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
Got a Tip?
196 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.
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!!!!
The need for secrecy is you don't tell your targets HOW you're going to kill them, otherwise they'll avoid it.
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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.