cheney doth protest too much.

**George Gervin's Afro** · 07-13-2009

As opposed to democrats who think what exactly???

No the question is, do republicans feel that a president can do whatever he wants? Yes or no?

I personally don't think any president can.

Where do you stand?

**coyotes_geek** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

No the question is, do republicans feel that a president can do whatever he wants? Yes or no?

I personally don't think any president can.

Where do you stand?

That's not the question I asked. Do democrats hold democrat presidents to a higher standard than republicans hold republican presidents?

And to answer your question I agree with you. No president can do whatever they want. Even though democrats and republicans alike will only hold the other team's guy to that standard.

**George Gervin's Afro** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

That's not the question I asked. Do democrats hold democrat presidents to a higher standard than republicans hold republican presidents?

And to answer your question I agree with you. No president can do whatever they want. Even though democrats and republicans alike will only hold the other team's guy to that standard.

I am sure there some in both parties that are hypocrites and only want their side to get away with this sh*t.

**sam1617** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So, given your understanding of the separation of powers, the president could theoretically kill someone with impunity, correct? I don't think murder is listed in the Cons ution, after all.

Murder violates someones freedom of speech

You can't speak if you're dead.

**Ya Vez** · 07-13-2009

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

So taking out AQ leaders is bad.. lol.. way to go democrats this just makes you look so weak on national defense, since when is it bad to kill AQ leaders.

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

**George Gervin's Afro** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by Ya Vez

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

So taking out AQ leaders is bad.. lol.. way to go democrats this just makes you look so weak on national defense, since when is it bad to kill AQ leaders.

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

So you fall on the side that the president can do whatever he wants. Of course you purposely (or your stupid) dodge the fact that Cheney told them to keep it from Congress. You ignore that and then mention what the program's purpose. I guess you think Obama now has no interest in killing the leadership of Al-Qaeda?

**Ya Vez** · 07-13-2009

So what about killing AQ leaders does congress need to know about, doesn't one in war use all tools necessary to gain the advantage? Are we not in a war against a defined enemy AQ? So what about war does the congress need to know about, I mean they did authorize the war, so with war comes killing and destruction, what is it about war they don't understand..

**Wild Cobra** · 07-13-2009

I heard an interview with someone who I think was talking about this. I didn't get names, I was driving from point A to B in the car, so what I heard was incomplete. I did catch this much on the 15 minute drive. What is being complained about, was a plan that was never implemented, and therefore never needed to be disclosed. The demonrats are just blowing smoke up everyone's butts over this.

**George Gervin's Afro** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by Ya Vez

So what about killing AQ leaders does congress need to know about, doesn't one in war use all tools necessary to gain the advantage? Are we not in a war against a defined enemy AQ? So what about war does the congress need to know about, I mean they did authorize the war, so with war comes killing and destruction, what is it about war they don't understand..

We get it. The president can do whatever he wants. No need to further discuss a program that was bandied about in 2001 when Bush was in office. So I guess , by your logic, Bush wasn't into killing terrorist leaders. Great job bolstering your argument.

Stop asking stupid questions. We all know who we are fighting against but what concerns others is that the previous administration used 'shaky intel' to start a war so the trust factor is zero. When we question anything that has happened since we are accused of rambling , incoherent charges by the right.

**George Gervin's Afro** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I heard an interview with someone who I think was talking about this. I didn't get names, I was driving from point A to B in the car, so what I heard was incomplete. I did catch this much on the 15 minute drive. What is being complained about, was a plan that was never implemented, and therefore never needed to be disclosed. The demonrats are just blowing smoke up everyone's butts over this.

You mean the head of the CIA is blowing smoke up everyone's butt. Do you even know what's going on McFly?

**Wild Cobra** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

You mean the head of the CIA is blowing smoke up everyone's butt. Do you even know what's going on McFly?

I think the discussion about Panetta's part was that his words were twisted.

Do you have an exact quote, in context?

**Wild Cobra** · 07-13-2009

I'm not sure if this is it, I think it is. I'm listening to it now:

Pete Hoekstra Interview

**ElNono** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I heard an interview with someone who I think was talking about this. I didn't get names, I was driving from point A to B in the car, so what I heard was incomplete. I did catch this much on the 15 minute drive. What is being complained about, was a plan that was never implemented, and therefore never needed to be disclosed. The demonrats are just blowing smoke up everyone's butts over this.

Actually the program was described as an 'on and off' program. Panetta just found out about it and shut it down. This topic is actually relevant because that program predates the Congressional majority of Democrats. So not even the Republicans were informed about this.

But you can feel free to stick with your schtick. After all, you don't even care what the truth is.

**Wild Cobra** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by ElNono

Actually the program was described as an 'on and off' program. Panetta just found out about it and shut it down. This topic is actually relevant because that program predates the Congressional majority of Democrats. So not even the Republicans were informed about this.

But you can feel free to stick with your schtick. After all, you don't even care what the truth is.

Link please.

**ElNono** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Link please.

It's on the first post. You didn't even bother to read it, did you?

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.

**ElNono** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think the discussion about Panetta's part was that his words were twisted.

Do you have a quote of Panetta denying he wrote that in the letter or saying his words were twisted?

Link please.

**Wild Cobra** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by ElNono

It's on the first post. You didn't even bother to read it, did you?

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.

That's it? You believe Dianne Feinstein? I don't see much in context. Did you listen to the interview I linked? At least the story Pete Hoekstra gives makes 100% sense.

**Wild Cobra** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by ElNono

Do you have a quote of Panetta denying he wrote that in the letter or saying his words were twisted?

Link please.

Hey, it's this thread making the allegations. How about some proper evidence rather than the "He said, She said" bit.

Again, Pete Hoekstra's interview makes complete sense.

**ElNono** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That's it? You believe Dianne Feinstein? I don't see much in context. Did you listen to the interview I linked? At least the story Pete Hoekstra gives makes 100% sense.

You need to catch up. Panetta briefed two committees about it the day after he found out about it.

LINK

**ElNono** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Hey, it's this thread making the allegations. How about some proper evidence rather than the "He said, She said" bit.

Again, Pete Hoekstra's interview makes complete sense.

There's no allegations. There was a letter and briefings. Those are facts, confirmed by people that attended them.

Even Republicans were going around the Sunday talk shows saying the CIA should have disclosed it to Congress. You need quotes? I have them.

**Wild Cobra** · 07-13-2009

Originally Posted by ElNono

You need to catch up. Panetta briefed two committees about it the day after he found out about it.

LINK

You really want to trust such a link? Since when does the CIA take directions from the VP?

My God... You believe all the propaganda against republicans you read. Don't you.

Besides, if it really is an executive decision, then the law is invalid.