home

Cheney Implicates Congressional Leadership On Civil Liberties Abuses

On Fox News this morning, Vice President Cheney implicated the Congressional leadership, including the current Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, in the Bush Administration abuses regarding civil liberties. In an interview with Chris Wallace, Cheney said:

WALLACE: Let's drill down into some of the specific measures that you pushed — first of all, the warrantless surveillance on a massive scale, without telling the appropriate court, without seeking legislation from Congress. Why not, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the spirit of national unity, get approval, support, bring in the other branches of government?

CHENEY: Well, let me tell you a story about the terror surveillance program. We did brief the Congress. . . . We brought in the chairman and the ranking member, House and Senate, and briefed them a number of times up until — this was — be from late '01 up until '04 when there was additional controversy concerning the program.

MORE . . .

At that point, we brought in what I describe as the big nine — not only the intel people but also the speaker, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and brought them into the situation room in the basement of the White House.

I presided over the meeting. We briefed them on the program, and what we'd achieved, and how it worked, and asked them, "Should we continue the program?" They were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike. All agreed — absolutely essential to continue the program.

I then said, "Do we need to come to the Congress and get additional legislative authorization to continue what we're doing?" They said, "Absolutely not. Don't do it, because it will reveal to the enemy how it is we're reading their mail."

That happened. We did consult. We did keep them involved. We ultimately ended up having to go to the Congress after the New York Times decided they were going to make the judge to review all of — or make all of this available, obviously, when they reacted to a specific leak.

But it was a program that we briefed on repeatedly. We did these briefings in my office. I presided over them. We went to the key people in the House and Senate intel committees and ultimately the entirely leadership and sought their advice and counsel, and they agreed we should not come back to the Congress.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Democratic members who participated in this meeting have two choices in my mind - refute Cheney's statements or admit their complicity in the illegal activity perpetrated by the Bush Administration.

Given Cheney's accusations, it is quite clear in my mind now that an indepenedent counsel is necessary so that all potentially culpable actors can be properly investigated. From President Bush to now-Speaker Pelosi.

Speaking for me only

< Symbolism | Cheney Defends Himself >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Given Cheney's chronic (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:07:43 PM EST
    issues with truth, I'd like to hear the other side of it.  I find it very hard to believe the Bush administration really told all to these people.  That's simply not the way they operate or the way they think.

    But they're clever and devious enough to have briefed them just enough to co-opt and implicate them, which is why, as has been suggested for a while now, the Dem. leadership has shied away from cries for accountability on this stuff.  And it's why there's not going to be any independent counsel or serious investigation, ever.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by lilburro on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:39:15 PM EST
    this calls out for clarification...  But it's laughable that all this happened in Cheney's office anyway.  And note that he used TSP and not interrogation/black site issues.  

    Thick as thieves...unfortunately, we can count Dem leadership in Congress among the thieves.

    [ Parent ]

    A first for evrything! (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:10:48 PM EST
    Sadly, this is the first time I believe Cheney is telling the truth. I've thought all along that the Dem leaders were in it up to their eyes. It explains why impeachment was "off the table" and why Congress has been so reluctant to pursue investigations into torture or wiretapping.

    This interview should force the Democratic Leaders to clarify their roles. If they don't appoint a special counsel, it will be because they know where it will lead.


    And explains (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:01:24 PM EST
    votes on Patriot Act and FISA

    [ Parent ]
    guilty of not, (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the so-called Democratic "leadership" are wrong for America. They should be replaced. We should not have to wait until their guilt is proven.

    And if you would like to go to the (2.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 06:48:03 PM EST
    source, here is a quote from and a link to the NYT article of 12/16/05.

    "This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

    Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity
    because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

    According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said

    Link

    I think they've made this accusation before (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    It's part of what they used to push the FISA amendments through.

    I'm inclined to believe it.

    What they did was (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by SOS on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    turn back the clock to a world where the old cabal works. Waste, fraud, abuse, graft, corruption, and malfeasance. It is a world where things can remain hidden under "National Security."

    [ Parent ]
    Now that Cheney has been this specific (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:04:39 PM EST
    I think those Congressional leaders need to explain or refute.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:15:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Theres nothing subtle about (none / 0) (#2)
    by SOS on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    desperate men.

    Well, now that it's out there, (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    as to the Democratic leadership it kind of moots/destroys the blackmail potential that knowledge of and/or acquiescence in the program might have had in Cheney's hands, doesn't it?

    And, as to the Democratic leadership, they can all say:  "We were told (or had it made clear to us) that if we didn't go along, they would both use all flavors of propaganda to destroy us and keep doing it anyway."

    Alternatively, and not inconsistently, they could add:   "So, Deadeye Dick is just trying to drag us into his pit of criminality.  Like any criminal, he wants to try to drag as many innocent people into his mess, so as to try to save his miseable criminal hide."

    And, finally, Deadeye Dick's pronouncements now make it clear - he said what he said in a nationally-televised TV program - that none of this is a state secret.  

    It hasn't been a state secret (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 06:36:55 PM EST
    since the NYT decided to tell the enemy about one of our most important weapons.

    [ Parent ]
    Any so-called "enemy" * naive enough (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by scribe on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:21:59 PM EST
    to think the NSA wasn't already listening is so stupid they deserved whatever they got, on a purely Darwinan basis.

    The fact is, it's been open public knowledge for many years that the NSA listens to anything and everything - if it's in the EM spectrum, consider it gone.  It's that knowledge which leads people who want to do ill to consider and use alternate means of communications.  

    No - the enemies Bush and Cheney were aiming at were called "law", "constitution", "congress", "dissent", and "democrats".

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the terrorists are such a threat (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:40:20 PM EST
    to our civilization that we have to take extraordinary measures to prevent them from winning, but they are so clueless that until it's printed in the NYT, they wouldn't have any idea that the NSA might be listening to them and their plans.

    As George Will said on 2/12/2006:

    The Administration says talking about this(the NSA monitoring)tips off the enemy. Now, the idea that our enemies think that the most technologically sophisticated nation in the world isn't using all its' advantages to eavesdrop on them is peculiar. In 1978 we passed FISA. That alerted them, if any alerting was needed, that we were indeed listening in. Passing the Patriot act alerted them what we were going to do or not do.



    [ Parent ]
    Okay (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:41:55 PM EST
    If you want to claim that our enemies never do stupid things and always know what we are up to, fine.

    Some, however, would dispute that.

    [ Parent ]

    No, the point isn't (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:55:47 PM EST
    that they never do stupid things, nor that they 'always know what we are doing'.

    To put it succinctly, since you apparently didn't read it the first time:

    Now, the idea that our enemies think that the most technologically sophisticated nation in the world isn't using all its' advantages to eavesdrop on them is peculiar.

    That you believe that they are malevolent but at the same time aren't smart enough to drain water from a boot without instructions printed on the heel is peculiar, but it's your story to stick to if you must.

    [ Parent ]

    So we should always (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:25:19 PM EST
    tell our enemies what we are doing because we "know" they know.

    That DA, is dumb.

    Now goodnight and please go away.

    [ Parent ]

    Assume that the enemy knows nothing? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:52:17 PM EST
    They already knew they were under the possibility of electronic monitoring, unless they were too dumb to boil water, which doesn't exactly match up with them being a threat to our way of life.

    That DA, is dumb.

    Since you came up with that misreading of what I've written here, I must agree totally and completely with your evaluation.

    Now goodnight and please go away.

    I didn't know that JM put you in charge of who can and can't post here, can you tell me when this took place?

    FWIW,I intend to keep to the rules here and keep posting, you are welcome to b** and moan to JM to ban me, but I will stay here unless I hear from her to the contrary.

    You don't seem to understand the above, despite my telling you this at least once before when you've asked me not to post here.

    I will repeat myself every time you repeat your 'request', so la-dee-dah until you repeat yourself again.

    TTFN, and try  to sleep well tonight, I'll be here everyday grinning in the back, whether you think it's unfair or whatever you've convinced yourself is the reason I shouldn't be allowed to post here.

    [ Parent ]

    Sigh (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:53:49 AM EST
    I don't mind you there, it is the bone headiness of your comments that make me sigh and shake my head. I love a good back and forth, but you no longer seem able to compete.

    Let's look at your claim.

    You claim that it is okay to publish defense secrets because the terrorists know them anyway.

    The proof you offer is that all terrorists are smart.

    Now, I happen to believe that Ms Plame was not a covert agent, but you do. So, using your logic, their should not have been an investigation because our enemies knew who she was.

    Pick a side, DA. Any side.

    [ Parent ]

    He says, having nothing of substance to offer (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    I don't mind you there, it is the bone headiness of your comments that make me sigh and shake my head.

    Such concern over my comments, possibly because any bone-headed mistakes(like confusing headiness for headed-ness) are made on your part and you don't want to own up to them when I point them out for all to see.

    I realize that you don't handle embarrassment well, and wanting me to be silent would solve that problem for you.

    Here's a thought, think about what you write and work on handling disagreement better than you do now, then you won't be embarrassed when I point out the flaws and gaps in your reasoning.

    Let's look at your claim.

    You claim that it is okay to publish defense secrets because the terrorists know them anyway.

    No, it's not a defense secret that the terrorists are under possible surveillance, it is a matter of sheer logic.

    That they wouldn't think or realize this until it got published in the NYT is your own conclusion, which doesn't match with them being a threat to America. That I point this fact out brings out your snark and stupidity for all to see, but somehow that's my fault.

    The proof you offer is that all terrorists are smart.

    Again:

    the idea that our enemies think that the most technologically sophisticated nation in the world isn't using all its' advantages to eavesdrop on them is peculiar.

    But you don't think it's a peculiar idea, and you go into rhetorical overdrive because you don't have a good response based on facts and reasoning to counter this idea.

    Now, I happen to believe that Ms Plame was not a covert agent, but you do. So, using your logic, their should not have been an investigation because our enemies knew who she was.

    Actually, I believe Patrick Fitzgerald and the head of the CIA who said she was a covert agent.

    That you don't believe them is your own problem, not mine.

    As for picking a side, I've picked reality, you have yet to demonstrate that is your choice as well.

    Again, if you find my comments intolerable, don't read or respond to them, you only show the lack of logic in your own babbling lame excuses and convoluted thinking for all to see.  

    Keep up the good work.

    TTFN


    [ Parent ]

    heh (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:00:53 AM EST
    So a dumb enemy would know all this information??

    That's funny.  

    You know, you are the one who told me that the Soviets wouldn't know about Plame because she wasn't spying on them.

    Were they smart, dumb or in between?

    And it doesn't make any difference if Plame was covert or not if making her name public made no difference because our enemies already knew..

    You cannot have it both ways, DA.

    You think outing a very important national defense program is okay because our enemies had to know about it.

    You think outing a covert agent (your claim) is wrong because our enemies didn't know about her.

    hehe

    [ Parent ]

    Heh yourself, you've yet to demonstrate (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    that the enemy is dumb, and your own bone-headedness

    heh

    isn't in dispute.

    You know, you are the one who told me that the Soviets wouldn't know about Plame because she wasn't spying on them.

    Actually, if you go back and look at the post, you'd find the following:

    No, the premise was that she wasn't (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dark Avenger on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 08:35:48 AM EST
    in the same area as Ames, so he wouldn't have had access to her name to inform on her to his Soviet masters.

    If he knew that she was covert, he would've sold that info to the Soviets as well.  You have no sources for your assertion about VP being betrayed by Ames, other than Novak's excuse.  The Soviets took action against everyone Ames told them about, but in your world she was betrayed but they didn't because?

    VP was sent overseas years after Ames was detected, as another commentator pointed out to you in another thread, and which you ignored.  So you're two strikes in this area.  Nice going!

    Were they smart, dumb or in between?

    That's what most people are thinking about you by now, PPJ.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Do they have the old expression down South, "When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging"?

    And it doesn't make any difference if Plame was covert or not if making her name public made no difference because our enemies already knew..

    Except that this hypothesis was given by Novak, whom we already know differs in his account of how he learned her identity from the folks he talked to about it, so that proves ...............diddly-squat.

    You cannot have it both ways, DA.

    No, you can't stick to your "VP wasn't covert" and that Ames outed her.

    You can't explain why Novak is right and Fitzgerald and the head of the CIA are wrong.

    Your yell of "SURRENDER" comes when you know that you're losing badly, nothing new in this, as a casual perusal of the archives where you've tried the same BS with me before would demonstrate.

    You think outing a very important national defense program is okay because our enemies had to know about it.

    Nice mind-reading job Kreskin, but wrong. You really should read and think about your responses here, you wouldn't end up being a laughing-stock with your fulminations over what I write here.

    Again, for the third time:

    the idea that our enemies think that the most technologically sophisticated nation in the world isn't using all its' advantages to eavesdrop on them is peculiar.

    You seem to think that dumb terrorists who wouldn't take any precautions against being monitored would then become horribly efficient terrorists when the beans were spilled in the NYT, they would realize that their calls could be monitors  and that knowledge raised their IQ's by 50 points or something.

    Again, thanks for the laughs, PPJ.

    [ Parent ]

    You are (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:21:32 PM EST
    You are the King of Reframe..

    The point re Ames is that he wouldn't have to know about her, the Soviets would already know.... I mean that is YOUR claim.

    Look, try and distract all you want, but your argument that it is okay to talk about defense secrets because our enemies will already know about them is simply inane.

    This says it best.

    QUESTION: Justine Redman with CNN. How was national security harmed by The New York Times reporting on this program? Don't the bad guys already assume that they're being monitored anyway, and shouldn't Americans, you know, bear in mind that they might be at any time?

    GEN. HAYDEN: You know, we've had this question asked several times. Public discussion of how we determine al Qaeda intentions, I just -- I can't see how that can do anything but harm the security of the nation. And I know people say, "Oh, they know they're being monitored." Well, you know, they don't always act like they know they're being monitored. But if you want to shove it in their face constantly, it's bound to have an impact.

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    not the Emperor of Reframe like you PPJ (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    The point re Ames is that he wouldn't have to know about her, the Soviets would already know.... I mean that is YOUR claim.

    No, you're the one who's parroting Novak's claim that the Soviets knew about VP from Ames, unless you've another wingnut theory you picked up from some wingnut website.

    Well, you know, they don't always act like they know they're being monitored.

    Funny how you'll believe him about this, but not about Plame.

    What else would a good CIA head do but try to make it sound scary when the cat's out of the bag?

    The same folks behind 9/11 wouldn't be aware of possible governmental monitoring until it's in the NYT is still a ridiculous concept, no matter who says otherwise.

    You're just a few feet deeper, keep digging,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, this is not about Plame (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:15:19 PM EST
    It is about you getting caught in an indefensible position, or should I say two positions.

    1. You argue that Plame should not have been outed because the enemy didn't know about her.

    2. You argue that it is okay to talk about how we track and listen to our enemies because they already know about it.

    Pick one.

    hahahahaha

    [ Parent ]

    Are you barking mad? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    You brought up the subject of Plame in comment 32, then you say it's not about Plame?

    Hehehehehehehehehehehe.

    You argue that Plame should not have been outed because the enemy didn't know about her.

    True.

    You argue that it is okay to talk about how we track and listen to our enemies because they already know about it.

    You do get the difference between a living, breathing operative, and a tactical approach, do you not, PPJ?

    The former is a unpredictable unknown, the other is a tactic that any intelligent opponent would foresee.

    Here's a rundown on the issue, it won't shut you up, but that's a sleeveless errand anyway:

    Contrary to the suggestions of Gibson and others, the new information revealed by the Times was not that the United States spies on terrorist suspects but, rather, that the Bush administration has undertaken such surveillance without obtaining warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In fact, Gibson has no reason to believe Al Qaeda was not already "tipped off" to U.S. efforts to monitor its phone conversations; Al Qaeda was already taking precautions to avoid surveillance of its cell-phone conversations years before Risen and Lichtblau reported on the surveillance program, notably through the use of untraceable disposable cell phones.

    As the Times revealed on December 16, 2005, President Bush issued a secret presidential order shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on phone and email communications that originate from or are received within the United States and to do so without the court approval normally required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

    According to media reports, Al Qaeda was taking precautions pertaining to its cell-phone use for years prior to the Times article. For example, ABC News reported on January 12, in a story about bulk purchases of disposable cell phones in the United States, that Al Qaeda used disposable cell phones in its March 2004 bombings in Spain:

        The phones -- which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card -- have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.

        [...]

        Law enforcement officials say the phones were used to detonate the bombs terrorists used in the Madrid train attacks in March 2004.

        "The application of prepaid phones for nefarious reasons, is really widespread. For example, the terrorists in Madrid used prepaid phones to detonate the bombs in the subway trains that killed more than 200 people," said Roger Entner, a communications consultant.

    Further, an October 17, 2002, USA Today article indicated Al Qaeda's awareness of the issue and its implementation of countermeasures against NSA eavesdropping. USA Today stated: "The NSA faces new obstacles in penetrating al-Qaeda because the terror group has learned how to evade U.S. interception technology -- chiefly by using disposable cell phones or by avoiding phones altogether and substituting human messengers and face-to-face meetings to convey orders."

    Additionally, Media Matters noted that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden reportedly stopped using his satellite phone within days of the August 20, 1998, attack on Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Also, Media Matters noted during the February 12 broadcast of ABC News' This Week, with host George Stephanopoulos, Washington Post columnist George F. Will dismissed as "peculiar" the claim that enemies of the United States were tipped off by the NSA program's disclosure:

       

    WILL: I want to go back to the NSA thing. The administration says talking about this tips off the enemy. Now, the idea that our enemies think that the most technologically sophisticated nation in the world isn't using all its advantages to eavesdrop on them is peculiar. In 1978, we passed FISA. That alerted them, if any alerting was needed, that we were indeed listening in, passing the Patriot Act alerted them to what we were going to do and were going to not do. What I do not understand in this whole bizarre week we just had, George, our arguing about the NSA surveillance, the administration saying desperately important to pass the Patriot Act.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    Plame was just (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:41:19 PM EST
    and you know this, to show how wacked out you are.

    1. You say that Plame should not have been outed because our enemies didn't know who she was.

    2. You say it is okay to out a national defense program because our enemies know about it.

    Earth to Da. Earth to Da! Come in DA!

    Pick one.

    [ Parent ]

    Was just what? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:06:27 PM EST
    You say it is okay to out a national defense program because our enemies know about it.

    In that case, we can't make any laws that deal with fighting terrorism public, because that would mean our enemies would know how we intended to fight them.

    Earth to Da. Earth to Da! Come in DA!

    Pick one.

    Thanks for allowing me the chance to call you out on the False dilemma you're attempting to postulate here:

    The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices are offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice.

    When a person really does have only two choices, as in the classic short story The Lady, or the Tiger?, then they are often said to be "on the horns of a dilemma".

    False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice("If you are not with us, you are against us." But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission--possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance--rather than by deliberate deception.

    When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.

    If you were sure of yourself, you wouldn't be hectoring me about this.

    You took three hours for your response, that time and the response you gave add up to an answer for my previous question.

    Thanks again for the laughs.

    [ Parent ]

    Spin doesn't work (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:22:02 PM EST
    You claimed that it was wrong for Plame to be outed because our enemies didn't know about her.

    You have no problem with a national defense program being exposed because our enemies know that we will be listening.

    Pick one or look up hypocrite in the dictionary.

    [ Parent ]

    But you'll try again nevertheless (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:11:29 AM EST
    You claimed that it was wrong for Plame to be outed because our enemies didn't know about her.

    "Repeating the same mistake and expecting different results is the definition of insanity."

    You have no problem with a national defense program being exposed because our enemies know that we will be listening.

    "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again, and then quit.  No use making yourself a d-mn fool over it."

    I'm afraid you've past the quitting point, but if you want to play the fool, there's no one who can stop you.

    Pick one or look up hypocrite in the dictionary.

    I did the latter, and found a description of you.

    Are you happy now?

    See you later, alligator.


    [ Parent ]

    Here is what TalkLeft (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 06:31:12 PM EST
    had to say about this at 12/19/05 at 6:33PM.

    Link

    On July 17, 2003, following a briefing by Cheney, Sen. Jay Rockefeller responded with a handwritten letter (pdf). How prescient. Markos at Daily Kos has the text version. Here's a portion of it:

    "Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

    As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance. Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

    I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication."

    So yes, the briefings happened, or else Rockefeller's letter is a fake. Interestingly enough, he took no actions beyond this obvious CYA letter.

    So their is no need for anything beyond Senator Rockefeller telling us who else was in the meetings.

    And BTW - the actions were not illegal, so dream on, BTD, dream on.

    "We know where they(WMD) are" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 06:48:44 PM EST
    Yes, we should trust what Cheney says, he has a record for telling the truth in this and other matters...............

    [ Parent ]
    Sigh... (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 07:44:20 PM EST
    Rockefeller and a host of others is his "alibi."

    Now if you want to call Rockefeller a lair and the NYT article false, be my guest.

    [ Parent ]

    He comments when he has nothing sensible (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    to respond with.

    I merely pointed out who has the documented history of not telling the truth, and his account contradicts the letter you quoted earlier, but why let facts get in the way of a partisan rant?

    [ Parent ]

    The issue is, did the meetings occur. (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:43:54 PM EST
    Rockefeller's letter and the NYT article both prove that they happened.

    Repeating yourself proves nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:53:48 PM EST
    The issue is: what exactly was discussed at the meetings?

    [ Parent ]
    If you read Rockefeller's (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:30:10 PM EST
    letter you can get the general drift.

    Now, if he, and the others, were concerned the law was being violated they should have come forward.

    Or are you now saying that Democrats can use the excuse they didn't "know?"

    I hope you don't use that in court.

    But since they didn't do that I have to assume they didn't find it illegal, immoral or fattening, and since I would guess that some sought legal counsel, I would opine that was counsel's advice.

    [ Parent ]

    Since they were told they couldn't even (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:54:13 PM EST
    discuss the subject(hence the letter written for a future when it could be discussed), your response makes no sense, but that's the PPJ we've grown to mock and laugh at around here.

    [ Parent ]
    From time to time US Senators (2.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:08:15 AM EST
    must do what they are elected to do. One of those tasks, per the Constitution, is to exercise oversight.

    Rockefeller was ranking minority member. If he believed that what the NSA was doing he was compelled to come forward, if not in public, at least to the AG or the President.

    Yet he did not. However we do know that he complained to some. In fact, this from the  NYT article of 12/16/05 opens the possibility that he may have been the first leaker.

    According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

    So as usual, you are long on bow wow and short in facts. Pitiful. Just pitiful.

    [ Parent ]

    All you have is allegations in the article (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:13:04 AM EST
    from 2005, so it appears that, in fact, you are the one with the bow-wow and are short on the facts in this case.

    Not that it's unusual for you to substitute snark and insult for reasoning and facts, but you've really demonstrated your lack of logic here this time.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    Are you telling me (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:03:04 AM EST
    the article is wrong?

    So I guess all the Congressional hearings, new laws, claims and counterclaims all happened based on false information..........

    hahahahahahahahaha

    [ Parent ]

    that you've got things wrong? Yes. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    Nothing new about that.  

    [ Parent ]
    Tell me again (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    All we have is the NYT article and all that followed in Congress..... and now Cheney...

    hahahahahaahahaha


    [ Parent ]

    That you are spinning against reality? Sure thing (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 03:02:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'll take it. (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:20:11 PM EST
     
    All you have is allegations in the article (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:13:04 AM CST

    Will you call the Times and tell'em they lied?

    hahahahaha

    [ Parent ]

    You start with the hehe because you've (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:29:19 PM EST
    run out of anything sensible to say, or to put it in terms you may understand, you're becoming a practitioner of "yadda-yadda'.

    A check of your past rantings here and at your loathsome blog would demonstrate that you cite the NYT when it suits your purposes, and use them as an example of unreliable MSM when that approach suits your purposes.

    I leave it to others as to whether you're doing a victory dance in the end zone or having a panic attack that someone might realize you didn't even score a field goal.

    Cheers, and again, thanks for the laughs.

    [ Parent ]

    hehaho O (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:42:50 PM EST
    You are the one claiming the article is wrong..

    [ Parent ]
    No, your interpretation of the article is wrong. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:08:16 PM EST
    As they say in the South, "It's the hit dog that barks".

    Or laughs, in this case...........

    [ Parent ]

    All I have done is quote the article (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:23:37 PM EST
    I don't have to guess. It speaks for itself.

    Bad day for DA, eh?

    hehe

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, others on this thread disputing (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dark Avenger on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 12:04:06 AM EST
    your interpretation doesn't matter :)

    I had a good day, thanks again for all the laughs you provided.

    [ Parent ]

    A and B (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:11:56 PM EST
    A - Cheney is a rogue.

    B - The democrats in congress went along with everything.

    Sen. Feinstein has consistently (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:12:23 PM EST
    explained her vote for FISA revise as stemming from information she has that is not available to every Senator.

    As has Jane Harman (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:23:43 PM EST
    who has gone along with pretty much everything Bush, Cheney, Addington, Ashcroft and the rest of the criminals wanted.

    And then there's Rockefeller -- the most pathetic, obseqiuous creature to ever hold the reins of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Gee, what a surprise that he collects tens of thousands of dollars from the telecoms each election cycle.

    [ Parent ]

    Cheney taking Pelosi down, among others; COOL! (none / 0) (#52)
    by AnthonyLook on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:15:33 PM EST
    Is this Cheney's way of saying, charge me and you go down with me too. Many Democrats believe Pelosi, Reid and others have to legally answer to all the charges that are circling out there. There is no love lost, with the majority of Democrats if he takes down Pelosi, Reid, Dodd....
    This isn't a Mexican standoff, this is Cheney mocking the law. Let the chips fall where they may; instead of being flung around aimlessly.