Bush-Cheney lust for primacy results in 'scandals' like this

ARTICLE: CIA Had Program to Kill Al-Qaeda Leaders, By Joby Warrick and Ben Pershing, Washington Post, July 14, 2009

You're kidding! The CIA had a secret program to kill Al Qaeda seniors!

OMYGOD!

Of course the CIA had such a program, and there really was no secret as to our intent, so why doesn't Bush-Cheney seek the oversight? I mean, geez, who exactly is going to vote against that one?

But now we're faced with the stupidity of Panetta feeling like he has to kill the program because of past oversight issues, and the Repubs go after Pelosi for "lies" and the Dems now hound Panetta for the same. Talk about a completely useless, political drill.

The Boomers continue to suck as the worst political generation of legislators in arguably a century or more. God save us from these idiots.

But the initial mistake comes right out of my seven deadly sins bit from Great Powers: Bush-Cheney weren't into asking or seeking consensus. They were into amassing power in the presidency during wartime.

And so we end up with "scandals" like this. Again, shame on everybody for wasting our time and resources and CIA.

Comments

[MH]

The CIA goes after the leadership of terrorist organizations? Who knew?It should be pointed out that Leon Panetta was born in 1938 and Nancy Pelosi was born in 1940, so the "sucking" crosses generational lines and is not limited to Boomers. Nowdays our esteemed politicians pander to whatever special interests will keep them in power and most idealistic boomers who could have made a difference in the government have long since given up and moved on to other things. Until voters decide they've had enough we will continue to have our leaders bought and paid for no matter what generation they are.

[Elmer Humes]

AGREE! We must have Term Limits for the Legislative Branch! Look at how well it has worked for the Executive Branch. Many Legislators campaigned for this in the 80's and EVERYONE of the winners reneged! We must push for this again!

[Ben]

I can only imagine the dismay and embarassment that our previous generations feel from this insanity. We as a people have a job to do, now just do it.

[large]

Without a Constitutional Congress, the American People will never see laws mandating federal legislators with term limits . .

Thus, every election will call for the election of whoever is running against the Incumbent . . one term and gone! This is the American Citizen's only defense against a continuing professionalization of our Legislative Branch!

It will also resolve the need for a Congressman or Senator to amass Campaign funds . . thus the lobbyists will have no one to buy . .

[Gilbert Garza]

“Bush-Cheney weren't into asking or seeking consensus. “Bush-Cheney weren't into asking or seeking consensus. They were into amassing power in the presidency during wartime.”

Not seeking consensus when and where it requires revealing knowledge of your danger-laden intentions and asking unlikely/unwanted participation from active disbelievers in your cause (tantamount to asking them to join you in sharing responsibility/liability in the risks for actions to further an enterprise in which they would rather see you fail) seems a very reasonable understandable and forgivable sin to me-- if a sin at all. (And I don’t see how either party to the situation will have had net gains over the other of real political power from this failure to engage/exchange.)

[Tom Barnett]

Gilbert,

That's just a more clever rendition of an argument used by despots (real and would-be) throughout history: I know best and therefore I should be able to do whatever I choose to make my policies happen.

That's simply not how our government works, although determined people can get away with it on occasion.

[hof1991]

It's a sin alright. Congress would have agreed to anything (and basically did). The SCOTUS would bend over backwards to given them any leeway they asked for. Basically all FISA requests were approved.

Bush/Cheney didn't bother to ask, didn't bother to inform. Their concern wasn't efficient operation, but amassing power, using the crisis as an excuse. Neither efficient nor effective, just sinful and undemocratic (as well as unrepublican).

[Gilbert Garza]

Early on, it was not difficult for congress and the executive branch to engage/cooperate in legislative clarification (assignments/authorizations, limitations, and controls) of some general and specific areas of executive action/policy and activity/operations with regards to national security none of which SCOTUS found to be unconstitutional. But later with strong disagreement on the need for (and prospects for success of) the war in Iraq, congress (understandably) became belligerent litigious and less willing to sign on (in congressional oversight) to a security-related action/activity that was based on the assumption that the war in Iraq could and should be aided by this action/activity and ultimately won. I don’t think that the Bush administration stretched its war-time constitutional powers beyond its constitutional responsibilities. And if and where it did I don’t think anyone should fear that this over-reach will have established and fixed bad precedents for the occasioning of more wars or for the wrongful “dutiful performance” of war-time presidents- thanks in large part to congressional questioning skepticism resistance and oversight in defense of the constitution.

[Seth]

"The plan to deploy teams of assassins to kill senior terrorists was legally authorized by the administration of George W. Bush, but it never became fully operational, according to sources briefed on the matter. The sources confirmed that then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney had urged the CIA to delay notifying Congress about the diplomatically sensitive plan.""But others said the initiative never advanced beyond concepts and feasibility studies."

Why would seek oversight of something that wasn't happening?This is being so politicized to cover Pelosi, it's difficult to say what happened. Unless there are documents with the VP saying don't ever tell Congress it comes down to he said/she said.