Free for All: 07/13/09

What’s on your mind?

45 Responses to “Free for All: 07/13/09”

  1. imnotblue Says:

    Last week there was some debate over the Beck/Scheuer and Olbermann issue. Someone suggested (not sure whom, and I’m too lazy to check) that while Olbermann now railed against Scheuer, when Scheuer said virtually the SAME THING on “Countdown,” Olbermann was strangely silent.

    I posed the question to J$ who has a knack for researching such things… and the answer and evidence was re-posted in this weeks, “FOX Haters Week In Review.”

    Here is the result:

    Great Moments in Olbypocrisy:
    This week the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann decided to attack Fox News via Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer, starting off by quoting Scheuer:

    OLBERMANN: “Only Osama can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand that government protect them effectively, consistently and with as much violence as necessary.” Scheuer‘s interviewer, Glenn Beck of Fox News, did not attempt to correct him, did not scream at him, what the hell do you mean the only chance we have as a country right now. Beck did not accuse Scheuer of insanity, nor disloyalty, nor palling around with terrorists? Beck did not even burst into tears. The host merely nodded gravely, as if this made sense…. We have to legally stop the people who view terrorism as acceptable means of affecting political change in this country, people like Michael Scheuer. And we have to legally stop the people like Glenn Beck, the enablers who simply nod gravely, as if the idea and the speaker were not treasonous. Author Michael Scheuer and Glenn Beck of Fox News, today‘s worst persons in the world.

    Now we could direct your attention to incidents like Olby interviewing Michael Moore, who thanks God that a hurricane is approaching and wishes for it to hit the Republican convention. Keith’s response: a chuckle, and on with the interview. But more to the point is when Michael Scheuer himself appeared on Countdown and presaged what he said to Glenn Beck:

    SCHEUER: We don‘t treat the—this Islamist enemy as seriously as we should. We think somehow we‘re going to arrest them, one man at a time. These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States, and we‘re going to have absolutely nothing to respond against. It‘s going to be a unique situation for a great power, and we‘re going to have no one to blame but ourselves.

    Now did Olbermann correct him, or scream at him? Did he accuse Scheuer of disloyalty? Here is exactly what Keith Olbermann said to Scheuer:

    OLBERMANN: Michael Scheuer, the former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA. Great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

    Keith Olbermann simply moved on, as if the idea and the speaker were not treasonous. He didn’t make Scheuer a “worst person”, let alone name himself as an “enabler of terrorism”. And he didn’t suggest that he had to “legally stop” himself. Because, after all, Olby’s rules don’t apply to him, only to Fox.

    http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/ilc269134288.html

  2. Expressing fear of an attack is a far cry from expressing the “need” for one, which is what Scheuer did on Beck’s show. I thought J$ was smarter than that.

  3. missy5537 Says:

    So Keith just “Great Thanksed” him (as J$ would say)?

    I’m still in shock that Keith would have anyone other than a member of the far left on his program!

  4. bigred08 Says:

    Scheuer was brought on Countdown to criticize the Bush adminstration’s failure to get Bin Laden and the way they were fighting the War on Terror.

    Non-lefties occasionally get a pass, as long as they’re criticizing Bush.

    Meanwhile, that pathetic attempt to attack the CIA that the Dems used this weekend….. that “secret program” they failed to inform Congress about…… that “proof” that confirms what Pelosi claimed weeks ago……

    HERE IT IS. THE BOMBSHELL FROM THE CIA, THAT CHENEY DIDN’T WANT THEM TO SHARE, via the Wall Street Journal:

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

    ON MY GOD!!! THE CIA WANTED TO KILL OR CAPTURE AL QAEDA OPERATIVES!! HOW DARE THEY!

    WE NEED A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR NOW!!!

  5. I’ll be surprised if the WSJ’s account is accurate. If you go to war to capture and kill Al Qaeda operatives, why would involving the CIA in the same exercise be a problem?

  6. bigred08 Says:

    It’s not a problem, Joe. It’s not even issue. It’s slimeball pandering by your party to try to cover Pelosi’s lying a$$, and to distract the media as the Sotomayor confirmations begin.

  7. “I thought J$ was smarter than that.”

    LOL! What would EVER make you think that?

  8. Who’s Marcy Wheeler and why did she just say BJ (use your imagination for what word she used) on Shuster and Hall’s show? This is what you get when you book bloggers with no discernable credentials to be spouting opinions on television.

  9. bigred08 Says:

    Teabagging, huge cucumbers, bj’s….it’s all part of the 7th grade joke book that Shyster & Hall like to put to use every week.

  10. bigred08 Says:

    Stuart Varney is filling in for Neil Cavuto once again today. Neil’s been gone for quite a while and I’m getting concerned this his MS is giving him serious problems.

    Anyone have any ideas what’s going on?

  11. joeremi Says:

    Back to the CIA flap, it’s clear the Congress was not informed of the assasination program. What’s not clear is if they were required to. What’s REALLY not clear is why Panetta abandoned it. Did it break international laws, or was it just a a poorly run program?

  12. chipsohio Says:

    Joe…great questions as I was thinking along the same line(s). Part of me is thinking this is political cover for Speaker Pelosi in that if the program was having issues and/or was being poorly run why not just fix it instead of publicly ending the program???

    One of the big issues I have with Congress is that if you’re chosen to be part of the Intelligence committees…take the time & attend the meetings. Do not send one of your aides so that you can then have the excuse that you were not informed of “CIA Program”. At that point, Congressman/woman is then putting their political careers in front of this nation’s security.

  13. imnotblue Says:

    As I understand it (and I’ll check back on the J$/Olbermann/Scheuer thing later), the CIA program was never a program… just a tentative “plan.” I don’t think the CIA needs to brief anyone if they’re not doing something, and it’s just in the planning stages.

    If the plan never made it plast the planning stage, what would they tell someone, “We’re thinking about this… maybe… kinda?”

  14. joeremi Says:
    July 13, 2009 at 10:08 am

    I agree with you, its two totally different things

  15. bigred08 Says:

    As they just mentioned on Special Report, there’s ample reason for not briefing the fools in Congress about it….because once they did, IT LEAKED. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. The Dems in Congress are 100% untrustworthy on national security, and they prove it over and over and over again.

    Also, this “program” apparently never became a full “program”, so there was no need to brief them.

    It’s basically stirring up a lot of crap for nothing but political reasons.
    Washington as usual.

    Hopenchange.

  16. unclearthur Says:

    What’s not clear is if they were required to. What’s REALLY not clear is why Panetta abandoned it. Did it break international laws, or was it just a a poorly run program?

    what’s spectacularly unclear is why it took FOUR MONTHS for them to brief the Director on the program. And given that he immediately canceled it and briefed Congress the very next day, I think it’s safe to say that HE felt Congress should not have been left out of the loop.

    There’s way more to this story than what’s currently being speculated about.

  17. unclearthur Says:

    From TPM:

    Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, told TPMmuckraker that because we’ve been in a state of war against al Qaeda since just after September 11, there would have been no need for a secret CIA program that received special legal authorization.

    Since the war on terror began, said Cannistraro, the CIA has routinely conducted operations targeting top Qaeda leaders. “The CIA runs drones and targets al Qaeda safe houses all the time,” said Cannistraro, explaining that there’s no important difference between those kinds of attacks and “assassinations” with a gun or a knife.

    As for what the program did involve, Cannistraro suggested that it involved Americans as targets, and that it went beyond surveillance, but declined to elaborate. He added that, though Cheney may have directly ordered the CIA to keep Congress in the dark, the veep wasn’t acting alone. “The approval was from the president,” said Cannistraro.

    Americans as targets, beyond being targets of surveillance, which would be bad enough? Yeah, I think that would raise a few eyebrows, if true.

  18. imnotblue Says:

    Even though it never happened?

    Uh-oh… here come the thought police…

  19. unclearthur Says:

    Even though it never happened?

    Uh… if it didn’t happen, what exactly got canceled? No one says the program was IMPLEMENTED. But that they were even ‘studying’ it?

    By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA’s procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s.

    From cia.gov’s faq

    If the mystery program did involve collecting information on US citizens, there’s going to be hell to pay. Too many people still alive who remember the ’70s.

  20. imnotblue Says:

    But that’s just it, Art… it never happened! Just because they were “studying” it, doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

    The program was killed before there any of those legal issues arose… they were (in my understanding) only studying it to see if it would net gains significant enough to implement.

    If the mystery program did involve collecting information on US citizens, there’s going to be hell to pay.

    Only if it was implemented! If it was a tentative plan on how to do this, or debating whether this was a good idea, then what could possibly happen? What could the legal complaint be? But that’s just it, Art… it never happened! Just because they were “studying” it, doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

    The program was killed before there any of those legal issues arose… they were apparently only studying it to see if it would net gains significant enough to implement.

    If the mystery program did involve collecting information on US citizens, there’s going to be hell to pay.

    Only if it was implemented! If it was a tentative plan on how to do this, or debating whether this was a good idea, then what could possibly happen? What could the legal complaint be? You can’t arrest someone for allegedly thinking about committing a “crime.”

  21. unclearthur Says:

    Only if it was implemented! If it was a tentative plan on how to do this, or debating whether this was a good idea, then what could possibly happen? What could the legal complaint be? But that’s just it, Art… it never happened! Just because they were “studying” it, doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

    Do you not understand that it is ILLEGAL for the CIA to collect intelligence on US citizens? It doesn’t matter whether it was implemented or not, if they were STUDYING whether or not to break the law. Duh.

  22. unclearthur Says:

    Edited to add: “It doesn’t matter whether it was implemented or not, if they were STUDYING whether or not to break the law.” in fact, I believe that meets the definition of ‘conspiracy to commit’.

  23. joeremi Says:

    Art’s right. The CIA studying ways to break the law is breaking the law. Especially if they “studied” it for 8 years.

  24. smh3477 Says:

    Art,

    I don’t know why you bother with INB (& BR for that matter). They are not interested in honest debates. They are only interested in spouting the lastest talking points they just learned from Rush and Orally. It is an exercise in futility.

  25. unclearthur Says:

    It is an exercise in futility.

    Yeah. I know. I guess I justify the waste of time by hoping there are lurkers who are following the conversation and I’m helping THEM not get taken in by the perpetual lie machine.

  26. unclearthur Says:

    The CIA studying ways to break the law is breaking the law. Especially if they “studied” it for 8 years.

    This is all highly speculative, of course, but if collecting intel on US citizens WAS involved, you can BET they got a lot of push-back from the rank’n’file, who, whatever their possible flaws, aren’t crazy. Which may be why it took eight years, off and on, to ‘study’ the idea without coming to fruition.

  27. unclearthur Says:

    And (futilely, probably) just for Imnot – ‘conspiracy to commit murder’ is still illegal, even if no one gets murdered. So can your ‘thought police’ comments.

  28. imnotblue Says:

    I think a lot of this depends on what “study” means. If by “study,” they mean “tested” then sure… if by “study” they meant figure out the benefits, risks, and legal obligations before canceling that line of thought, then you may have some problems persecuting.

    I know you guys are ready to run to Nan-Nan’s defense here, but it seems to be a lot of something about a little bit of nothing. There are a lot of plans that run through the CIA… some happen, most don’t. This was a “don’t.” As I understand it, and unless you can provide information to the contrary, they were in the planning stage… figuring out if they could do this. Now, you say it’s “against the law,” and it may very well be… however, you’d have to agree it would be a debatable point (not like, for example, let’s go kill that guy would be unarguably against the law). Odds are they were in the stage where they were figuring out if they could legally accomplish what they wanted. What you (apparently) want to do is prevent CIA agents from discussing things that may or may not be outside the law… which would essentially prevent them from discussing anything, for fear that someone might charge them with conspiracy for discussing it.

    Look… not all the facts are out and we should remember that. Let’s wait to see what they actually did or didn’t do, before you’re ready to charge them with “thought” crimes.

    unclearthur Says:
    July 13, 2009 at 6:02 pm
    I guess I justify the waste of time…

    And here I didn’t think you had much free time. How’s that apology to Missy coming along? Found the time yet?

    This is all highly speculative, of course,

    You say this, knowing full well you’re just making stuff up… but here we go:

    if collecting intel on US citizens WAS involved,

    Was it? Or were they discussing whether or not they could collect intel?

    you can BET they got a lot of push-back from the rank’n’file,

    Then why are we only hearing about this now, and why wasn’t the Senators briefed as “outraged” as the Representatives, who can logically be connected to attempting to protect Pelosi’s CIA blunder.

    who, whatever their possible flaws, aren’t crazy.

    I like that you assume the CIA Agents are flawed, thusly showing what little esteem you hold them in (and don’t bother claiming, “Well everyone is flawed,” because that’s not what you meant… flawed as in “probably aren’t Liberals”).

    Which may be why it took eight years, off and on, to ’study’ the idea without coming to fruition.

    Did they study for 8 years? Where’s the evidence of that? How many other ideas don’t come to fruition? What is the success rate of a particular CIA plan?

    And (futilely, probably) just for Imnot – ‘conspiracy to commit murder’ is still illegal, even if no one gets murdered. So can your ‘thought police’ comments.

    Awww… Art, I always read your stuff… it’s you who ignores my comments, and pretends they don’t exist! It’s such a shame you get us confused!

    But yes, the “thought police” is valid. If the CIA was actively attempting to break the law, you have a case. If they were discussing whether or not their actions would break the law, they are no more guilty than a person debating what to include in a contract, or someone asking for a lawyer’s opinion. Unless they knowingly had a plan together to break the law, they didn’t do anything wrong… and there was no conspiracy.

  29. unclearthur Says:

    I like that you assume the CIA Agents are flawed, thusly showing what little esteem you hold them in (and don’t bother claiming, “Well everyone is flawed,” because that’s not what you meant… flawed as in “probably aren’t Liberals”).

    You are so full of it, your eyeballs are floating. Do NOT pretend you understand me, because you clearly do not.

    And just FYI, because you’re so frigging ignorant and prone to stereotyping, there have always been ‘liberals’ in the CIA, dating back to their historic association with Yale University dating back to the original Office of Strategic Services. I know you’d like to imagine they are uniformly paleocons like yourself, but you would be -surprise, surprise – wrong. You think Valerie Plame was a conservative?

  30. smh3477 Says:

    “You think Valerie Plame was a conservative?”

    Heh. But SHE was the traitior, remember? I mean, it was Valerie Plame that made the Bush administration out her.

  31. unclearthur Says:

    I mean, it was Valerie Plame that made the Bush administration out her.

    Clearly the b!tch got what she deserved. heh.

    But I’m getting sick of SOME people telling me what I think. I KNOW what I think, you know?

  32. bigred08 Says:

    “I KNOW what I think, you know?”

    Sure Art.

    You know that Palin’s to blame to people attacking her kids, even though you’re not blaming her, even though you said she deserves some of the blame. But it’s not her fault, even though it is.

  33. unclearthur Says:

    You know that Palin’s to blame to people attacking her kids, even though you’re not blaming her, even though you said she deserves some of the blame. But it’s not her fault, even though it is.

    I’m sick of explaining the difference between ‘responsible for’ and ‘at fault for’. You clearly lack the ability to make not-exactly-subtle distinctions. So go frak yourself.

  34. imnotblue Says:

    Do NOT pretend you understand me, because you clearly do not.

    Liberals correct, Conservatives wrong… yeah, I’m pretty sure I understand you just fine.

    And just FYI, because you’re so frigging ignorant and prone to stereotyping, there have always been ‘liberals’ in the CIA…

    Actually, that was a point I was trying to make. Despite you and the Democrats currently trying to save Pelosi’s Botoxed-skin, the CIA is not a “Right-Wing” group… so to attack them like they’re all “Bushes” or “Cheneys” is foolish and misguided.

    So tell me, why do you assume they’re “flawed?”

    Bush administration out her

    Richard Armitage… I know you still want to claim it was Cheney or Bush or whatever, but it’s still just Armitage. Seems like you’d be over that by now.

  35. joeremi Says:

    The biggest problem I’m having with the CIA story right now is Dick Cheney’s involvement. According to reports, he designed the program, then instructed them to hide it. I hope that little dictator is finally prosecuted for the little fiefdom he was running in the White House.

    I still have doubts about the program as described by the WSJ. It’s sounds too benign to warrant being hidden for 8 years, then promptly dropped the day Panetta learned of it.

  36. imnotblue Says:

    According to reports, he designed the program…

    And according to another report, Michael Hayden said Cheney never said that. So who you going to believe? The guy in charge… or the juicy story that would finally accomplish what you feel is necessary, despite it not necessarily being true?

  37. joeremi Says:

    I’m gonna lean towards the conservative WSJ until proven wrong.

  38. unclearthur Says:

    I’m pretty sure I understand you just fine.

    I’m pretty sure you can’t, you braindead git.

  39. unclearthur Says:

    I still have doubts about the program as described by the WSJ. It’s sounds too benign to warrant being hidden for 8 years, then promptly dropped the day Panetta learned of it.

    Ya think?

  40. imnotblue Says:

    “I’m pretty sure you can’t, you braindead git.”

    Ouch… does anyone have a bandaid? Art hurt my feelings.

    “Ya think?”

    So despite evidence, you’ll believe what want to believe because you want to believe it? Wow. No proof… no evidence… but you believe what you want to believe because… ???

    But back to seriously… I’m confused about something. I’ve been doing a little reading on the subject, and am not sure how we got onto this “domestic spying” line. From what I’ve seen and read, the program centered around killing top ranking AQ mebers… not domestic spying as has been suggested here. Where did that come from (gimme a link, if you have one), or is that just another “educated” guess?

  41. unclearthur Says:

    From what I’ve seen and read, the program centered around killing top ranking AQ mebers… not domestic spying as has been suggested here. Where did that come from (gimme a link, if you have one), or is that just another “educated” guess?

    You continue to prove that you either can’t read, or you can’t retain the information you do read. Scroll back up to my post from 3:16 in this very thread, wherein I quote the former head of the CIA’s frigging Counterterrorism Center, who is the one making the domestic spying speculations.

  42. unclearthur Says:

    Here’s a take on the ‘assassinate al qaeda’ program … from American Conservative magazine:

    http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/07/14/cia-hit-teams/

    My favorite point: “The perpetrators in Kenya also quickly discovered that white boys born in the American south sporting crewcuts and speaking no foreign language had difficulties in blending in as foreign businessmen. “

  43. imnotblue Says:

    Interesting… but you do know the quote your referenced at 3:16, and the article you point two suggest two very different points. One says the target was Americans, the other says “assassinations” as well as false documents was the problem.

    So which is it? One says the issues brought up in the other are/were okay… seems contradictory, no?

    I know how you like to pick and choose which info you’re going to believe (because it fits your spin), so why don’t you tell me which one you’re going to believe now… so I better know where you’re coming from.

  44. unclearthur Says:

    you do know the quote your referenced at 3:16, and the article you point two suggest two very different points. One says the target was Americans, the other says “assassinations” as well as false documents was the problem.

    I am well aware of this. The fact is, nobody (outside a small circle who aren’t talking) KNOWS what the mystery program is. There are independent speculations on what it could possibly be. the NYT cites anonymous sources whose credibility I have no way of judging. Cannistraro has no sources, and speculates based on the exterior reaction and his own experience from inside the Agency. Who’s right? Hopefully we will eventually know.

  45. unclearthur Says:

    so why don’t you tell me which one you’re going to believe now… so I better know where you’re coming from.

    Don’t you mean, tell you which one I believe so you can argue for the other one?

    For the record, I don’t know which one is true, or if either of them are. Have fun nitpicking THAT to death.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: