Personally, that’s all I ask for. Bush wasn’t stupid for breaking the law. He was stupid for doing it publicly.
What, pray tell, does Obama’s backing away from his pledge about sunlight provisions and not being transparent enough have to do with Bush breaking the law and wiretapping people in the US without warrants? Because all I see is a pathetic, partisan attempt to divert attention.
False equivalence *and *tu quoque. The usual package deal.
Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot to include this story:
So right now, intelligence briefings only have to be given to a small group of senators. Democrats in the house want the full intelligence committee to be able to receive the information, and Obama thinks it’s so important that it not happen that way that he’s willing to veto the intelligence appropriations bill if they don’t remove that requirement.
Watching “This Week” this morning in which the Bush program was discussed, it seems that it met the requirements Obama wants to keep. In addition, the program never went operational, so it never exceeded the threshold of reporting required for operational programs.
The George Orwell 1984 or the Oliver North 1984?
Obama orders review of alleged slayings of Taliban in Bush era
Oddly enough, Frederick Forsythe wrote about this incident in his novel “The Afghan” which was published in 2006.
You know what? I don’t think you are. It’s pretty hard for me to think that you truly are sorry for engaging in braindead partisan hackery when, in the very next sentence, you do the EXACT SAME THING. So, I’ll take your “sorry” for what it is worth. Nothing.
I’m kind of curious about this “non-operational” thing. Panetta felt it was important to inform Congress about it. The Inspector General seemed to think something was amiss and report it. Panetta’s thing (not sure if it is the same as the IG report) lasted what…7 or 8 years?
That is a lot of hoopla over something that was not operational.
Wondering if “non-operational” is a smokescreen word for something that was 95% operational.