Democrats Upset that Bush Administration had Secret Effort to Kill or Capture Al Qaeda Leaders
All weekend, we’d be hearing how upset Democrats were about a CIA program the Bush Administration kept secret from Congress. With the high dudgeon typical of their criticism of Bush, they made it seem this was some program which violated the constitution, infringed on our civil liberties and just plain showed what horrible, no good very bad people was the former president and his evil lieutenant Darth Cheney.
Turns out the program was all about getting some guys who were indeed bad guys:
Government officials say the secret intelligence program canceled by CIA Director Leon Panetta in June was meant to find and kill or capture al-Qaida leaders at close range rather than target them with air strikes.
Guess the CIA didn’t leak this one to the New York Times because, well, it would be tough to this one against Bush, Cheney or their team, you know, showing them having a secret plan to get America’s enemies.
If the Democrats want to investigate this program, I say, “Bring it on!” Let’s hold public hearings on this. You know the kind of transparency their party’s presiential promised in his bid for the White House, but has been increasingly loath to fulfill once there.
45 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
…which, apparently, is more than Panetta-Obama have; and more than any Democrats want. Kudos to Bush and Cheney!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 13, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - July 13, 2009
Cheney was given the unenviable task of having to make pragmatic grownup decisions.
Comment by Nickie Goomba — July 13, 2009 @ 1:08 pm - July 13, 2009
What? Are they pissed there was a plan to eliminate DNC mouthpieces in the ME?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 13, 2009 @ 2:25 pm - July 13, 2009
I think they’re upset that we couldn’t unconditionally repatriate them to Al Queda like we did with the Iranians.
Comment by The Livewire — July 13, 2009 @ 2:46 pm - July 13, 2009
#3 – “I think they’re upset that we couldn’t unconditionally repatriate them to Al Queda like we did with the Iranians.”
Or that we couldn’t apply so-called “international law” (the way Senora Sotomayor wants us to do) on these maggot-infested ragheads to release them to go and kill more of us.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 13, 2009 @ 2:57 pm - July 13, 2009
Government officials say the secret intelligence program … was meant to find and kill or capture al-Qaida leaders at close range rather than target them with air strikes.
Oh, well, if it was meant to do something good, then that’s all we need to know about it, isn’t it? I mean, no further analysis is needed if we can write a sentence about a program with good intentions. Unconstitutional? Illegal? Possibly just for the legislative to do and not the executive? It doesn’t matter! It was “meant to” do good things!
Exercise: Apply this logic to the GM deal, or the laughable “Dealergate” and the equally laughable posts about both subjects. Obama “meant to” assist a large employer with avoiding a shutdown and throwing tens of thousands of US employees out of work, with the downstream effects to the supply chain companies, dealers, etc. Surely if he “meant to” do a good thing, you don’t need to argue with it or ask any questions about it? Right? You’re going to edit all those posts with a free pass since Obama had good intentions? Also, you must admit that the climate bill has good intentions, so I’m sure you support that too?
(Peter: you’re trying too hard, and it’s showing.)
Comment by torrentprime — July 13, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - July 13, 2009
Cheney is looking better and better. God forbid we have another terrorist attack, but would Obama ask Americans to look inside themselves afterwards? I wouldn’t doubt it.
Comment by keegan — July 13, 2009 @ 5:35 pm - July 13, 2009
It’s not like Obama and the Dems have been open about their own objectives. And the media has been outright assisting them. And it was 2 weeks ago that Helen thomas called the administration out on its “openness” and “transparency” claims. So, I’d say this administration has little to say in regards to openness. And why is it so important that there be openness in out intelligence operations. I’m glad it makes Dems all fuzzy and warm that our enemies have a fair chance. I just wonder if the dead Americans are really worth those good vibrations.
Comment by keegan — July 13, 2009 @ 5:39 pm - July 13, 2009
Torrent, are you truly stupid enough to think that there is something Unconstitutional or illegal about killing al Qaeda leaders? Are you so irreversibly brain washed that you think there is something wrong with not reporting on a program that was never implemented to begin with?
Now that we know you put partisan hackery above your country, is there anything your hackery does not trump?
Comment by American Elephant — July 13, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - July 13, 2009
It gets worse, Dear Leader wants the Afghan Army investigated for war crimes against the Taliban.
If I were torrentprime, I’d ask Soros for a raise; every day, it must get harder defending this douchebag.
Comment by V the K — July 13, 2009 @ 6:04 pm - July 13, 2009
Exercise: Apply this logic to the GM deal, or the laughable “Dealergate” and the equally laughable posts about both subjects.
Yes, indeed; let’s show all the comments about how torrentprime argued for absolute executive power in both when it came his defense of Obama’s attacking political opponents who are US citizens and trying to drive them out of business, and compare them to torrentprime’s current belief that it is wrong for the United States to attack and kill terrorist leaders who are a) not its citizens and b) trying to or already killing its citizens.
Alinsky Rule #4: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
Since torrentprime says that absolute executive power is OK under Obama, it must also be OK under Bush.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2009 @ 6:08 pm - July 13, 2009
This is meant to be a distraction as is the latest news from the justice department. It is designed to get peoples attention off congresssenate and their socialized medicine and cap/tax bills. The focus must stay on those two things.
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — July 13, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - July 13, 2009
Heard in TP’s house in June ’06:
“Oh my God! They killed al-Zarqawi!”
“You bastards!”
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 13, 2009 @ 7:08 pm - July 13, 2009
Let’s not forget that after the first time the World Trade Center was attacked (and not destroyed and not suffering the loss of life we saw later), it wasn’t until Bush and Cheney were in office that it was attacked and destroyed. So please, keep that in mind as you make your smug comments about the “grown-up” decisions Bush & Co. made.
What’s so secret about this program that the intelligence committees in congress couldn’t be told about? And, if never got off the ground, then why has it been around for years and simply didn’t end? If a covert action that had actually pinpointed and took out the people responsible for terrorist attacks, I for one would have been satisfied; unlike this non-sensical war on terror in Iraq that hasn’t seemed to do much to stem terrorism in the world.
Comment by Kevin — July 13, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - July 13, 2009
the point is not what they were doing, but that they were keeping it secret from the congress, which violates our laws.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 13, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - July 13, 2009
The Obama administration has reversed itself on literally every single major and minor aspect of the war on terror since taking office, and has even gone further than Bush in some cases. I expect they’ll be doing a 180 on this position any day now.
http://www.scottspiegel.com/?p=303
(“Obama’s Rising Tide Lifts Bush’s Boat”)
Comment by Scott Spiegel — July 13, 2009 @ 7:41 pm - July 13, 2009
just wanted to put the fact that Congress leaked the satphone-Obama connection out there… think about it…
Comment by Retcon — July 13, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - July 13, 2009
er, Osama… have gotten so used to typing the one, meant the other… their similar goals, you see, makes the spellings all that much easier to confuse
Comment by Retcon — July 13, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - July 13, 2009
#14: “…it wasn’t until Bush and Cheney were in office that it was attacked and destroyed. So please, keep that in mind as you make your smug comments about the “grown-up” decisions Bush & Co. made.”
Does anyone have any idea what this means?
“If a covert action that had actually pinpointed and took out the people responsible for terrorist attacks, I for one would have been satisfied…”
The fu*k you would have been. You’d throw a hissy fit if we tried to look in their luggage at the airport. Liberals like you are always FOR hunting down and killing terrorists in hypothetical terms. The second one step is taken toward that objective, you’re calling for Congressional investigations, impeachments, and prosecutions for war crimes. Just STFU, nobody believes you.
Comment by Sean A — July 13, 2009 @ 8:24 pm - July 13, 2009
The defenses offered by our left wing tools seem more “phoned in” than usual, as though even they are getting weary with constantly having to defend the stupidity of their little bronze idol and the venal incompetence of the Obamacrat Congress.
Comment by V the K — July 13, 2009 @ 8:37 pm - July 13, 2009
Bzzzt! Wrong answer.
The law only requires the CIA report on covert ACTIONS. It is not required to report about every little idea they have, only those things which they take action on:
But, I am glad this story comes up, because it caused me to discover this little gem…
Yes, we always knew that leaking state secrets is illegal, but holy cow, how many sitting Democrats and their operatives should be in jail right now for violating this law? A great many of them I wager. Half the leadership at least!
Comment by American Elephant — July 13, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - July 13, 2009
Does anyone have any idea what this means?
It means JAFO, there, believes that the BJ Clinton saved the WTC single handedly.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 13, 2009 @ 9:17 pm - July 13, 2009
#6 – “Peter: you’re trying too hard, and it’s showing.”
Project much, TP?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 13, 2009 @ 10:41 pm - July 13, 2009
Surely if he “meant to” do a good thing, you don’t need to argue with it or ask any questions about it? Right?
Why not? We’re not supposed to scrutinize or criticize liberal programs. We’re only supposed to look at the intentions and not the disastrous results which follow.
Hey, if we flushed another $800 billion down the shitter, would that make you feel better?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 14, 2009 @ 12:47 am - July 14, 2009
I love how completely TP missed the point… as usual. In this case, the point that the “secret program” in question did not obtain. There was no program. The CIA was only ever thinking about it, and they need not have informed Congress of jack squat (legally, constitutionally or morally), until and unless it was going to become a real program.
Unlike, say, Obama’s $1.8 trillion deficits, corporate takeovers and bailouts… which are tragically real, and unconstitutional. But TP doesn’t bother himself about any of that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 12:59 am - July 14, 2009
#25
Wasn’t there something way back, from the Pentagon, about a department running Vegas odds on the wars? It was just a theory and the liberals dutifully went batshit. As if they give a rat’s arse.
BTW, with Car Czar Rattner bailing out, does that mean the rats are jumping ship?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 14, 2009 @ 4:52 am - July 14, 2009
Obama’s $1.8 trillion deficits, corporate takeovers and bailouts… which are tragically real, and unconstitutional. But TP doesn’t bother himself about any of that.
tp just comes here to spew talking points and chew bubblegum, and he ran out of bubblegum a long time ago.
Comment by V the K — July 14, 2009 @ 6:54 am - July 14, 2009
actually, ilc, the law says:
Title 50, Chapter 15, Subchapter III, § 413:
(a) Reports to Congressional committees of intelligence activities and anticipated activities
(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this subchapter.
(2) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as requiring the approval of the congressional intelligence committees as a condition precedent to the initiation of any significant anticipated intelligence activity.
i believe this program counts as “significant anticipated intelligence activity”.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 14, 2009 @ 6:56 am - July 14, 2009
Turns out the program that never made it off the drawing board — the one Democrats are claiming they never heard of — was authorized by Congress.
Democrats simply cant even think without lying.
Comment by American Elephant — July 14, 2009 @ 6:56 am - July 14, 2009
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000413—-000-.html
Comment by bob (aka boob) — July 14, 2009 @ 7:02 am - July 14, 2009
Why would you make that leap?
Again: They were only considering the idea… it never got to the point where they *anticipated* real *activities*. Discussing an idea, checking out its feasibility, isn’t a real activity. (Oops, except in Washington I guess, where you hail from and where talk and bloviation are widely accepted as a substitute for real life. But not in the rest of America, among the real people.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 8:00 am - July 14, 2009
P.S. The more I think about this, the more I can’t wait for them to put Cheney on trial. Assuming he defends himself as he ought to – and I am guessing he would – airing his side of the story to the American people would drive his approval ratings to 60% or higher.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 8:03 am - July 14, 2009
Notice how the Democrat media never goes into legal minutiae to explain why, for example, it’s illegal and unethical for Obama to fire an Inspector General in violation of a law he sponsored. Or, how Obama’s Attorney General bypassed procedure in order to secure a pardon for a wanted fugitive. Or, how Obama’s Justice Department dropped voter intimidation charges against the Black Panthers even though they had essentially won the case.
But when it comes to Dick Cheney not following a law according to a formulation that no one had ever contemplated until after he had left office, the media has plenty of time to explain that.
Comment by V the K — July 14, 2009 @ 8:28 am - July 14, 2009
V, if “Biden” were substituted for “Cheney”, it certainly is hard to imagine TP, bob or any of the shills caring, or having anything to say.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 14, 2009 @ 10:11 am - July 14, 2009
It says a lot that the shills are outraged by Dick Cheney planning to go after terrorists, but not by Obambi setting free a terrorist responsible for the murders of five American soldiers.
Really, whose side are these people on?
Comment by V the K — July 14, 2009 @ 10:40 am - July 14, 2009
Or, the way they were apoplectic about Bush’s $200B deficits and nonchalant about President Assman’s $1,800B deficit.
Comment by V the K — July 14, 2009 @ 10:58 am - July 14, 2009
As Andrew McCarthy points out:
“Of course the CIA has been trying to figure out how to take out top al-Qaeda leaders. One assumes — one hopes — they are also brainstorming about wiping out the Taliban, overthrowing the Iranian regime, undermining Kim Jong Il’s nuclear program, disrupting Syrian support of Hezbollah, and tackling all manner of threats to the United States. 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.”
Comment by The Livewire — July 14, 2009 @ 11:04 am - July 14, 2009
i believe this program counts as “significant anticipated intelligence activity”.
Perhaps the Obama Party and its puppets ought to read their Pravda.
The Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military and intelligence officials said.
The previously undisclosed C.I.A. list includes key Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, the officials said. The names of about two dozen terrorist leaders have recently been on the lethal-force list, officials said. “It’s the worst of the worst,” an official said.
President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency is about to stage an operation. Some officials said the terrorist list was known as the “high-value target list.”
Maybe now they’ll think twice about leaking covert information to their propaganda organs; it rather ruins their argument that they were never briefed later.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - July 14, 2009
Secrets from Congress is not against the law. Actually if you want to keep a secret you don’t tell 99% of Congress people. If you keep 4 members of Congress informed, you are within the law. It is instructive to know which members complain at any one time. It is true for example that Pelosi was informed about water boarding and now says she wasn’t informed. She was caught in a lie and now her party is trying to protect her.
Isn’t it ironic that the Democrats are again on the side of the terrorists. They have such a tin ear when it comes to defending the lowest of the low.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 14, 2009 @ 2:54 pm - July 14, 2009
Boob-
As I said, Congress approved the program Democrats are now claiming they knew nothing about! Maybe Democrats would know this if they actually read legislation before voting on it!
Democrats caught lying AGAIN and smearing the intelligence community for political gain AGAIN in an attempt to save Nancy Pelosi’s pathetic ass after she was caught lying and smearing the intelligence community for political gain.
How do you know when a liberal is lying? If they are moving their lips, typing, texting, signing, or communicating in any manner whatsoever.
Comment by American Elephant — July 14, 2009 @ 4:48 pm - July 14, 2009
#35 – “Really, whose side are these people on?”
Well, V, as I always point out, there are Americans, and then there are liberals.
(Lower-case-libtroll hissy fits in 3…2….1…)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 14, 2009 @ 6:04 pm - July 14, 2009
dick cheney hanging from the gallows? it just might happen. what a traitor.
Comment by buckeyenutlover — July 14, 2009 @ 9:37 pm - July 14, 2009
So it is the leftist position that we close Club Gitmo, send the terrorists home to bake cookies and hang VP Cheney? It’s good to know where these people stand.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 14, 2009 @ 10:11 pm - July 14, 2009
And again, bnl dons his cape and mask and becomes “non-Sequetor Boy!”
Comment by The Livewire — July 15, 2009 @ 7:12 am - July 15, 2009
You ar all a bunch of faggots and nothing you say matters.
Comment by The New Standard — August 28, 2009 @ 4:49 pm - August 28, 2009