Comments on: Obama Official Says Secret CIA Program Was Legal, Breaks With Dems

By: OGLiberal

OGLiberal — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:38:45 +0000

Think about it this way – whether run by the Dems or the Republicans, each branch of our federal government will rarely turn down the opportunity to make themselves more powerful, even if they never or rarely use the power they’ve obtained. In this case – or in the case of indefinite detention, or wiretaps, etc. – you have a new exec branch power – ie, CIA creating and implementing programs without keeping Congress in the loop- being questioned. Even if the Obama administration never uses this new “power”, why would they want to give it up – after all, they may want to or feel they need to use it at some undetermined point in the future? And if they do use it, they can always say, “Hey, we didn’t create these rules – the other guys did. We’re just using them.”

And that’s the single biggest reason why it was so horrible for Bush/Cheney to establish all of these new powers of the exec branch – once the precedent was established (even if they were honestly established in the name of protecting Americans, which they weren’t) getting rid of these powers was going to be very difficult, no matter which party held/holds the WH.

By: kgb999

kgb999 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:09:27 +0000

When did Bliar serve as first Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support? If anyone would be likely to defend the way people behaved in the early stages of this, I think it would be someone like him.

Greg: Looked at Blair’s whoRuns profile … whoever does such things should update the “Path to Power” part – ends with speculation on his confirmation hearing in the future tense.

By: DJShaver

DJShaver — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:01:22 +0000

Just makes you wonder how many programs there were under the Clinton administration that were questionable but NEVER reported by the “unbiased” media. Get over yourselves!

By: sbj

sbj — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:23:24 +0000

On what basis is anyone calling the proposed program illegal? I thought the dispute was about informing congress. Now we seem to be discussing the legality of a program that was never enacted. I can’t even begin to understand the logic behind that charge . . . Did Panetta say he canceled the program because he felt that if enacted it would be illegal? There was a Presidential finding that gave the President the right to order targeted killings of al qaeda, correct? Isn’t that what makes our drone attacks in Pakistan that regularly kill innocent civilians legal? I hope so, else Obama’s in big trouble.

By: Harry

Harry — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:09:16 +0000

I believe the CIA and the military are both rogue agencies that govern themselves and are accountable to no one. They threaten and blackmail the President as well as the heads of their own agencies so that any statement that is made on their behalf is going to have a bias in favor of them. It will take strong leadership to call out and disband the rogue elements in these agencies and in so doing accept the consequences but ultimately cure the problem. Unfortunately we have no such leaders.

By: benjoya

benjoya — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:48:59 +0000

dp, you’re a good citizen. stalin would have loved you.

By: dprosenthal

dprosenthal — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:26:31 +0000

#1-There is still such a thing as “top secret’ and govt employees at all levels have trouble keeping their mouths shut.
#2-The plan was discussed but NEVER enacted. No agency is required to report every word and thought expressed as part of a ‘brain-storming’ discussion on POSSIBLE defence policy.
#The whole issue is years old and is only being revived by the Dems in a pitiful attempt to continue their attack on the past administration. Shame on them!!

By: benjoya

benjoya — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:24:37 +0000

blair isn’t a lawyer

By: BigBob

BigBob — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:22:05 +0000

From what I can gather, the program was never active. We can brainstorm all types of scenario’s and plans – and there is not need to tell anyone anything. However, if sometime wanted to move forward and implement/activate – that would require informing congress.

It is nice to see someone refusing to play into the political games congress likes.

@Kilo – you’ve hit the nail on the head – this new boss is the same as the old boss.

By: Greg Sargent

Greg Sargent — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:59:08 +0000

Kathleen, I’m working on that…

Argoth, I agree, it was a paraphrase, but the reporter was pretty definitive. Might be worth getting clarification…

And Kilo, fair point. These incidents deserve to be woven together…..

By: Argoth

Argoth — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:51:10 +0000

I don’t exactly believe that this is a flat out declaration that it was legal. I would like to see more than a single sentence that does not definitively say anything about whether it is the Obama admin’s stance that it was legal. It also could mean that they are still looking into what happened and won’t say it was illegal until a full review is done. I don’t see anything here about not wanting an investigation.

By: Kathleen Hussein in Maine

Kathleen Hussein in Maine — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:45:17 +0000

Greg, do you have any insights into why? What is the upside for the WH in doing this? Did Obama really believe what he was saying on the campaign trail, only to enter and be told by the military and intelligence establishment the way things really are?

By: Kilo

Kilo — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:36:04 +0000

But the Obama administration now seems to be … defending the Bush-era program”

Another way to phrase that would be:
As we completely expected, the Obama administration has once again left no Bush-era national security program undefended.

Seriously, if freaking Dick Cheney won the 2008 presidential election you would have seen more **** change than we have so far. When are these going to stop being reported as isolated oddities ?