Liberals are up in arms about the CIA’s plan to assassinate terrorist leaders – why?
Alec Jacobs, Guest Columnist
Ideology: Very Conservative | Writing In: New Jersey
Last week, after liberals realized they had gone five minutes without calling the Bush administration out on something, quickly got their acts together to attack Dick Cheney for his super secret CIA program – a heinous plan which consisted of killing terrorists who were responsible for the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans.
But the program was far from a secret. The New York Times reported on it as early as December 15, 2002. There isn’t really much more to say about the secret nature of the CIA’s plan. The same Democrats who assumed Sarah Palin was incapable of naming a single U.S. newspaper because she refused to answer Katie Couric’s condescending question have apparently never heard of the New York Times. Or Google. And even worse, Her Majesty Queen Pelosi accused the Bush administration of lying to Congress and blamed the CIA for her lack of knowledge, saying Congress was “mislead.” Not only was Congress not mislead, even the American people were informed of this top-secret program via a briefing from the NYT.
With all the media fuss caused by the “lies” of the Bush administration, you’d think Latoya Jackson had revealed that Cheney had arranged some kind of hush-hush plan to assassinate Michael or something else much more important to CNN than our national security.
Perhaps the most confusing part of the liberal outrage is that they were surprised that this was the plan. Wasn’t that the goal after September 11th anyway? To find those that did this terrible thing to us and make sure they could never do it again? The Left is shocked that we would dare to try to kill terrorists. Though coming from the same group who refuse to do so much as put a caterpillar in the same cell as a terrorist, this perhaps shouldn’t be a surprise to sane Americans.
Regardless of whether the CIA plan was a secret or not (though again, it wasn’t), liberals need to get their priorities straight. Rather than advocating that America befriend terrorists to get information and criticizing past administrations for giving the CIA permission to kill terrorists responsible for the mass murder of American citizens, they should stick to celebrity death conspiracy theories and let the big boys handle issues of national security.
Well, Alec, this was certainly entertaining, but not much else.
“Liberals” are upset about the situation because Dick Cheney told the CIA not to inform either congrssional intelligence committee. It was a deliberate attempt to hide the truth about assassination squads. Congress needs to know what the executive is doing, so it can carry out its responsibility of checking executive power. Too much power in the hands of an individual is called a dictatorship.
I believe you were supposed to learn that in high school civics.
I was going to say something, but Ian got to it first.
And I believe Congress was supposed to learn how to read in Kindergarten.
Couldn’t have been much of a secret if it was printed in the New York Times.
I could have sworn that the New York Times was a liberal paper.
You can easily make an argument that it is moral to kill terrorists preemptively or, in other words, before they can kill innocent Americans. But that is not really what I want to write about.
My belief on this subject is not that the government should do anything because it is moral or not, but rather the government should do something that would protect or enhance the country’s sovereignty. Since terrorists most certainly pose a threat to American sovereignty, not only should we accept a practice like this but we should also anticipate it.
A lot of the posts on this particular article attempt to divert the general argument of this post and concentrate on minutia of the matter that may somehow delegitimize Alec’s argument. In the long run, who cares what or who Dick Cheney is? Will anyone remember his name in 200 years?– Maybe if you are one of those people who enjoys memorizing the names of Vice Presidents. The minute details are not important and this is where Alec and Noah get the reader off track.
I’ll be the first person to say that Alec’s post is certainly provocative to the point that it clouds his intentions. It is this way most likely because he was trying to turn heads. However, we need to look at the general message he is trying to convey, which is that a country should be expected to defend itself from a clear threat by any means necessary. Whether you are Liberal or Conservative, preservation of the sovereignty of our country should be a priority for everyone. That is a worthwhile message and perfect for a post on the Politicizer.
Alec,
The issue isn’t whether Congresspeople can read a newspaper or not–some of them obviously can’t. But in this case, they shouldn’t have to.
The Executive branch doesn’t get to have their execution squads without letting Congress know–it’s the Executive Branch’s *responsibility* to let them know, not just an option or “that would be nice if”.
Again, checks and balances, which are the foundation for our Constitution.
What I’m saying is that if newspapers were informed, somebody certainly told Congress. It probably didn’t seem so controversial at the time (in the aftermath of 9/11), and Congress didn’t feel the need to make a big deal about it.
But now that they’re vilifying anyone who’s ever been involved with Bush, it seems appropriate.
Again, the news isn’t about the death squads, it was about Cheney specifically ordering the CIA not to tell Congress about it, which may have broken the law. Again with the pesky checks and balances.
Division of powers? What a pain in the ass.
It’s just a detail, after all. You know, one of the key principles of our system of government.