COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

Democrats suggest CIA concealment broke law

57 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

57 Comments
Login to comment

“This continued attack on the CIA and our intelligence gathering organizations is undermining the morale and capacity of those organizations to gather intelligence,” said Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.

And these types of comments provide political cover whenever the gov't wants to step over the line. If moral is so important, then perhaps the politicians should not act as if they are above the law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"embarking on a criminal investigation would provide a recruiting tool to terrorists"

That's the Democrats for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[McCain] suggested that embarking on a criminal investigation would provide a recruiting tool to terrorists.

That's a criminal-abetting, loser Republican for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sen John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said he agreed with Feinstein that the CIA should keep Congress informed. But Cornyn said the new assertion “looks to me suspiciously like an attempt to provide political cover” to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats. Pelosi has accused the CIA of lying to her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding, or simulated drowning.

I buy that. Both parties have their ways with dealing with mistakes, Republicans attempt to justify their actions while democrates tend to feign ignorance (quite well in Pelosi's case).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The assertion that Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the concealment

And this is news?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“This continued attack on the CIA and our intelligence gathering organizations is undermining the morale and capacity of those organizations to gather intelligence,”

If thosed in charge didn't try to have their investigators do stuff that wasn't legal, then we wouldn't be having investigations. That doesn't take much to figure out. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "That's the Democrats for you."

Actually, sarge, it's not surprising to see you're still falling for the lies of cheney and bush well after they helped sink your party. In either case, as a point of order cheney and bush successfully recruited more terrorists in the history of the modern world.

Here we see again the new lows they sunk to even in spying on and stealing the liberties of their own people, and still you have people like sarge willing to give up anything for... and get this... 'freedom'. A paradox to give up freedom for your freedom, I know, but telling that to Right-wing fanatics is like talking to a child with his/her fingers in his/her ears. Sadly, if bush/cheney had their way even those childish little freedoms would be gone, too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In either case, as a point of order cheney and bush successfully recruited more terrorists in the history of the modern world." Do you think it was on purpose? Or was it a blunder?

I didn't know the CIA had to work in the open.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

was it not the republicans who outed a covert CIA spy a few years ago? Yes it was bush and cheney who did that to get back at the husband of the CIA wife. Amazing story, check it out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

was it not the republicans who outed a covert CIA spy a few years ago? Yes it was bush and cheney who did that to get back at the husband of the CIA wife. Amazing story, check it out.

Yes, the same woman who's cover was so secret, and secure, that she and her husband could both be found in the phone book. And who openly bragged to friends at parties that she worked for the CIA. Yeah, she was definitely outted by them, certainly not by a Journalist who looked her up in the phonebook realized she wasn't a covert agent, and cited her. No, definitely Bush and Cheney. /sarcasm

Seriously, think about these idiotic allegations before you make them. Please!

Regarding this article. There wasn't anything illegal done. And not briefing the congress while questionable, doesn't always take place when things are in the planning stages as this was. Nothing ever went operational and so while they perhaps ought to have been briefed, it was discretionary. The law leaves no question of that. So this whole thing, as the congressman himself pointed out, smacks of trying to provide cover for the liars on the hill. You know, the people you're so proud to support. The ones who claimed they would bring a new openness to the capital and clean up the corruption. Nancy Pelosi who baldly and unashamedly lied about the CIA, and then was caught in her lie. The whole thing makes me laugh.

In either case, as a point of order cheney and bush successfully recruited more terrorists in the history of the modern world.

Seriously, this old line? Don't you ever get tired of spouting this nonsense? If we do nothing, they attack us. If we fight back, we supposedly create new recruits for everyone we kill. Seriously, give it a rest. Its disingenuous at best.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like a bunch of loose canon democrats gunning for questionable republicans to make themselves look better for the next election. This tactic will undoubtedly backlash, and I would not want to be in Obama's shoes with these kinds of people around making trouble.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clearly Dick Cheney needs to come clean on this whole issue (if that is humanly possible considering that he cannot be trusted to lie straight in bed). Perhaps it is time that the American people take up the offer of a true American patriot, somebody who did his time in the rice paddies of SE Asia while the Dickster was getting deferments.

Jessie Ventura has offered to water-board the Dickster in the public interest. Let's not leave this up to the politicians, it will take months and months to get a result. It will also waste taxpayer's money. On the other hand, when Ventura was interviewed on the subject of Cheney, he reckoned he could get a result in 30 minutes. So what about it? For just the cost of a couple of gallons of water, some rope, gauze, and a wooden plank, the US people have a chance to hear the truth. What's that? Confessions using torture are wrong? Not in Cheney's book.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“We were kept in the dark. That’s something that should never, ever happen again,” said Feinstein.

I've seen your policies, ma'am, and it's clear that you live in the dark.

Speaking of being kept in the dark, is this the same program that was never enacted, or is that a different program that's been in the news? I haven't had much time to follow events lately.

Oh, and has anyone asked Sandy Berger for his opinion? Perhaps the congressional Democrats can send him on a document search.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timorborder: Your post offends moral, decent patriots. Cheney waterboarded? You gotta be kidding right? The guy saved millions of American and allied lives by helping making policies to defeat the evil doers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like a bunch of loose canon republicans went to Washington and tried to do just any damn thing they wanted to, legal or not.

This tactic will undoubtedly backlash and these republicans will lose power and someday this crap will catch up with them. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney waterboarded? You gotta be kidding right? The guy saved millions of American and allied lives by helping making policies to defeat the evil doers.

hahahahahaha, some people really believe this? hahaha it's almost sweet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir' Inconsistencies:

If we do nothing, they attack us. If we fight back, we supposedly create new recruits for everyone we kill.

We liberals say you created new recruits in Iraq; there was no "they" attacking us in Iraq. Until you came along there was no Al Quada in Iraq.

And who openly bragged to friends at parties that she worked for the CIA.

Reference Please; or you could just claim you were at these parties I'm sure everyone would believe you. It has just about as much credibility as the rest of your statements.

"And not briefing the congress while questionable, doesn't always take place when things are in the planning stages as this was. Nothing ever went operational..."

"Regarding the 8-year-old counterterrorism program, the Bush administration’s failure to notify Congress" 8 years! Quit saying "when things are in the planning stages as this was" It was in place 8 years. The article is clear about that above.

Nothing ever went operational and so while they perhaps ought to have been briefed, it was discretionary.

It is not discretionary. Please provide references. "Nothing ever went operational" - Please provide references. Here I will help with the oversight question by providing you with information directly from the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/wagenen.html

Molenir said:

Nancy Pelosi who baldly and unashamedly lied about the CIA, and then was caught in her lie.

She probably did lie.

WhiteHawk said:

Oh, and has anyone asked Sandy Berger for his opinion?

Sandy Berger stole files and tried to cover up that fact.

So Molenir and WhiteHawk don't care if politicians break the law? They don't care if Pelosi lied? Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the concealment; He directly ordered the CIA to violate existing requirements. So I ask WhiteHawk and Molenir an unspecific question first. Do they want to investigate and prosecute politicians who are violating the public trust? I will answer the question for myself. Yes, regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican.

It would appear that WhiteHawk and Molenir have already answered the question. They want Berger and Pelosi to be prosecuted but the want Cheney to remain above the law. So my next question is - Do you want Berger, Pelosi and Cheney to be above the law or do you want all of them to be subject to prosecution? Can't have it both ways gentlemen?

HOLD CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE!

Molenir said, "There wasn't anything illegal done." Let's just look into things a bit further and see what comes to light; shall we? It is not Molenir's job to determine what is illegal or not; that would be the U.S. Department of Justice' job. Something stinks. We need to dig it up and find out - What's Up!

Democrats are not alone. The law is clear and a Republican Senator agreed with Feinstein.

Regarding the 8-year-old counterterrorism program, the Bush administration’s failure to notify Congress “is a big problem, because the law is very clear,” said Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein

/

Sen John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said he agreed with Feinstein that the CIA should keep Congress informed

He also criticized Pelosi. I don't have a problem with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry, just a question that wasn't answered above. But is the CIA suppose to tell the entire government of what they are doing? I thought only a few are kept in a small circle of in-the-know. If that is the case, what did Cheney do that was wrong, precisely? Sorry, I didn't study political science and I can't see what the problem is exactly.

if congress should be kept informed, what is to stop them from shouting it out if they disagree, which is something most politicians do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"embarking on a criminal investigation would provide a recruiting tool to terrorists"

Tese are the very same fella's that went out and made a country-wide terrorist recruitment prgram in Iraq, with reated terrorist recruitment affiliate outlets throughout the globe?

That statement is nearly as retarded as when mccain's runing mate Palin shrieked about Obama's "ties to terrorists".

Though whilst many of us would like to see dick in the dock, I think the best we can hope for is to see the Angler hounded over his dubious role as VP.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"( These ) are the very same fella's ( fellas ) that went out and made a country-wide terrorist recruitment program in Iraq, with reated ( related ) terrorist recruitment affiliate outlets throughout the globe"

They did not. They led the defeat of countless terrorist attacks, most notably in the country which allegedly created all these terrorists.

"many of us would like to see dick ( Dick Cheney ) in the dock"

How does it feel to want to see something that will never happen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"They did not. They led the defeat of countless terrorist attacks, most notably in the country which allegedly created all these terrorists."

Yes sarge, the invasion of Iraq never happened, global terror attacks since the so-called war on terror are not on the up and President McCain is doing a fine job.

"How does it feel to want to see something that will never happen?"

Seeing the Angler persecuted for the rest of his evil life by the media will be enough for me, young man, but the spring of hope is eternal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: Here we see again the new lows they sunk to even in spying on and stealing the liberties of their own people

Hmmm....should I make my own "innocent until proven guilty" post? Or should I just cut and paste one of the dozens and dozens you've written in any thread dealing with suspected terrorists.

Do as I say, not as I do....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

man, you guys always come down on me as naive now when I ask a question for you so to speak experts, you all become silent!

What law has been broken?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "Hmmm....should I make my own "innocent until proven guilty" post?"

Please! You argued too terribly long ago that Iraq had WMDs. Where are they? Hell, all sorts of people even supported invading the country based on those reasons, without any proof whatsoever.

Sorry, just needed to prove the hypocrisy.

In this case, the evidence is quite clearly all there, in what was pretty clearly against the law (not informing the CIA). You guys can change the wording all you like, it doesn't change the facts. But hey, if you're willing to let cheney/bush go on trial for it to determine their innocence/guilt, I'm all for it. Nah... my guess is you'll join the choir of people saying 'HE'S INNOCENT AND THERE SHOULD BE NO TRIAL (and no more 'persecution' by the media of poor cheney)'. If you agree there should be a trial, then my apologies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Income redistribution, government control of private industry and now kangaroo courts. Change only card carrying members of the communist party could love.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey Madverts, could you tell us what laws Cheney has broken, and would you please stop calling me "young man" when you clearly have no idea how old I am? Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts - you and the liberals can knock yourselves out investigating Cheney - you won't find that he broke any laws. At least not any dumb laws, like ones that would impede our ability to stop terrorists who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great post Sarge. Democrats are untruthfull, FACT, nuff said!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "And, heck, you and the liberals can knock yourselves out investigating Cheney - you won't find that he broke any laws. At least not any dumb laws, like ones that would impede our ability to stop terrorists who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse."

Oh, boy... you've walked into this one.

"...dumb laws, like ones that impede our ability...", like the constitution? You truly are a fan of your former president -- he said something along the same lines... it getting in the way and all.

So now it's up to sarge to say which laws are great and which are 'dumb'? Fortunately, that's rhetorical and the answer is 'no'. Even more fortunately is that everyone in the US (and many outside), except clearly sarge, cheney, and maybe about a dozen others, realizes that too, and hence cheney and bush are in serious trouble here in terms of their lies being exposed.

"And, heck, you and the liberals can knock yourselves out investigating Cheney"

Awww... thanks for the permission, sarge. Of course, given that that's what people are talking about doing and all you guys can do is come on here and try to perpetuate the lies and avoid the rules in the constitution when it doesn't suit you (and is 'dumb'), I doubt you're going to let people simply 'knock themselves out'. Two minutes from now you'll be back to your incredibly solid, "He's not" defense. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey Sarge,

nice WMD in Iraq defense of Cheney. Of course he broke laws, like outing a CIA agent for one. The better question to ask is which laws were not broken by Darth Vader and his band of criminals.

The whole bush administration is like one huge festering wound on the American constitution and the American way. It needs to be lanced, cleaned and healed. Jail time for the republicans would be in order.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurcronioum: Cheney has not been convicted of any crimes. His hands are clean. A good guy, no laws broken and he won't step inside a court.

Please do not slur a man of honor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have to wonder if the Dems are trying to protect Pelosi or actually discover the truth. Like it or not there are people on both sides of the aisle who knew, or should have known, what was going on. And should have been responsible enough to stop it. Torture is onerous enough that if Pelosi wasn't asking questions after reports in the press she is as guilty of acquescience as Cheney is of action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney has broken any number of laws. For starters, there is the issue of him (and his lackeys) outing a service CIA officer. Moreover, despite being the former Vice President, he probably ain't that popular down in Langley. I would assume that the spooks have a very low opinion of chicken hawks, just like the military in general.

However, Sarge does have a point. Because the whole system supports a policy of granting immunity to Presidents and Vice Presidents as they leave office, there is not much that can be done about the Dickster and his skulduggery. This is probably what upsets all these CIA officers who are under the hammer at the current time. Cheney already has his stay-out-of-jail card courtesy of President Obama. SO F you Langley. At the same time, however, just for fun I would like to see Dr. Stranglove (remember him at Obama's Inauguration) get handed over to somebody like Jesse Ventura for some hands on experience of "enhanced interrogation" techniques. Nothing radical, just a couple of gallons of water between friends. Then again, in addition to being gutless, Cheney's ticker could probably not take it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge said:

...you won't find that he broke any laws. At least not any dumb laws..

Now sarge is offering us qualified answers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: "Now sarge is offering us qualified answers."

Well, his former president did the same when he called the constitution a useless piece of paper, this is just hero worship.

He can't face up to the fact that his former president and VP are criminals, his VP nominee from the last election is a laughing stock world-wide and quit in her first term, he can no longer bring up family values as an argument with a straight face (Ensign and co.), and pretty much any other news selection that has proven that it's a bad time to be a Republican (let alone one of probably a dozen die-hard bush/cheney fans that haven't rightfully stopped denying reality yet), so we should cut the young man a bit of slack.

His "He's not/She's not" arguments won't win teen choice award, but hey...

cheney and co? I agree they won't be charged, but only because they are protected, not because they are innocent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please do not slur a man of honor.

dickmorris, comedy genius

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DenDon: Hey buddy, it's time for your moral compass to move to the right and see the light. Cheney is a genius and served his country sleflessly always.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey:

Sandy Berger stole files and tried to cover up that fact.

Thank you for that.

So Molenir and WhiteHawk don't care if politicians break the law?

Of course I do, regardless of party affiliation.

So I ask WhiteHawk and Molenir an unspecific question first. Do they want to investigate and prosecute politicians who are violating the public trust? I will answer the question for myself. Yes, regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican.

It would appear that WhiteHawk and Molenir have already answered the question. They want Berger and Pelosi to be prosecuted but the want Cheney to remain above the law.

No, I just want the investigation to precede any prosecution. That's why I haven't offered an opinion yet, I'm waiting for the investigation to be concluded first, or at the very least to see some more substantive evidence.

When it comes to Pelosi, the House Democrats have already made it clear they will block any investigation into her. And didn't she promise a more tranparent congress? That was obviously a lie, full stop. So by pattern of behvior, I don't expect her to be honest when it's time to incriminate herself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney is a genius and served his country sleflessly always.

I would say Cheney served Halliburton selfishly. But timor, the hunting "accident" wasn't attempted murder; it was gross stupidity. Which sums up the Bush administration nicely. Or was that too smart by half?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dick M.,

tell that to Scooter Libby who took a bullet for Cheney on the lying charges. All of that crew committed treason and should be doing jail time as Scooter was about to do until Bush the criminal commuted the sentence. Facts, deal with them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The common problem with so called political elites-- such as Palin, Cheney, Bush, etc.-- is that they make so many lies that they cannot even realize that they are actually lying to the public. They can call the conduct of torture legal, and justify any abusive use of authoritative power as constitutional, simply because that's what the administration says.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Generally, you actually need to do something to break a law. The "sins of omission" rule is fairly weak.

=This is more of a sweet secrets, I'm not gonna tell you (3rd grade) rule break.

-still haven't figured out where all that bail-out money went? -Maybe that falls under a "don't ask, don't tell" federal policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are people of both sides of politics in the US who I admire for their willingness to strap in on. John McCain comes to mind, as does GW's dad. However, it is all to cutesy to run and hide when your own chance to serve is at hand, only to wrap yourself in the flag at a later date.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Cheney bush team might well be a couple law breaking rats & maybe the invasion of Iraq was a pure money making scheme, but at least half of what they were about was trying to stop any more buildings in the US getting demolished by crazed muslims. Yeah, so they went a little over the top, well do you expect, they’re Americans & Americans are always over the top about everything. No, I don’t know much about it, but then there isn’t anything except US news to comment on so I thought I’d jump in with an opinion. Like for example you lot may be voters but what do you really know about what is going on behind closed doors in the US, most of you don’t even live in the country, fine Americans you are. You are all experts but have no idea what information Langley might have that you cannot even begin to guess at. So Cheney might have broken the law, so what? If it rid the world of a few extra muslim crazies that can’t be bad. Fine so a few innocents might have got squashed in the rush, that’s live, there’s always a price & it is better that a few of their innocents got hurt rather than a lot of yours. Cheney is a bit like the bad guy in the Batman films, everybody hates him but get things done, even if you don’t agree with those things. Only given that there is no Batman to deal with the bad guy he is going to get away with whatever he has done. So live with it, for Cheney it is all over, he isn’t coming back so he doesn’t need to make any effort to keep anybody happy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: Hell, all sorts of people even supported invading the country based on those reasons, without any proof whatsoever.

The burden of proof was on Saddam to verify that he had destroyed stockpiles of WMDs that he had in the past. That's something you have never and will never understand no matter how many times you've been told.

smithinjapan: If you agree there should be a trial, then my apologies.

You think there should be a trial? That's news to me. Your words before say he's already guilty. I was just wondering why you don't offer the same courtesy of "innocent until proven guilty" to Cheney that you do to terrorists. And that question still stands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "The burden of proof was on Saddam to verify that he had destroyed stockpiles of WMDs that he had in the past. That's something you have never and will never understand no matter how many times you've been told."

He allowed UN inspectors in to see, who practically begged bush and co. to give them a little more time as there was nothing to indicate weapons and wanted to make 100% sure. bush and co would not listen. Saddam even offered the US to come and see, they would not listen. When you have nothing to prove, the onus of proof goes to the accuser, my friend, BOTTOM LINE. It doesn't matter that you probably STILL think there are WMDs there, the US went in based on the lie that Iraq was capable of setting up WMDs that could hit the continental US. Should Saddam also have proved that he did not have links to AQ? The US' #2 reason for invading? Pfff!

"You think there should be a trial? That's news to me. Your words before say he's already guilty. I was just wondering why you don't offer the same courtesy of "innocent until proven guilty" to Cheney that you do to terrorists. And that question still stands."

Absolutely, and I still say that the 'terrorists' (ie. those that have had no proof that they are terrorists put against them) in the secret prisons, or even just the big prisons, be given fair trials. If you don't agree, and think that the Patriot Act etc. is justification for taking 'suspected' (again, with zero proof) terrorists to prison and keeping them locked up there, why does cheney deserve any better treatment? Yes, I think he should be given a trial, the question is do you (since most of you don't even think it should come to that, but we should just assume he's innocent despite all the evidence he lied to Congress)? THAT question still stands.

Come on, dude... you're accusing me of having double standards here? Look in the mirror, then look at the article again (and the article on a similar note from the day before, and today's article).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, been busy most of the day and simply haven't had time to check in to respond to the various posts on this.

GoodDonkey - So Molenir and WhiteHawk don't care if politicians break the law? They don't care if Pelosi lied? Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the concealment; He directly ordered the CIA to violate existing requirements. So I ask WhiteHawk and Molenir an unspecific question first. Do they want to investigate and prosecute politicians who are violating the public trust?

I do care if politicians break the law. I care very much. I note however that in general, it seems to mostly be Dems who are doing the lawbreaking. Not always the case of course. Cheney however despite everything Dems could do, and apparently still are trying to do, simply didn't break the law. Not over the Valerie Plame situation which was investigated to death, and returned without a single conviction. Nor in this highly publicized, very dubious witch hunt. I do need to qualify my statement here though. I don't believe politicians should be prosecuted for "violating the public trust". Only when they break the law. The people will decide at the ballot box whether the politicians they elected have violated the public trust. The FBI and the Justice department must hold the pols of both parties accountable if they take a step beyond that, and actually break the law. So for example, Nancy Pelosi pretty clearly violated the public trust in outright lying about her being briefed by the CIA. However she didn't do anything illegal there. And so I think it should be up to the members of her district, and the ethics committee to determine her punishment if any.

"Regarding the 8-year-old counterterrorism program, the Bush administration’s failure to notify Congress" 8 years! Quit saying "when things are in the planning stages as this was" It was in place 8 years. The article is clear about that above.

The article itself clearly states that the program never went active. Not when it was first conceived, or anytime during the 8 years that followed. That makes it pretty clear. How many other programs do you think the CIA has that they haven't briefed congress on yet? I don't know either, but I would be willing to bet its a pretty significant number.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The CIA must provide congressional overseers any materials they request. They have too much influence and capabilites not to be overseen. This was made very clear when they were created. Whatever the congressional oversight panel chooses to do is not my concern, frankly, but the CHECK has to take place before any BALANCING can be done, get it? If the CHECK does not occur, then this republican democracy does not even have a chance.

For Cheney or anybody in a position to do hiring and firing at the CIA to tell CIA people to do otherwise is criminal. It is a breach of the public trust.

This is not a minor point. This is not an accounting error. It is a(n) usurpation of checks and balances, and that should never happen. It is not what the founding fathers would have wanted. It is bad enough that wars do not get declared anymore, if you want to make the CIA opaque, then you are letting a small group of unaccountable people invent truth. Wrong. No. It has to be stopped. It has to be punished.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Klein2, great post. Unfortunately there are those here that care less that the article is about the CIA. For them it will always be about CYA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: When you have nothing to prove, the onus of proof goes to the accuser, my friend, BOTTOM LINE.

Iraq had WMDs and facilities/equipment to produce them after the first Gulf War. He was required to verify the destruction of said materials. The burden of proof was on him, and he did everything is his power to make the world believe he still had WMDs and the ability to produce them because he was worried about Iran.

I'm going to keep hammering that point into your head until it finally reaches a point where it actually transfers into your memory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said:

The burden of proof was on him, and he did everything is his power to make the world believe he still had WMDs and the ability to produce them because he was worried about Iran.

That is a really bad idea when it comes to justifying war against another nation. Most Americans have now decided that if America goes to war, the burden of proof is on America. And rightfully so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Saddam opened up the country to george bush's CIA/FBI and 1000s of military inspectors who went over the country with a fine tooth comb and They found nothing.

OOPS, yep they found some kind of nuclear centrifudge that had been buried for 12 years in a front yard. Degraded sarin gas in a isolated bunker. A mini-nuclear warhead that the Pentagon admitted that the Al-Quaeda didn't even know what they had.

We inspected every bunker, storehouse and bunker. We used list of places provided the CIA, FBI and exiled Iraqis.

After all this, george bush said we're attacking anyway.

Nothing would have satisfied bush. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Correction. bunker, storehouse and bunker.

bunker, storehouse and palace. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: That is a really bad idea when it comes to justifying war against another nation.

It's also a bad idea for a leader who has used WMDs in the past to go out of his way to make the world think he still has WMDs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib:

It's also a bad idea for a leader who has used WMDs in the past to go out of his way to make the world think he still has WMDs.

Yes you have repeated this position a few times now on this thread. Somehow you are able to match my saying justifying war with misinformation is a bad idea with something trivial in comparison with war as being a bad idea. Typical SuperLib defending a position into the ground when the ramifications of war do not compare with deception of WMD's. Typical SuperLib caught up in the minutia. Clueless towards why the media has been stressing a major breach in the possibility of a sworn duty to uphold the constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I supported removing Saddam for crimes against humanity, and I think the world should have acted as one. I really didn't care what Bush or anyone else said.

And I'll "debate the minutia" with someone who makes a blatantly false claim when the mood strikes me. My comments weren't directed at you, they were directed at another poster talking about the burden of proof. Get over it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said:

I supported removing Saddam for crimes against humanity, and I think the world should have acted as one. I really didn't care what Bush or anyone else said.

Oh that clears things up. I did not know you supported the war in Iraq. It clears a lot of things up.

You will debate "when the mood strikes me" but others should "get over it." How very revealing.

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