Daily Gut: Secret Plans to Kill Bad People
by Greg GutfeldSo according to the Wall Street Journal, the CIA had been kicking around a secret plan designed to off al-Qaeda chieftains – something the Democrats say they were never told about.
The actual program was dropped early on – either because it was a dumb idea, or it didn’t work, or maybe something better came along. What bugs me is that the plan was probably canceled because it actually could work – but having to disclose the plan would have endangered those asked to carry it out.
I mean, if your job is to sneak around the globe killing really bad people, then it should be kept secret – which is something frowned upon by people who don’t understand that beating evil means eradicating it. We call them asshats. You see them now, trying to score political points out of something that didn’t even happen (although, I wish it did).
Which brings me to a handy quiz you can take while you’re on a bus, a train, or perhaps even a plane!
Of the two statements below, check off the one you most agree with:
-The thought of the CIA contemplating a secret plan to kill terrorists behind 9/11 strikes you as wrong – so wrong in fact that those involved in it should be investigated for war crimes.
-The thought of the CIA contemplating a secret plan to kill terrorists behind 9/11 strikes you as something the CIA is paid to do, and if they don’t do it, they should probably be fired or at least relegated to running the sexual harassment seminar in human resources.
If you agreed with the first statement, then get off that bus, train or plane. You don’t deserve to be there. After all, the very actions that you want to see prosecuted are the actions guaranteeing your safety on those modes of transportation.
You should travel by foot. And, if you’re in my neighborhood, be careful where you step. I have an active bladder.
Tonight we’ve got the great Jim Nortion, the delightful Mike Baker, the adorable Barrett Swatek. And highlights of the Red Eye softball game against a team full of strippers.(i chipped my tooth).
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
193 Comments
Right on!
They could ride a unicorn.
It's so painfully obvious, I always wonder what happened to make these people see things so bass ackwards. When Dr. Savage wrote the book "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" I thought he was being a little harsh. I guess he was spot on.
So this is the "scandal" our cheerleader media was promoting all weekend? That's it? I mean, I know Barry's slipping in the approval ratings, but this is just going to remind the American people of how much better the previous administration handled the bad guys of the world.
Thanks for placing that image in my mind.
I will smile for the rest of the day.
The libs think it'll raise his poll numbers because they're convinced that everyone — or at least everyone who matters — thinks like they do.
"The Superior man thinks of evil that will come and guards against it" -The Book of Changes
The more thst I read about this, the more I wonder what the Liberals are thinking.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12473638191362766...
Per the article, "The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it."
So if it had not got to the operational stage, what was there to tell Congress? Hey guys, we are thinkg about killing Al Queda. Well, let me think, We we attacked by Al Queda. We went to Afganistan and Iraq and killed Al Queda. So, what more was there to tell? Did they want a list of names of the targets?
Again per the article, "The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn't so much a program as "many ideas suggested over the course of years." It hadn't come close to fruition, he added."
you can not tell me that, if given the chance, every libby alive wouldn't break the neck and tear out the heart of someone who killed one of their precious loved ones. hell, they want to beat the snot out of conservatives as it is and we are only throwing around our words. albeit, powerful truthful words. those are the worst to a lib.
So here's a quiz:
Should members of the government be allowed to do whatever they want, including murdering people they suspect of terrorism, even when US law specifically forbids such action?
If you do believe they should be allowed to do this, should they also be allowed to withhold all knowledge of their actions from the congress, when such withholding is specifically forbidden by the law?
If you do believe they should be able to keep their actions secret from congress, do you believe that there are people in the government who should be exempt from all laws as long as they claim they're working for national security?
If you do believe in all of the above, as the poster and all the commenters seem to, do you believe this should be true when the government is not of your party, or only when Republicans hold power? If it's the former, then is there any reason why Barack Obama should not be allowed to have anyone he wants assassinated as long he can call them terrorists? And if it's the latter, how do you propose to rewrite the Constitution to accept your reasoning?
And, "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."
What is the game here?
So, if we tactically bomb an Al Qaeda training center and kill a leader in the process, it's a good thing. Pretty much everyone (even libs) will agree with this, assuming there is 0 collateral damage and no innocent civilians get injured. Well, how about, to eradicate any possibility of collateral damage, instead of a tactical bomb, we use a "tactical bullet"? People called "snipers" can shoot these bullets, and they will only hit the Al Qaeda leaders. This should be an even better idea, right?
Apparently not. I guess it's ok to drop a bomb on an Al Qaeda leader, but actually utilizing our special forces and black ops people to tactically eliminate the leaders of terrorist organizations is unacceptable.
Killing them off covertly costs a WHOLE lot less both in $$ and soldiers' lives!! Go for it!!
The News: OMG guys, Cheney had a secret plan! OMGOMG let's all freak out but NOT actually tell people what the plan was that they're supposed to freak out about. But trust us, it's TOTALLY freak worthy!
They're trying to gin up anything that will take the scrutiny off how badly the Dems are failing with the economy.
The plan never went anywhere beyond talking about it. There was nothing to tell Congress.
Asshat.
what this is all about is denying the Bush Administration a victory…
Considering that Iraq is 93.7% of the way to victory- a little untidiness in Mosul- and Al Qaeda is on the run worldwide, and the Hatred for All Things Bush is now in the liberal DNA- then go after the way the war was prosecuted. That way the Current Occupant can claim whatever 'victory' there is while convincing the world that Bush/Cheney were war criminals of the highest order.
Despite the fact that what they did worked. Alternate universe enough for you?
WR1, i have no problem letting the CIA do what they get paid to do, kill terrorists.
Peace man.
Sure, the CIA could have told Democrats about their secret program. Or they could've cut out the middle man and just told Al-Qaeda about it. In fact, maybe we should just run all our anti-terrorist programs by Osama Bin Laden first. Since his speeches often seem to spew Democrat talking points, I bet he's on their mailing list. Surely he could relay any important information back to Nancy Pelosi. And she'd trust him more than she'd trust the CIA, anyway.
Yep. Plus they're trying to defuse the Pelosi v. CIA spat. This probably won't be the last "secret program" they will uncover.
I don't get it either. Its like look you were really upset about 9-11. Wouldn't it be better just to eliminate the people behind it? The problem is this: Eric Holder was a member of the law firm handling some of the GITMO detainee cases and now we have this garbage going on?
Are you crazy?!! You can't tell people what the secret plan was because they never put in place, and if you disclose this non-existent plan, then the terrorists might learn about something we didn't do.
Great Gut, Gregg. (and see a doctor about that bladder. Or…do what i do, just go ahead and catheterize yourself. It's not that comfortable, but it really frees up your time!)
The wimps and parasites will never get it. They will continue to 'feed the crocodile in hopes of being eaten last' (Churchill) and I will continue to laugh at them. Only problem is…they're in power. They went from being clowns to being…dangerous clowns. And now we watch as their Circus of Horrors unfold.
how absolutely true.
I think Obama needs to release pictures of what Cheney didn't do.
"Bad Guys want to kill us"… not a secret.
"We want to kill the Bad Guys who want to kill us"… secret?
If this is the "super scandal" that the Dems in congress are trying to scream and holler about… There could be so many late night skits about this one it's just shameful…
A secret plan to kill al Qaeda terrorists was canceled, or halted, or ended, or whatever. The biggest travesty is not that there was a secret plan, but that it was ended!
Get rid of them before they kill more of us!
According to The Speaker of the HOUSE…. the CIA lies about everything and to everyone!!!! that is all!
The law you are talking about is about assassinating Heads of State, and not the head of some terroist group. Your statements are just plan un-supported. Saying something just doesn't make it so, please inform yourself better. It was not an active plan.
OK – beyond pinky's correction about the beliefs of all here and this particular "plan"…
If you wanted to figure out how to get rid of the "bad guys" (not just anyone, anywhere), and do it within the bounds placed by civilized nations, how do you figure out if it is feasible or not? IMHO, you talk about it, try to flesh it out, toss ideas around, maybe a dry run or two. And if it seems to work within those parameters, you then try and figure out how to keep Congress from sabotaging it. If it doesn't, you trash the idea and move on – without having to go tell everyone that you had an idea the other day… Right??
So, what does your Quiz have to do with the conversation at hand?
I wouldn't put anything past them. Remember these are essentially the same people who turned Vietnam from a net gain into a loss.
Wait a minute Gary, where did you get your hands on a copy of the EU's foreign policy?
Oh wait, that's publicly available in the US now, by Congressional House Publishing.
The CIA don't have (have never had, in fact) sufficient money to do half of the things they've been accused of doing.
And now the Democrats, instead of complaining about something the CIA did, want to build a conspiracy around something the CIA almost did.
What is Bambi's military doing in Afghanistan? Uh – killing terrorists.
This is what pisses me off about people like you – what you do not understand: every employee of the CIA is vetted, investigated and polygraphed. Frequently throughout their career. NO ONE in Congress is EVER subjected to that kind of scrutiny. Neither are of their staffers. It is one giant building full of potential security breaches. It is not in a CIA officer's interest to lie to Congress – it is absolutely in a Congresspersons interest to lie. Nancy Pelosi started this issue in a blatant political move to garner favor with her constituents and is willing to throw an agency with 20,000 employees under the bus for her own gain. Not to mention they are the only people with the skills to protect us. Bambi's smiles and lies ('we are one the largest muslim nations') are not enough. But, by all means, let's focus on what may or may not have happened 8 years ago. I guess Eric Holder has nothing better to do.
you bet…
we didn't lose one battle, millions died after we left at the hands of Communists and the Domino Theory was right- it stopped there-
But because it was, nominally, in our own security interests it can never be a noble victory…
Awwwwwooooo… The Asshats want to have Asshat-to-Asshat conferences to decide if they could prosecute other asshats for doing nothing and just having 'bad' intentions towards foreign asshats who hate our asshats. Now I get it. But don't dare tell that to the head asshat in congress or the chief asshat in charge.
Pelosi, is in the bed with them…. she forwards them all of the talking points tha the DEMS are using!!!!
I can't wait to see the media spin (against Republicans) when terrorists detonate a nuke in mid-town Manhattan within the next three to five years – all thanks to Obama and the Democrats.
Democrats are scum, the media is scum, and the very survival of this country is at stake!
My take is Pelosi is smarting so badly for being ridiculed, she had people working overtime to come up with something . . . anything that she could say "see they lied to me." I think in her mind "not telling Pelosi" is akin to capital murder.
He has a point there. Sure, we all want the CIA to defend us against America's enemies – but who defines "enemies"? If we permit Bush and Cheney's CIA to kill members of Al-Qaeda, what's to stop Obama's CIA from killing pro-life Christians? Remember, to liberals Carrie Prejean is more of a danger to this country than Osama Bin Laden.
That's why it's necessary to let Congress in on these things. Or better yet, we could just cut out the middle man and require the CIA to post all their secret plans in the New York Times.
Good post Greg. and legally correct as well. Way too many of the Dems are off on this trip that disagreement with them is a crime; the giveaway to this deranged hatred of us is that they religiously state "constitution" instead of US Code. Only if you stipulate to their reading of generality is their hatred validated; if you insist on admissable evidence under the specific Code section/precedent, even they realize their hatred is their only motivation. This hatred is dangerously irrational, and you are serving all by dinging the haters.
Also, note the hate of Cheney; actually, he was VP acting on POTUS authority and he had no powers not given him by POTUS. The attack on Cheney is irrationally ignorant without the hatred motivation. The lefties need some of your tough love ridicule, or anger management counselling with some really heavy duty medication.
Didn't Obama claim that he would chase Osama Bin Laden into whatever cave he was in, either in Afghanistan or Pakistan and "take him out"? Isn't that essentially what this program aimed to do? So is this another broken promise by Obama? And if yes, how is a broken promise by Obama, former President Bush's fault? In fact, it would appear, in hindsight, that Bush's failure to get this program off the ground was something that Obama campaigned against. Obama the candidate seemed to believe that Bush didn't try hard enough to kill Al Quida leaders (specifically Bin Laden).
And to reinforce the point others have made, why does congress need to be informed about a program that was NOT implemented. I find this whole thing silly, and I am disappointed in the WSJ for writing about it.
The need for secrecy is you don't tell your targets HOW you're going to kill them, otherwise they'll avoid it.
Are you serious? Obama, isn't even calling them terrorists anymore, plus the plan was to close GITMO and to basically pull out of a hotbed in Iraq… I gather the Messiah wants socialism and to apologize for any transgression that the United States has made over the past couple of hundred years….. the new war on terrorism is having Janet Napolitano going after republican's and calling them extremists… please, the Bush administration kept us safe after 9/11 and yes he made mistakes and now the MESSIAH…. and the powers that be in congress are putting us in a BAD position in my opinion…. please in the 2010 elections allow the republicans win power and unseat these socialist radicals!!!!
Great aim on that shot! Cheers!
Right. It's only respectable when we're helping out in the Third World, not when we're slaughtering terrorists or — God forbid — Communists trying to bring down a friendly government.
wr1—You're a parasite. You expect to be protected and then turn around and criticize the very people that are saving your sorry ass.
Right. It's only respectable when we're helping out in the Third World, not when we're slaughtering terrorists or — God forbid — Communists trying to bring down a friendly government. We're not allowed to do anything that makes America look good… since that would give the lie to all the things they've been saying about the corruption and dishonesty and mercenary nature of America.
Brings to mind this parody entitled "Obama Announces Recommendations of '9/10 Commission' to Restore Pre-9/11 Mentality": http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-announc...
If ANY of these asshats spend more of my tax money on their asshat prosecutions, I will blow an O ring in my asshat!
If there's another terrorist attack on Americans, Democrats will launch an investigation into why the CIA didn't implement this plan, and demand that Bush/Cheney be held accountable for not doing everything they could to stop the hit. Heck, they're still blaming Bush for 9/11 because he didn't declare a national emergency and shut down all the airports for 9 months when that genius Richard Clarke told Condi Rice that Osama Bin Laden hated America.
The poll numbers reflect the great awakening…..
these ridiculous claims will only help add velocity to the process in motion.
I for one appreciate that their are brave men and women out there serving this country, and doing dangerous work around the globe. It is so unfortunate that we put these brave ones in compromising positions when we give the appearance that their organization (CIA) isn't credible.
How many lives is Nancy Pelosi willing to put at risk, how many life saving negotiations/actions are being scuttled by her need to discredit the CIA and create a scapegoat to save her neck?
Just horrible…. and we will never know how many covert operatives she has put at risk….
'
Or he needs to release the pictures of what Cheney wanted to do to Pelosi!!!
Well, once again, we find ourselves trying to educate the short bus riders. What is it that this precocious little basement dweller doesn't understand? OK. I'll put it in caps and repeat this as the others have. I'll add the perios to emphasize each word. Now, follow along:
IT….. WAS….. A…… PLAN…… THAT…… WAS….. NEVER…… IMPLEMENTED.
K?
Mom's got dinner ready, hurry upstairs……..
Heaven Forbid the government protect the people
/
Simple: are they American citizens? End of inquiry. The Constitution affords no protection whatsoever to foreigners overseas, and the CIA may not operate domestically.
I should also note that even the prohibition against assassinating foreign heads of state is merely an executive order, not a law.
instead of just saying i lol'd…i actually did! but then again, anything remotely juvenile about teh butts makes me laugh…o ring indeed. LOL
I like that! And no photoshop either. . . I want the real Nancy Pelosi in these photos.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
– George Orwell
really? So you are saying that if this programme was not kept secret from congress… then the program would have been thwarted because our dufusy congress would post something on the internet a la: "Operation Get 'Em: Missle strike on Bin Laden at Camp So and So at cordinates 123 by 456 at 0500 on 20 July 2005"!?
REALLY?! Look, I may be a layman when it comes to covert ops, but really? I mean, isn't there some distinction between operational confidentiality and programme awareness?
Why does that sound like that freaking "Minority Report" movie? "Thought crimes?" Have we really, really come to something like that in this country? Jiminy H. Cricket! This is a stupid slam to allow Pelosi cover for coming out and lying about the CIA. It sounds like Pannetta is being made the fall guy on this. Does it mean if the Am. people decide not to go along with their plan than old Leon gets thrown to the wolves? Heh. Now that would be schaudenfraude.
NO PSHOP?? ahhh darn!!!! I would pay good money for any of those pics!!!
Don't forget that the Obamagorists believe that the worst terrorists are those who are anthropomorphic global-warming deniers. They're aiming at you who own SUVs, so I hope you all ordered the bulletproof glass option. Liberals are non-violent. They hire violent people to do their dirty work, then pretend to be shocked–shocked. It's not nice to get blood on that extended pinky finger.
Okay, so let me get this straight. This so-called secret plan was dreamed up to kill Al Qeada members. Exactly when did that become a bad thing?
BZZZZRRRTTT! I'm sorry, you phrased the question wrong, Mike O. Liberals don't "think!"
Tchristemac: Trust me. As a longtime resident of Pelosi's home district, I can say that you should thank God for Photoshop.
It was an unofficial bad thing September 12, 2001. It became official January 20, 2009.
OK, I will believe you… that women is a scary sight one way or the other I guess!!!
isn't that what "conspiracy to commit a crime" is?
In short: uh, no.
okay, I misread your post there. if that's really all this is… that the program hadn't gotten far enough along in significance to brief congress on, and this is why (reasonably) congress wasn't briefed… then what's the big deal?
if that's all this is then… "no bid deal".
You misunderstood him. When he said he was going to "take Osama out", he meant for dinner and a movie.
It's a big deal for 2reasons:
1. The economy's swirling even deeper in the bowl, and we need something to distract the proles.
2. Everything Cheney does is automatically Evil and Wrong and Bad (© 2001, DNC).
It's a big deal for 2 reasons:
1. The economy's swirling even deeper in the bowl, and we need something to distract the proles.
2. Everything Cheney does is automatically Evil and Wrong and Bad (© 2001, DNC).
For THE record-it was "asshat tenured professors" at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill who kicked off the first criticism of considering a military response w/in a week of the attack.
[...] that those who will not risk cannot win.” – John Paul Jones Click Here for More Broken News Greg Gutfield’s terrorism rationality quiz. Hillary keeps talking trash about the messiah. Will you still need me, when I’m 64? Rattner [...]
The day America and everything it stands for died
RIP America
/trumpets playing taps
Exactly!
They don't have movers there ?
/
Considering they are related thats about right
Osama and Obama are cousins twice removed
I think I heard Obama was going to name Osama the next CAIR Czar
/
Everyone clear now? Uh, no.
And last week the plan didn't exist at all. Just like when the Bush administration announced it had only waterboarded three victims, and all you guys spread that like it was gospel — even though it was a blatant and obvious lie. Let's wait for the next shoe to drop before we decide there was nothing to tell congress, shall we?
Of course you have no idea what I "expect." And I certainly didn't want to be "protected" by having our military invade a country that was not an imminent threat, I didn't want to be "protected" by having our nation engage in torture. I'm not so scared of the world that my need for "protection" is so great I'm willing to destroy every principle this country was founded on. Can you say the same?
And you know this beyond a certainty because the same people who told you there was no plan last week told you this week it was never implemented.
And who defines "terrorists"? An unaccountable bureaucrat? Or do you simply not care as long as it's brown people being killed?
Yes, because we all know that the founding principle of this country is sending out spies to commit murders without any accountability.
and if you disagree you are worse than Stalin
Or the likes of you
Pannetta is not being thrown under the bus.Pelosi wanted something badly to hang on Cheney that the press could spin to make it look like she was correct all along. The irony is, Cheney didn't want congress briefed because he was worried about leaks. Two and a half weeks after this was first brought to Congress, VOILA, it's been leaked to the press. Now liberals in Congress certainly will try and grab power from executive branch even from one of their own, but Panetta is not the one being played here.
No, it's rolling over and playing dead, apparently. That or just the dying.
Is that you Cindy Shehan ?
What was I thinking!
Mea Culpa
You are making an assumption that Congress was not aware.
We know that the Honorable Ms. Pelosi lied on this issue once alredy.
ThinkRight: They have ways of noting when conservatives try to get out of town, and they catch us and send us to re-education camps. So I'm sticking around as the spy inside. Besides, I first moved here in 1964, and I'm not letting these totalitarians drive me out.
So to summarize:
Bush = Liar
Terrorists = victims.
CIA = Murderers
And top think we called you libs "unpatriotic"!
Wait, neither the CIA nor the NYT told congress about this? Now THAT's newsworthy! That's where the story is, not the fact that the CIA considered something but didn't pursue it, and oh yeah, didn't tell congress about what they considered. Congress isn't the CIA's mother, the CIA is a big boy that has to be able to think for itself. It's not an arm of the congress that does it's bidding. Surely they have to work within the rules but surely they also get to make the rules at times, otherwise they'd just be taking orders from whatever government body had work for them. That's not how it works.
The fact that the NYT didn't get a hold of this and publicize it though…. that's what I don't believe. They must really be hurting in this new media age and terrible economy because they seemed to have lost their main focus here.
The tone deafness( is that a word?) on the left is seriously mind boggling.
Wow.
Well, keep on talking, Obama team. You're doing a fine job shooting yourselves in the foot
They'll make a big stink about what an evil monster Cheney is for plotting behind Congress' back to protect American lives. Then Cheney will vocally defend himself and the headlines will read "Cheney goes on the attack!" with photos of him sneering menacingly. He'll demand evidence be released to the public that will justify the program, perhaps incriminate a Democrat or two, and suddenly the scandal will go away. The American Public will remember only that Cheney did something heinous, but they'll forget the details.
Sadly you are as naive as you are misguided. We are no longer allowed to speak of principles this country was founded on. Faith, self-determination, honor, truth…should I go on?
Well then you and any other liberal who feels their lives were unfairly saved should surrender yourselves to Al Qaeda immediately. It'll show the rest of us that you're sincere about not wanting to be "protected". Plus, it'll make amends to Al Qaeda for getting a few of their guys wet just to save American lives – lives which leave huge carbon footprints and melt the ice caps with their mere existence.
You call us "chickenhawks" for not going off to fight in a war we support. So then maybe you should surrender a war that you think we shouldn't be fighting.
Send me a postcard from Afghanistan, eh?
When, and not if, we get hit again with another 9-11 type of attack, these same asshats will be yelling bloody murder about the failure of those who should have protected us from an attack. They want it both ways and what is more the asshats seem to get it more often than not. It did not take long after the 9-11 attacks for the asshats to revert back to their old ways.
Of COURSE you can't go after bad guys via the CIA! You know why?
Investigate the libs and the dem. party. The stuff they do is worthy of some proactive act, right? Why would libs sanction going after mass murderers and terrorists when the true enemies to this country are people who are say… Joe the Plumber?
Legally, to be guilty of conspiracy one has to commit an "act in furtherance of" the object of the conspiracy. In other words, you actually have to do something. (But it's a fuzzy line, because planning, say, a bank job is considered an "act.")
"And now the Democrats, instead of complaining about something the CIA did, want to build a conspiracy around something the CIA almost did."
That little trick worked enough for the dem's to nail Scooter Libby. Why not dance it around the floor again?
Hey Gary, hope your well,
I think this is less about Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney, and more about covering Pelosi's rear in her fight with the CIA.
I could be wrong, but really, what are the odds?
Would I lie to you?
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com
Whether tone-deaf, childish, foolish, uninformed, or simply dishonest, is anyone's guess. That such idiocy is mind boggling to a thinking human being goes without saying.
Generally speaking, we do not make crimes out of thoughts. For instance, motive is not an element of crime, rather something cops and lawyers use to explain the situation to themselves and others. Conspiracy requires overt acts.
When it comes to intent, however, one's "state of mind" determines what crime is charged. Though this could be construed as policing thought, at least there still needs be an overt act.
Let's face it, people. This is all ass cover for Nancy Pelosi's incoherent waterboarding press conference. The more the Cia looks corrupt and decadent, the better Nancy Pelosi looks by comparison. And it will take a hell of lot more corruption and decadence on the CIA's part for THAT to happen!
Isn't that the job of the CIA… or I'm I missing something. Remember the TV show: "Mission: Impossible." The Obama
administration is made up have sixties thinking radicals that want to bring our country to a halt, thus becoming a socialized population relying on food, medicine, etc from government workers. From the President down, they are all affirmative action employees.
What happened to the best and brightest?
Bruce
What was the secret? We wanted to kill Al Qaeda?
What gave this away?
The wanted poster that stated that Bin Laden dead or alive? The 20 million reward for the leadership dead or alive. Or maybe one of the State of the Union addresses that Bush said he was out to get Al Qaeda.
If Congress did not think they were not briefed enough on this then maybe they should start listening. If they did not understand that we would use some sort of "Delta Force" unit then maybe they should check out a book in the library.
Maybe the Obama admin is just upset that the New York Times was not able to leak this first. If this is not the goal of the Obama administration killing Al Qaeda, then maybe we should leave Afghanistan instead of an escalation of our forces.
Ok, fair is fair. I'm not such a baby and irresponsible person that I need my government to step in and control many of my day to day decisions like how much energy I will use and what sort of health care I will or will not receive.
I'm sure that you're plenty OK with the government taking care of those things though.
However, when I read my fouding documents, only one of those two things: national defense and social welfare, is a mandated responsibility of the Federal Government. And social welfare isn't it.
Didn't our idiot VP Biden reveal the secret of his "secure undisclosed location?" Wasn't it a Congressman who leaked to the media that the CIA and/or NSA was listening in on Bin Laden's phone calls. Don't tell Congress a damn thing. Let the CIA do their job and screw the politicians.
Didn't our idiot VP Biden reveal the secret of his "secure undisclosed location?" Wasn't it a Congressman who leaked to the media that the CIA and/or NSA was listening in on Bin Laden's phone calls? Don't tell Congress a damn thing. Let the CIA do their job and screw the politicians.
Destroy every principle this country was founded on!?! Hyperbole is a sign of emotion, and emotion is a sign of a bad and/or dumbass argument…
By labeling waterboarding "torture" you're equating it to thumbscrews and the rack: stop yourself. The methods men of our founder's age were willing to use were just a bit more brutal then waterboarding… I think of lot of things about the Bush years, not many of them positive, but I don't think anything that occurred came close to justifying your "destroy every principle this country was founded on" vitriol.
I hope that tinfoil propeller beanie keeps you cool on hot days.
Doesn't the school of cultural relativism demand that this plan be enacted immediately? Think about it: terrorist leaders across the Middle East are assassinated, leaving Americans happy with the knowledge that several enemies of the West have been felled and leaving Islamic fundamentalists happy that their esteemed leaders are now enjoying their heavenly harems. If we are to take the faith of these men seriously and respect their culture as though it were our own equivalent, then I, personally, think we're assholes for not executing (no pun intended) this plan.
Sigh. Liberals will never understand national security. It's pointless to argue with these people.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. –John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address Washington, D.C. January 20, 1961
John had it right. Unfortunately, the better part of his party has turned out to be a lot of craven cowards. Now, I bet you support accountability when it comes to members of the former administration. I do, too, except I want them held accountable for any laws they may have actually broken, not what a bunch of lying leftists said they broke. Big difference.
Now, another difference between us is I want those who attacked us on 9/11 to be held accountable. Would you rather we sent out small teams of covert professionals (we don't have spies) to eliminate terrorist leaders (they're not freedom fighters) up close and personal, or would you rather we used large-scale military attacks? Let me guess: "Whichever one makes America look worse."
Jeez, CD, what's up with you? You're sounding way too rational these days. In rehab, LOL! Totally ruining your rep here. Could it be that as you seek to subvert us, you yourself are being subverted? Bravo!
its a part of my not-so-deep game.
"if that's all this is then… no big deal". But actually I suspect that there will be much more to this. And just because it might not turn out to be a big deal, I still think Congress has every right and just cause to do an investigation just to make sure.
I would guess it would generally not be too much of a fuzzy line. If you just thought about it in your head, nobody would ever know. If you started discussing it with others, writing down plans, or casing the joint, people might make an issue out of it.
Greg, you must understand that sacrifices have to made, if a few citizens have to give their lives …well, we can all walk around all high and mighty knowing we did the right thing? Our Barry loves us and knows what is best…
Well dumbass. It wasn't illegal and it wasn't a crime. So come up with a better argument.
Ding Ding…we have a winner here…
This is meat thrown to the wolves (media) to divert and distract from the real meal (story) of the economy, cap &trade in senate and socializing health care.
Murder is illegal. This opinion piece is childish and idiotic. [/thread]
Contemplating something means thinking about something. And if that something is illegal. that means you were thinking about committing a crime. Therefore you would be a thought criminal.
As silly as that sounds, isn't that what "conspiracy to commit a crime" is?
It all hinges on whether that plan was to carry-out an illegal act. I don't think killing Al Queda leadership is illegal. It seems some would have it be.
No, it is not pointless. The people of the United States need to know how the liberals are NOT trying to protect them. Arguing with them points this out. More people are getting it.
When you declare war on someone… aren't you basically announcing to the world that you plan to bring harm to them?
So we declared war on terrorism. Why the need for secrecy then?
Well, once again, we find ourselves trying to educate the short bus riders. What is it that this precious little basement dweller doesn't understand? OK. I'll put it in caps and repeat this as the others have. I'll add the periods to emphasize each word. Now, follow along:
IT….. WAS….. A…… PLAN…… THAT…… WAS….. NEVER…… IMPLEMENTED.
K?
Mom's got dinner ready, hurry upstairs……..
No, I am not saying that, nor could what I said possibly be interpreted that way. I said "targets", not "Congress".
If this program had gone beyond blue-skying, then it should have been reported in accordance with the law. Until then, it's a waste of Congress' time to tell them everything CIA is thinking about.
However, Congressmen do have a habit of disclosing classified information to score cheap political points or to look important. Luckily, the law requiring CIA briefings to Congress takes that into account by allowing a limited number of Congressmen being briefed.
This is what the Liberal freaks want…tell the Democratic Congress of our secret plans to fight the bad guys, the Dems leak to the NY Times, the Times publishes the secret plans, U.S and Allied forces die, Bush and Cheney are again evil and the source of all the world's problems. The Libs are happy.
Murder is illegal. Killing your enemies in a war is not murder.
And you know beyond a certainty that it was more than just a plan?
One day, you will learn to deal with the facts in evidence.
I can no longer sleep better at night knowing that Jason Bourne wussed out. WR1, you are a clown.
The military is killing Al-Qaeda leaders whenever they can get to them, provided it is not really, really easy to grab them alive. If it is military personnel pulling the trigger with CIA direction, then it sure seems legal. Actually, the CIA is currently killing terrorists with Predator drones, so I guess they would be allowed to up close, provided there is "no reasonable chance of capture of the enemy combatant."
Offhand it sounds like a traditional plan of infiltration and assassination, for which secrecy is a must. However after they revealed to Congress there was such a plan…
I wish they would agree on the one detail. As above in the earlier reports, the plan was dropped during Bush. Yet it is reported here that Panetta just informed Congress he had learned about it and terminated it. So what, Cheney killed it then Panetta killed it again to be sure?
Please please please let it be a fancy Hollywood running jump mount, over the head.
Heh, some of those terrorists look so white you would be neck deep in a "drop of blood" argument to say otherwise, and some do not even have that. Are you referring to suntans?
It is late, and you made me think about Pelosi's rear. I hate you.
Think of the value of the protest. The eco-mentalists would foam at the mouth when you tell them you are cutting the roots you had grown.
It will just take a lot of taxpayer money and government time to accomplish nothing in the end. Just another shovelful into the bottomless pit the liberals created, toss it in.
Now say that last line like you are actually surprised. Please.
Ah, then you really have read about "diplomacy" as practiced in the time of the Founding Fathers. Good job!
That explains some of their views on the 2nd Amendment, ban the guns and save the feet. Like how the Occupant in Chief is going to keep taxing tobacco until he can no longer afford it on the allowance Michelle gives him, use the government to save themselves from themselves. Besides, the coming ObamaCare might not cover self-inflicted injuries. Thankfully it is a cheap remedy to dislodge a foot stuck in the mouth, a good swift kick to the butt does wonders.
When you find yourself on the list of "bad people" that has no oversight, I hope you have the integrity to take your bullet with a smile.
Sadly, it appears that our powers that be (since 20 Jan 09) think that anyone that doesn't get in lock-step with them (i.e. true conservatives) are more "bad people" than the actual "bad people" we've been fighting since 9/11.
Unless it is under a Republican President and then it is all murder to Dems.
I see lots and lots of attempts to debate you with the facts, yet you never respond to those particular comments. 'Tis telling.
Thay would be R rated due to Extreeme Violence.
[...] Secret Plans to Kill Bad People by Greg Gutfeld [...]
Actually its more like this:
It will just take a lot of taxpayer money and government time to accomplish nothing in the end. Just another shovelful into the bottomless pit the WARHAWKS created, toss it in.
Sorry, MediCare, Medicaid, and Social Security are THE big sinkholes of the federal government, those along with (other?) entitlement spending programs the liberals have wrought, all of which are highly resistant to even negotiations on reductions, by far outweigh the additional military spending for Iraq and Afghanistan in the "real" added-together federal budget. True under several recent Presidents, even more true with the current Occupant in Chief.
Do we really believe that everyone else is playing by the same "rlues"? I think that the CIA should go ahead and go after the groups of people who would do us harm. Isn't that the responsiblity given the govt in the Constitution
to protect us and our property?
Have we really voted in that many wimps? Where is Chuck Norris? Where are all the men? Where is someone like General George Washington?
But I still don't get it. If these teams are meant to kill or capture senior Al Qaeda operatives, what's the big deal? Aren't we trying to do that already?
Is that really out of the ordinary? And what difference does it make if you kill people by missiles fired out of drones or you kill them at close range?
So, there are two possibilities here. One is that the CIA has gotten too risk averse. I think they should obviously have highly-trained paramilitary teams ready to take out our enemies. Is this something they should use often or without going through all of the proper channels? Of course, not. Look at how many times we were wrong in our extraordinary rendition program. We only kidnapped and tortured those guys. At least, we didn't terminate them with our hit squads.
CONT:
But given the right circumstances, we should have hit squads. For example, if we went to war with North Korea (let's hope to God that never happens), I sure hope we got a team that's going to parachute into Pyongyang and try to find Kim Jong-il. If we don't, then I think we are being too cautious and not utilizing our entire arsenal. Of course, this doesn't mean you send that team if there is no war.
And there's the rub with assassination teams – once you start playing with them, it's hard to put them down. But we are at war with Al Qaeda and if someone isn't trained to take out Osama bin Laden at close range at a moment's notice, then we're doing something wrong.
Now, there is a second possibility. It's not that controversial to have a team ready to kill or capture Bin Laden or other senior Al Qaeda operatives. It is controversial to have a team ready to kill … other targets.
CONT:
Remember, the Bush administration told us that their warrantless wiretapping program was aimed only at Al Qaeda affiliates and we found out that was nowhere near the case. There were guys listening in on phone sex calls of innocent Americans by the time we found out about that program.
So, I have to ask what I previously thought unimaginable. Who exactly were the assassination squads supposed to assassinate?
I really don't want to get into crazy speculation. I certainly don't think this program would be turned inward as well. And it is eminently possible that it was just aimed at senior Al Qaeda guys, as I explained above. But given the history of the Bush administration and what has been less than honest explanations in the past, one has to ask – who were the targets under consideration?
you are trying to distract from the real issue by calling the real issue a distraction. pretty cute. but not really.
I think your tinfoil hat is a little too tight.
well JimBob, the thing is the jury is still out on this one, eh? People on the right are saying "move along, nothing to see here".
I hope you are right. If it turns out you are… I will make a point of loosening the "tinfoil".
we'll see what happens in the next few weeks & months.
"The more the Cia looks corrupt and decadent, the better Nancy Pelosi looks by comparison."
I agree. And I think Pelosi may wind up being validated by all of this. And I know y'all HATE the sound of that!
excellent breakdown of the situation.
I have found an answer to my own question: In a war its "okay" for a nation's army to kill anyone on the enemy's army / government. But apparently that does not include the CIA. The CIA is not designated part of our military. So, per some rule of war, they are not allowed to kill the enemy.
Frankly, I don't see the difference between an Army/Navy/Airforce/Marine kill and a CIA kill. Is there really a rule out there that makes a distinction? Can someone please shed some light?
and then: If its so bad for the CIA to take lethal action, then doesn't each military unit have their own intelligence operation?! So then what's the difference there?
Just doing my Democrat Overlord imitation.
As a "scandal," this thing's going to fizzle like a wet firecracker.
I was happy to hear about it, though. Starting with the Church Committee in the mid-'70s, the CIA has been turned into the CYA. It's good to see a little of the old initiative.
I'm all for bringing back JM/WAVE, MK/ULTRA, ZR/RIFLE, the Phoenix Program, and Operation Mongoose — especially the fun stuff like coming up with chemicals to put in Hugo Chavez's rum and Coke to make his hair fall out or give him a limp noodle.
You mean my two choices are to blindly panic and authorize my government to commit atrocities in my name or fly thousands of miles to be killed by terrorists? That is really the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site, and that's saying a lot.
'm sorry you're so scared for your life that you are willing to give up everything that makes this country great. In my book, that makes you a coward. You like to talk tough, but when someone mentions the childish phrase "bad guys" you hide under your bed and demand that Big Daddy chase them away.
Bush administration lawyers put forth a theory, accepted by Cheney and apparently Bush, that the president is free to do whatever he wants, break any law, arrest and torture any citizen without charge, as long as he says it's for national security. That is precisely attempting to destroy every principle this country was founded on.
Facts? Which ones? Tinfoil hat? Short bus? Clown? This is really what you think of a debate? These are what you call facts? No wonder Sarah Palin impresses you!
No, we know Fox News and Rush told you that she did. The newest revelation proves she didn't.
Which net gain was that? Sure, we killed a lot of people, and they killed a lot of our people. We propped up a puppet government that had no support from its own people for a lot of years. And we accomplished — nothing. In a war that everyone involved in planning it knew all along was unwinnable. Johnson knew. MacNamara knew. Nixon knew. But it was easier to keep kiilling. Yeah, that was one heck of a win.
Nice thought, thinkright. Go ahead and as soon as your guys are back in power, make sure you authorize them to murder anyone they don't like. Just make sure they never lose power again.
Then if you are this paranoid, I'd think you'd be opposed to giving a government unbridled authority to kill anyone they want to.
Um, Debbie? Chuck Norris is an actor. He doesn't really beat up terrorists. He doesn't really take down criminals. It's all make-believe.
And all on the word of unnamed "officials" who suddenly are really keen to talk about this program. Let's all believe them — I mean, why would an anonymous source lie!
Because those programs really did so much good about Castro. Heck, he's dying now — it only took fifty years!
You're a sad, sad little person that sees boogie men under your bed. Your views are diametrically opposed to mine and mostly everyone else that posts on this board. Why do you continue to attempt to change our minds when you know you can't? I'm not responding any more to you than this.
Do you have a funny bone? Chuck Norris' hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
I feel more ignorant than usual: I thought that was a big part of what the CIA did — plan secret things.
Which ever fits. You want a debate? Let's start. – What is wrong with capturing, hurting or killing those who continues to want us dead?
Apprearently, FOX has been right about Obama since the polls, which you lefties love, are showing increasing dissapproval numbers on his policies? Another debate opportunity for you, WR1! Go on!
wr1, do you mean the principles of this country that Obama is trashing.
Yes, 98ZJUSMC, as my grandmaw used to say, "It's like giving pearls to swine." We are wasting our breath on wr1. He is lost.
Fox News and Rush told you that she did
A. I do not listen to Rush.
B. her own flapping lying lips told me the lies. Something that CNN or the other Lib Left Lovers would not show.
sorry for the delay- travel, you know…
once again, you are spot on correct. And it's actually kind of sad as well…
I do not disagree that executive power increased under W. Bush, but I do think that the language you choose to use characterizes the man's security policy.
I don't think anyone in the administration made the claim that Bush can "break any law" that he wants, and I don't think that you really mean that when you say that. Although prisoners were waterboarded during certain interrogations, you once again used the word torture… Because the only "torture" Bush has been accused of allowing is waterboarding, why not use the word waterboarding? I know "torture" sounds far more dramatic and much more vile, but the truth has its own sweet ring.
In regards to torture, you make the claim that he can torture "any citizen without charge, as long as… it's for national security." Once you get past the hyperbole of the term "torture," what you're saying is more or less correct. Like the Patriot Act, we are more or less told to "have good faith" on this one. I too find the circumvention of certain rights problematic, but, despite having searched high and low, have yet to have found any compelling abuses of this power.
Given how people on the left and many on the right felt about Bush, his White House is certainly amongst the most scrutinized in history. Innocents were not arrested and sent to Gitmo left and right. Simply put: it didn't happen. I'm sure mistakes were made, and I'm sure that not everyone sent to the facility was bombing a subway that week, but I do have faith that thorough intelligence was collected prior to taking the drastic measure of seizing a human being.
As far as "every principle this country was founded on…" I don't think I can tell you every principle this country was founded on: there are hundreds. The founding fathers were a mentally diverse bunch; they all had their own motivations and ideas of what the principles of the country were to be. Personal protection from the government however, was an afterthought. Our only guaranteed liberties from the founding are found in the Bill of Rights, written after the constitution itself and something devoid from the Articles of Confederation. These rights are basic in nature and not there because they were viewed as innate and obvious, but arguably because of colonial rivalry. Not until the 20th century did every one of the consequential articles in the Bill of Rights even apply to individual states, so pardon me for taking exception to the idea that a single man was attempting to destroy EVERY principle this country was founded on.
Try again. Otherwise I'm going to give your response an epic "FAIL."
Read John Yoo and listen to his testimony. When asked if Bush could authorize people to crush the testicles of the children of accusted terrorists to get their parents to talk, Yoo said yes. The president's authority is unquestionable as long as he claims it regards national security — and there's no one who can challenge those claims.
No. Because the only principle Obama is "trashing" is the Bush doctrine that all wealth must be transferred from the majority of the population to the top one percent.
Okay: First of all, "wanting" anything can't be a crime, or we will all be in jail shortly. This country can't start prosecuting thought crimes. There are undoubtedly millions of people in this world who "want us dead" but who will never do anything about it. Do we kill them all? Put them all in jail?
But what about those who are actively planning to hurt us? Yes, those people we can act against. But as long as all that's necessary to act is the say-so of some unaccountable bureaucrat — or even high government official — then we no longer have a system that prizes justice. That's why we have a system of jury trials, no matter how flawed that system often seems. To grant anyone the power to arrest and hold indefinitely (or kill) with no trial is the first step towards totalitarianism.
We don't have spies? You'd better write your congressman fast, because they've been shoveling an awful lot of money at the non-existant CIA and NSA.
We don't have spies. "Spies" is an inflammatory word. We have intelligence officers, a label that gives them their due respect.
I suddenly cut back to the old Bush years where the leaking of an alleged undercover CIA agent was meant as a serrious offense. Leon Patella can apparentely get away with talking about something he's not supossed too.
Bummer.
Wanting to rob a bank isn't a crime, neither is wanting to blow up a bank. The difference is – robbing a bank, if you missed them before entering a bank, you can wait them out, or catch them trying to get away, or catch them thru investigations; wanting to blow up a bank, if they are suicide bombers, your only option is to catch them before they enter the bank; better yet, before they strapped the bombs on. In a sense, catching them BEFORE the crime is committed.
We have a system that prizes justice, for OUR citizens. Our jury trials are for OUR citizens. By letting them have access to our judicial system, we've given them OUR Rights.
Citizens of the World? Their own countries don't want to acknowledge them or want them back because they are a threat to their own countries. These aren't stray pawns that can be rehabbed. These are the heads of terrorist organizations. Their rules Don't apply to us, therefore our rules SHOULD NOT apply to them.
Many of the people in the top 1 percent of the population own and run small businesses, and work hard to get the success they achieve. Since 70 to 80 percent of the new jobs that are created in this economy come from small business owners, Obama hurts the very people he claims to support. When you tax something, you get less of it. It's Economics 101, but your partisanship wont allow you to admit the facts.
Socialism smells like B.O.
Glad I'm not holding my breath…
You must be logged in to post a comment.