Democrats Don’t Want to Kill Bin Laden?

Larry, how much blame do you ascribe to our friend Bill for letting Bin Laden go? BTW, I am a Clinton supporter but I can’t help but think of how that decision changed history. Maybe the 9/11 plan would have proceeded without him, but it couldn’t have been anything but good to have taken him out earlier.

What’s the big surprise?
Since the Vietnam war, most of the Democrats have been pro-whoever is anti-American.
Remember the nuclear freeze?
Did those Democrats (including the current President) ever once demand a Soviet equivalence?
Of course not.
I really believe that many of them think that the US deserved 9/11.
Bush’s biggest political (and strategic) mistake was going into Iraq.
That gave the Democrats their opening.
They had already proved that opposing their own country at war was acceptable.
Iraq gave them full speed ahead, but they learned from Vietnam to always “support the troops”, whatever the hell that means.
All you people who couldn’t wait for Obama.
I know, you really wanted Hillary, but you voted for the “messiah”.
Well you got him, and Pelosi and Reid and Conyers and that nutjob McDermott, ad. nauseum.

Hmmm, I’d like the answer to that too, Annie, but I am a ‘pub.

Although evidently not at No Quarter, it’s widely held in other quarters that Bin Laden has been dead for a number of years.

This whole uproar from the Dems us nothing but a way to try to save face over Pelosi’s claim that ahe was lied to by the CIA over waterboarding. We will just get to see how clueless our Dims really are.

Larry–thanks for the explanation.

Any bets that the CIA had bin Ladin in their sights and Obama pulled the plug to avoid….?

If bin Ladin was killed today, under Obama’s watch, the goals of Obama in the muslim world along with all the dictators Obama wants to cozy up to will leave him high and dry!

Speculation? Possible. Probable? Completely!

Read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and learn why!

I’m an Independent now. The New Democrats make me barf. I should have clarified that I supported Bill and Hill right up until the day she joined the present criminal element.

Mr. Johnson, after reading the Ig’s report and placing it next to your post, there no way BO was not made aware of this program. BO is a creature of political expediency. Nothing more.

Since I am not privy to the details of WHY this boiled over the way it did, I can only wonder what was “it” about this that was so “hair on fire” for that caused Panetta to act like someone else’s blowup doll?

Killing OBL? What kind of “firesale” are the Dems running in DC? Or is this just some bizarre cover story for what the IG’s report cited as The Other Programs??

The sources confirmed that then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney had urged the CIA to delay notifying Congress about the diplomatically sensitive plan — a bid for secrecy that congressional Democrats now say thwarted proper oversight.

There is your key story Larry. How much time.

It is unspoken. How much you want to bet it was only a week or month?

When there is an open question, there is an unhelpful answer.

Another key Pro-Obama journo squirm:

Neither the officials nor the CIA would elaborate on the program or explain how it differed from other, well-understood attempts to destroy al-Qaeda’s senior leadership.

The question is loaded. They did not “explain how it differed” begs the finding, it did not differ.

There are blogs pointing out that all of this was in the Wash post by end of October 2001. Dollars to doughnuts the “delay” insinuation was no more than a month.

Also, because Pelosi’s gambit is hurting, her favorites are spinning innuendo that the program complained about was something different or bigger than that which theynow must concede was known.

I’m amazed that this appears to be the “Cheney death squad” or asassination ring I’ve read about endlessly on the Far Left blogs. “This” is what they’re in a tizzy about? I’m equally amazed that this is the disclosure [presumably] which proves hands down, without a doubt that Nancy Pelosi deserves a CIA apology because she was lied to [but that was about waterboarding, as I remember].

Talk about a disconnect! And wasn’t the point to hunt down Osama and his henchmen? Wasn’t that what we were suppose to be doing before Bush made a U-turn into Iraq?

This is like living in Wonderland anymore. I’m sure the next distraction will be the cabal on C Street, loaded with deranged Bible cultists. That’s already heating up on the blogs.

It’s hard to keep up with the nonsense.

To answer your second question:

The Democrats are stupid AND they have a suicidal, masochistic streak.

But there is more.

This is nothing but a political ploy to deflect attention away from the Pelosi incident. These Dumbasscrats will do or say anything to protect one of their own. Because if the general public were to see the truth (and they will in the very near future)it will bring the Republicans back into power.

The question lurks… Will the MSM get off it’s Obama enamored ass and actually report the truth?

Not holding my breath.

And for the record, I am not a Republican or a Dumbasscrat.

ditto!

Well, Larry, now that terrorism is a “man made disaster” who knows; maybe
PBO thinks it’s FEMA’s job?

Seriously: WTF are the Dems thinking with this? It is preposterous and if the media -ie. independent journalism- existed the headlines would be
asking the same questions you!!

As I wrote yesterday: someone should ask Obama if he is now thinking in engaging Al Qaeda in diplomacy as well; you know together with the Taliban and Hezbollah; after all, as he himself said Obama a believer full of hope….

Unfortunately for Democratic witch-hunters, their pals at the national security-defying New York Times apparently blew this secret back in December 2002:

The Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military and intelligence officials said.

The previously undisclosed C.I.A. list includes key Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, the officials said. The names of about two dozen terrorist leaders have recently been on the lethal-force list, officials said. “It’s the worst of the worst,” an official said.

President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency is about to stage an operation. Some officials said the terrorist list was known as the “high-value target list.” A spokesman for the White House declined to discuss the list or issues involving the use of lethal force against terrorists. A spokesman for the C.I.A. also declined to comment on the list.

Despite the authority given to the agency, Mr. Bush has not waived the executive order banning assassinations, officials said. The presidential authority to kill terrorists defines operatives of Al Qaeda as enemy combatants and thus legitimate targets for lethal force.

Could it be that CIA Director Panetta does not have a good grip on the history of his agency’s post-9/11 efforts? Could it be that his Democratic colleagues have such a knee-jerk hostility to the CIA that they would jump on bad info to attack the CIA and Fmr. Vice-Pres. Cheney as a modified limited defense of Speaker Pelosi’s prior bogus attacks on the CIA regarding briefings on interrogation tactics? Could it be that the geniuses of the NYT forgot they already blew the program?

(Hint: Yes, Yes and Yes.)

Larry,

Not sure how you are reading in that the Democrats don’t want to get Osama Bin Laden. By cancelling an ineffecive program?

If the CIA was complict with Cheney in hiding a major program from congress than the law was broken. What is the point of having these laws?

We are seeing the US implode from ineptitude, duplicity, and deceit. Instead of working to protect our interests at home and abroad Obama and his appointees are exposing our secrets, and giving to those who would take advantage of us, information and opportunities that ‘in a time of war’ should not be made public. Instead of having any common sense, Leon Panetta appears to be nothing more than a political hack without a clue as to what Bill Donovan created, its use, or intentions. Bush and his administration funneled money down the rathole in Iraq and Afghanistan for dubious reasons, Haliburton et al being one of the usual suspects. But, Obama in his haste to ‘do something’ seems suspect — in whether he loves America, or is just in love with himself and wants the glory of waging war. The subtext of killing the head of a terrorist organization is like cutting the head off a snake. There is a distinct possibility, if the leadership, and in bin Laden’s case the money, were gone, the rest of the terrorists would be more managable. In this respect I am reminded of Orwell’s thesis in 1984 that in order to keep the machine operating, someone must be the bad guy. Kill Obama and the PR value is gone.

Off Topic, but there is no open thread.

Obama threw out the first pitch of the Baseball All Star Game tonight. What was strange was that they never showed the catcher and, therefore, how well Obama threw the ball. I could not believe it. How far will the media go to cover up for this guy?

Later on they inadvertently showed the replay via a centerfield camera and it appeared Obama bounced the ball to the catcher. It’s worth noting that everytime GWB threw a first pitch he at least reached homeplate on a fly and was usually a strike.

. . . and the only thing I would add to what Larry posted is that Democrats will deeply regret any overreach on this issue even though it is an attempt by Pelosi to deflect attention away from her accusations of the CIA.

I think you meant “kill Osama”?

1) according to sources briefed on the matter
2) The sources confirmed that then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney
3)Some officials familiar with the program said
4)as one intelligence official described it.
5) But others said the initiative never advanced
6) One official recalled that the vice president
7)said the official, who is familiar with intelligence committee briefings
8)Three former intelligence officials who were close to the program said
9)said one former counterterrorism official with detailed knowledge of the program
10)Neither the officials nor the CIA would elaborate on the program
11)But one U.S. intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity
12)The officials said the White House was not consulted before Panetta canceled the program.
13)One current intelligence official said the program was always small,
—-
Just keeping score like playing the license plate game on a long drive.
LJ, number 12 is a winner.

I was wondering about this myself. Given barkys ass kissing of the muslim world, maybe he doesn’t want to find osama, since it might disturb the muslim nations he’s been cultivating.

I saw the complete pitch. A fastball it wasn’t.

In fact it had no heat what so ever. More like a wiffle ball toss… didn’t even make to home plate.

So the director of the CIA identifying an illegal program that was not properly put before Congress means “Democrats Don’t Want to Kill Bin Laden”? You’re a pretty piss poor propagandist Larry, but the unthinking masses you’ve cobbled together on this blog obviously accept anything you say uncritically.

hunky dorym,i rather imagine that many americans have the same views.

pot, put a lid on it. the trash smells.

Graywolf wrote “…pro-whoever is anti-American.” Thanks, pal. I will use that phrase frequently. It is a perfect description.

Don`t you just love it:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 28% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8

Hero to zero in 6 months…Bwaaaaaaaaa

sure thing Pot
12)The officials said the White House was not consulted before Panetta canceled the program.

As Mr. Johnson rightly pointed out, it is BO who has the legal athority not Panetta.
Perhaps this is why BO was holed up in Moscow…

So either Panetta acted on his own in violation of an executive order or BO was content to continue the policy until the cat got out of the bag when the classified annex to the IG’s report was leaked.

Critical thinking is your strong suit eh?

It has seemed to me that this is an orchestrated effort by some Democrats to redeem Pelosi after her outburst about being lied to by the CIA.

All this hoopla about a “terminated” program which was never fully operational looks like political theatre, but I can’t really figure out the agenda.

It looked to me like the Dems involved–who wrote the letter–overplayed their hand in the beginning, and had to stress that Panetta wasn’t the bad guy because he informed Congress, which was sort of amusing to watch play out.

But, I thought from the beginning that the whole story wasn’t the “program” itself, but the fact that it took so long for PANETTA to know about it!

That’s why it all looks orchestrated to me. I just figured either Panetta’s a dope who doesn’t know what’s going on in his own organization, or he’s participating in an effort to redeem Pelosi at the expense of his own organization.

But what the hell do I know? Ha. It’s all an intrigue that invites speculation, and seeing his daughter–Liz, Jr–Cheney rush to Daddy’s defense is interesting. I imagine a day when Dick is “frog-marched” to the dock, a favorite fantasy…

The Democrats still haven’t gotten over the election of 2000. It’s still all about Bush. Two words for the moveon.org crowd – Move On.

Who cares?

The CIA is such a political punching bag. This country has such a love-hate relationship with the agency. It’s like we are freakin’ bi-polar. ” Do more. Do less. Why are we in that country? Why aren’t we in that country more? Kill the ring leaders. Don’t touch them.” That sucking sound we hear is competent, intelligent people fleeing the circus……. What will be left with?

Just amazing. These democrats are becoming every stereotyping we’ve ever heard.

Well said, Teak.

Panetta couldn’t cancel it all by himself, without consulting the President.

Ergo, if it was cancelled, one can assume the President, while ducking responsibility for that decision, was the one who authorized it.

Critical thinking isn’t so hard, as long as you’re not drinking koolaid.

Annie, Lawrence Wright’s Pulitzer-winning book, The Looming Tower, offers a detailed recounting of one time when there were reports that bin Laden would be at an event and could be killed. It turned out that the reports were sketchy and that there would be a large number of civilian casualties with no assurance bin Laden was even there. All top officials, including those at the CIA, were in agreement. The dissenter was the loqacious Michael Scheuer who, Wright’s book reveals, was suffering from mental problems at the time. Scheuer, best I know, remains the most noisy critic claiming that Clinton missed an opportunity to assassinate bin Laden but there is another side to his story that his interviewers fail to bring up, every time he’s on TV (which, with Scheuer is as often as he can). Larry has written a lot about Scheuer here — just use our search engine to find those articles.

He was wooed by the public….

It is just apparent that he never grew up playing with a baseball. He probably never held one except for practicing for this pitch. Does it matter? Only that it is America’s past time. Other than that it highlights he isn’t really like 95% of the rest of us… then o.k. it doesn’t matter.

I care! I look forward to the All-Star game, and rushed home to catch it. A brief escape into Baseball at it’s finest. Instead, the first three innings were nothing short of a saturated gush fest for Foul Ball Obama, it was sickening. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get away from his insipid yet nauseating media hogging mug. What’s next, mandatory wall screens in all of our houses with a 24/7 image of the exalted one? Big Bro Bo is watchin’ your ass!

It seems that contempt for the Constitution knows no Party boundaries. Both parties have, and will continue to ignore the boundaries set by the enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. There are disagreements here and there about which provisions to ignore or not, and what’s too far across the line– but let’s face it: the law of the land has been shredded by both Parties. We seem to have forgotten the unique role of the United States in history– of the first political system to even recognize the individual, and the only one left where there’s even a shot at restoring and defending the rights of individuals.

I think Panetta translates to “little bread”, more specifically “cup-cake”.

Larry, thanks for being honest, as you always are.
That’s the only path to the truth.

The “CIA Secret Program” issue could well turn out to be a red-herring for the Democrats. As someone currently registered as a Democrat voter, I’m disappointed that the Dems in Congress are falling for this one.

If it turns out that efforts up to now were limited to deploying teams to test basic capabilities, there wouldn’t have been much to say to congress.

Dems in Congress want to be seen as holding Cheney and others accountable for something (they can’t agree for what), and they seem to think pursuing alleged missed oversight of some “CIA Secret Program” will buy them credibility.

Meanwhile, they continue to avoid using the real evidence they already have on the bigger issues, one of which is that Bush/Cheney blatantly lied us into the Iraq war.

But Dems in Congress will never actually hold anyone for anything, because the effort will inevitably reveal their own deficits, and they know that their egalitarian achilles heel is that they are less effective at cooperative focus as a team. Hell, Dems in Congress couldn’t even so much as pick up the phone and ask the Sargaent at arms to hold Rove and Meirs in contempt for not showing up. What are the odds they would actually go after Cheney?

Ironically, this is Reagan-esque perception management gone south. What the Dems in Congress will do is shoot themselves in the foot by lunging at red-herrings.

It matters that rather than show that his pitch did not reach home plate, the media covered up for him by not showing the catcher on camera which was never done before for any past President. THAT’s the point.

paul, true the trashing of the constitution knows no party bounds. but to see the dimocrats now is beyond disgusting for me. that is because they were the party of fdr and truman. look what they have become. that is a parody of the repub party under bush. i can see very well why the dims didn’t want hillary. they want to ingratiate themselves with the “minorities” and thereby gain their votes and hopefully insure power. they told us they didn’t want the average middle class american’s vote. we heard it over and over. some refused to believe. i hope ya’ll believe now.

Assuming bin Laden and Zawahiri or not residing in friendly countries, if the CIA operation targeted suspects in friendly countries, who we need assistance from in the “war on terror”, and those suspects may have been citizens of those friendly countries, would that cause you a problem?

When you act unilaterally in someone else’s country, it is always problematic. How do you feel about foreign intelligence services mucking around in the US? How did you feel on the occasions when KGB wet affairs types tried to kill Soviet defectors in the US?
Acting unilaterally abroad and keeping it secret is a tough problem. The Israelis have failed (witness their Bayonet program) and they are pretty capable bunch, all things told.
We expect our CIA to get things done, but we also expect the blowback of the process not to negate what is achieved by the operation in the first place. That’s the real world. It ain’t as simple as an episode of “24.”

As usual Larry and NQ, in your rush to smear the Obama administration, you make comments about things you have no idea what you are talking about. Laryy you seem out of the loop.

First of all, you do not know what program the CIA hid from congress. You assume that it was a program to assassinate Al Qaeda operatives. How do you know that? From a WSJ report? Boy, we should really be trusting the WSJ related to the Bush era. The WSJ was Bush’s chief cheerleader and got it wrong on so many things. The WSJ just seems to be protecting Cheney. Where was the WSJ’s business reporting on the biggest financial collapse in U.S. history. I think the WSJ should stick to business reporting, although they do not do that very well these days, and not in pushing Murdoch’s and Cheney’s far right-wing politics.

Time magazine is reporting, citing two CIA insiders, that the program the CIA hide from congress (by law they have to tell congress what they are up to) likely had to do with spying on Americans.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/07/13/the-cia-what-was-it-up-to/#more-14537

“Speculation abounds about the nature of the secret program Dick Cheney asked the CIA to keep from the Congressional oversight committees. The most sensational reports suggest it was plan to find and kill top Al Qaeda leaders – like the covert Israeli campaign to take out the perpetrators of the Munich killings.

But two former ranking CIA officials have told TIME that there’s another equally plausible possibility: The program could have required the Agency to spy on Americans. Domestic surveillance is outside the CIA’s purview -– it’s usually the FBI’s job – and it’s easy to see why Cheney would have wanted to keep it from Congress.

Both officials say they were never told what was in the program, and that they’re only making calculated guesses. But their theory gibes with other reports, quoting ex-CIA officials, that say the program had to do with intelligence collection, not assassinations.

“People may want this to be about hit squads bumping off shady Saudis in Geneva, but that’s very unlikely,” says one official. “More likely, it was a plan to spy on some suspicious American citizens or organizations, without telling the FBI.””

And who knows what else the CIA was up to and hide from congress under Bush.

Hey, if the CIA is hiding stuff like this from congress, it is very very likely that they were not being 100% informative or were misleading in telling Nancy Pelosi about water boarding and what they were doing with interrogations, especially when there was lots of pressure from the White House to hide a lot of this not very legal stuff. I would believe Nancy Pelosi any day before the Bush CIA.

We are now likely to see an investigation into all of this and this is likely going to blow wide open. I do not think the Republican and CIA apologist like Larry are going to like what is going to be said. You may eat your words and Pelosi might actually be right.

Living in Wonderland….that about sums it up.

The rest of your post nailed it too.

Are you talking about Baseball at its finest, or are you talking about the All Star game? It has been some time since the two last coincided.

Will you never learn? Your propaganda is unwelcome (at best, tolerated) here.

Yes, please American. Protect the Speaker at all costs. Even if it’s at the expense of the country. You are frigging fools. And yes, you will eat your lame words. And much, much more.

See you in 2010 and 2012. Then you can say goodbye to the Democratic Party that once, believe it or not, was an honor to be a member of. Maybe I could scoop up my grandfather’s ghost. He could give you the “old news,” of what the Dems really meant and did and accomplished.

You apologists are absolute morons!

14) But two former ranking CIA officials have told TIME

CIA apologist like Larry ??? Hardly.

Now your a funny and really sad clown.

If only Obama could meet with bin Laden, even just for an hour. bin Laden could bring Obama back to the true faith–Islam–and then there would be no need for Al Qaeda to war on a fellow Muslim or his countrymen. And Obama could inspire bin Laden with his vision of global utopia, free food, education and health care for everyone in the world, paid for by rich American capaitalists. No one need work, it will just happen. That is the Obama message of hope. Inshallah.

Except may have to bring in Rev. Wright to get rid of those pesky Jews protecting Obama and perhaps some uncooperative white boys, as well. Hillary will have to go, of course, or at least start wearing a bhurka.

Inshallah.

Sir,

Now that you have the president you wanted, it is decidedly ungrateful of you to find fault with him for refusing to defend America. He is only behaving according to his deepest beliefs. Our president detests the Americans that he governs — those bitter-enders who cling to faith and guns, as he says — and finds them not worth defending. Like Bush and Clinton before him, he a does not care a whit about our country’s defense but only about holding on to power and accumulating more. He will add a sixth “S” to the clouds of glory that trail the blood-soaked history of the Democratic party — slavery, secession, segregation, socialism, slaughter (abortion), and now surrender.

As to Mr. Clinton’s legacy: One fifty-cent, 50-caliber round into bin Laden’s head in 1998-1999 — a very doable thing — and all those Americans dead since the attack on the COLE might still be alive. Mr. Clinton’s legacy is one of rank cowardice and, like Obama, intense hatred for non-elite America.

Respectfully,

M.F. Scheuer

This post, and its comments, sounds like something by Rush Limbaugh and his dittoheads.

wow, what an insightful and engaging comment….

A little off-topic, but not by much. Fascinating article about a new documentary about Afghanistan coming up on HBO, called “The Fixer.” The doc has won all sorts of awards, and sounds as if it will be well worth watching:

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2009/07/16/everything-that-happens-in-afghanistan-is-based-on-lies-or-illusions/

You know, I am not a Democrat, but I really have to take issue with such sweeping assertions. What is “anti-American?” Can you define it? Or do you just mean whatever the GOP says is “anti-American,” meaning whatever political agenda the GOP has in mind for you?

As far as I can tell, neither party has a right to claim that they represent what is “American.” And, both parties are responsible for policies that are “anti-American.”

Try to use your brain for THINKING once in a while, okay? That’s what it is there for, after all. And, as they say, if you don’t use it, ya lose it.

And, “Retired?” Same goes for you.

ditto here, too. To me, it’s about as transparent as it gets that this whole thing was orchestrated to redeem Pelosi. It’s appallingly obvious, isn’t it? That “letter” signed by 6 or so Democrats is exhibit A. And, unfortunately, it’s beginning to boomerang back with a vengeance. It’s making Pelosi look worse–if that’s even possible. They’re going to wish they’d just kept their mouths shut, I think, after all is said and done.

Is bin Laden alive or dead?

Who knows????

http://wavelengthclothing.blogspot.com/2008/01/

January 27, 2002 – White House Chief of Staff Andy Card tells CNN, “”I do not know for a fact that he’s alive. I happen to believe he’s probably alive… Our overall objective is to defeat terrorism, wherever it is around the world. And so, our objective is not to get Osama bin Laden.”

January 29, 2002 – President Bush delivers his first State of the Union address since 9/11. While he labels Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil”, he fails to mention Osama bin-Laden at all.

March 13, 2002 – President Bush says, “Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all… He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.”

April 4, 2002 – Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers says, “The goal has never been to get bin-Laden”

October 14, 2002 – President Bush says, “I don’t know whether bin-Laden is alive or dead”

October 16, 2002 – Middle East Newsline reports that Israeli Intelligence officials confirmed that Israel and the United States believe Osama bin-Laden was killed in mid-December 2001 during the Tora Bora bombing campaign.

Funny how people easily mix up Osama and Obama. I never would have imagined people would elect this trash just based on his name, but apparently dems like the name Osama and anything similar???

“Now that you have the president you wanted”

This I respectfully disagree with you. Larry never supported Obama. Initially his support was with Hillary Clinton and because he was so opposed to Obama he supported John McCain in the general election.

“he a does not care a whit about our country’s defense but only about holding on to power and accumulating more.”

This I do agree with you on. He is doing whatever he can to make sure Democrats win the next 6 elections and who knows what his personal ambitions are beyond a second term (although that is in serious doubt).

“He will add a sixth “S” to the clouds of glory that trail the blood-soaked history of the Democratic party — slavery, secession, segregation, socialism, slaughter (abortion), and now surrender.”

Definitely a keeper!

What Democrats behind Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder are doing is trying to criminalize everything the CIA does for their own political purposes.

This was a program “that never got much past the drawing board” and in his effort to show coorperation and transparancy Panetta went to the Hill to tell them about it. A program that never was should have ended there.

But Nancy Pelosi had to tell the world that we had a secret program to assasinate Al Qaeda operatives through the CIA and that she was going to investigate this.

Larry is right about the Democrats.

Yes, Up Obama’s Ass, you have all the answers. Let’s take your initial premise. 2 ex-CIA “insiders” (whose names shall remain anonymous to protect their bullshit from being exposed) make a calculated guess that something is so.

Both officials say they were never told what was in the program, and that they’re only making calculated guesses.

Get it? (I sincerely doubt you do) They have no idea what the program in question is. Yet you condemn Larry for not knowing what he is talking about in your first paragraph.

In the real world this is called not knowing what YOU are talking about. In other words, you are a complete fucking idiot. CFI for short. Perhaps you and the rest of the Obama worshiping loons could start your own network weekly television show. Promote it as an Unreality Show with a cast of millions. Pitch it to Fox.

Next you collaborate this unfounded speculation with an additional 2 again anonymous ex-CIA ranking officials. Interesting choice of the words rank and officials because what they state sounds like official bullshit to me.

…there’s another equally plausible possibility: The program could have required the Agency to spy on Americans.

An equally plausible explanation (which is much more likely) is that the head of the CIA is providing political cover for Speaker of the Socialists Pelowesme.

I’d tell you to get your head out of your ass but I see you have already inserted it elsewhere.

His “propaganda” shows he’s one of the few people here that actually understands the CIA and current affairs. I welcome the comments over the endless fights over which politician is the best.

Does anyone actually believe that Penetta and Obama would be outraged at a plan to kill Bin Laden? Next time the MSM force feeds you, don’t be so slackjawed.

Penetta speaks out claiming he knew nothing. This was a day before he terminated the program.

What do you wanna bet the DAY BEFORE THAT the CIA was caught committing a crime that we’d all be disgusted by.

a very doable thing ???

M.F. Scheuer,
As you have said you were ” in charge of the Bin Laden group” in the CIA, if it was so doable, why did you not get it done?

Certainly the EO granted you that ability.
Oh I get it. 1998-99… You were not part of the OBL group and bear no responsibility for your failure to find and kill OBL?

Respectfully, what is to be your legacy? YOU failed to get OBL as well.

So I have to ask, when Bin Laden was escaping on the back of a donkey in the hills of Tora Bora, why didn’t Dubya drop a daisy cutter on his head?

Obama condemns the Jakarta bombings. I suppose he knows he is well respected with Al Quaida so that his condemnation has meaning to them. Maybe the bombers have a connection on a personal basis. And then his motto of making friends with his enemies over-arches. Obama seeks friendship with the terrorist as to increase his sphere of influence. I suppose he is seeking their vote.

Here’s a little telling statement from Obama in yesterday’s NAACP speech:

He listed groups among whom “the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.”

No, I’m pretty sure it was when they flew some airplanes bringing down the Twin Towers and killing 5000 people. Or strapping bombs to themselves and killing innocent people, or their governments stoning and killing people for infidelity, being gay, or just disobeying their husbands.

What an asshat. Kneeling down and praying is the least of my worries about fanatical Muslims. But then again, the Sunday after 9/11 Obama was snickering at Trinity watching his beloved spirtiual father saying “America’s chickens….are coming home….to roost!”

Before she was assassinated, on video tape, Benazir Bhutto said Bin Laden was dead and had been for years. He was killed by the same man who kidnapped and beheaded Daniel Pearl. Many intelligence offices (French, Israeli) have said he was dead, also. It makes perfect sense to me.

And it makes sense why we need him as a boogieman to keep the illusion of terror alive. Terror=
fear=policy to ramp up military intervention.

So it goes…

Larry is usually right about every thing.being ex CIA.he knows.

Palosi right.well it would be the first time.

I’m sorry, but I do not believe Cheney’s plan was only to go after bin Laden. We already had programs in place to do that. I believe Cheney’s program was to go into foreign countries and assasinate anyone we felt mgiht be a threat. Probably as defined by Cheney. I do not trust Cheney, I never believe he does anything for the reason he states. He is a liar. We’ve been shown too many times what an evil bastard he is. As it was put better by Anonymous Liberal:

Some have expressed skepticism about this explanation, suggesting that it doesn’t add up, that targeted assassinations aren’t all that different–at least from a legal/political perspective–from the drone attacks that we’ve been carrying out since the Clinton administration. David Kurtz at TPM writes:

So regardless of how you might feel about targeted assassinations, it’s not at all clear why this particular program would be so radioactive — compared to what the U.S. was, and still is, doing more or less openly — that (1) Cheney would demand the CIA not brief Congress about it for eight years; (2) Panetta would cancel it immediately upon learning of it; and (3) Democrats would howl quite so loudly when finally informed….If the New York Times is correct, this program was intended to take out people all over the world, presumably including places like Hamburg, Paris, and Jakarta. There’s quite a big difference, both legally and diplomatically, between sending a missile into a training camp in Afghanistan and sending an assassination team into an apartment complex in Hamburg. Imagine how we would react if we learned that secret German military teams were assassinating people within the United States. Everyone would pretty much flip the hell out. Well, Europeans would have the exact same reaction. That is no doubt why Cheney was so secretive. Even he had sense enough to understand what a colossal diplomatic clusterf*ck would result from disclosure of such a program (though apparently not enough sense to conclude that the program was an incredibly bad idea).

Oh American!

Just how many gallons of OZero’s kool-aide do you have to drink to be so delusional?

Your ending is ridiculous:

You may eat your words and Pelosi might actually be right.

Pelosi reached the apex of both her competence and integrity when she was folding napkins and writing placecards for the CA DNC luncheons. She has been a snake and lying sack of crap from the time she hit congress.

Thank you Mr. Retired.

Wouldn’t be great if, for just a week, all of you former CIA guys could be on the MSM “news” and knock those propagandists back to wherever they came from. If it became a permanent feature, I might even be willing to pay for cable again.

wow, you are a total loon

Pelosi has said nothing about any assissination program. She has nothing to do with this.

This program was first reported by that great Democratic party bastion the WSJ, the cheif apologist for Cheney.