world

Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program

54 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

Here we go! Let's hear from the Right-wingers in denial about how this is actually all Obama's fault... or Clinton's... or both.

And in case sailwind wants to bring up the footnote on what the White House is doing NOW, I'd like to point out: "That provision, however, would have no effect on programs like this one."

Anyway, just more proof that bush and cheney were scum, and associated the constitution with little more than toilet paper with which to wipe their corrupt a$$es. bush at least stated flat out it was a meaningless piece of paper... too bad he couldn't stick with the 'honesty is the best policy' thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, let's hope this blows up in the faces of the Right wingers and the few remaining bush supporters here.Said supporters will TRY and blame Clinton or even Carter I'm sure but hey,logic never was there strong suit.

Anyway, we all know bush was the worst president ever,from the get-go,and this so-called counter terrorism program PROVES it.

I'm glad the right wing media also couldn't supress this story,since President Obama favourability rating is being manipulated recently by said right wingers who are just sore about the shelacking they took last November.They think I don't notice and won't remind them of it. Fools!

Anyway,deadeye dick should be in prison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney is a good guy who did his best for the country he loves. How quickly the liberals forget 9/11 and the threat of Saddam. We have not been attacked again because of Cheney's actions. He should be thanked not condemned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The official characterized it as an embryonic intelligence gathering effort, and only sporadically active. He said it was hoped to yield intelligence that would be used to conduct a secret mission or missions in another country—that is, a covert operation. But it never matured to that point.

The government official with direct knowledge of the Panetta briefing and the former intelligence official said the CIA has numerous efforts ongoing under its existing authorities that have not yet been briefed to Congress. He said they are not yet known to be viable for intelligence gathering.

Wake me up when you really have something. I wish Congress would quit wasting millions of Taxpayer dollars on this. The money sure could be better spent then to come up with the shocking revelation that a prototype CIA intelligence gathering program didn't pan out and Congress wasn't informed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The draft-dodging coward Cheney should be thrown in jail for a few years to reflect on his actions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DickMorris at 05:51 PM JST - 12th July

Cheney is a good guy who did his best for the country he loves. How quickly the liberals forget 9/11 and the threat of Saddam. We have not been attacked again because of Cheney's actions. He should be thanked not condemned.

What "threat of Saddam"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have not been attacked again because of Cheney's actions

But you were attacked once, in part because of his inaction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Crimsonsil: don't you remember the WMDs? The link with OBL? He tried to kill daddy? Be objective please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"deadeye dick should be in prison"

No, Cheney shouldn't be in prison, and good luck making that happen.

"But you were attacked once"

And that was just months after Bill Clinton left office and before we ever dropped any bombs on Afghanistan or Iraq which "created terrorists."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"But you were attacked once" And that was just months after Bill Clinton left office

So are you going to lay blame on Poppa Bush for the 1st WTC attack which happens mere weeks into Clinton's first term? The Clinton haters don't want to do that, what do you do Sarge?

As for Cheney, there was actionable intel in August 2001 and nothing was done ("Who knew?" as Rice said). Maybe Clinton knew and let it happen so he could push through policies he knew wouldn't fly otherwise?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "And that was just months after Bill Clinton left office and before we ever dropped any bombs on Afghanistan or Iraq which "created terrorists.""

Hahaha! As predicted! sarge FINALLY admits the worst terrorist attack in US history happened on his hero's watch and it can only be followed by, 'b-b-b-but it was just after Clinton left office!'. Lest we forget such posters now declaring "It was the previous guy's fault! (when you talk about 9/11)" are also the ones who call Iraq "Obama's war", blame the economy on Obama AND Clinton (it bypassed bush), and say all of the woes built up over the last few years are Obama's fault.

One more thing, sarge: while Clinton was not the best president and some attacks happened on his watch, the biggest and worst happened on cheney and bush's, simply because they ignored the intelligence reports given passed on to them by the Clinton admin. and his people. bush and cheney were being petty and spiteful, and were caught with their pants down in a room they were told they should have their pants up, which is a metaphor for the fact that they were told airplanes were likely to be used for imminent attacks -- and they ignored it.

Get over it, sarge. cheney does indeed deserve to be in prison, preferably in Iraq, but anywhere would do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bleating conservatives want us to move on. Panetta has not even been able to brief congress on all the concealed information yet. A concealed program that so called "didn't pan out" wasn't exactly allowed to finish.

Upon learning of the program June 23 from within the CIA, Panetta terminated it and the next day called an emergency meeting with the House and Senate Intelligence committees to inform them of the program and that it was canceled.

So it didn't "pan out" because a new administration canceled it. There is absolutely no indication it would have ceased otherwise. It was still active at the end of the last administration and Cheney illegally ordered the CIA not to brief congress.

Maybe Obama said he would veto a new bill because he wanted to see how the current law would work out if it were actually obeyed. Maybe if we actually followed the law and briefed the congressional committee there won't be a need to change the law.

Cheney's defenders claim they may not have had time to brief Congress. That is a far cry from "Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress." That is illegal.

I am not surprised that the conservatives do not respect the U.S. Constitution in this instance; it is not the first time. Let them back in office before they eliminate the Neo-Cons and it certainly will not be the last.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney proved he lost his mind when he made that claim that the V.P. was not under the executive branch of government, but that it was its own separate entity.

I hope that we never see the likes of this criminally-minded scum again anywhere near a seat of responsibility and accountability in the U.S. But, ever since Nixon, the Republicans appear to have been breeding and growing these types like rats.

Maybe what Donald Segretti called what he was doing for the Republicans was more than metaphorical. (Google "Segretti" and you'll see.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DickMorris at 05:51 PM JST - 12th July Cheney is a good guy who did his best for the country he loves.

Some of the most evil people in history also did what they thought was best for the country they loved.

Poor excuse, but what can we expect from the far right wing supporters.

DickMorris at 05:51 PM JST - 12th July How quickly the liberals forget 9/11 and the threat of Saddam.

Wait, wait a minute, DickMorris are you trying to claim that Saddam was part of 9/11? If you were you better check out this video. It is your beloved Cheney talking about the facts about who attacked us;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdq7hg4dLU

BTW, you may want to go to Iraq and help hunt down those WMD's. With your help they may find something.....LOL

DickMorris at 05:51 PM JST - 12th July We have not been attacked again because of Cheney's actions. He should be thanked not condemned.

Actually our nation has this little piece of paper called, the Constitution. That little piece of papers says that the VP does not have the power that Cheney had in the Bush administration. The amount of power he wielded almost made one feel that he was running a shadow government.

I know, I know how you far right wingers hate when that piece of paper gets in the way. But I want to tell you, our nation was founded on the principles of that piece of paper. So it is unAmerican to go against the Constitution, and Cheney did just that.

Instead of being praise like you want, he should be arrested for his crimes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"cheney does indeed deserve to be in prison"

No, but he does deserve to have his name capitalized.

"it is unAmerican to go against the Constitution, and Cheney did just that"

He did not. And you can't prove he did, because he did not.

"he should be arrested for his crimes"

Fictional crimes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This entire thread is off-topic, as usual.

I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of Cheney, but it's the CIA's duty to inform Congress of these sorts of programs. The CIA doesn't get to decide by fiat what they do and don't tell Congress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "No, but he does deserve to have his name capitalized."

That he does not. What he deserves is for his name to be written on a 'worthless piece of paper' before it's pi$$ed on and flushed down the toilet. No capitals.

"He did not. And you can't prove he did, because he did not."

He did. He went against the law and told the CIA not to inform congress, which is against the law. Saying 'he did not', 'he did not', 'he did not', doesn't help, even if you stick your fingers in your ears and repeat it.

"Fictional crimes?"

Nope... very real ones, sarge. But hey, since you're one of the 'prove they don't exist' crowd (or were, when they were hunting for WMDs... back when you were 11 or 12 years old or so, according to your own admissions of how old you were in 2006), go ahead and prove that he didn't commit crimes :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Every day more and more evidence of how criminal the last president and his VP were comes to light and it's really, really sad to watch the very, very few remaining Right-wingers on here scramble to deflect blame. It is sad, and I mean that. Scrambling to defend a criminal is the lowest of the low, and the fact that history is proving that bush and cheney were criminals and people STILL defend them only shows that the desperate have some serious problems. You point out that cheney is the exact same as the criminals he purports to have fought against and they get just plain angry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge said:

He did not.

You use that argument a lot. Very persuasive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[Hahaha! As predicted! sarge FINALLY admits the worst terrorist attack in US history happened on his hero's watch and it can only be followed by, 'b-b-b-but it was just after Clinton left office!'.] -- Typical smith smoke and mirrors. Self declaring someone wrong won't make it right no matter how many paragraphs you post and people you 'declare' to be wrong. hahahaha!

I don't remember Sarge saying it didn't happen on Bush's watch just that the intel would have been gathered prior to his watch. Someone just doesn't call in an anonymous call the day before with intel. The CIA has been gathering information on everyone's watch. Legally and probably illegally. But I don't mind because they are on our side. Funny how Canadians have to give their opinions on American things that don't affect their country. Now if it were America giving it's opinion on what should be in Canada these poor little inferiority complex type Canadians would have a fit. But it is funny to watch it on JT. It provides hours of amusement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of Cheney, but it's the CIA's duty to inform Congress of these sorts of programs. The CIA doesn't get to decide by fiat what they do and don't tell Congress.

The CIA is under some pretty strict guidelines as to what they have to inform Congress about and what they do not have to. This program was never fully implemented and would fall out of the reporting criteria.

Director Panetta felt that he should inform Congress about it but he would also be well within his jurisdiction if he choose not to. This is nothing more then about getting Cheney back in the news as the Republican villain of the week in my opinion.

This administration excels at it.

Here is an excellent link to answer your question. It's from one of my favorite websites. The History Channel.

http://boards.history.com/topic/Current-Events/Duty-To-Inform/520059631

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bushlover: "I don't remember Sarge saying it didn't happen on Bush's watch..."

Sorry... I should have been clearer and just said finally sarge acknowledges it happening. Until now it's just been deflection, plain and simple.

"The CIA has been gathering information on everyone's watch. Legally and probably illegally."

Very definitely illegally, on bush and cheney's watch and according to their demands, which is what this is about. You seem unable to comment on that fact directly and follow others of your ilk in trying to water it down.

"Funny how Canadians have to give their opinions on American things that don't affect their country."

On a Japan site? How is that 'funny'? What's actually funny is to watch people with zero arguments left in their pockets pull out that "you're not an American" card on a Japan news site and claim that they therefore have no opinion of any validity on certain issues. If anything it proves just how necessary it is to have as many opinions as possible on any given subject, since the requirements of the very narrow minded are limited to those who agree with them. I always feel sorry for the majority of Americans when a very limited minority (and shrinking daily!) come on and claim that you are less entitled to an opinion on another nation because it doesn't agree with the claimants thinking. Makes your country look bad, as it does every time more proof of what your past government, of whom you swear by, comes to light. Fortunately you have a president willing to apologize for the mistakes of the past and make things right again. :)

"Now if it were America giving it's opinion on what should be in Canada these poor little inferiority complex type Canadians would have a fit."

For example? Go ahead and show me some. You'll forgive me for not holding my breath (and talk about people putting words in others' mouths!! but again, wouldn't be bushlover if the comments weren't chalk full of contradictions and hypocrisy).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The official characterized it as an embryonic intelligence gathering effort,

The other AP story on JT, Bush surveillance program was massive, report says, would appear to contradict that statement.

The report’s revelations came the same day that House Democrats said that CIA Director Leon Panetta had ordered one eight-year-old classified program shut down after learning lawmakers had never been apprised of its existence.

Eight year old embryo? Oh, Oh I know it must have meant cryogenically frozen "embryonic intelligence gathering effort."

Mr. "former intelligence official," who is willing to lie for the Republicans so they have cover, you have some 'splaining to do! It appears the conservatives won't use frozen embryos to save American lives but they sure do make good cover for the ass.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

pawatan at 09:40 PM JST - 12th July This entire thread is off-topic, as usual. I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of Cheney, but it's the CIA's duty to inform Congress of these sorts of programs. The CIA doesn't get to decide by fiat what they do and don't tell Congress.

How can discussing Cheney be off topic when the topic about;

Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program

I am a bit confused by your comment.......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[If anything it proves just how necessary it is to have as many opinions as possible on any given subject,] -- Bush bad. We get it. You are obsessed man.

[I always feel sorry for the majority of Americans when a very limited minority (and shrinking daily!) come on and claim that you are less entitled to an opinion on another nation because it doesn't agree with the claimants thinking. Makes your country look bad,] -- I feel sorry for the Canadians that are embarrassed by people like you. Opinionated self righteous indignation against most Americans and oh so willing to rub it in their faces.

[For example? Go ahead and show me some.] -- Did you miss the "if and would" part? Yes you did because you like to twist things as if they are written in Stone. It wouldn't be Smith without the blinders on when it comes to the Bush admin's indiscretions. And your alter ego, Gombei242 is also as full of contradictions and hypocrisy (aka BS) as your smith name. One only has to look at your posts to see a clear theme. You are pathetic smith with your insults on America. Canadians truly must be ashamed of you. Why aren't you commenting on your own government? Are they angels?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bushlover at 10:31 PM JST - 12th July The CIA has been gathering information on everyone's watch. Legally and probably illegally.

But in this case the Vice President of the United States ordered the CIA not to inform Congress of what it was doing. That in itself deserves to be investigated.

The CIA reports what it is doing to Congress. This time it did not because someone wanted to keep his own secrets.

The common citizen does not need to know what the CIA is doing, but Congress does. Congress holds the purse strings of our nation. If an agency asks for 10 billion dollars for project X. But then uses 5 billion of that for pet project Z then Congress must know. If the CIA is doing something it is not suppose to be doing Congress needs to know. That is called checks and balances.

But for some resason every time a far right winger comes to office they throw those checks and balances in the trash.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Cheney revelation comes as the House of Representatives is preparing to debate a bill that would require the White House to expand the number of members who are told about covert operations.

Why? The purpose of having the CIA is to conduct issues in secrecy. All a bill like that would ammount to would be fighting between politicians on who will be forced to be informed so that they may take the blame when the s hits the fan.

The White House has threatened a veto over concerns that wider congressional notifications could compromise the secrecy of the operations.

Thank you for making sense Mr. President.

This is nothing more then about getting Cheney back in the news as the Republican villain of the week in my opinion.

Quite true, and it's getting very tiresome.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bushlover: "Bush bad. We get it. You are obsessed man."

Simply commenting on the thread 'bush'lover.

"Opinionated self righteous indignation against most Americans and oh so willing to rub it in their faces."

I have nothing against Americans at all. I only have qualms with people like yourself, who then go on and attempt to undermine people's arguments based on their nationality; which in turn points out your own, and how you reflect on your country and country people.

"Did you miss the "if and would" part? Yes you did because you like to twist things as if they are written in Stone."

Not to get geological on you, but you can't twist stone, so if things like what I say are written in stone they cannot be twisted as such, can they? To be less technical, I'm not twisting anything, and your 'if' was anything but the subjunctive mode (ie. hypothetical); it was the equivalent of 'when'. If I say (and that 'if' is hypothetical, yours was not), "If I go to the convenience store, I always buy a beer for my depressed American friend" it is not hypothetical. You don't even know the difference?

"It wouldn't be Smith without the blinders on when it comes to the Bush admin's indiscretions."

So you're saying I should 'take off the blinders' when it comes to the bush admin's indiscretions? or am I putting words in your mouth again by quoting what you say? :)

"And your alter ego, Gombei242 is also as full of contradictions and hypocrisy (aka BS) as your smith name."

Haha... okay, you've gone below the 'I have no arguments left' stage. You can't even play the "but you're not American" card any more, so now you're suggesting I have alter egos? I don't, and never have, in the years I've been on this site, unlike the relatively short time you've been here. Go ahead and read Gombei's comments a little more carefully, my friend... if you can't see that s/he's simply a person coming on here and trolling, using other people's comments, then you're even less able to grasp comments on here than is clearly evident.

Regardless, I'm going back to the thread and am no longer going to entertain such stupidity. I invite you to do the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How can discussing Cheney be off topic when the topic about;

Cheney told CIA not to discuss counterterrorism program

I am a bit confused by your comment.......

Because 50% of the posters spend time slagging on each other with the same tired arguments as in every other Bush/Cheney related thread. There's very very little discussion about the counterterrorism program and lots of "Hurrr Cheney's evil!" "Hurrr no he's not!"

Hence, off topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind said:

The CIA is under some pretty strict guidelines as to what they have to inform Congress about and what they do not have to.

What are we playing word games now? Again?

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are entitled to know everything. These conservatives are either brainwashed or attempting to brainwash us. What next, he is going to try to tell us they don't have to tell "all of Congress" and that is what was meant? Congress has access to it all. They may call an agency into a private session of a committee but I have never heard such an ignorant statement about the authority of Congress that comes straight out of the U.S. Constitution. There is absolutely no agency or department that Congress is not allowed access to except the Executive Branch itself. That is still up for debate as to whether they are required to come before congress because Bush's employees refused to testify. Do not believe that "the CIA is under some pretty strict guidelines as to what they have to inform Congress about..." Just because the executive branch appoints Directors and whatever other members of staff at the CIA does not mean that the CIA is part of the executive branch anymore than the military or IRS. The executive branch of course is responsible for executing their mission and basically has full control over them but they are not part of the executive branch. They must report to Congress. One more time, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are entitled to know everything that goes on at the CIA.

sailwind said:

This program was never fully implemented and would fall out of the reporting criteria.

8 years - not fully implemented. "Your a riot Alice! A real riot!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bushlover: "you can't argue with self righteous indignation and obsession that is why I don't bother."

You've bothered plenty, and have on this comment as well. Hell, you went out of your way to go on a thread about a Japanese baseball player to carry your grudges. But hey, 'you don't care', right? :)

"Thanks for caring."

Someone has to, since you don't.

(on my invitation to discuss the thread): "No thanks. I've entertained stupidity long enough."

While I agree the actions of cheney and his demanding that the CIA not go to Congress on this issue, which is illegal, is a load of crap and unbelievable abuse of power and what not, it's still better to talk about the thread at hand than go from thread to thread simply trying to vent your frustration at what cheney and co. have done while you believed in them.

If more Republicans, like so many have done already, came forward and simply said they're disappointed in what happened and wish to change things for the better, instead of simply denying what happened and blaming it on everyone else, they could actually make their own situations better. Hell, cheney might not be the 'victim' he is if he realized he was responsible for his own actions and took account of them, and tried to make amends.

Anyway, if this continues we'll be seeing the next piece of the puzzle tomorrow. Denial is getting harder and harder for the Right-wingers.

"No thanks. I've entertained stupidity long enough"

Nice cut and paste, by the way. You could at least give me credit when you steal my comments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We all know my thoughts about dick cheney. (I will never capital the name of traitor.) But this revelation that dick cheney told the CIA..... This is no surprise. Anyone who kept up with the bush/cheney years should remember dick cheney spent a great amount of his time over at the CIA before the war started. There were stories that the agency really got tired of him over their shoulders, trying to steer the agency to reflect their opinions and statements toward going into Iraq.

I am waiting next to hear some of the truths excaping about the cheney energy meetings. They will, you know. The truths will come out and we will hear that he betrayed the American people for the pockets of energy companies and dick cheney. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The wheels of justice turn slowly but when in motion, are difficult to stop.

I believe dick cheney will spend the rest of his life trying to outrun them.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dick Cheney involved in something dickish?!

NOOOOOOO!! Say it isn't so!

This isn't really news to anyone. And no, he won't be held accountable for it, so there's no real point in yelling for his head on a pole. It'll never happen. The obnoxious SOB is too well insulated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congressional oversight was part of the original deal to create the CIA. It makes sense. It is necessary. Saying that covert operations can be undertaken with no oversight and no accountability would set a clock ticking for the end of democracy in America. That is no exaggeration. Truman and Eisenhower, early in the Cold War, were not too keen on it in the first place, accepting it as a necessary EVIL. Get it? Its mission is so antithetical to American ideals that its mission was distinctly NOT to spy on Americans. Hoover was all too willing to do that anyway.

The Bush surveillance effort should be reviewed very strictly. Already, we know that phone companies had all of their records accessed illegally, and that they are being held harmless for that. But who IS being prosecuted for that? Nobody I guess. We know that the CIA has usurped its mandate NOT to investigate US citizens by now claiming that any communication with a foreign point of telecommunication can be accessed. Meaning that an American in Tokyo calling his American grandmother in Paris can have the conversation monitored, with data collected, analyzed, and stored in any manner desired, and for any purpose. That would be the same grandmother who gets cavity searched by armed guards when she boards a plane from Newark.

If being very nit-picky about oversight is the way for Americans to claw their way back up the slippery slope Bush sent them hurtling down, then I am for it 100%. The modes of data collection were sufficient to have prevented 9/11. The management was not. What do we have now? More data collected by whatever means available, with the same old crummy management. That says to me that the new surveillance programs were probably intended for something other than national security, but I cannot be sure.

And finally, I give SmithinJapan full permission to call em as he sees em, as an honorary American. Non-Americans have been far too polite in the past in addressing such issues, then recoiling in horror as nightmare after nightmare parades from America into the headlines. If he wants to stand up and say his piece, keeping the US and Dick Cheney honest, so to speak, then let him do it. I shudder to think that if Cheney and company had had their way, only Canadians would have been able to dissent by now, anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know, this is Iran Contra and Watergate all over again. Stonewall stonewall stonewall, then set up a fall guy, then wait for people to lose interest. If it does not happen, try to move it to a political arena.

But it all comes back to Republican administrations taking liberties WAAAAY beyond what they are allowed under the Constitution, and then making everybody go through a lot of trouble pinning it down. I mean Clinton's transgression was an extramarital beej.... and it was not even in the Oval Office. Did not affect my life one bit. I am a beej and let beej kind of guy... but messing with oversight, wiretapping, break ins, arms deals, and mucking around with sacred institutions... Why is it always Republicans doing this stuff? Just because they get caught more? Don't think so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney-"So you want to join Counterterrorism Club? OK. The first rule of Counterterrorism Club is you do not talk about Counterterrorism Club. The second rule of Counterterrorism Club is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT COUNTERTERRORISM CLUB. Rule three-If someone finds bin Laden, the fight is over. (we don't want that). Rule four-Two men to obey (me and George). Five-One government branch all the time.(executive).Six-No constitution, no disclosure. Seven-The club will go on as long as its not discovered by the new CIA director. Eight-If this is your first night at Counterterrorism club, you have to eavesdrop on the conversation of an innocent American single mother."

George- Where'd you go, psycho boy? Dick- I felt like destroying something beautiful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dick Cheney should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom. Thanks to him we are alive and safe. We owe him everything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I believe dick cheney ( Dick Cheney ) will spend the rest of his life trying to outrun them ( the wheels of justice )."

I believe Dick Cheney will defeat all the frivolous charges being leveled against him by liberals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 07:25 AM JST - 13th July "I believe dick cheney ( Dick Cheney ) will spend the rest of his life trying to outrun them ( the wheels of justice )." I believe Dick Cheney will defeat all the frivolous charges being leveled against him by liberals.

But what happens when the DOJ gets involved, not saying they will but what if. Inquiring minds wants to know Sarge......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dick cheney will just shoot another lawyer.

I'm sitting patiently waiting for that special procecutor to get named. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The government official with direct knowledge of the Panetta briefing and the former intelligence official said the CIA has numerous efforts ongoing under its existing authorities that have not yet been briefed to Congress. He said they are not yet known to be viable for intelligence gathering.

The pertinent part of the article above. Yes, the CIA has lots of operations ongoing that congress hasn't been briefed on. Not because, ooh thats scary, lets keep it away from them. But rather because it hasn't developed to the point where a briefing would be necessary. Gooddonkey, if you're an American, and you really believe the intelligence oversight committees should be briefed on "EVERYTHING", then please, run for congress, and get on one of those committees. You'll find that even if you sit there 24/7 to be briefed on all the operations and programs that are in progress, or in development, that you'll never, ever catch up. So what you're saying there, is simply nonsense. Congress is briefed when the programs reach a certain point. When they are ready etc. The broader outlines that authorize these lower programs, those congress is briefed on constantly. So having one program that never even became fully active, that other CIA directors felt hadn't reached the point that congress needed to briefed on... To me, no big deal. Just the Dems attacking the CIA again, trying to cover their own butts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir said:

Gooddonkey, if you're an American, and you really believe the intelligence oversight committees should be briefed on "EVERYTHING", then please, run for congress, and get on one of those committees. You'll find that even if you sit there 24/7 to be briefed on all the operations and programs that are in progress, or in development, that you'll never, ever catch up.

I said "entitled to know everything" not "should be briefed on everything." If you knew the difference I guess you would have said so. No point in trying to make you understand.

The broader outlines that authorize these lower programs, those congress is briefed on constantly.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What does "those congress is briefed on constantly" even mean?

So what you're saying there, is simply nonsense.

Well you never even understood what I said apparently because you said I stated that Congress should be briefed on "EVERYTHING" when in fact I said they were entitled to know everything. But if you want an example of nonsense I will give you one.

Molenir said:

So having one program that never even became fully active, that other CIA directors felt hadn't reached the point that congress needed to briefed on...

It was EIGHT YEARS

The report’s revelations came the same day that House Democrats said that CIA Director Leon Panetta had ordered one eight-year-old classified program shut down after learning lawmakers had never been apprised of its existence.

Article on JT (above quote)

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/bush-program-extended-beyond-wiretapping-report-says#tool_button

Below from this article:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress about a new counterterrorism program that CIA Director Leon Panetta terminated in June

Molenir, you have one heck of a lesson to learn about facts. Also, in the future please refrain from attributing things to me, which I never said. Feel free to look up "Entitled to know everything" and "should be briefed on "EVERYTHING"."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"cheney does indeed deserve to be in prison"

Sarge - No, but he does deserve to have his name capitalized.

JoeBigs - "it is unAmerican to go against the Constitution, and Cheney did just that"

Sarge - He did not. And you can't prove he did, because he did not.

LOL! If there was ever an award on this site for Elementary School Bickering, Sarge would win it hands down.

He would so!!!!

:-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, I'm still waiting for some proof that Cheney violated any laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge said:

Heh, I'm still waiting for some proof that Cheney violated any laws.

I guess that means you approve of our continuing to investigate Cheney and his order to the CIA to break the law. I think we can do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lynch mob mentality rules the day once again here on JT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I guess that means you approve of our continuing to investigate Cheney"

Knock yourself out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was EIGHT YEARS

8 years and in that entire time, the program never became active. That should say something to you right there. 8 years, and 3 CIA directors later, and none of those previous CIA directors felt there was a need to brief congress on this program yet. They briefed them on lots of other programs, including very controversial programs but not this one. That should say something else right there. How about checking all the facts before condemning the man. Ah wait, Cheney, I forgot. He is guilty just by having the last name he does. Now that Palin is gone, you have to have someone to scare your fellow libs into line.

Lynch mob mentality rules the day once again here on JT.

If your name is Bush, Cheney, or Palin, then it always rules the day. Common sense must of course take a backseat to being a partisan hack.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir said:

and 3 CIA directors later, and none of those previous CIA directors felt there was a need to brief congress on this program yet.

You need to get your facts straight I also included the quote above where Cheney ordered the CIA not report it to Congress. So don't tell me what the "CIA directors felt there was a need" to do. Because you have no idea. It is mere conjecture on your part. But then you have always been fast and loose with the facts. I am willing to state my opinion that I am suspicious of 8 years and the program never became active. But that is just my opinion. You state unequivocally as fact "8 years, and 3 CIA directors later, and none of those previous CIA directors felt there was a need to brief congress on this program yet." But you frequently confuse fact with opinion. You try to pass things off as fact; like you could have possibly known how the CIA directors "felt." Who are you trying to kid?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

molenir

"Common sense must of course take a backseat to being a partisan hack."

Heh, oh kettle....from them man posting last week "pathetic sad sack President" or even "the Obamanation is President". LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 04:33 PM JST - 13th July Heh, I'm still waiting for some proof that Cheney violated any laws.

Please note the link and the subsection I have provided. Below you will see that it states and I quote,"(a) Reports to Congressional committees of intelligence activities and anticipated activities."

No where does it say,"Unless you are the Vice President". This document give the outline as to when where and how the CIA is to report to Congress.

If Cheney told them to withhold information then he may have broken the law.

But if there is anything that we do not know about then he is in the clear. But right now he is not looking to good. He is looking like a Nixon wantabe.

UNCLASSIFIED

NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 ACT OF JULY 26, 1947 (As Amended)

TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER III--ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Sec. 413. General Congressional oversight provisions

(a) Reports to Congressional committees of intelligence activities and anticipated activities

If you want to do the research start here,

http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

Then hit this next site,

http://jya.com/50usc413.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dick Cheney should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom. Thanks to him we are alive and safe. We owe him everything.

We do owe him a lot, like starting the war in Iraq for oil, outing a CIA agent, letting OBL attack the USA, letting OBL go free for the last 8 years, billions wasted by halliburton (cheney's old company that got no-bid contracts worth billions), for global warming getting worse, for energy prices surging via his buddies at Enron, and last for making the US a less safe country since 9-11 as all unbiased reports show. Yes, thank you dick cheney.

If bush were still pres he would get a medal of honor, just like tenet did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney was always watching the top dogs who stand on top of the echelon which is inaccessible to most of the ranks and files. . . Yep, don't let the cat out of the bag. It's a high-profile info, sush!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites