Discussion:
More Dick Cheney Follies
(too old to reply)
MioMyo
2009-07-12 11:17:51 UTC
Permalink
What I find revealing about stories like this one is that no one questions
the voracity of these supposed Credible yet Unnamed SOURCES who disclose
such damning information while not wanting to come forth and face questions
themselves.

This is how the left continues trying the Bush administration in the liberal
media press. Where are are all those liberals who would claim protection
under the constitution which mandated that defendants have the right to
confront their accusers?

Oh, that's right not until the left is satisfied with the skewering damage
they can first do by demonizing their opponents in the press, letting the
constitution be damned.....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/11/cheney.surveillance/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA withheld information about a secret
counterterrorism program from Congress during the Bush administration on
direct orders from then-Vice President Dick Cheney, current CIA director
Leon Panetta told members of Congress, a knowledgeable source confirmed to
CNN.

The disclosure to the House and Senate intelligence committees about
Cheney's involvement by Panetta was first reported in the New York Times.
Efforts to contact Cheney for reaction were unsuccessful late Saturday.

The source who spoke to CNN did not want to be identified by name because
the matter is classified, and CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined comment
on the report.

"It's not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a
classified briefing," Gimigliano said. "When a CIA unit brought this matter
to Director Panetta's attention, it was with the recommendation that it be
shared with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive
action to put it into effect."

The fact that Panetta recently briefed lawmakers on an unspecified
counterterrorism program was first revealed Wednesday, when a letter from
seven House Democrats to Panetta was made public. The June 26 letter
characterizes Panetta as testifying that the CIA "concealed significant
actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of
years from 2001 to this week."

The letter contained no details about what information the CIA officials
allegedly concealed or how they purportedly misled members of Congress.

A knowledgeable source familiar with the matter said the counterterrorism
program in question was initiated shortly after the September 11, 2001,
attacks on New York and Washington.

The program was on-again, off-again and was never fully operational, but was
rather, a tool put on the shelf that could have been used, the source said.
Panetta has put an end to the program, according to the source.

The disclosures follow a May spat between the spy agency and House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, who accused the CIA of misleading Congress during a secret
2002 briefing on harsh interrogation techniques being used on terrorism
suspects. The CIA responded that Pelosi was told about the harsh techniques,
including waterboarding, at the briefing.

However, the June 26 letter from the seven House Democrats noted that
Panetta told CIA employees in a May 15 letter -- a response to the Pelosi
allegation -- that it was not CIA policy to mislead Congress. The letter
from the House Democrats asked Panetta to correct his May 15 statement "in
light of your testimony."

Asked about the Democrats' letter, CIA spokesman George Little said Panetta
"stands by his May 15 statement."

"This agency and this director believe it is vital to keep the Congress
fully and currently informed. Director Panetta's actions back that up,"
Little said in a statement. "As the letter from these ... representatives
notes, it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the
oversight committees."

The latest revelations come as lawmakers consider expanding the number of
House and Senate members privy to the kind of secret briefing that Pelosi
received.

The White House opposes a measure that would increase the number of briefing
participants from the current eight to 40 members of Congress. A White House
memo warned President Obama's senior advisers would recommend a veto of the
bill if it contained the expanded briefing provision.
Uber Nazi Hunter
2009-07-12 14:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
What I find revealing about stories like this one is that no one questions
the voracity of these supposed Credible yet Unnamed SOURCES who disclose
such damning information while not wanting to come forth and face
questions themselves.
This is how the left continues trying the Bush administration in the
liberal media press. Where are are all those liberals who would claim
protection under the constitution which mandated that defendants have the
right to confront their accusers?
Oh, that's right not until the left is satisfied with the skewering damage
they can first do by demonizing their opponents in the press, letting the
constitution be damned.....
It's not a left-right argument, it's an American tragedy that needs
addressed by all citizens. Your assessment seems to be contained by what
"YOU RIGHTARDS" would do, NOT by what Americans SHOULD do. If Bush broke
the law all Americans are victims.
Until you become an American in more than birthright, no one is going to
take you seriously.
MioMyo
2009-07-12 16:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uber Nazi Hunter
Post by MioMyo
What I find revealing about stories like this one is that no one
questions the voracity of these supposed Credible yet Unnamed SOURCES who
disclose such damning information while not wanting to come forth and
face questions themselves.
This is how the left continues trying the Bush administration in the
liberal media press. Where are are all those liberals who would claim
protection under the constitution which mandated that defendants have the
right to confront their accusers?
Oh, that's right not until the left is satisfied with the skewering
damage they can first do by demonizing their opponents in the press,
letting the constitution be damned.....
It's not a left-right argument, it's an American tragedy that needs
addressed by all citizens. Your assessment seems to be contained by what
"YOU RIGHTARDS" would do, NOT by what Americans SHOULD do. If Bush broke
the law all Americans are victims.
Until you become an American in more than birthright, no one is going to
take you seriously.
The totality of your point can be summed up as: Disagree with your
political opinion can only be considered Anti-American.

I'm not buying it tard and until you learn that you're not the gate keeper
for all universal truth and instead attempt to articulate a real reasoned
counter point, you're the one to not be taken seriously.

But do amused me and claim otherwise, punk.........
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-12 20:27:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:48:22 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
The totality of your point can be summed up as: Disagree with your
political opinion can only be considered Anti-American.
Is that what you called the next day (first day of
Clinton's presidency) when conservaloons met and tried
to figure out how his "opinions" were favored over and
above the "California turnips"?
MioMyo
2009-07-13 00:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:48:22 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
The totality of your point can be summed up as: Disagree with your
political opinion can only be considered Anti-American.
Is that what you called the next day (first day of
Clinton's presidency)
As a matter of fact, I voted for Clinton into office in 92- a mistake I did
not repeat in 96 after finding out what a crook he was/is.
Post by G***@Whipped.com
when conservaloons met and tried
to figure out how his "opinions" were favored over and
above the "California turnips"?
Get off the crack moron.
Yummy in My Tummy
2009-07-13 03:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:48:22 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
The totality of your point can be summed up as: Disagree with your
political opinion can only be considered Anti-American.
Is that what you called the next day (first day of
Clinton's presidency)
As a matter of fact, I voted for Clinton into office in 92- a mistake I
did not repeat in 96 after finding out what a crook he was/is.
Post by G***@Whipped.com
when conservaloons met and tried
to figure out how his "opinions" were favored over and
above the "California turnips"?
Get off the crack moron.
A real genius you are.
MioMyo
2009-07-14 00:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yummy in My Tummy
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:48:22 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
The totality of your point can be summed up as: Disagree with your
political opinion can only be considered Anti-American.
Is that what you called the next day (first day of
Clinton's presidency)
As a matter of fact, I voted for Clinton into office in 92- a mistake I
did not repeat in 96 after finding out what a crook he was/is.
Post by G***@Whipped.com
when conservaloons met and tried
to figure out how his "opinions" were favored over and
above the "California turnips"?
Get off the crack moron.
A real genius you are.
A real judge of intellect, you are not!
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-13 15:01:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:48:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Is that what you called the next day (first day of
Clinton's presidency)
As a matter of fact, I voted for Clinton into office in 92- a mistake I did
not repeat in 96 after finding out what a crook he was/is.
Voting for Clinton was probably the only thing you've
done sensible in decades judging from your silly views.

Second, Name anything Clinton did--that was not done
worse, or greater by Reagan, Bush, or Bush. (Pertaining
to government)
Poetic Justice
2009-07-13 19:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:48:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Is that what you called the next day (first day of
Clinton's presidency)
As a matter of fact, I voted for Clinton into office in 92- a mistake I did
not repeat in 96 after finding out what a crook he was/is.
Voting for Clinton was probably the only thing you've
done sensible in decades judging from your silly views.
Is this an opinion from someone with intimate knowledge of lying?
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Second, Name anything Clinton did--that was not done
worse, or greater by Reagan, Bush, or Bush. (Pertaining
to government)
MioMyo
2009-07-14 00:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:48:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Is that what you called the next day (first day of
Clinton's presidency)
As a matter of fact, I voted for Clinton into office in 92- a mistake I did
not repeat in 96 after finding out what a crook he was/is.
Voting for Clinton was probably the only thing you've
done sensible in decades judging from your silly views.
Actually, I could name off a list of dembulms for whom I've voted which you
wold applaud, but that was before I verified if their actually really
matched thier rhetoric.
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Second, Name anything Clinton did--that was not done
worse,
Easy, Clinton sold out America to the Chinese for a few pieces of campaign
contribution silver by providing them missle intercontinental ballistic
missle technology...........
Post by G***@Whipped.com
or greater by Reagan, Bush, or Bush. (Pertaining
to government)
Whereas Reagan and both Bushes were patriots by putting the interest of
their country first & foremost.......
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-14 16:51:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:51:52 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Voting for Clinton was probably the only thing you've
done sensible in decades judging from your silly views.
Actually, I could name off a list of dembulms for whom I've voted which you
wold applaud, but that was before I verified if their actually really
matched thier rhetoric.
What is it about a politcian you don't understand,
Whineo

Do you REALLY think that consevatives are for "limited,
or smaller government" when they tell you they "stand
for it"?

Don't you know that, along with the states rights plank
in the GOP platform, that "limiting government" means
that Desegregaton could not have taken place, or that
eliminating racism and discrmination, passing the Civil
rights act, voting rights act, womens rights, childrens
rights, workers rights, equality on ALL fronts would
not have been allowed?

Do you REALLY believe that "lower taxes" means for
people like you?

Even you can't be that stupid
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-14 16:52:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:51:52 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Second, Name anything Clinton did--that was not done
worse,
Easy, Clinton sold out America to the Chinese for a few pieces of campaign
contribution silver
Wrong again

Republicans SAID he did

No evidence supports that claim other than by
stretching a few "fact" and coming up with a
"conclusion"

Evidence does not now, or never did, support that link
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-14 16:53:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:51:52 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Whereas Reagan and both Bushes were patriots by putting the interest of
their country first & foremost.......
By LYING and committing perjury like Reagan did---or
Bush lying us into a war thats killed nearly 5,000
american troops?

G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-13 15:04:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:48:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
when conservaloons met and tried
to figure out how his "opinions" were favored over and
above the "California turnips"?
Get off the crack moron.
You're denying that in 1995, after the GOP shutdown and
failure to help ND flood victims---that CPAC didn't
meet, follow Bill Bennett's advice and "Find a question
of character" with which to curry favor with their
religious reich base?

Or that CPAC got $3.2 Million from the Scaife slush
fund, funneled most of it to "The American Spectator",
Emmett Tyrelly jr, and Cliff Harris to launch the Jones
Smears? (Later called a lie by the
investigator/writer)?
MioMyo
2009-07-14 01:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:48:55 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
when conservaloons met and tried
to figure out how his "opinions" were favored over and
above the "California turnips"?
Get off the crack moron.
You're denying that in 1995, after the GOP shutdown and
failure to help ND flood victims---that CPAC didn't
meet, follow Bill Bennett's advice and "Find a question
of character" with which to curry favor with their
religious reich base?
Or that CPAC got $3.2 Million from the Scaife slush
fund, funneled most of it to "The American Spectator",
Emmett Tyrelly jr, and Cliff Harris to launch the Jones
Smears? (Later called a lie by the
investigator/writer)?
There you go again libtard smoking more crack.......
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-12 15:04:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:17:51 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
What I find revealing about stories like this one is that no one questions
the voracity of these supposed Credible yet Unnamed SOURCES who disclose
such damning information while not wanting to come forth and face questions
themselves.
What I find fascinating is that you dumb assholes used
that very same behavior to level hundreds of
accusations at Clinton---and said it was absolutely
okay.
MioMyo
2009-07-12 16:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:17:51 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
What I find revealing about stories like this one is that no one questions
the voracity of these supposed Credible yet Unnamed SOURCES who disclose
such damning information while not wanting to come forth and face questions
themselves.
What I find fascinating is that you dumb assholes used
that very same behavior to level hundreds of
accusations at Clinton---and said it was absolutely
okay.
WARNING...... WARNING...... WARNING......
Clinton's Dick...... Clinton's Dick...... Clinton's Dick......
ALERT ALERT ALERT
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-12 20:30:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:55:11 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:17:51 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
What I find revealing about stories like this one is that no one questions
the voracity of these supposed Credible yet Unnamed SOURCES who disclose
such damning information while not wanting to come forth and face questions
themselves.
What I find fascinating is that you dumb assholes used
that very same behavior to level hundreds of
accusations at Clinton---and said it was absolutely
okay.
WARNING....
Nope, Stupid

It's your PRINCIPLES that are questionable

Why (if truthfulness is a major conservative
"principle")---was it okay for Reagan to commit
perjury, lie to congress, lie to the American people
(about selling arms to our enemies and supporting
murdering dictators)---but "impeachable" for a popular
sitting president to defend himself against a concerted
Effort ( conspiracy) by his political enemies when he
told a "legal truth"?
MioMyo
2009-07-13 00:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:55:11 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:17:51 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
What I find revealing about stories like this one is that no one questions
the voracity of these supposed Credible yet Unnamed SOURCES who disclose
such damning information while not wanting to come forth and face questions
themselves.
What I find fascinating is that you dumb assholes used
that very same behavior to level hundreds of
accusations at Clinton---and said it was absolutely
okay.
WARNING....
Nope, Stupid
It's your PRINCIPLES that are questionable
Why (if truthfulness is a major conservative
"principle")---was it okay for Reagan to commit
perjury,
He didn't......
Post by G***@Whipped.com
lie to congress,
Never happened.....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
lie to the American people
Not.....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
(about selling arms to our enemies and supporting
murdering dictators)---but "impeachable" for a popular
sitting president to defend himself against a concerted
Effort ( conspiracy) by his political enemies when he
told a "legal truth"?
If you weren't lying, then you could produce some evidence that the CIA said
Reagan lied.

You won't, you can't, you're LYING SCUM.......
Yummy in My Tummy
2009-07-13 03:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:55:11 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:17:51 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
What I find revealing about stories like this one is that no one questions
the voracity of these supposed Credible yet Unnamed SOURCES who disclose
such damning information while not wanting to come forth and face questions
themselves.
What I find fascinating is that you dumb assholes used
that very same behavior to level hundreds of
accusations at Clinton---and said it was absolutely
okay.
WARNING....
Nope, Stupid
It's your PRINCIPLES that are questionable
Why (if truthfulness is a major conservative
"principle")---was it okay for Reagan to commit
perjury,
He didn't......
Post by G***@Whipped.com
lie to congress,
Never happened.....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
lie to the American people
Not.....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
(about selling arms to our enemies and supporting
murdering dictators)---but "impeachable" for a popular
sitting president to defend himself against a concerted
Effort ( conspiracy) by his political enemies when he
told a "legal truth"?
If you weren't lying, then you could produce some evidence that the CIA
said Reagan lied.
You won't, you can't, you're LYING SCUM.......
Reagan lied and committed treason simply to make Carter look bad.
MioMyo
2009-07-14 01:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yummy in My Tummy
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:55:11 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:17:51 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
What I find revealing about stories like this one is that no one questions
the voracity of these supposed Credible yet Unnamed SOURCES who disclose
such damning information while not wanting to come forth and face questions
themselves.
What I find fascinating is that you dumb assholes used
that very same behavior to level hundreds of
accusations at Clinton---and said it was absolutely
okay.
WARNING....
Nope, Stupid
It's your PRINCIPLES that are questionable
Why (if truthfulness is a major conservative
"principle")---was it okay for Reagan to commit
perjury,
He didn't......
Post by G***@Whipped.com
lie to congress,
Never happened.....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
lie to the American people
Not.....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
(about selling arms to our enemies and supporting
murdering dictators)---but "impeachable" for a popular
sitting president to defend himself against a concerted
Effort ( conspiracy) by his political enemies when he
told a "legal truth"?
If you weren't lying, then you could produce some evidence that the CIA
said Reagan lied.
You won't, you can't, you're LYING SCUM.......
Reagan lied and committed treason simply to make Carter look bad.
And the proof of that just crawled out your ass.....
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-13 15:06:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:55:39 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Why (if truthfulness is a major conservative
"principle")---was it okay for Reagan to commit
perjury,
He didn't......
Ollie North said he did

John Pointdexter said he did

Bush Sr said he did

Ronald Reagan said he did.

The Pointdexter depositions CLEARLY indicate that
Reagan lied about knowing what the sales of Arms were
doing or knowledge of them.

If he didn't---why would reagan go on national TV and
say he was sorry for doing so?
MioMyo
2009-07-14 01:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:55:39 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Why (if truthfulness is a major conservative
"principle")---was it okay for Reagan to commit
perjury,
He didn't......
Ollie North said he did
Liar....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
John Pointdexter said he did
Liar....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Bush Sr said he did
Liar.....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
Ronald Reagan said he did.
Liar....
Post by G***@Whipped.com
The Pointdexter depositions CLEARLY indicate that
Reagan lied about knowing what the sales of Arms were
doing or knowledge of them.
The claim was Reagan committed perjury, so now you're spinning, plus it's
never been shown that Reagan had knowledge of arms sales.
Post by G***@Whipped.com
If he didn't---why would reagan go on national TV and
say he was sorry for doing so?
He never said he lied or committed perjury.
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-13 15:08:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:55:39 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
lie to congress,
Never happened.....
Tell us again when you tell the opposite of truth is?

Reagan pointedly told congress that "no sales of arms
to Iran ever took place"

That was a deliberate LIE (reagan publically apologized
for it)

Reagan told Congress that the money was NOT being
funneled to South America;

That was a deliberate LIE (Reagan apologized publicly)
G***@Whipped.com
2009-07-13 15:11:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:55:39 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
lie to the American people
Not.....
He told the American people that: a) he knew nothing
about the sales of arms to Iran; b) he knew nothing
about the funds being sent to South America;
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
(about selling arms to our enemies and supporting
murdering dictators)---but "impeachable" for a popular
sitting president to defend himself against a concerted
Effort ( conspiracy) by his political enemies when he
told a "legal truth"?
If you weren't lying, then you could produce some evidence that the CIA said
Reagan lied.
Just what DO you think the IRAN-CONTRA scandal was
about you dimwitted fuck?
Post by MioMyo
You won't, you can't, you're LYING SCUM.......
====================================================================
In the case of the two 1985 Israeli arms transfers, President Reagan
knew from the outset that he was acting in conflict with his own
announced policies of not rewarding hostage takers and of not selling
arms to nations sponsoring terrorism. He knew this activity was
politically and legally questionable.52 Two of his principal advisers,
Secretary of Defense Casper W. Weinberger and Secretary of State
Shultz, both opposed the initiative for those and other reasons.
Nonetheless, the President decided to proceed, and he directed
that Congress not be notified.53
Reagan, Poindexter Trial Testimony,
==================================================================
President Reagan created the conditions which made possible the crimes
committed by others by his secret deviations from announced national
policy as to Iran and hostages and by his open determination to keep
the contras together ``body and soul'' despite a statutory ban on
contra aid.1
Post by MioMyo
McFarlane, North Trial Testimony, 3/10/89, p. 3946
.
MioMyo
2009-07-14 01:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by G***@Whipped.com
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:55:39 -0700, "MioMyo"
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
lie to the American people
Not.....
He told the American people that: a) he knew nothing
about the sales of arms to Iran; b) he knew nothing
about the funds being sent to South America;
Post by MioMyo
Post by G***@Whipped.com
(about selling arms to our enemies and supporting
murdering dictators)---but "impeachable" for a popular
sitting president to defend himself against a concerted
Effort ( conspiracy) by his political enemies when he
told a "legal truth"?
If you weren't lying, then you could produce some evidence that the CIA said
Reagan lied.
Just what DO you think the IRAN-CONTRA scandal was
about you dimwitted fuck?
Your capitulation to the argument along with your admission of lying is duly
noted, tard.....
Loading...