Originally Posted by billethkid

don't we all hope that somebody is in charge of doing what ever it takes to keep us alive and out of harms way?
And what is wrong with keeping it from the incompetents in Congress who will do nothing but impede progress as they always do. And they would leak it to the media....you know...one of the terrorists best sources of information.

Don't you know the terrorists know how our wako Congress and all it's attendant partisan game playing and the media works? They are smart enough to play it like a fiddle.

I hope someone in the Obama administration is charged with some authority we all know nothing about to do what ever it takes to keep us safe.

Don't give me all the bleeding heart party lines. If you and or your family were able to survive not being burned alive in a terrorist nuclear blast because of someone charged to take action.....then how would you feel.

They didn't used to say "loose lips sink ships" in WW II for nothing.

What ever it takes!!!!!!!!!!!

btk

Actually, and PTOWNROB wont want to hear this....Obama, with the exception of GTMO closing (which has a long way to go yet), has decided to keep in place all those nasty things he and the Democrats have SCREAMED about for years...like rendition !

Originally Posted by ptownrob

The first amendment was designed to allow a free press to keep an eye on that horrible "big government" you guys are always screaming about.

Article II, Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Finally- DICK CHENEY WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!! NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES THE VICE PRESIDENT HAVE ANY POWER WHATSOEVER TO ORDER ANY AGENCY TO DO OR NOT TO DO, TO WITHHOLD OR NOT WITHOLD EVIDENCE. PERIOD END OF THOUGHT. END OF CONSTIUTUTION. You would complain about "activist" courts, but somehow make it ok for a subordinate officer of the Executive to do as he pleased.

Either you follow the Constitution as written, as you claim, or you use it for an excuse for your own right-wing extremist schemes. Which is it?

Are you loyal Americans or just party hacks and conspiratorial traitors? Let Justice go where it is is required to go by the Constitution and the Law, and let the truth settle the issue. Unless of course, you're also saying that the entire justice system of the United States is under some evil control along with the Obama Executive and the Evil Legislative Branch as well.

While your Constitutional quotes were accurate, they have absolutely no bearing or relevance on Director Panetta's "revelations."

Article II, Section 3 does not require the Executive to disclose to Congress all activities of the Executive, and provides broad discretion to the Executive on what will be broadcast. If there is no law which expressly requires the Executive to provide Congress with specific information at determined times in a particular format, then no law has been broken.

Section 4, as it relates to impeachment, requires charges, and what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" requires that criminal penalties exist for an intentional act, and that such intentional act has occurred.

The President has the lawful authority to delegate almost every responsibility he has to subordinates, including the Vice President, Departmental Secretaries, Directors of certain Independent Agencies, and even the White House janitor. Without such delegation, the Executive could not operate. One of the first acts of every President is to sign orders of delegation so that others have signature authority to act.

So, the fact that previous Vice Presidents performed functions, fulfilled responsibilities and issued orders under lawful delegation from the sitting President is routine, Constitutional and customary. This also includes VP Biden....

Party hacks and conspiratorial traitors are those who intentionally abuse the legal system and the public trust by creating political smokescreens to direct attention away from their actions or to hide their incompetence.

The fact that Director Panetta was surprised that he could not learn about every operation and plan (proposed, contingency, in development, awaiting decision) the CIA is involved in during the five short months he's had the job as Director, especially when he had NO repeat NO experience in the intelligence business prior to becoming Director should not be a surprise. People spend their entire careers in the intelligence business and never know more than their particular corner of the business.

You guys are so far out in right field you'll allow anything to be justified if it suits your political ideologies.

Bucco- The Pres. & his subordinates are required to faithfully execute the laws of the US. By definition, someone outside the executive must evaluate that execution, even if it's only the supreme court. See Nixon & the Tapes issue. Cheney, and only Cheney, since the Watergate issues were settled, exercised the incredible and unsustainable opionion (backed up by Gonsalez) that the separation of powers meant that the Executive was never subject to anyone outside of the Exec.

(Interestingly, it was Robert Bork who ended up firing Archibald Cox when the rest of Nixon's gov't refused to follow his orders for an unaccountable executive. (Thus making it understandable why people who value the constitution felt he and is ilk are a danger to it))

What's fascinating is that just after Bucco's post, Billie the Kid enumerates the positions that NOTHING can inhibit the executive (as long as he's a Right-wing, I assume) if he thinks he's protecting the president. Hitler, history's #1 right-wing hero, complained that the Jews were a threat to the sovereignty of Germany- let's give him a big "heil" for using national security without any oversight to try to eliminate that threat!

Absolute power without oversight is tyranny, plain and simple.

Bucco, you then go to talk about Obama & Gitmo, etc. I don;t agree with his thinking- but you know what? HE'S CONSULTING CONGRESS ABOUT IT! I don;t know whether laws were broken intentionally, unintentionally, or not at all. But when you have an executive that claims it has NO responsibilty to answer to anyone but itself- and you can also see this in Bush's Executive orders setting DHS/FEMA up as an un-investigatable body whenever he chooses to declare Martial Law- then again, we have tyranny.

Finally, Panetta has "revealed" what any program was. Only that 1.) The former heads of the CIA and other agencies didn't know about Cheney's orders, and that he didn't even find out about it until last week. And 2.) He stopped whatever "it" was. He, and the NYTimes, haven't released any classified information- they've only reported that an "operation" of some sort was found out about and stopped.

Finally, SteveZ says, "Party hacks and conspiratorial traitors are those who intentionally abuse the legal system and the public trust by creating political smokescreens to direct attention away from their actions or to hide their incompetence.

What's next? Claiming orphan's isurance benefits becasue you murdered your parents?
Please explain to us how that quote doesn't fit part and parcel into the entire Bush adminstration's handling of "faulty" (dishonest) intelligence about Iraq, it's incompetency about the war and ignoring or firing its detractors, and the handling of Katrina (Heck of a job, Brownie!)?


We have found out that virtually all of the excessive and, accoring to the SUpreme Court, illegal wiretapping and NSA eavesdropping produced virtually NO actionable intelligence. It appears Billythe Kid was willing to give up 300 million Americans' Constitutional right to privacy for absolutlely no gain, other than Dick Cheney's conspiratorial paranoia.

Let's remember folks, 9/11 happened on the Bush/Cheney watch. Plain, simple and factual. If something were to happen today, in July, wouldn't you guys be the first to blame Obama, even though he's been in office 2 months less than Bush was in 2001? Be honest now! Of course, and you'd find some paranoid excuse about being soft on terror or something.

PeeTown....Do you really believe the crap that you type out? LOL

steadfast, views tested. None know the depths of how far they would go or what they would allow or not until they are personally invested or at risk. Until such time the breeze coming from the keys is self interpretation and re-statement of what another post states, to suit their needs.
I love it when my opinions are restated incorrectly to force fit the interpretive need of another reader....however it is a 1st amendment prerogative....eh?

btk

Originally Posted by Keedy

PeeTown....Do you really believe the crap that you type out? LOL

Yes Marian, I do. And so hundreds of millions,if not billions of other Americans and citizens of the planet!

Originally Posted by ptownrob

Yes Marian, I do. And so hundreds of millions,if not billions of other Americans and citizens of the planet!

PTOWN...I started to type a response to your long post and actually got disgusted.

You really believe that you know more than anyone on here or in fact in the world. You preach as if what you say is fact. Example, you seem to know that whatever the CIA plans were that are being discussed were required to report to congress, yet nobody else on either side of the arguement know that...amazing...

"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."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html

You are so filled with the party line and hate that you have forgotten what facts are all about. You condemn people, you preach to people. I have opinions but I do not hate those who dont agree. None of my political opinions are based on hate as yours are obviously.

Your long post is not factual from you not having any idea of whether reporting was necessary to your use of Hitler and Watergate to pepper your remarks.

And you NEVER EVER mentioned those congressmen and women who allowed this letter to be released to the press. That is ok...that use of politics is ok with you because you agree.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

You guys are so far out in right field you'll allow anything to be justified if it suits your political ideologies.

Bucco- The Pres. & his subordinates are required to faithfully execute the laws of the US. By definition, someone outside the executive must evaluate that execution, even if it's only the supreme court. See Nixon & the Tapes issue. Cheney, and only Cheney, since the Watergate issues were settled, exercised the incredible and unsustainable opionion (backed up by Gonsalez) that the separation of powers meant that the Executive was never subject to anyone outside of the Exec.

(Interestingly, it was Robert Bork who ended up firing Archibald Cox when the rest of Nixon's gov't refused to follow his orders for an unaccountable executive. (Thus making it understandable why people who value the constitution felt he and is ilk are a danger to it))

What's fascinating is that just after Bucco's post, Billie the Kid enumerates the positions that NOTHING can inhibit the executive (as long as he's a Right-wing, I assume) if he thinks he's protecting the president. Hitler, history's #1 right-wing hero, complained that the Jews were a threat to the sovereignty of Germany- let's give him a big "heil" for using national security without any oversight to try to eliminate that threat!

Absolute power without oversight is tyranny, plain and simple.

Bucco, you then go to talk about Obama & Gitmo, etc. I don;t agree with his thinking- but you know what? HE'S CONSULTING CONGRESS ABOUT IT! I don;t know whether laws were broken intentionally, unintentionally, or not at all. But when you have an executive that claims it has NO responsibilty to answer to anyone but itself- and you can also see this in Bush's Executive orders setting DHS/FEMA up as an un-investigatable body whenever he chooses to declare Martial Law- then again, we have tyranny.

Finally, Panetta has "revealed" what any program was. Only that 1.) The former heads of the CIA and other agencies didn't know about Cheney's orders, and that he didn't even find out about it until last week. And 2.) He stopped whatever "it" was. He, and the NYTimes, haven't released any classified information- they've only reported that an "operation" of some sort was found out about and stopped.

Finally, SteveZ says, "Party hacks and conspiratorial traitors are those who intentionally abuse the legal system and the public trust by creating political smokescreens to direct attention away from their actions or to hide their incompetence.

What's next? Claiming orphan's isurance benefits becasue you murdered your parents?
Please explain to us how that quote doesn't fit part and parcel into the entire Bush adminstration's handling of "faulty" (dishonest) intelligence about Iraq, it's incompetency about the war and ignoring or firing its detractors, and the handling of Katrina (Heck of a job, Brownie!)?


We have found out that virtually all of the excessive and, accoring to the SUpreme Court, illegal wiretapping and NSA eavesdropping produced virtually NO actionable intelligence. It appears Billythe Kid was willing to give up 300 million Americans' Constitutional right to privacy for absolutlely no gain, other than Dick Cheney's conspiratorial paranoia.

Let's remember folks, 9/11 happened on the Bush/Cheney watch. Plain, simple and factual. If something were to happen today, in July, wouldn't you guys be the first to blame Obama, even though he's been in office 2 months less than Bush was in 2001? Be honest now! Of course, and you'd find some paranoid excuse about being soft on terror or something.

First of all, "faithfully execute" does not mean report to Congress every time someone within the Executive writes a memo or issues an order. Congress does not have "blessing" authority over Executive actions or decisons, but can only bring forth charges if a "high crime or misdemeanor" as defined in either the Constitution or U.S. Code has occurred. If the charge is determined to be frivolous, whoever brings forth the charge may find him/herself charged accordingly.

Second, no one ever said that the intelligence products available to the Bush Administration and Congress in 2001/2002 were infallible It was the best the intelligence community (including the Brits and the rest of NATO) had at the time. In his budget-cutting frenzy, Pres. Clinton sliced away a number of intelligence production programs, and those slices impacted to the negative. So, if you want to blame Pres. Bush for everything, don't forget to include Pres. Clinton who decimated the US intelligence effort during his watch.

Let's get Katrina straight. At that time, the Mayor of New Orleans was a Democrat, the Governor of Louisiana was a Democrat, and both failed to "faithfully execute" their offices in times of danger. The laws prohibiting the federal government (see the Stafford Act, 42. USC 5121-5206) from just "taking over" and usurping local authority are blunt and well-known to big-city mayors and all governors. Had the Mayor and Governor done their jobs, the US Coast Guard would not have found itself rescuing over 30,000 people from rooftops. If you are unaware of the disaster declaration and response process, please review http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheet...n_process.shtm for guidance.

Those who want to vilify Pres. Bush and VP Cheney (and Congress) for their actions post-9/11 as Monday-Morning Quarterbacks, what would you have done differently to insure no more terrorist hits like 9/11 would occur again on US soil (and none did during thanks to the Bush/Congress initiatives). For those who seem to do the most finger-pointing, 9/11 must have been just a television event. Had the previous administration paid more attention to the intelligence information it had available to it, and not decimated the US intelligence effort for votes, there may not have ever been an Al Q'aida organization to deal with today.

But, it is easier to blame everything on everyone who is not on the DNC holiday card list. There's nothing like the simple approach, and the party loves all who take the simple approach.

Very good response Steve. Let me remind people that 9-11 was not the first time that the towers were attacked. Perhaps if Clinton had spent as much time being serious about the terrorists as he did his own self gratifications, 9-11 would never have taken place. It has been proven that we had Bin Laden in our sights a few times but for some unexplainable reason, we never acted on it. I'm sure President Bush would not have been as queasy about given the right orders.

Uh huh. Only Newsweek would repeat this propganda verbatim but, make no mistake,the official rehabilitation of Nancy Pelosi has begun. Does the timing of these revelations strike anyone as suspicious? Think for a moment about the Realpolitik involved here and focus on the fact that the Obama adminstartion would crawl over broken glass to distract the public's attention from a failed stimulus, failed cap and trade, fading ObamaCare, sinking polls and a cratering economy. What makes me think this would have been front page news last weekend if Sarah Palin hadn't made her announcement?

Read the whole thing:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/...rture-talk.php

Originally Posted by Keedy

I'm sure President Bush would not have been as queasy about given the right orders.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44054

I know you've been critical of Newsweek as a source of political reporting (something about having Barack Obama's picture on the cover too many times). But you linked us all to a source in your last post that I'm unfamiliar with...Wizbang...whatever or whoever that is.

This isn't the first internet source or blog that you've quoted as a source of absolute and undeniable fact. Are we supposed to believe that any of these sources that you apparently rely on to form your opinions have a greater degree of resources invested in gathering facts, reporting and journalistic integrity than Newsweek?

I know you'll probably answer in the affirmative, but to favorably compare the journalistic professionalism of Wizbang to Newsweek or The New York Times seems a little counter-intuitive to me. At some point, it seems to me, we ought to be assessing the quality of the sources we quote to others...even if it's just a highly partisan political forum here in TOTV. Statements made by some of these sources are clearly no more than someone's opinion and not the product of gathering and cross-checking facts from multiple sources.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I know you've been critical of Newsweek as a source of political reporting (something about having Barack Obama's picture on the cover too many times). But you linked us all to a source in your last post that I'm unfamiliar with...Wizbang...whatever or whoever that is.

This isn't the first internet source or blog that you've quoted as a source of absolute and undeniable fact. Are we supposed to believe that any of these sources that you apparently rely on to form your opinions have a greater degree of resources invested in gathering facts, reporting and journalistic integrity than Newsweek?

I know you'll probably answer in the affirmative, but to favorably compare the journalistic professionalism of Wizbang to Newsweek or The New York Times seems a little counter-intuitive to me. At some point, it seems to me, we ought to be assessing the quality of the sources we quote to others...even if it's just a highly partisan political forum here in TOTV. Statements made by some of these sources are clearly no more than someone's opinion and not the product of gathering and cross-checking facts from multiple sources.

They are what they are..no pretentions...just opinions of other links.. If I have given the impression that they were "News Sources" I am sorry. There are tons of blogs and sites that I think are interesting.
On the other hand, newspapers and periodicals that claim to be "News sources" are intirely different. I find my links no different the Huffington Post which the left link here all the time.

[quote=Keedy;214460]Very good response Steve. Let me remind people that 9-11 was not the first time that the towers were attacked. Perhaps if Clinton had spent as much time being serious about the terrorists as he did his own self gratifications, 9-11 would never have taken place. It has been proven that we had Bin Laden in our sights a few times but for some unexplainable reason, we never acted on it. I'm sure President Bush would not have been as queasy about given the right orders.[/qu

Removed, makes no sense to to argue it.

Originally Posted by Keedy

They are what they are..no pretentions...just opinions...newspapers and periodicals that claim to be "News sources" are intirely different. I find my links no different the Huffington Post which the left link here all the time.

I don't disagree on your assessment of the Huffington Post. It's a partisan blog like many others and to my knowledge doesn't hold itself to any particular standard of journalistic integrity. The blogs are like the Opinion page in a newspaper. Columnists are paid to create controversy, not report the news. Reporters on the other hand, along with the news editors that supervise them, are or at least should be held to a different standard. If they report something as fact, then it should be double- and triple-checked. News provided by one source should have verification from other sources. Reporters should not state or include opinion in their news stories, although I'll admit that sometimes the choice of words leave news readers with an opinion. Most established news organizations hold to these journalistic principles. What's important for us, the readers, is to understand is what stuff is someone's opinion and what is actually the news. Otherwise, it's almost certain that incorrect, or at least unbalanced, opinions will be formed or conclusions reached.