North Dallas Thirty
You miss the point. The issue is not the program, but that Cheney deliberately and with malice of forethought ordered the C.I.A. to withhold details of the program from Congress. It doesn't matter if the program was to take out terrorists or to plant cherry trees on Capital Hill.
The issue is also not what Bush signed or didn't sign, although that may become an issue at some point.
The issue is an exposed attempt on Cheney's part to deliberately hide information from Congress.
What Jono said.
That news article is 14 months after 9/11, too. If that was the first indication that Congress received, then I find it deeply disturbing as a libertarian that there was a government agency accountable to no one, which was engaged in activities for over a year of which our elected officials were deliberately not informed.
The issue is not the program, but that Cheney deliberately and with malice of forethought ordered the C.I.A. to withhold details of the program from Congress.
Opinions vary rather strongly on that one.
As well as in the original story:
One former senior intelligence official said the program was an attempt "to achieve a capacity to carry out something that was directed in the finding," meaning it was looking for ways to capture or kill al Qaeda chieftains.
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.
The issue here is that Pelosi lied about her being briefed and approving what she now screams is "torture", and the only way to get out of it on her part is to accuse other people of lying.
The interesting thing is that Pelosi is willing to drag several CIA officers through show trials in an attempt to avoid her simply having to admit to the public that she knew about what she now claims is "torture" and made a deliberate decision to publicly attack that which she was privately supporting.
The entertaining thing will be watching Obama have to choose who to throw under the bus -- his party's Speaker, or the entire CIA.
No, NDT, the issue is still quite simply did Cheney instruct the CIA to deliberately withhold information from Congress in contravention of United States Law. Anything else, regardless of the merit of the claim, is nothing more than a focus-pulling strawman.
If, in fact, it's such a slam dunk and there's absolutely no illegal obfuscation to be found, then what better way to damage future attempts by the Democrats to levy charges against past and current regimes than by proving it under official investigation? What I fail to understand is why simple legal process is so threatening to you and why you insist on making this about anything and everything other than what it's actually about.
If, in fact, it's such a slam dunk and there's absolutely no illegal obfuscation to be found, then what better way to damage future attempts by the Democrats to levy charges against past and current regimes than by proving it under official investigation?
Aside from the logical impossibility of proving a negative?
Attitudes like this, I would think.
Anything else, regardless of the merit of the claim, is nothing more than a focus-pulling strawman.
Well, since everything else is irrelevant regardless of its merits, then why not skip to declaring Cheney guilty, as you did in the previous thread, and just let that stand?
Again, the problem is that you made an accusation without having the facts, and now that you've made the accusation, you're trying to find facts to back it up afterwards.
Aside from the logical impossibility of proving a negative?
A. It is, in fact, not a logical impossibility to prove a negative. Were I to say, "I have no cats in my pockets," all I have to do is turn out my pockets and, lo and behold, I have no cats in my pockets.
B. Even if such a thing were impossible, it was not my point. Evidence has come forth suggesting that Cheney circumvented the laws of the United States. If that evidence it brought to some sort of official legal trial AND that evidence is found to be legally faulty THEN from this point out any further investigations against Cheney would be tainted. That was my thesis.
Well, since everything else is irrelevant regardless of its merits, then why not skip to declaring Cheney guilty, as you did in the previous thread, and just let that stand?
A. I retracted that.
B. Wow, so histrionic. Those other issues are not germane to what Cheney told the CIA. When someone goes online and chats up a minor, engaging to meet them to have sex, then shows up at the destination only to discover that said minor was in fact an undercover police officer, the police officer doesn't just laugh and say, "Oh ho ho, gotcha! Luckily, since you didn't actually have sex with a minor, there's nothing we can charge you with." So too this case. It is irrelevant what Pelosi did or said, it is irrelevant what Bush did or said, it is irrelevant what the CIA did or said and it is irrelevant what the media did or said. All that is relevant is what Cheney said and what evidence supports or refutes that.
Again, the problem is that you made an accusation without having the facts, and now that you've made the accusation, you're trying to find facts to back it up afterwards.
Again, I recalled that accusation and rephrased it and have since been very careful as to how I've phrased my point. You're arguing a was.
Thank you for the posting.................... very nice article........
___________________
Smarry
The only Satellite Television Delivers the Best Value in Entertainment
Commenting by HaloScan
