Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Why is this bad again? I must be confused.

WASHINGTON – Congressional demands for an investigation grew on Monday over new disclosures that a secret CIA program to capture or kill al-Qaida leaders was concealed from Congress for eight years, perhaps at the behest of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cia_concealment


If this is a dublicate please delete.

grizzaholic wrote:Why is this bad again? I must be confused.

WASHINGTON – Congressional demands for an investigation grew on Monday over new disclosures that a secret CIA program to capture or kill al-Qaida leaders was concealed from Congress for eight years, perhaps at the behest of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cia_concealment


If this is a dublicate please delete.

not the act that's the problem... it's the concealment that's the problem.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:Why is this bad again? I must be confused.

WASHINGTON – Congressional demands for an investigation grew on Monday over new disclosures that a secret CIA program to capture or kill al-Qaida leaders was concealed from Congress for eight years, perhaps at the behest of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cia_concealment


If this is a dublicate please delete.

not the act that's the problem... it's the concealment that's the problem.

I, for one, don't give two shits if someone tells me or not that they are going to go kill a bunch of terrorists. If I know, great I will have a drink to celebrate it, if I don't know, and I see on the news that some terrorists get killed, I will have a drink to celebrate.

TTBF hit the nail on the head.

Killing Al-Queda - good.

Lying to Congress, concealing program - bad

grizzaholic wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
not the act that's the problem... it's the concealment that's the problem.

I, for one, don't give two shits if someone tells me or not that they are going to go kill a bunch of terrorists. If I know, great I will have a drink to celebrate it, if I don't know, and I see on the news that some terrorists get killed, I will have a drink to celebrate.

Again, you are missing the point, unless you don't like the US Constitution and it's set of checks and balances.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
I, for one, don't give two shits if someone tells me or not that they are going to go kill a bunch of terrorists. If I know, great I will have a drink to celebrate it, if I don't know, and I see on the news that some terrorists get killed, I will have a drink to celebrate.

Again, you are missing the point, unless you don't like the US Constitution and it's set of checks and balances.

So they are killing terrorists without telling the nation. Why is that bad? I am just being dumb today, not understanding.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Again, you are missing the point, unless you don't like the US Constitution and it's set of checks and balances.

So they are killing terrorists without telling the nation. Why is that bad? I am just being dumb today, not understanding.

They don't need to tell the nation, just members of the Congress oversight committees. They are operating beyond the law, as a rogue agency. The CIA, like all executive branches, must follow the law as passed by Congress. They did not in this case.

What is next, CIA death squads for domestic "enemies"?

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
So they are killing terrorists without telling the nation. Why is that bad? I am just being dumb today, not understanding.

They don't need to tell the nation, just members of the Congress oversight committees. They are operating beyond the law, as a rogue agency. The CIA, like all executive branches, must follow the law as passed by Congress. They did not in this case.

What is next, CIA death squads for domestic "enemies"?

Drug dealers?
Tax cheats?
Swindlers?
Thieves?
Human rights violators?

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
So they are killing terrorists without telling the nation. Why is that bad? I am just being dumb today, not understanding.

They don't need to tell the nation, just members of the Congress oversight committees. They are operating beyond the law, as a rogue agency. The CIA, like all executive branches, must follow the law as passed by Congress. They did not in this case.

What is next, CIA death squads for domestic "enemies"?

in fact the problem isn't even with the CIA really... it's with Cheney, who ordered the CIA to hide the program from Congress. the CIA should still have disclosed it, and if they lied to congress about it (which appears likely) there's a problem...

mostly though this is about an executive branch that spent 8 years plowing over the constitution, and this is near the top of the list in terms of severe offenses.

I get a kick out of donks pulling out the Constitution when it's convenient.

dbackjon wrote:TTBF hit the nail on the head.

Killing Al-Queda - good.

Lying to Congress, concealing program - bad

Kinda like: Getting blowjob - good. Lying to a grand jury under oath about it----bad.

bobbythekidd wrote:I get a kick out of donks pulling out the Constitution when it's convenient.

It is a "living" document, after all.

Fuckin' hypocrites.

dbackjon wrote:TTBF hit the nail on the head.

Killing Al-Queda - good.

Lying to Congress, concealing program - bad

They did not lie...they did conceal...

And this is something that is unacceptable...Congress has the oversight responsibility, and that's why certain members get the Top Secret clearance required for these briefings...and they have the need to know as part of their responsibilities...

Having said that, do we want a witch hunt...and should Leon Panetta handle it as CIA Chief???

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:TTBF hit the nail on the head.

Killing Al-Queda - good.

Lying to Congress, concealing program - bad

They did not lie...they did conceal...

And this is something that is unacceptable...Congress has the oversight responsibility, and that's why certain members get the Top Secret clearance required for these briefings...and they have the need to know as part of their responsibilities...

Having said that, do we want a witch hunt...and should Leon Panetta handle it as CIA Chief???

as far as I'm concerned it needs to be handled between the agency the relevant members of the congress... but the base of the party is going to want to go after Cheney for it i'm sure...

I haven't had a chance to fully delve into this, but wasn't this mostly in the planning stages?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html

Republicans on the panel say that the CIA effort didn't advance to a point where Congress clearly should have been notified.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the agency "has not commented on the substance of the effort." He added that "a candid dialogue with Congress is very important to this director and this agency."

One former senior intelligence official said the program was an attempt "to achieve a capacity to carry out something that was directed in the finding," meaning it was looking for ways to capture or kill al Qaeda chieftains.

The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn't so much a program as "many ideas suggested over the course of years." It hadn't come close to fruition, he added

This looks to me as an effort by the left wing NY Times who broke the story as trying to provide cover for Pelosi and to also try and get more Dems noses in the CIAs business.

This also seems awfully convenient to try and point direction back at that evil Bush when Obama is flailing horribly right now. This is a diversionary tactic.

Obama flailing horribly right now?

Short memory there Dana, he would have to flail much worse and for a lot longer period of time to begin to equal the flailing reign of the Bush-Tards.

As for the convenience of bringing up Bush dirt, that convenience will not go away because of the sheer volume of it. Had Obama set out to make his presidency all about investigating Bush like congress set out to make it's function all about impeaching Clinton, many of the Bush-Tards could well be in custody by now.

Sure, why should I care that my phone is tapped, I'm not a criminal, yet..

Sure, why should I care about clandestine hit jobs on suspected terrorists, I'm not a terrorist, yet..

Sure, why should I care about the use of torture by our government, I'm not a prisoner of another country who does not approve of our behavior, yet...

Sure, why should anybody in the world worry about how Dick Cheney conducted himself as our elected vice president, he is Hannaty's god, so that makes him the god of all American Conk heads.



Bush Sucked, McCain lost, we must get over it and make the best of it. If we don't like it, we can blame ourselves for being suckered by lil' Bush and company.

Bush, McCain, Palin backers have no credibility to bitch about the way things are now, it is all their fault anyway.


Next!

Cheney 'ran secret black ops unit inside the CIA for eight years'


ALLEGATIONS that former US vice-president Dick Cheney ran a secret "black ops" unit inside the CIA for eight years without informing Congress have increased pressure on the White House for a full investigation of alleged abuses of power by the Bush administration.
The unit was so secret that even the former CIA director George Tenet did not control its activities, according to reports yesterday.

Sources said Mr Cheney, considered by some to have been the power behind the throne of the Bush administration, set up the unit in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for an as-yet undisclosed mission.


http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Che ... 5452141.jp

bobbythekidd wrote:I get a kick out of donks pulling out the Constitution when it's convenient.

Cough* cough*
blowing the dust off... waving hand in front of face...

Q: what is this thing..?
A: Oh, that old thing... that's the constitution

Q: Oh... where has it been.?
A: The previous Presidential cabinet had it thrown out... it's really more of a nuisance than anything...

Outstanding stuff from Wedgie and Chizzaaaang. The rest of you should come out of you hardened conk shells and embrace their way of thinking.

Wedgebuster wrote:Obama flailing horribly right now?

I should have specified that I was talking about his steadily declining approval rating - that is where he is flailing. But in regards to this "illegal" operation, all you have done is shown that you are still mad at Bush. You haven't provided any meat because this claim lacks any.

Where is the substance of this claim? Even if it is true, how could you blame Cheney and Bush? This was leaked illegally by Dems to the Times. That breaks many rules in and of itself.

This was taken from the article:

Some Democratic lawmakers suggested the failure to notify the congressional intelligence committees violated the oversight laws, which require the intelligence community to keep Congress informed of its activities.

The only thing the Dems can hope for in this situation is to find out that money was spent on brainstorming. Yeah, heaven forbid we ask our CIA to think of ways to kill Al Qaida. Oh the humanity that we might actually try to kill our enemies.

SeattleGriz wrote:I haven't had a chance to fully delve into this, but wasn't this mostly in the planning stages?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html

Republicans on the panel say that the CIA effort didn't advance to a point where Congress clearly should have been notified.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the agency "has not commented on the substance of the effort." He added that "a candid dialogue with Congress is very important to this director and this agency."

One former senior intelligence official said the program was an attempt "to achieve a capacity to carry out something that was directed in the finding," meaning it was looking for ways to capture or kill al Qaeda chieftains.

The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn't so much a program as "many ideas suggested over the course of years." It hadn't come close to fruition, he added

This looks to me as an effort by the left wing NY Times who broke the story as trying to provide cover for Pelosi and to also try and get more Dems noses in the CIAs business.

This also seems awfully convenient to try and point direction back at that evil Bush when Obama is flailing horribly right now. This is a diversionary tactic.

You have an excuse for everything don't you? Or is the right wing wacko stuff your schtick?
Donks bad, conks good! If only it were that simple.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Obama flailing horribly right now?

I should have specified that I was talking about his steadily declining approval rating - that is where he is flailing. But in regards to this "illegal" operation, all you have done is shown that you are still mad at Bush. You haven't provided any meat because this claim lacks any.

Where is the substance of this claim? Even if it is true, how could you blame Cheney and Bush? This was leaked illegally by Dems to the Times. That breaks many rules in and of itself.

This was taken from the article:

Some Democratic lawmakers suggested the failure to notify the congressional intelligence committees violated the oversight laws, which require the intelligence community to keep Congress informed of its activities.

The only thing the Dems can hope for in this situation is to find out that money was spent on brainstorming. Yeah, heaven forbid we ask our CIA to think of ways to kill Al Qaida. Oh the humanity that we might actually try to kill our enemies.

Missing the point by a mile, once again.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:TTBF hit the nail on the head.

Killing Al-Queda - good.

Lying to Congress, concealing program - bad

Kinda like: Getting blowjob - good. Lying to a grand jury under oath about it----bad.

The cover up is usually worse than the crime itself.

BlueHen86 wrote:You have an excuse for everything don't you? Or is the right wing wacko stuff your schtick?
Donks bad, conks good! If only it were that simple.

I can admit some of the other stuff was over the top on purpose, but in this case, I don't see what was wrong with brainstorming on ways to kill Al Qaida. Now, if it is proven that money was used without the consent of Congress, that is another matter.

After all the grandiose promises of bringing Bush and his evil henchmen to justice, the Dems have done absolutely ZERO. Why, because they know they have no leg to stand on.

Lets bet a UM/UD hat on this one. I bet NOTHING happens to Bush or Cheney in regards to this issue, because this is more overinflated fluff by the NY Times used as a diversion.

Grizalltheway wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
I should have specified that I was talking about his steadily declining approval rating - that is where he is flailing. But in regards to this "illegal" operation, all you have done is shown that you are still mad at Bush. You haven't provided any meat because this claim lacks any.

Where is the substance of this claim? Even if it is true, how could you blame Cheney and Bush? This was leaked illegally by Dems to the Times. That breaks many rules in and of itself.

This was taken from the article:



The only thing the Dems can hope for in this situation is to find out that money was spent on brainstorming. Yeah, heaven forbid we ask our CIA to think of ways to kill Al Qaida. Oh the humanity that we might actually try to kill our enemies.

Missing the point by a mile, once again.

Did you see the video of the Iranian woman dying on the internet? I ask this because I did and I could only watch it once. It made my stomach turn. I have no capacity to kill a person. I am not missing the point because I am glad we have people loyal to America that can do the dirty work I have no stomach for.

As I have stated before as well. If NO money was spent, then there was no problem. They had absolutely no obligation to tell Congress they were trying to come up with plans to terminate our enemy.