Cheney ordered concealment of counter-terrorism from Congress

[Fatality]

Maybe one day Palin will show up at the beach in her bikini and say she's ready to go waterboarding.

yep, then drag harry reid down to the waters edge by the scruff of his neck, shove his face into the current and show him what happens to traitors?

She'd probably mistake a moose for Harry.

considering all the wrinkles on that old bastards head and neck i would not doubt it but hey...if she wants to shoot him or waterboard him, its her choice

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

"Wheeeee!!! I'm waterboarding!"

 

[Fatality]

"Wheeeee!!! I'm waterboarding!"

amen to that

 

[mattskramer]

Man alive are you dense! If the subject requires some "out of the box" thinking, the politically correct liberoidals will jump all over themselves to piss on whoever gives such advice. They have NO qualms about ruining reputations, lives and careers in the process. Do you REALLY need to have such things spelled out for you?

If you don't have any dirt on you, then no one can say that you are dirty. There is nothing on which to piss. Again, Cheney and his buddies were cowards.

Wrong. If you give advice that the uber-partisan liberoidals might find offensive, they are more than willing to attack and smear and attempt to ruin you. So, if you care to give unfiltered, undiluted honest advice without having to worry about the libbie brownshirt brigade's reaction, you might very well want assurance that your private advice isn't made a part of public record.

No mater how often you attempt to ignore that aspect of this question, it doesn't go away.

You and the brownshirt type liberoidals are the cowards. Vice President Cheney was a terrific Vice President and is an honorable and great man.

Imagine that you were Cheney and that I was the organization that Cheney was calling. The bottom line is that I am not a coward and I don’t lie. I made a statement. You challenged it with a question. I answered your challenge. That is somewhat of an example of what I am talking about. Anyone listening in on our conversation can’t legitimately piss on me or on what I said. (If they (or you) think that I didn’t criticize Obama enough or that my criticism was not strong enough to suit you, then that is just too bad). It is right there for the record so that they can’t very well lie about what I said or about what you said. If we had conducted this message through private messaging and some members(s) knew that we were communicating privately, then that would lead itself to all sorts of imagination. I think that we will continue to agree to disagree. Yet, I think that I proved my point and will continue to believe that transparency, particularly in government, is best for practically all issues except for those that concern national security.

 

[mattskramer]

You and the brownshirt type liberoidals are the cowards. Vice President Cheney was a terrific Vice President and is an honorable and great man.

Some liberals might be coward. I might be a liberal. I am not a coward. Cheney evidently was a coward. Otherwise, he would have let people know what was going on.

 

[mattskramer]

Where did you EVER criticize the Obamessiah, Matts? Forget a clue. Buy some honesty, kid.

I am perfectly honest. In answer to your question, here is where I criticized Obama.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1319498-post6.html

Scathing! You went ALL THE WAY to declaring that you were LEERY of his bailouts for big business. Must have been SCARY ALL the way out on that limb like that! Whew! What was it? Like a whole foot and a half off the ground?

I don’t know what you are talking about. You asked a question. I answered your question. It was not scary at all.

 

[Liability]

If you don't have any dirt on you, then no one can say that you are dirty. There is nothing on which to piss. Again, Cheney and his buddies were cowards.

Wrong. If you give advice that the uber-partisan liberoidals might find offensive, they are more than willing to attack and smear and attempt to ruin you. So, if you care to give unfiltered, undiluted honest advice without having to worry about the libbie brownshirt brigade's reaction, you might very well want assurance that your private advice isn't made a part of public record.

No mater how often you attempt to ignore that aspect of this question, it doesn't go away.

You and the brownshirt type liberoidals are the cowards. Vice President Cheney was a terrific Vice President and is an honorable and great man.

Imagine that you were Cheney and that I was the organization that Cheney was calling. The bottom line is that I am not a coward and I don’t lie. I made a statement. You challenged it with a question. I answered your challenge. That is somewhat of an example of what I am talking about. Anyone listening in on our conversation can’t legitimately piss on me or on what I said. (If they (or you) think that I didn’t criticize Obama enough or that my criticism was not strong enough to suit you, then that is just too bad). It is right there for the record so that they can’t very well lie about what I said or about what you said. If we had conducted this message through private messaging and some members(s) knew that we were communicating privately, then that would lead itself to all sorts of imagination. I think that we will continue to agree to disagree. Yet, I think that I proved my point and will continue to believe that transparency, particularly in government, is best for practically all issues except for those that concern national security.

Imagine that anything in the drivel you posted made ANY sense or responded to the actual objections which had been spelled out for your benefit.

Can't imagine that? Good. Because none of your drivel comes even remotely close to addressing the point.

Again, libbies live to "destroy" those with whom they disagree. If Vice President cheney (or ANY rational goverment official) wants to get honest, unvarnished advice and expressions of concern from other people who know in advance that the liberals who wallow in their politics of personal destruction, any such rational advisor is going to be DAMN reluctant to give it.

The ACTUAL analogy, Matts, is if you go to a doctor to get some advice on your embarrassing medical condition. The doctor tells you that in order for him to give you the best medical opinion, you will have to share lots of very personal details. But you don't want other people to learn anything about your embarrassing medical problem or about the associated details. The Doc tells you not to worry. Doctor/Patient privlege will permit you to speak in COMPLETE candor to the doctor and the doctor cannot be compelled to reveal ANY of that information to ANYBODY else. NOW you can open up and tell the doctor all about your problems. Then, maybe, with luck and divine intervention, the Doctor might be able to assist you.

It is the assurance of privacy that permits you to open up and reveal stuff that could cause you embarrassment if revealed to the wrong people.

When the Vice President or President wants objective -- maybe even difficult -- advice from advisors, the LAST thing the Vice President or President wants is to have the advisors COWED from being candid for fear of the perfectly predictable poltiics of personal destruction from the uber partisan liberoidals.

 

[Liability]

I am perfectly honest. In answer to your question, here is where I criticized Obama.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1319498-post6.html

Scathing! You went ALL THE WAY to declaring that you were LEERY of his bailouts for big business. Must have been SCARY ALL the way out on that limb like that! Whew! What was it? Like a whole foot and a half off the ground?

I don’t know what you are talking about. You asked a question. I answered your question. It was not scary at all.

Don't be so modest. You had the MASSIVE BALLS needed to make an extremely HARSH criticism of President Obama consisting of your personal POV that YOU are leery of his decision in ONE thing. Man! What NERVE you have! The capacity to be that selflessly devoted to criticism of the President! Awe inspiring!

 

[Liability]

You and the brownshirt type liberoidals are the cowards. Vice President Cheney was a terrific Vice President and is an honorable and great man.

Some liberals might be coward. I might be a liberal. I am not a coward. Cheney evidently was a coward. Otherwise, he would have let people know what was going on.

MOST liberals are cowardly. You ARE a liberal. You are a coward. Vice President Cheney clearly was not a coward. It wouldn't be "brave" to foolishly reveal such information. It would be foolish. Libs tend to be foolish. Thankfully, Vice President cheney was not a liberal.

 

[mattskramer]

The ACTUAL analogy, Matts, is if you go to a doctor to get some advice on your embarrassing medical condition. The doctor tells you that in order for him to give you the best medical opinion, you will have to share lots of very personal details. But you don't want other people to learn anything about your embarrassing medical problem or about the associated details. The Doc tells you not to worry. Doctor/Patient privlege will permit you to speak in COMPLETE candor to the doctor and the doctor cannot be compelled to reveal ANY of that information to ANYBODY else. NOW you can open up and tell the doctor all about your problems. Then, maybe, with luck and divine intervention, the Doctor might be able to assist you.

Did Cheney have an embarrassing personal medical problem and need some personal information about his personal condition from a doctor? I don’t think so. Yet, even if that were the case, Cheney need simply say that I was speaking with his doctor. It is more likely that he was calling an energy company about national energy policy that would impact America as a whole. Therefore, Americans had the right to know what was going on. When someone becomes a public servant, then I think that his employers have a right to know what he is trying to do for the people. You gave a poor comparison.

 

[mattskramer]

You and the brownshirt type liberoidals are the cowards. Vice President Cheney was a terrific Vice President and is an honorable and great man.

Some liberals might be coward. I might be a liberal. I am not a coward. Cheney evidently was a coward. Otherwise, he would have let people know what was going on.

MOST liberals are cowardly. You ARE a liberal. You are a coward. Vice President Cheney clearly was not a coward. It wouldn't be "brave" to foolishly reveal such information. It would be foolish. Libs tend to be foolish. Thankfully, Vice President cheney was not a liberal.

You gave quite a few generalizations but within those you gave a personal attack against me. Now it is my turn to challenge you. In the context of the discussion that we are having, give a clear and specific example of how I am a coward.

 

[mattskramer]

Some liberals might be coward. I might be a liberal. I am not a coward. Cheney evidently was a coward. Otherwise, he would have let people know what was going on.

MOST liberals are cowardly. You ARE a liberal. You are a coward. Vice President Cheney clearly was not a coward. It wouldn't be "brave" to foolishly reveal such information. It would be foolish. Libs tend to be foolish. Thankfully, Vice President cheney was not a liberal.

You gave quite a few generalizations but within those you gave a personal attack against me. Now it is my turn to challenge you. In the context of the discussion that we are having, give a clear and specific example of how I am a coward.

Well. I have some things to do, but I’ll check back later. Take your time. I hope that you come up with something substantial. Yet, even if you come up with some miniscule but legitimate example of my being a coward, I’ll acknowledge it and perhaps I will even work on it.

 

[Liability]

MOST liberals are cowardly. You ARE a liberal. You are a coward. Vice President Cheney clearly was not a coward. It wouldn't be "brave" to foolishly reveal such information. It would be foolish. Libs tend to be foolish. Thankfully, Vice President cheney was not a liberal.

You gave quite a few generalizations but within those you gave a personal attack against me. Now it is my turn to challenge you. In the context of the discussion that we are having, give a clear and specific example of how I am a coward.

Well. I have some things to do, but I’ll check back later. Take your time. I hope that you come up with something substantial. Yet, even if you come up with some miniscule but legitimate example of my being a coward, I’ll acknowledge it and perhaps I will even work on it.

Well, one MIGHT say that iis cowardly to pretend to respond to a post with specific information by ignoring that specific information and instead just regurgitating something you previously said (albeit unpersuasively).

One might say that if one were inclined to permit you to engage in deflection.

On the other hand, it might be better for you to address the actual point.

 

[JimH52]

This not over. But I do think that everyone, including Obama, Cheney, Bush, and the GOP wish it was. I am not sure if this particular incident has legs, but I still believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg. There will be more revelations and there will be more threats of investigations. It is only a matter of time. The resulting actions are still very much in question. I do think that most of us will wish we knew less of the truth as more facts from those eight years are revealed.

 

[Liability]

The ACTUAL analogy, Matts, is if you go to a doctor to get some advice on your embarrassing medical condition. The doctor tells you that in order for him to give you the best medical opinion, you will have to share lots of very personal details. But you don't want other people to learn anything about your embarrassing medical problem or about the associated details. The Doc tells you not to worry. Doctor/Patient privlege will permit you to speak in COMPLETE candor to the doctor and the doctor cannot be compelled to reveal ANY of that information to ANYBODY else. NOW you can open up and tell the doctor all about your problems. Then, maybe, with luck and divine intervention, the Doctor might be able to assist you.

Did Cheney have an embarrassing personal medical problem and need some personal information about his personal condition from a doctor? I don’t think so. Yet, even if that were the case, Cheney need simply say that I was speaking with his doctor. It is more likely that he was calling an energy company about national energy policy that would impact America as a whole. Therefore, Americans had the right to know what was going on. When someone becomes a public servant, then I think that his employers have a right to know what he is trying to do for the people. You gave a poor comparison.

Libbies live to pretend to be obtuse when it helps to deflect.

As you knew before you hit the submit button, the point of an analogy is not to make the claim that the same conditions apply to the actual person under discussion.

What Vice President Cheney "had" was a task to do and to do it he sought ADVICE. Like many rational people in that position, he determined that the best advice he would get would be the advice of people who were not afraid that their words would be used by partisan hacks in a show of the insidious politics of personal destruction. Accordingly, logic required that the advisors have some confidentiality.

You have permission to continue your highly transparent efforts to deflect and duck, bob and weave. We all know why you do it. Very cowardly, though. Thankfully, not even a tiny bit effective!

 

[Meister]

This not over. But I do think that everyone, including Obama, Cheney, Bush, and the GOP wish it was. I am not sure if this particular incident has legs, but I still believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg. There will be more revelations and there will be more threats of investigations. It is only a matter of time. The resulting actions are still very much in question. I do think that most of us will wish we knew less of the truth as more facts from those eight years are revealed.

The threats of investigations will continue as needed when the democrats find that they are losing support in any number of given areas. It's called deflection

 

[cbi0090]

Former vice-president Dick Cheney ordered the CIA to conceal counter-terrorism plan from Congress | World news | guardian.co.uk

The former US vice-president Dick Cheney ordered the CIA to conceal a highly secret counter-terrorist programme from Congress for eight years, possibly in breach of longstanding oversight laws.

Democratic leaders in Congress are planning hearings to establish how and why information about the programme was withheld. The details have been revealed to members of intelligence committees but not been made public.

The revelation in the US press on Sunday that Cheney played a primary role in keeping the programme secret suggests that it would have been highly contentious. Attention has focused on reports earlier this year that he oversaw an assassination programme.

Well, let's see. You have a "highly secret counter-terroist program" and you tell Congress about it? How do you do that and keep it secret? You know full well they can't keep their mouths shut, not if if provides an opportunity for one of them to get their photo in the news. I think the Democrat leaders only need to look back at themselves to figure out "why" on this one. It's sort of one of those "Duh" moments.

 

[JimH52]

Yup, Cheney usually asked the "Decider." That was good enough for him.

 

[mattskramer]

As you knew before you hit the submit button, the point of an analogy is not to make the claim that the same conditions apply to the actual person under discussion.

I know. My point was that there is a difference between getting information that only impacts yourself and getting information that would impact others. If Cheney were talking with a doctor about his condition, then decisions that he makes based on the doctor’s advice would only affect him. Yet, I hope that the doctor would be honest enough that he would not mind if Cheney chose to release his medical record and his doctor's advice to the general public.

Yet, when someone is talking with someone with whom the decisions reached based on the talk would impact others then others should have access to what was discussed. There is a difference between getting advice from your doctor about a personal problem and getting advice from a company that might impact America and its people.

What Vice President Cheney "had" was a task to do and to do it he sought ADVICE. Like many rational people in that position, he determined that the best advice he would get would be the advice of people who were not afraid that their words would be used by partisan hacks in a show of the insidious politics of personal destruction. Accordingly, logic required that the advisors have some confidentiality.

Oh well. We simply agree to disagree. I would have more faith and trust in a person or company that would not be concerned if other people knew about our conversation. I would have more trust in a company that would allow itself to be criticized for opinions that it vocalized. By the way, what is your position on Linda Tripp’s recordings of her conversations with Lewinsky?

You have permission to continue your highly transparent efforts to deflect and duck, bob and weave. We all know why you do it. Very cowardly, though. Thankfully, not even a tiny bit effective!

I do not see where I have ever deflected, ducked, bobbed, and weaved. Do you have a specific question for me? I have sufficiently replied to comments that you have posted. It is too bad if you don’t like the answers that I presented. I will summarize my answers again. In summary, I think that Cheney should have been more forthcoming with his conversations. I think that the people with whom he spoke should not be concerned with being criticized. I think that America would be better of if such discussions were made public. Now, how are such comments by me a deflection?

 

[Navy1960]

The Church Committee is the common term referring to the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in 1975. A precursor to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee investigated intelligence gathering for illegality by the CIA and FBI after certain activities had been revealed by the Watergate affair.

Early on, critics such as Bing Crosby and Paul Harvey accused the committee of treasonous activity. The 1975 assassination of Richard Welch, a CIA station chief in Greece, intensified the public backlash against its mission.[8] The Committee's work has more recently been criticized after the September 11th attacks, for leading to legislation reducing the ability of the CIA to gather human intelligence.[9][10][11][12] In response to such criticism, the chief counsel of the committee, Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr., retorted with a book co-authored by Aziz Z. Huq, denouncing the Bush administration's use of 9/11 to make "monarchist claims" that are "unprecedented on this side of the North Atlantic".[13]

In September 2006, the University of Kentucky hosted a forum called "Who's Watching the Spies? Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans," bringing together two Democratic committee members, former Vice President of the United States Walter F. Mondale and former U.S. Senator Walter "Dee" Huddleston of Kentucky, and Schwarz to discuss the committee's work, its historical impact, and how it pertains to today's society
Church Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due to President Jimmy Carter's decimation of the CIA under his administration in the years between 1977 and l981, the only dependable intelligence available to the United States was from our friends and allies throughout the world. Carter had gotten rid of the station masters who might have been responsible to gather that information.

We analysed and trusted the information we obtained from the British, the French and others to fill in the vacuum at the CIA.

Not only did George Bush believe that the information we gleaned from others was credible but so did Colin Powell, who was about the most credible person in our government at the time.

It is inconceivable that the intelligence agencies in these other countries would have purposely lied to us.

The biggest mistakes had their beginnings in the Carter administration.

Carter decimated the CIA stations | HeraldTribune.com | Sarasota Florida | Southwest Florida's Information Leader

President-elect Barack Obama has selected Leon E. Panetta, the former congressman and White House chief of staff, to take over the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization that Mr. Obama criticized during the campaign for using interrogation methods he decried as torture, Democratic officials said Monday.

Mr. Panetta has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe, but one that has been buffeted since the Sept. 11 attacks by leadership changes and morale problems.

Given his background, Mr. Panetta is a somewhat unusual choice to lead the C.I.A., an agency that has been unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders, such as Stansfield M. Turner and John M. Deutch. But his selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era.
AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE › News › PANETTA TO HEAD CIA

Former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in March, 2004:

The record shows that despite the well-documented resource reductions we took in the 1990s and the enormous competing demands for our attention, I and a series of DCIs before me saw to it that the resources committed to the counterterrorism effort were not only protected but also enhanced.

The cost of the post-Cold War “peace dividend” was that during the 1990s our intelligence community funding declined in real terms, reducing our buying power by tens of billions of dollars over the decade. We lost nearly one in four of our positions. This loss of manpower was devastating, particularly in our two most manpower intensive activities: all-source analysis and human source collection. By the mid-1990s, recruitment of new CIA analysts and case officers had come to a virtual halt. NSA was hiring no new technologists during the greatest information technology change in our lifetimes. Both Congress and the Executive Branch for most of the decade embraced the idea that we could surge our resources to deal with emerging intelligence challenges, including threats from terrorism.


So investigatiuons of the intelligence community and basically stripping our nations capabilites is nothing new. This is a tried and true democratic tactic that goes back a very long way and has always ended with tragic consequences.