Comments on: Panetta’s Bullshit Whistle Blowing and Obama’s Culpability

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:08:00 +0000

I know of what you speak and you havent seen anything yet truth be told. Mr. Panetta cant be trusted hes a snake just like the rest of them.

By: Onofre's arm

Onofre's arm — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:03:03 +0000

Howard Brodsky. This is a name that I will certainly add to my list of psychotic loons that should be avoided at ALL COSTS! Unless, of course, patient Brodsky is properly sedated and restrained.

By: Howard Brodsky

Howard Brodsky — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:29:08 +0000

Nonsense. He made a perfectly valid point: the nation experienced it’s worse episode of criminal mass murder in it’s history right under the nose of a trillion $ air defense system that had never previously failed but somehow failed repeatedly on 9/11 – one of those anomalous days in the history of the universe where even physical laws seemed to operate in reverse if you accept the official conspiracy theory – and we saw no criminal investigation, no Grand Jury, no prosecutor, no subpoenaes, no jurisprudence, just the sequestering and disappearance, including documented cases of willful destruction of evidence by our government and a lapdog press tripping over itself to print the legend fed to it by a still unaccountable WH. So he’s got a perfectly legitimate point and he’s correct: it is obvious that the story we’ve been fed is false. Talk about the “shock doctrine”, even Congress tripped over itself in it’s rush to trash the Bill of Rights.

It is a total disgrace to perpetuate the myth and blindly accept the government’s stories which have never been corroborated and when we have simply experienced mounting evidence of inveterate lying.

How about ungagging people with primary knowledge like Sibel Edmonds?

By: Rob G in Chicago

Rob G in Chicago — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:51:06 +0000

Like that accepting personal responsibility thing that Obama is trotting around the world, but refuses to implement back home. Looking forward rather than backward is a nice concept, in theory, but if you were among those who were angry and fed-up with the abuse of power and unconstitutional behavior of the Bush Administration, looking forward without assessing personal responsibility for unconstitutional or criminal behavior will only assure that such behavior will be repeated. Yes, this will be distracting, to some extent (Obama may be able to multi-task, but the Congress has shown very little capability to do so, and it may impede or slow Obama’s plan of action and itinerary, but the true facts about some of this nonsense from the previous administration must get out there, and there must be significant personal consequences for this lawlessness, or there will be no incentive to adhere to the constitution in the future. I do remember Obama’s supporters criticizing Hillary Clinton, and warning that she, like her husband, will cut a deal to just move forward, and that Bush would not be held accountable under Hillary. Obama’s campaign said that Bill Clinton had let Bush the elder off the hook for Iran/Contra, in exchange for being granted adequate breathing room to implement his pet plans and projects. Bill Clinton lived up to his end of the deal, but his detractors (including those from his own party) never really intended to let him govern. Personally, I think that Hillary understood this and would not have made the same mistake. It’s ironic that Obama is now doing and advocating exactly what he “warned” that Hillary would do.

By: Retired

Retired — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:40:29 +0000

The CIA will always, “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic…” because that is what we take a solemn oath to do. If the President, who takes the same oath, does the same, the CIA will follow him, regardless of the incredibly lousy, insulting director that he appoints over us.
If the President chooses to act outside of the Constitution, I believe that it is safe to say that all bets are off. God help the US if that ever happens.

By: Rob G in Chicago

Rob G in Chicago — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:12:56 +0000

The U.S. likely blew the whistle on a few plots to kill Hitler, and shelved a few plots of their own, because Hitler’s military incompetence and refusal to listen to his best military officers was largely responsible for the allied victory. While the allies would have likely won the war in any event, had Hitler been assassinated and replaced by a competent Commander-in-Chief, we would have had a much harder time of it.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:50:21 +0000

Is that you Rev. Wright?

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:09:29 +0000

I don’t disagree, except to say that the US is getting really good at having the “policies” come back and bite us in the
BUTTOCKS.
Stephen Coll’s book is a good read.

By: Docelder

Docelder — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:08:44 +0000

it’s possible that bin Laden and compatriots would not have been there in the first place without the Reagan Administration imploring the Saudis and other Arab governments to help out in Afghanistan

There are a lot of instances such as this in our history. But, what is the alternative? It seems to me we need to be upfront and draw our line in the sand about this point. Either we commit to do whatever it takes to do the best that we can to shape these world events… else we commit to mind our own store and instead prepare to deal with the unknown that will come from our decision. With the first option, we have some sense of self determination that we can influence what happens around us… with the second we have determination of how we will react. But, I think we need to decide this and quit beating ourselves up for it, and quit apologizing to the rest of the world for having self determinate interests to begin with. Of course we do have interests, and it is our right to have them. We just need to agree to that much, while we still are able to be self determinate as a nation. This sitting on the fence business and self deprecating behavior is killing us.

By: Commodore Sloat

Commodore Sloat — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:56:53 +0000

Yes he’s referring to the 80s but he’s wrong. The CIA had no contact with “al Qaeda,” which didn’t really exist then anyway. Stephen Coll’s book is a wonderful history of this period and it dispenses with these myths. The connection is there in that the CIA funded the Afghan mujahideen, and the “Afghan Arabs” of whom bin Laden was one, also assisted the mujahideen, but to claim the CIA trained the Arabs is incorrect — bin Laden’s Afghan Arabs were there but they were a small part of the force that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. And it’s possible that bin Laden and compatriots would not have been there in the first place without the Reagan Administration imploring the Saudis and other Arab governments to help out in Afghanistan, which they did by encouraging clerics to call it a jihad and by subsidizing the jihadists to go over there (for the Arab govts, it was win-win, they got rid of troublemakers while posturing for jihad). But to claim that the CIA “was behind the creation of al Qaeda” is horseshit.

And by the way it is “Qaeda” or “Qaida,” not “Queda.” That’s a pet peeve of mine; we’re talking about an Islamist group composed of mostly Arabs, not a Puerto Rican separatist group.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:52:16 +0000

Once upon a time the Home Team(USA)was protected from partisan politics, especially in all matters that strategically protected America and ensured her safety from our enemies. “Loose lips sink ships”.

The Obama theme song: “If all else fails, blame Bush & Cheney”

By: I'm a Linda too

I'm a Linda too — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:50:39 +0000

What this also shows is Democrats treating the voting public as ignorant, expecting to be able to claim one thing for the cameras and do something else.

This is all political, as you said, trying to cloud the issue of Nancy Pelosi lying that she didn’t know about torture.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:47:19 +0000

Huh?

By: Archimedes

Archimedes — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:15:42 +0000

Yes, unfortunately so do I. With Wesley Mouch/ Obama in the White House, methinks a liitle vacation time out at the Gulch might soon worthy of consideration.

Rand was prescient!

By: hokma

hokma — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:26:00 +0000

First understand what “war” is and then comment.

This is not a gambling bust.

And I applaud anything the CIA was doing to kill and kidnap Al Qaeda operatives.

Not telling Congress about an idea that had not yet been hatched is not required. And if it were withheld, the news over the past few days from that bottom feeder Pelosi on down is enough evidence that these kind of operations should not be shared with witless idiots in Congress who do not have the ability to know when to stifle.