Comments on: Bush Officials Contradict House Republicans On Secret CIA Program

By: dave

dave — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:31:13 +0000

The fact that viewers of news reports and readers of the article believe this somehow vindicates Pelosi is exactly the whole, and only, purpose of this manufactured “crisis”. Of course the CIA has programs under all presidents in the talking stage that either rise to the level of implementation and reporting to congress or don’t. I’ve noted that all the CNN news reports on this make a point of not telling their audience that this isn’t connected in any way to the waterboarding issue. Nor will they point out that these “in the talking stage” non programs have gone on in every administration without being reported to congress. Any President, during a time of war, (which Dems conveniently like to forget) would be wise to wait until this type of program is actually at the point of implementing before reporting to congress if he hopes to give it chance to work before it’s leaked. (Sen Leahy)
The OJ defense team used a similar gimmick to “prove” the LA police framed OJ. Didn’t a cop use a racial slur in a novel 10 years ago? Well then, that proves they will all lie to frame a black man. And voters with the same level of intelligence as the OJ jury will conclude that this somehow vindicates Pelosi. As with the OJ jury, all the dems have to provide to their constituents is a reason to say she’s vindicated. It doesn’t have to make any logical sense.

By: CosmicChuck

CosmicChuck — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:14:50 +0000

Quote from the story:

“It was a intelligence-collection activity run by the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, officials said. It was not a covert action, which by law would have required a presidential finding and a report to Congress.”

As @WMK brought up, it was not, as quoted, as covert operation. However, if it is not a covert operation, what is the justification for not informing Congress. There are occasions when disclosure may not be legally required, but remains ethically wrong not to disclose such information. From what I’ve been able to glean from the aftermath is that disclosure would have been the better course of action.

Aside from that, when it comes to black ops that the intellignce community was involved with, it would not surprise me at all, if Cheney was the one actively involved in interactions with the CIA, et al., and that there may have been some of those black ops that Bush was never informed of. After all, it was Cheney pushing for executive privilege beyond the bounds granted by the US Constitution, which lead to Ashcroft resigning as AG, with the subsequent misdeeds performed by DOJ under Gonzales.

By: Reaganite Republican

Reaganite Republican — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:39:49 +0000

Pelosi was every bit as informed on the decision to us EITs as were the GOP… but is now lying about it in an attempt to appease the antiwar left and fulfill specious campaign posturing.

And apparently Pelosi and Obama forgot something: the CIA KILLS people… it’s in their job description. Did these two really think that these killers were going to just meekly take-one-for-the-team… when the team captain is a lying, incompetent, arrogant nebbish who has basically told them they need to kiss his ring? -please

Obama really kicked an ant hill with his ill-advised and politically motivated release of Bush Administration memos regarding EITs.

Let’s have a hearing and get it all out there, shall we? Then watch the rats scatter who attacked Bush for protecting the country from terrorist attack… but who clearly knew what was going on five years before we heard a peep out of them.

By: sbj

sbj — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:55:16 +0000

@Debra: She hasn’t stood by her accusation – she has refused to answer any questions about the matter! This doesn’t help Pelosi because “this lapse [in CIA disclosure], if it occurred, was not about interrogation, and her issue was interrogation.”

By: Debra

Debra — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:59:51 +0000

This admission of the CIA’s lack of accountability to Congress in itself makes Speaker Pelosi’s claim much more credible. She has stood by her accusation and it evidently was warrented. The CIA, under Cheney’s direction, was actively hiding activities from Congress and giving dishonest reports.

By: WMK23

WMK23 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:37:40 +0000

“sbj – You can quit your crusade now – the general consensus is that Nancy Pelosi was vindicated by Panetta’s admission.

It’s over – sbj – you lost. Pelosi won. Shut up about it now.”

What Panetta admission? That there may have been a program that wasn’t disclosed to Congress? That’s a silly position to take, unless you can prove that Panetta was specifically speaking about the waterboarding/EIT issue (which you can’t, since Panetta still stands by the comments he made regarding what Pelosi was briefed on).

Pelosi lied, stop worrying about how she looks and move on with it.

By: WMK23

WMK23 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:33:54 +0000

Quote from the story:

Note that the Bush ‘official’ said that since it was not a covert op that it did not require a report to Congress.

It’s always funny when people ignore important items in information they themselves posted to try and make a point that then invalidates that point.

By: sbj

sbj — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:37:26 +0000

@tena: How’s the weather over there?

By: Tena

Tena — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:36:25 +0000

sbj – You can quit your crusade now – the general consensus is that Nancy Pelosi was vindicated by Panetta’s admission.

It’s over – sbj – you lost. Pelosi won. Shut up about it now.

By: Tena

Tena — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:35:25 +0000

Off and On – but not continuous? That’s splitting hairs that have already been split a couple of times.

Give me a break, please.

By: BigBob

BigBob — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:33:42 +0000

Betraying? – Nothing was betrayed. You sir, speak of things you do not know. There is nothing wrong or incorrect with what I stated. You are just another Internet idiot, one that hates anything you perceive to be from the “other side” even when it is not so. You sit in your dark corner and hate. Keep it up, it shortens your life.
As always – you attack the person, but don’t debate the merits. Your mother must be so proud.

All I am saying – is the intel world is vast & complex. Not everything has congressional oversight. If you want a cladestine operation outed – the quickest way to do that is to brief congress. Right or wrong – that’s the way it is. When I served, things were not republican nor democrat – information was gathered, vetted and reported – and thats it. These operations have gone on since the 50’s – and not all have been reported to congress, that this one joins that club does not make it an evil neo-con thing, it’s just the latest in a long string. But, keep spinning it as an evil Bush/Cheney thing.

By: sbj

sbj — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:27:54 +0000

@SG: Take a breath, big guy! The letter’s entire purpose was to provide cover for Pelosi so, like it or not, that is a big part of this story. Aren’t you at all concerend that your party, the Democratic party, chose to politicize this revelation in a dishonest attempt to shield their Speaker? You, who formerly seemed so opposed to such alleged actions by the evil Bush admin now seem quite willing to compromise your principles and excuse your own party for doing precisely the same. Your lack of integrity is showing.

Of course I am concerned if the CIA concealed information from Congress – as I’ve repeatedly said. Your mischaracterizations of my previous comments (which are available for all to see) seems particularly dumb on your part. Any honest person can see that I have previously written that the CIA should be investigated even if it means that Pelosi is vindicated. All of your huffing and puffing won’t mean a thing to honest readers here (hello? hello? hello?) And even though not another single person who visits this site will cover my back I’ll continue to point out the truth of the situation here. The Dems tried to politicize this in an effort to cover Pelosi’s behind. Allegiance to party over country my a$$. Look in the mirror.

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:16:48 +0000

Again the first person to mention Pelosi is sbj. Does that mean you really don’t give a sh*t that the CIA mislead or held back information from the Congress which has oversight which even Republicans have admitted to sbj? Of course it does. The only thing you care about in the world is Democrats getting bad press. You would allow the CIA to do whatever they wanted to to whomever they wanted to including American citizens as long as it mean Republicans would get into office. That is what you call an allegiance to a party over an allegiance to your country.

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:14:30 +0000

One more thing, I am going to say what probably everybody is thinking. That was Dick Cheney or one of his lackeys who gave that “anonymous” information to the WaPo reporter wasn’t it? Its AMAZING how a man can lie us into a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and still the media will afford him anonymity to pass on bullsh*t in order to confuse or mislead the public. Hell even Thornberry admitted last night that what was revealed wasn’t some benign program and that it was serious enough to need to be investigated further. Give me a frikkin break.

By: sbj

sbj — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:11:18 +0000

One thing seems absolutely clear: The Dems tried to politicize this in an effort to cover Pelosi’s behind. Strange that Greg does not seem in the least upset about that . . .