Cheney ordered concealment of counter-terrorism from Congress

[JimH52]

Personally, I don't want the Obama administration alone deciding what the CIA should be bring before Congress. It seems that many in here would have been content with Bush and Cheney directing CIA intelligence without oversight. The WH should never be the final word when the rights of US citizens is in question. There is just too much chance for abuse.

It is called a Democracy for good reason.

 

[Xenophon]

As the economy shatters it looks like the BO camp wants every distraction it can get.

As the Dance of the Desperate continues....

You have no idea how right you are, but not the way you think it is.

 

[JW Frogen]

. It seems that many in here would have been content with Bush and Cheney directing CIA intelligence without oversight. The WH should never be the final word when the rights of US citizens is in question. There is just too much chance for abuse.

It is called a Democracy for good reason.

How many US citizens were assassinated?

When the US military confronts an enemy it does not grant them US citizenship, it is usually to busy for that.

 

[concept]

This is just the tip of the iceberg IMHO. Uncle Fester and his obedientTexas friend basically turned the White House into a Kingdom. They decided what the Congress should know. They decided who and when anyone should be told. They decided who should be tortured. At least Cheney has finally shut up.

Maybe he is preparing for a remake of the Adams Family...

Remarkable! He will need little if any makeup.

Uncle Fester - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Checney was soooo secretive and you libs bleated about that for 8 years. Now he talking and you want him to shut up?


LOL!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In an effort to cover Pelosi's botoxed ass and Obama overall incompetence, the Dems now want to investigate Cheney for not briefing Congress about a plan that was never implemented; that about right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As of yet, an unproven story simply getting circulated by the state run media.

Obama's poll numbers must have dipped again.

Methinks Cheney is saying "bring it on" regarding all of this - and Pelosi is gonna get burned yet again. She grows more inept and insulated with each passing year...

Gotta get the focus off the economy for a bit.

Serious question..how come all you right whingers are worried about the economy NOW? Where have you been for the past eight years?

It was never this bad in the past 8 years!

Clue: get one today

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is just the tip of the iceberg IMHO. Uncle Fester and his obedientTexas friend basically turned the White House into a Kingdom. They decided what the Congress should know. They decided who and when anyone should be told. They decided who should be tortured. At least Cheney has finally shut up.

Maybe he is preparing for a remake of the Adams Family...

Remarkable! He will need little if any makeup.

Uncle Fester - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many Czars did the Bush Administration appoint?

How many car companies did they takeover and hand over to the unions?

How many times did they say they wanted to set executive pay at private companies?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, I know if I was going to start an assassination program to kill the world's worst terrorists the first thing I would do is tell the blabber mouth US Congress.

Do you think during WW2 Roosevelt, hero of the left, told Congress about everything?

Please do not insult both of us with the answer "yes".

So, last week Congress says they should have been fully informed, and by today it's on the front page of the WSJ.

And 'Leaky' Leahy isn't even on the committee any longer!

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is just the tip of the iceberg IMHO. Uncle Fester and his obedientTexas friend basically turned the White House into a Kingdom. They decided what the Congress should know. They decided who and when anyone should be told. They decided who should be tortured. At least Cheney has finally shut up.

Maybe he is preparing for a remake of the Adams Family...

Remarkable! He will need little if any makeup.

Uncle Fester - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When do you notice that you have been snookered again?

Just describe a couple of the Bush Administration policies that the Obama Administration hasn't continued.

Were you hinting at the use of Signing Statements when you were grousing about President Bush "turned the White House into a Kingdom"?

He states that he will not use signing statements because “I taught Constitutional Law…”
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/seAR1S1Mjkc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/seAR1S1Mjkc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]


“Don't you miss the good old days of Bush's "unitary executive" presidency? The left got its panties in a twist every time Bush signed a bill and issued a signing statement listing his objections. They tried to outdo each other in outrage when talking about "dictatorship" and the like whenever these signing statements were published.

Sometimes it was even front page news in the New York Times and Washington Post. "Balance of Power!" "Unitary executive!" "Bush is Hitler - or Worse!"
American Thinker Blog: Obama signing statement on war funding bill: Left is curiously silent

Sworn in on January 20th, he waited until March 11th to issue his first Signing Statement.
The White House - Press Office - Statement from the President on the signing of H.R. 1105

The following refers to his Signing Statement of June 27th :
“Obama included a five-paragraph signing statement with the bill, including a final paragraph that outlined his objections to at least four areas of the bill.

President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his use of signing statements, declaring he'd ignore some elements of legislation by invoking presidential prerogative.”
Obama Issues Signing Statement On War Spending BIll

[On view is] “the childlike mind of many liberals who would defend this action by saying "Bush did it too" while forgetting the years of hand wringing and outrage over the exact same practice that Obama is engaging in today.

The crickets are chirping on the left, but it hardly hides the towering hypocrisy of their position on this issue.”
American Thinker Blog: Obama signing statement on war funding bill: Left is curiously silent

 

[KMAN]

Even if this is true, can you blame him???? Afterall it's hard to forget the Dems leaking just about every military action we were taking to the NY Times...sheesh...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Any concrete proof of this or is this really just more politics to cover for that crazed dirtbag, Pelosi?

Did you bother to read the article? ... this was released TODAY.
It shows us that, among other things, Speaker Pelosi was right.

How about you read the article from a source that doesn't allow editorial policy to bleed into news articles, the WSJ, and indicating where "Speaker Pelosi was right."

"A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter."

[Shocking! Simply shocking!]

"Senior CIA leaders were briefed two or three times on the most recent iteration of the initiative, the last time in the spring of 2008. At that time, CIA brass said that the effort should be narrowed and that Congress should be briefed if the preparations reached a critical stage, a former senior intelligence official said.The former official said he had been told that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney didn't support such an operation. The effort appeared to die out after about six months, he said.

[Not informed about a an operation that never went operational? Another shock!]

"Amid the high alert following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a small CIA unit examined the potential for targeted assassinations of al Qaeda operatives, according to the three former officials."

[You mean we might kill enemies with whom we are at war? Dems are all over this!]

"House lawmakers are now making preparations for an investigation into "an important program" and why Congress wasn't told about it, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, in an interview."

[Not get this-}

" Congress has pushed for greater oversight. The Obama administration, much like its predecessor, is resisting any moves in that direction."

CIA Had Secret Al Qaeda Plan - WSJ.com

[ Another case of the Obama Administration continuing a Bush Adminsitration policy? Once again, why did we vote for this guy?]

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Gotta get the focus off the economy for a bit.

Serious question..how come all you right whingers are worried about the economy NOW? Where have you been for the past eight years?

It was never this bad in the past 8 years!

Bull. It was just this bad after 2001.

The housing bubble in the last half of Bush-II was (as we now know) not a recovery at all, but a scam to cover the ongoing economic troubles. Remember how he so loved to preach about the "culture of ownership?"

 

[JimH52]

And who just bought the WSJ...oh yeah, he also owns FOX. Hhhhmmm

 

[Meister]

Serious question..how come all you right whingers are worried about the economy NOW? Where have you been for the past eight years?

It was never this bad in the past 8 years!

Bull. It was just this bad after 2001. The housing bubble in the last half of Bush-II was (as we now know) not a recovery at all, but a scam to cover the ongoing economic troubles. Remember how he so loved to preach about the "culture of ownership?"

Possibly it was a thing called "Nine Eleven" that had something to do with that? But, having said that...it wasn't this bad after 2001, do some research on the stats.
You have to really go back to the roots of the "Housing Bubble", which started under the Carter Administration.

In 1977, the Carter Administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that required banks to offer an even disbursement of credit throughout the financial market in an attempt to curb past lending practices that targeted more desirable markets. At the time, Republican critics charged that such an act would impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on lending institutions and distort credit markets by forcing banks to offer loans to under-qualified applicants.

In 1995, the Clinton Administration pushed even harder to increase the supply of affordable housing to low-income families by offering performance-based incentives (Lowered Standards) . According to economist Stan Liebowitz, these developments led to a loosening of lending standards that required no verification of income or assets, little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments, and no down payment payments. The net effect was an inevitable collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the cost of its investors.

In April of 2001, the Bush Administration first red flagged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stating that "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

On September 10th of 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow recommended to the House Financial Services Committee that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements
In November of 2003, the Bush Administration upgraded their warning to a "systemic risk" that could very well extend beyond the confines of the housing market. In a July report, written by external investigators, it concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors. And other critics pointed out that Fannie Mae did not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

In November of 2003, Council of the Economic Advisers, Chairman Greg Mankiw, argued that "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." And in order to do such, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (Remarks of Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw Chairman Council of Economic Advisers at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Business Economists)

In February of 2005, President Bush's Budget plan emphasized the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their sub-par levels of capital. The Bush's plan called for the creation of a new, world-class regulator saying, "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore&#8230;should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.

On February 17th of 2005, Alan Greenspan, at the behest of President Bush, suggested that Congress limit the growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying, "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

On April 6th of 2005, Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate (Greenspan's Testimony).
The Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac Debacle

You might want to read the whole article, it has some good quotes from some leading democrats.....just sayin.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Serious question..how come all you right whingers are worried about the economy NOW? Where have you been for the past eight years?

It was never this bad in the past 8 years!

Bull. It was just this bad after 2001.

The housing bubble in the last half of Bush-II was (as we now know) not a recovery at all, but a scam to cover the ongoing economic troubles. Remember how he so loved to preach about the "culture of ownership?"

Yeah, I guess its fair to compare Obama economic policies with a terrorist attack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And who just bought the WSJ...oh yeah, he also owns FOX. Hhhhmmm

I notice that you were honest enough not to question my statement that the WSJ has an editorial policy that does not influence its news coverage.

This is not, of course, the same with the (liberal) NYTimes, and may account for the drop in readership of the Times, but not so with the Journal.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

It was never this bad in the past 8 years!

Bull. It was just this bad after 2001. The housing bubble in the last half of Bush-II was (as we now know) not a recovery at all, but a scam to cover the ongoing economic troubles. Remember how he so loved to preach about the "culture of ownership?"

Possibly it was a thing called "Nine Eleven" that had something to do with that? But, having said that...it wasn't this bad after 2001, do some research on the stats.

I've done plenty of research, thank you very much, and in terms of job losses, the 2001 downturn was equally bad. Want the numbers? Start another thread and I'll post them.

You have to really go back to the roots of the "Housing Bubble", which started under the Carter Administration.
...You might want to read the whole article, it has some good quotes from some leading democrats.....just sayin.....

Two things: (1) none of the above has anything to do with "subprime" lending, which was at the root of the bubble, and (2) both Democrats AND Republicans in Congress were bought off by lobbyists to create lax enough regulations to allow a subprime market. Much like what happened with the stock market in the 20s, by the way.

 

[Meister]

Bull. It was just this bad after 2001. The housing bubble in the last half of Bush-II was (as we now know) not a recovery at all, but a scam to cover the ongoing economic troubles. Remember how he so loved to preach about the "culture of ownership?"

Possibly it was a thing called "Nine Eleven" that had something to do with that? But, having said that...it wasn't this bad after 2001, do some research on the stats.

I've done plenty of research, thank you very much, and in terms of job losses, the 2001 downturn was equally bad. Want the numbers? Start another thread and I'll post them.

You have to really go back to the roots of the "Housing Bubble", which started under the Carter Administration.
...You might want to read the whole article, it has some good quotes from some leading democrats.....just sayin.....

Two things: (1) none of the above has anything to do with "subprime" lending, which was at the root of the bubble, and (2) both Democrats AND Republicans in Congress were bought off by lobbyists to create lax enough regulations to allow a subprime market. Much like what happened with the stock market in the 20s, by the way.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Aug 1981 – Dec 1982 17 -2,838,000 -3.10%
Nov 1974 – Apr 1975 6 -2,164,000 -2.75%
Jan 2008 – Jan 2009 13 -3,498,000 -2.53%
May 1960 – Feb 1961 10 -1,256,000 -2.29%
Mar 2001 – May 2002 15 -2,202,000 -1.66%
Jul 1990 – May 1991 11 -1,621,000 -1.48%
Apr 1980 – Jul 1980 4 -1,159,000 -1.27%
Historical Perspective on the Jan 2009 US Job Losses | Live Granades

Now what were you sayin?

I do agree with you on it is both parties at fault for the housing bubble. You were implying that Bush was talking about the "culture of ownership'. I am just stating he was trying to get congress on the problem of the bubble, which they did nothing. Now you mention subprime lending...you didn't mention it before so, I guess the game is changing for you.....but the lending IS directly connected to to the whole package of what went down. The only way unqualified people could get homes was through this manner. The government just turned a blind eye to it. Hey have a good day.

 

[JimH52]

And who just bought the WSJ...oh yeah, he also owns FOX. Hhhhmmm

I notice that you were honest enough not to question my statement that the WSJ has an editorial policy that does not influence its news coverage.

This is not, of course, the same with the (liberal) NYTimes, and may account for the drop in readership of the Times, but not so with the Journal.

And of course FOX news is totally unbiased also, correct? I will agree the Times is biased but I wager you won't agree that FOX is right wing.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Possibly it was a thing called "Nine Eleven" that had something to do with that? But, having said that...it wasn't this bad after 2001, do some research on the stats.

I've done plenty of research, thank you very much, and in terms of job losses, the 2001 downturn was equally bad. Want the numbers? Start another thread and I'll post them.

You have to really go back to the roots of the "Housing Bubble", which started under the Carter Administration.
...You might want to read the whole article, it has some good quotes from some leading democrats.....just sayin.....

Two things: (1) none of the above has anything to do with "subprime" lending, which was at the root of the bubble, and (2) both Democrats AND Republicans in Congress were bought off by lobbyists to create lax enough regulations to allow a subprime market. Much like what happened with the stock market in the 20s, by the way.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Aug 1981 – Dec 1982 17 -2,838,000 -3.10%
Nov 1974 – Apr 1975 6 -2,164,000 -2.75%
Jan 2008 – Jan 2009 13 -3,498,000 -2.53%
May 1960 – Feb 1961 10 -1,256,000 -2.29%
Mar 2001 – May 2002 15 -2,202,000 -1.66%
Jul 1990 – May 1991 11 -1,621,000 -1.48%
Apr 1980 – Jul 1980 4 -1,159,000 -1.27%
Historical Perspective on the Jan 2009 US Job Losses | Live Granades

Now what were you sayin?

A blogger who doesn't cite his sources and can't even spell "grenade?" I'm not the one here.

I do agree with you on it is both parties at fault for the housing bubble. You were implying that Bush was talking about the "culture of ownership'. I am just stating he was trying to get congress on the problem of the bubble, which they did nothing. Now you mention subprime lending...you didn't mention it before so, I guess the game is changing for you.....but the lending IS directly connected to to the whole package of what went down. The only way unqualified people could get homes was through this manner. The government just turned a blind eye to it. Hey have a good day.

At least we agree that Obama inherited this mess. Enjoy your day, too, huh?