graham said the CIA told him nothing about it, but some Republicans said they told them everything. Were they actually telling Repubs one thing and Dems another? I’m afraid we’ll never find out, because our president thinks if something is embarrassing it should be kept secret.
But, come on, arguing whether someone is telling the truth about being briefed properly or not, isn’t the same thing as the horrendous crimes committed by the last administration.
Some of the right’s arguments remind me of something Abe Lincoln said. “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”


Posted by: Mike the Cynic at July 14, 2009 2:46 PM
Comment #284461

dbs, the last time was a different situation entirely, requiring Obama’s Justice Department to investigate. This time, it is Congress’ venue to investigate, and Congress is not as tepid about going after crimes of the past as the Obama administration is.

And this one has no blow back potential for Democrats. It was secret, ergo, Democrats were not in the loop, and not even potentially culpable. Sorry, but, I still think your crystal ball is cracked :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 3:59 PM
Comment #284462

Mike the C, I think you are misreading Obama’s motives. He has clearly stated on several occasions that he sees nothing to be gained by focusing backward, instead of forward. In other words, he needs to keep the bi-partisan door open and not alienate Congressional Republicans anymore than is necessary in order to pursue his administration’s agenda which does NOT include rehashing the past. From his perspective, I can see his point, even though I disagree with it from my perspective.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 4:02 PM
Comment #284467

D.R.R.
The probable reason why it was kept secret, and by the way this was on the news, is the fact that some in congress can’t keep a secret, they have to blab everything to the media. Hence the reason the intelligence community keeps things from congress until it becomes a potential reality. They know some in congress can’t keep their big mouths shut. By the way the CIA derector axed it because he thought it to be illegal and went and told congress about it which he really didn’t have to do because it didn’t come to anything. So I stand on the premiss that this is nothing but a smoke job and a witdch hunt and a blatent waste of tax payers money.

Posted by: KAP at July 14, 2009 4:21 PM
Comment #284468

“isn’t the same thing as the horrendous crimes committed by the last administration”

Would that be the same “horrendous crimes” which “there is not adequate evidence” of?
Just curious.

Posted by: kctim at July 14, 2009 4:29 PM
Comment #284469

Kap, if Cheney told the CIA to lie to congress, that is very important. Though I have to admit I doubt anything will come out of it.

Kctim, Ok so maybe I went a little too far with “horrendous crimes “. A lot of it might be explained away as bad judgment in a stressful time, except the ousting of Valery Plame, which put a whole string of agents in peril. To tell me they didn’t have evidence because Libby perjured himself is ridiculous.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at July 14, 2009 5:14 PM
Comment #284470

Mike
If he did it would be but from the news I hear is that he told them to keep it secret because of what I wrote prior to this is that some in congress can’t keep their mouths shut and would blab to the media.

Posted by: KAP at July 14, 2009 5:26 PM
Comment #284472

KAP, are you suggesting that no one has any obligation to obeying the laws of this nation provided they can produce a credible reason they themselves can believe in for not obeying the law? Certainly seems to be what you are suggesting in saying: “The probable reason why it was kept secret, and by the way this was on the news, is the fact that some in congress can’t keep a secret,…”

If that’s the case, our Constitution isn’t even worth a roll of toilet paper.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 6:32 PM
Comment #284476

Kap, was it secret because Cheney didn’t want the victim of the assassination to find out and lay low so we couldn’t get him. Or was it because assassinating people is illegal? Any more on both sides of the isle, secrets have a lot more to do with politics and PR than national security.
David R. misunderstood me when I said “because our president thinks if something is embarrassing it should be kept secret.” I was talking about the latest pictures of torture. The danger comes from having the pictures. They will be released sooner or later. Till then the will be a recruiting tool. The part that worries me is the idea that anything embarrassing can be kept secret forever.


Posted by: Mike the Cynic at July 14, 2009 7:01 PM
Comment #284478

david

so you are admitting my crystal ball was correct last time. only time will tell if it correct again, or if it’s cracked. if i were in texas i’de bet you a steak dinner on it being correct. what say you?

Posted by: dbs at July 14, 2009 7:36 PM
Comment #284482

D.R.R.
Prior to WW2 F.D.R. was keept out of intelligence reports because of a piece of paper not properly disposed of. Now if a president can be removed from an intelligence loop because of a breach of security, What makes you think a blabby congress can’t also be keept out of the same loop? When we can’t trust our supposed leaders to keep a lid on intelligence info, then what good is it to have any kind of intelligence agencies.

Posted by: KAP at July 14, 2009 7:59 PM
Comment #284483

And David, Where in the constitution does it say that the CIA has to report every idea it has to Congress?

Posted by: KAP at July 14, 2009 8:11 PM
Comment #284486

KAP, your comments appear to be deliberately DENSE! The purse strings belong to the Congress, the Executive Branch must inform the Congress through budgetary process what it is spending tax payers dollars on. Ergo, funds were spent training and preparing these covert forces, and Congress had a Constitutional right to know about it.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President has carte blanche to do any and everything it wishes without the Congress or Judiciary looking over its shoulder. It doesn’t. Further, the Federalist Papers discuss the executives obligations in this regard, rather extensively.

Yes, yes, and Charlie Manson murdered a bunch of people to exercise his power over others. Doesn’t mean it is OK for others to do the same in our government, now. Any other lame illogical arguments to put forth on this topic?

Oh, and your lamest argument of all, is that after 9/11, the al-Queda and Taliban didn’t have a clue that we would be coming after them. Your comment argues letting the ‘sworn to secrecy Congressional intelligence representatives’ know that we would be going after al-Queda and Taliban would give a heads up to the al-Queda and Taliban through Congressional leaks, that we might come after them. Laughable, KAP, truly laughable. This is SNL stuff you are putting forth.

I smack you in the head, but, if you don’t tell anyone that your are going to smack me back, I have no reason to suspect that you would do so? Too funny.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 11:39 PM
Comment #284487

KAP, one more educational tidbit for you. The Constitution provides the legal framework for government. Which means all laws emanating from the Congress, and Supreme Court, emanate from the Constitution. Congress passed a law stating that the CIA must report its plans and activities to the Congressional Intelligence Representatives. That makes the law Constitutional.

Won’t hold this one against you, since, an introductory law course in college is customarily required to grasp this concept of Constitutionality.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 11:42 PM
Comment #284488

By your reasoning, there should be NO CIA because the original Constitution doesn’t establish one, or provide for its funding. But, the CIA is constitutional precisely because the Congress and President followed Constitutional provisions for bringing it into existence, legislatively, and its existence has not been challenged by the Supreme Court as UNconstitutional. It is therefore, constitituional. Same principle holds for CIA being required by law to report to the Congress its plans and actions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2009 11:46 PM
Comment #284490

D.R.R.
I’m trying to tell you in simple terms, but maybe you don’t understand simple terms, that when an intelligence agency tell congress or the president classified info and that info gets out to the media somewhere there is a breach of security and the intelligence agency will remove that person or department from that info until they can prove they are reliable.

Posted by: KAP at July 15, 2009 6:30 AM
Comment #284491

David, good call on mentioning the Federalist Papers. Most of the arguments about what is expected, required, and legal for our government and its various entities to do is clearly laid out in the FPs. But who really bothers to read up on what our founding fathers intended anyway? What use would that be?

Posted by: Mike Falino at July 15, 2009 7:25 AM
Comment #284496

Mike C.
“To tell me they didn’t have evidence because Libby perjured himself is ridiculous”

I am not the one telling you there is no evidence. Those are not my words. SOTH Pelosi is the one who said “there is not adequate evidence.”
One would think that people who believe her when she says the CIA lies to congress, would also believe her when she says there is not “adequate evidence.”

Posted by: kctim at July 15, 2009 9:05 AM
Comment #284499

KAP, simplicity in your comments above is a hallmark, to be sure. So simple, as to be incapable of grappling with even the slightest complexity of law and government.

But, also, your information is wholly inaccurate. The record of the Congressional Intelligence oversight group of 8 regarding keeping secrets is impeccable. Therefore, the whole yarn about that group of 8 leaking secrets to the media is a canard, a red herring, and the most obvious and worst form of sophistry. Typical of Dick Cheney btw.

But, even if there were a history of the group of 8 leaking secrets to the media, one person’s breaking the law cannot be used as a defense for another person breaking the law. Simple enough for you? Or, will your comments insist in holding no respect for our Constitution or law at all, in deference to political competition for talking points based on false and erroneous information?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 15, 2009 10:10 AM
Comment #284520

D.R.R.
And your an expert in law and government. So now I think dbs has you his crystal ball was right again. Very little if any being said about this insident on the news programs and nothing will be done because it was an idea and not implemented. Most level headed Democrats don’t want to go into this witch hunt.

Posted by: KAP at July 15, 2009 4:44 PM
Comment #284521

KAP, thanks. But, I dont’ think 2 law courses in college makes me an expert.

As for the rest, it is a rush to judgment. I have seen plenty on the news, and listened to it nearly non-stop on NPR. Your reference must be a result of watching the Faux News channel. That would explain your comment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 15, 2009 5:23 PM
Comment #284526

D.R.R.
I check all the news networks not just fox

Posted by: KAP at July 15, 2009 6:28 PM
Comment #284528

Killa - you have a very narrow view of “your life was as good as it ever was” I would like to know by what definition that anything was good under the Bush administration? Do you mean for all the people who lived in the Gulf region whose lives were ruined or worse, their lives were ended by inaction and incompetence of W’s homeland security chief & FEMA chief? Do you mean the 10s of thousands of soldiers missing limbs and suffering with the mental anguish that accompanies every war, and this one totally unnecessary? Or the 4000+ families who are now missing a father, son, husband, wife, mother, or daughter because of a illegal war based on a pack of lies? Or maybe you mean all the people whose life savings disappeared in the stock market because Bush thought the Wall St crowd could be trusted and didn’t need all that pesky regulation? Or maybe the Constitution which suddenly disappeared? Or perhaps, gay Americans who’s rights were campaigned against as a crass political tool? how about all the innocent people Bush had detained in the ludicrous “war on terror” many of whom were probably tortured or otherwise mistreated while in captivity? Oh, I know, you mean the billionaires who made off with their golden parachutes at the expense of people’s jobs, our economy, and our children’s future. Sorry, I had to run through a long list to find a group who made out ok.

The Hitler analogy is totally ridiculous. He didn’t steal two elections. He was actually voted in by a majority of the American people. We had to suffer through 8 years of the worst president on US history, I apologize if you have to deal with someone who will undoubtedly rate a lot higher on the list than the last occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Posted by: tcsned at July 15, 2009 6:36 PM
Comment #284533

Wow, tcsned, I’m no Bush apologist (didn’t vote for him either election and opposed most of what he did) but your list is extremely harsh…

Do you mean for all the people who lived in the Gulf region whose lives were ruined or worse, their lives were ended by inaction and incompetence of W’s homeland security chief & FEMA chief?

Because he allowed a hurricane to form and hit a low-lying (under sea level) highly populated area of the country where the citizens refused to heed evacuation orders?

There were things done wrong in Katrina, but a lot that was done right and a lot of people’s lives were saved, you might want to check the facts, not the (as we found out later) completely wrong news accounts at the time, as I pointed out at the time:

Failure on Every Level

Do you mean the 10s of thousands of soldiers missing limbs and suffering with the mental anguish that accompanies every war, and this one totally unnecessary?

Unnecessary? I do not think that can be said as an absolute, that is an OPINION you have. Many disagree. Especially those of us who know what Iraq was between 1991 and 2003. In fact, the other day I was watching a West Wing episode (the one where Josh gets shot) and their main international concern at the time was the shooting down of an american pilot in the no-fly zone (how we forget those daily shots at our pilots or the support for international terrorism that Saddam was engaged in, or the millions of children he was starving in his country).

a illegal war based on a pack of lies?

Except it wasn’t illegal nor was it based on ‘a pack of lies’. Again, hyperbole isn’t the same thing as fact. Please tell me which ‘lie’ you are referring to?

Or maybe you mean all the people whose life savings disappeared in the stock market because Bush thought the Wall St crowd could be trusted and didn’t need all that pesky regulation?

As David will tell you, he was able to see an artificial bubble being created in the housing market and got his retirement out of risky stocks before it fell apart, it wasn’t ‘out of the blue’. Again, not nearly as black and white as you want to paint and not ‘caused’ by the deregulation, there were a lot of factors involved.

Or maybe the Constitution which suddenly disappeared?

Sorry, that was not ‘sudden’ and has been occuring for decades, thanks to the politicians in both parties seeking power. Hard to blame Bush, alone, for that.

Or perhaps, gay Americans who’s rights were campaigned against as a crass political tool?

Or the gay Americans who were campaigned FOR as a crass political tool? Clinton signed the DOMA and so far Obama has done NOTHING to change the situation in the US. Bush was just another of the ones who is keeping this group of people from experiencing freedom…

how about all the innocent people Bush had detained in the ludicrous “war on terror” many of whom were probably tortured or otherwise mistreated while in captivity?

And which innocent people were these? Do you know how many or what their names were? I have not been given that information as of yet, perhaps you have it available since you are making the FACTUAL claim, you must have it handy?

Oh, and don’t forget that Obama is not only extending most of those programs that the DoJ put in place under Bush but is taking them further. :/

He didn’t steal two elections

Neither did Bush.

He was actually voted in by a majority of the American people.

And Bush was voted in by the required amount of electoral college voters, as our country is by law required to do. Or do you want to just throw the constitution out to get the results you want?

All in all, your comment displays all that is wrong with people in this country, on either side, debating emotion and rhetoric that is loosly (at best) based on some fact that they once heard and then preached to them by the side they support, not bothering to listen to the other side or even see the other side as ‘human’.

I didn’t hate Clinton, Bush or Obama (or any other president I lived under) because for the most part I thought they were people taking on a great responsibility and trying to do what they thought was the right thing to do in their service. I disagree with almost everything they did, because they don’t base their decisions on the ideals that this country was founded upon, but I don’t HATE them or call them petty names as you feel free doing.

And it truly makes me sad that this is the state of ‘politics’ in this country. And today after reading this I’ve become even sadder. :(

Posted by: rhinehold at July 15, 2009 7:53 PM
Comment #284547

So the CIA wanted to develop a program to kill or capture Al Qaeda. Democrats in Congress wanted to kill the program. Some people thought that they would leak it as soon as they found out. To prove critics, the Democrats leaked the program as soon as they found out.

It is possible that serious mistakes were made by the CIA and the previous administration. But the way to find out is to quietly investigate. We are talking about secrets, after all. But the leakers are not interested in the truth and don’t seem to worry about protecting their country. Politics prevails over security and truth. Now that it is politicized, we may never know the truth.

Of course, I know that many people on this blog believe they have all the facts and want to go to the punishment stage before the trial stage. I wonder how they found out all these secret details. Certainly that congressman clown from Texas doesn’t know, although that doesn’t stop him talking.

Posted by: Christine at July 15, 2009 8:57 PM
Comment #284551

Christine, since when is making public a violation of our laws by someone inside government, a leak? That is not a leak. That is a constitutional obligation to the rule of law.

Wow! If you are not a Republican, your argument makes for a fair approximation of same.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 15, 2009 9:24 PM
Comment #284552

David

Since he did not have enough information to know it was against the law. Since he is a Congressman, not an employee who could be fired. Since he has access to the proper authorities to investigate. This is not a noble whistle blower risking his career. This is a powerful individual who should know better and has better options.


This is typical of the witch hunt. We have a lot of smoke that ends up with not much fire. Remember Fitzmas? The only guy who was found guilty of anything was found guilty of a crime related to the investigation itself. We heard a lot about election fraud. The only guys who actaully were convicted were a few Democrats. Of course we have the Acorn fraud yet to be investigated.

Rule of law means RULE OF LAW. You don’t try cases in the media. In fact, the leaks make it much LESS likely anybody would be convicted, since their rights would be compromised.

Reyes and co are not interested in rule of law. Otherwise they would respect it. I don’t blame Reyes himself. I met him and he doesn’t really have the brain power for a complicated conspiracy, IMO. He is but a pawn.

Posted by: Christine at July 15, 2009 9:53 PM
Comment #284558

I’m still confused what this leak is Christine, KAP and other people? Was it really a leak that the US government was trying to capture or kill terrorists? That sounds like a bigger joke then what the right is saying about it being politcal. Bush said on national tv serveral times that we are trying to do that. Just Tivo or Webview Rachel Maddow show. Even though Rachel Maddow is a hardcore Liberal, I think it would do many people on the right to watch her. Or at least the clips about this issue. I find it great that I can always easily find facts when she mentions them, or the logical conclusions when the facts are not there for anyone. The only problem with her is sometimes I think she has too much fun with repubs, but you can’t blame her when they mostly do it to themselves. Although I do read and watch lots of other news programs I find that hers is the most reliable.

Sorry for getting off topic.

Posted by: kudos at July 15, 2009 11:17 PM
Comment #284559

Christine, you are putting the Constitutional cart before the horse. Remember, one is not guilty until found so AFTER investigation and trial. Yet, you seem to be suggesting that one must be found GUILTY before an investigation or trial can be commenced. Illogical.

Suspicion of law breaking is sufficient to warrant investigation. Always has been. Always MUST BE. Ergo, it is appropriate, IN ORDER, to launch and investigation, to make public allegations of possible criminal activity. We do not have secret trials like they do in Iran, here.

As for Sylvestre Reyes, I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. His references were to information the Head of the CIA provided regarding suspected violations of the law regarding the CIA’s keeping the Congress informed. And as I said, in America, we don’t issue secret warrants and conduct secret trials of individuals, or keep the charges and allegations secret while investigating or prosecuting suspected crime by Americans in America.

Your comments sound like they come straight from Mussolini’s supporters.

Appears to me your squawk is with Leon Panetta, and that, due to his being a Democrat. Because so far, you have offered NOTHING in the way of sound argument or reason for why a suspected crime by the CIA should not be publicly investigated, and prosecuted, if warranted.

Bush’s and Cheney’s administration oversaw an operation put in place to act, and expenditures for same, without ever informing the Congress which is a statutory requirement of the CIA, according to Leon Panetta. Haydn said he was not aware of this. But, then Haydn was director at the time the plans and expenditures were put in place. Is Haydn pleading ignorance or convenience. Don’t know, and its irrelevant.

Your apparent deliberate effort to ignore the pattern here, speaks loudly for a hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil of the Republican administration. This despite

  • their implementation of a stealth program of wiretapping Americans without warrants which a report by the inspector generals of five federal agencies said proved to be of limited value (if any).
  • Their approval of warrantless searches in a one-sentence authorization signed after after Sept. 11, which Cheney kept so secret that the law enforcement officials were not even privy to the evidence and leads that were generated by the searches. Talk about your Keystone Cops with Cheney as the bumbler in Chief. If it weren’t criminal and an attack on our Constitutional protections, it would be laughable.
  • In 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to reauthorize the secret wiretaps, but the Bush admin. kept the program going until The New York Times revealed it in late 2005.

There is a pattern here. Continued by Cheney’s and Gonzalez’ refusals to be interviewed by the inspector generals of the intel agencies. Panetta’s disclosure and Reyes’ comments violate NO SECRET intel that would compromise our efforts overseas. Like someone else said, Bush already publicly announced after 9/11 that he would be going after those responsible. No national secret revealed there, AT ALL!

That we trained and created hit teams both in personnel and on paper, outside the purview of Congress, is what Panetta states from a review of the CIA’s records, appears to have taken place. And if it did, it constitutes a clear violation of the Constitution’s checks and balances and of statutory requirements of the CIA to report such things to the Congressional Intelligence personnel given top secret clearance.

This should not be a partisan issue. And those who defend such actions are no lovers of our Constitution, though they may pay protesting lip service to the same to resolve their cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 16, 2009 1:12 AM
Comment #284564


geez, Kap and Christine, what news service do you folks listen to?

Misinformation seems abundant there.

David has been consistent and clear.

Panetta disclosed a program in progress that he terminated due to concerns about it’s illegality and failure to be disclosed to Congress.

I nor anyone has a clue as to the illegalities involved since no disclosures as to the details of the program have been revealed. We know it was likely an assassination program. Something hardly new, and possibly legal as a tactic of war, but something concerned Panetta. We don’t know what.

If I plan to build a house, I may draw up plans. If I hire an architect to draw up detailed plans, and then hire a contractor to assemble a crew and buy materials, I am well beyond the planning stages. I haven’t built a house, yet, however. If I plan, and assemble and deploy assassin teams without sufficient intelligence to activate them, and actually kill anyone, I’m beyond planning stages.

Please read some mainstream media sources.

Posted by: gergle at July 16, 2009 4:15 AM
Comment #284567

gergle, KAP claims to cover many news sources, but, his comments don’t seem to have any awareness of the content airing or published in those sources. I heard of an ostrich that roamed the Outback, but, its awareness seemed to be limited to what it could see, smell and taste with its head in a gopher hole, searching for juicy tidbits of some grub or another. :)

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 16, 2009 7:49 AM
Comment #284568

Sorry if it seems harsh rhinehold - I just get sick and tired of people telling me how good things were under this disaster of a president, then comparing how Obama got into to office with Hitler.

Katrina - while there were many factors as to why that turned into such a disaster - the federal government doing pretty much nothing while Bush was on vacation added to the human suffering. Mike Brown was not up to his job, had no prior experience, and blew it. Not only that, but the Bush administration mishandled the rebuilding and those areas hit have still not fully recovered.

Iraq - wars should never be fought unless every possible option has been exhausted. It takes too much of a human toll and unleashes all kinds of unexpected consequences that lead to all kinds of human suffering. Lies - 1. weapons of mass destruction for one, nuclear weapons program for another, ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11 for another - sure, everyone thought he had WMD, but no one else decided to invade, conquer, and destroy a country other than this administration. Now we not only have many thousands of American lives destroyed or put through things that no one should have to go through because of that, but how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people lost their lives that would not have otherwise. George W. Bush took actions that directly caused hundreds of thousands of people to lose their lives. Sorry if that is harsh but saying those words is a lot less harsh than all the families that live every day without someone they loved. Iraq wasn’t massing troops to invade anyone. They were not a direct threat to the US. Why start this war? Because George Bush made a choice. His choices had consequences. People lost their lives. Not that but he set a precedent that preemptive war was ok. That means another idiotic president in the future could use this insane idea as cover to do this to another country. War of choice.

Innocent people tortured - how about Maher Arar a Canadian citizen we “outsourced his interrogation” to Syria for one. Rendition of suspected terrorists that lead to their torture who turned out to be innocent. One person is too many. How many people have been released from Gitmo because they did nothing except be incredibly unlucky. Even torturing a “guilty” person is not only totally immoral but it is a war crime, one which we have sentenced others to death for doing.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DC1E39F93AA15756C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

I’m sorry if this makes you sad. It makes me sad that people’s lives were taken in my country’s name and by extension, my name. It makes me sad that humans have been tortured in my country’s name and by extension, my name.

While I voted for Obama, I am no big defender of what he has done or rather what he hasn’t done. He hasn’t ended the Iraq occupation and innocent people continue to die. He has expanded the Afghanistan war and innocent people continue to die. He has not given gay Americans the rights they deserve yet. I won’t get into Clinton, though I am no big supporter of his either. I was just reacting to Killa’s post that things were good under Bush’s presidency as well as comparing Obama to Hitler which is odd because these same people call him a communist and socialist - so he is both a communist and a fascist? hmmm …

Posted by: tcsned at July 16, 2009 7:51 AM
Comment #284594

lock ‘em up and throw away the key. too many lies. interesting it is a waste of tax payer money to prosecute w and cheney, but not for a blow j@b.

also, i find it interesting that republicans now call bush’s administration the “bush pelosi era”. now when in history have we referred to an administration citing the president and speaker of house? i tell you when, when the rich republican journalist and newspapers and publishers are re-writing history.

i have told you repubs - fear and diversion do not work any longer.

Posted by: bluebuss at July 16, 2009 4:31 PM
Comment #284595

D.R.R.
I think your ostrich commkent is way off base. If it was someone else who made such a comment you would not let them post here. I speak of what I hear and see in the news broadcasts. I heard the the democrats were squaking about a plan to assinate Al Quaed leaders that never materialized and that the CIA Director axed it and went and told congress. After which I heard very little about it. I don’t listen to or watch left wing radicle news channels that blow things out of proportion like possible you and others do.

Posted by: KAP at July 16, 2009 5:05 PM
Comment #284604

KAP, I recalled a story. If the shoe fit, wear it. Otherwise, don’t. And no, no one that I know of ever got booted from WB for recounting a story about an animal.

And thank you for your honesty and candor in admitting that that your only news sources are biased right wing news sources.

Most folks know, that to get as objective view as possible, one has to attend to news from many different biased sources, compare and weigh their reporting against logic, authority of sources, and an understanding of human behavior in general.

ALL news sources are biased. That is why one has to take several in from differing biases to capture a more objective read as well as a full information set. Taking in only right wing biased sources will result in errors of omission of inconvenient facts, just as with a left wing source.

I rely heavily on Pat Buchannan and Joe Scarborough as well as the Wash. Post for the right wing perspective and fact base. Buchannan and Scarborough are mainly for the spin and analysis from the right of center. The Post for the facts from the right of center. Which would account for my comments having a larger fact base on this topic than your comments, since you honestly admit you refuse a vast majority of the news available and any from a left of center perspective.

Appreciate the candor.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 16, 2009 8:04 PM
Comment #284605


CNN, MSNBC, my local NBC, CBS, ABC, and yes even FOX. Plus my local newspaper. I do not watch or listen to the radical right or left news because that to me is all BS news and so far from the truth. David, my comments come from those sources they may be wrong as well as your comments may contain wrong points. From what I have read since I’ve been reading and commenting on watchblog is a lot of writers jump to conclusions far before all the facts are in. If there is an investigation the facts may surprise me as well as surprising you.

Posted by: KAP at July 16, 2009 8:30 PM
Comment #284609

David, Gergle et al

Yes - investigate. With the rule of law, not a political farse.

Remember Fitzmas. What did the rule of law produce? When the legal process was done, did you guys accept the rule of law or keep on complaining because it caught the “wrong guy”.

The same goes for FISA. Democrats won congress is 2006 and the presidency in 2008. Presumably the rule of law will apply. We need not leak things to the media. If the case is strong, go for it.

The results of such accusations in the past have not been very strong.

Lefties are looking for any way they can catch Dick Cheney or Carl Rove. Unfortunately for them, the Consituion bans a bill of atainder. My prediction is that you will never get either of them. The rule of law will protect them from your attacks.

None of us on this blog has enough information to know if a crime has been committed or what kind of crime if so. Like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, you all want the punishment to come before the investigations and the verdicts.

I don’t know the true facts and with all due respect, none of you really knows any more than I do.

Posted by: Christine at July 16, 2009 11:12 PM
Comment #284612

Christine, you are correct, except that so many are opposed to even investigating the possible crimes. Those who call for punishment now do so because of emotion and due suspicion, but at the same time there needs to be a fair inquiry. What is wrong with investigating the claims?

Posted by: Mike Falino at July 17, 2009 7:29 AM
Comment #284618

KAP, you watch much of the same news as I. How is it then, you managed to miss the reporting that personnel were selected for these strike teams, trained, and what was lacking was the intel to establish targets? It was there, being discussed for nearly a week. NPR was still discussing it 3 days ago on air.

You posited the media wasn’t covering it much. But, it was, and is. There is a disconnect in your comments in this regard.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 17, 2009 9:53 AM
Post a comment