Nice try with the violins. Try addressing the substance of the preceeding paragraph to which what you quoted was an aside.
The idea that the administration should be conducting an incendiary foreign policy in secret is completely at odds with my idea of representative government. Secrecy is, after all, precisely the thing that demarcates a dictatorship from a democracy.
If the administration thinks it’s a good idea to destabilize what is – believe it or not – an elected government, shouldn’t we, you know, talk about it? As a family?
Well, one might argue that this type of action might *prevent *another war. But that point is whether we shold allow the press to usurp the judgement of the people we put into office—and can vote out of office. I am no fan of Bush, but this is a much larger question, one that the answer should be the same whoever is in the Whitehouse.
Let me ask a sort of tangential question here for those of you who think its such a good idea that classified and secret knowledge should be made freely available to the general public: Why have a representative government at all? Its the Senate and Congress’s jobs to have oversight on this kind of stuff…as our representatives. Why do we need them if foreign policy secrets should be available to all citizens for open discussion…and how do you suppose the US will ever get anything done? Should we just become an isolationist direct democracy?
I’m wondering if, when say Edwards, Clinton or Obama are elected, you guys will sing the same toon WRT leaks to the general public. Say President Edwards in in secret negotiations with Iraq and those proceedings are leaked to the general public…for political reasons to hurt Edwards in some way. Will you be jumping for joy over such leaks then? Or say President Clinton authorized some covert action against North Korea…but a disgruntaled ex-CIA flunky decides to get back at Clinton and give the info to Fox news, who imediately rushs out to publish it to give Clinton a black eye. Will you be shouting ‘Hell, yes!’ then I wonders…yes, I wonders.
-XT
A presidential finding allowing lethal force to be used against a person or group.
But I see no evidence that the administration vetted this with our representatives – the Congress – at all. They’re just freelancing, hoping to get away with shit that’s really dangerous for us as a nation, and which, for that reason needs full and open discussion. There’s every difference between covert action in support of an aboveboard and agreed-upon policy, and covert action which is policy, undiscussed.
I am shocked - shocked! to learn the the U.S. apparantly hasn’t been covertly trying to undermine the Iranian government off and on since 1979. If they’re just starting now, I’d call that lazy.
What are the odds that one of the folks around here who accused Libby (or Bush or Cheney or Rove) of treason over the Plame affair will accuse ABC of treason in this case? I’m guessing somewhere in the neighborhood of zero.
If you read the link, it explains it:
I would presume there is a “lethal finding” against ObL, for instance.
As for the OP:
-
Justified? Who knows. Wise? Probably not. If the goal is just to “destabilize” Iran, the result might well be worse than what’s there now.
-
Depends. If they can verify it, I say yes.
And for the folks who kept saying war with Iraq was likely, there is a bright side to this (from the OP’s link):
They have too…Congress has oversight for the CIA. There is a Senate subcommittee for intelligence. What do you think? The President can just run wild? He can’t…checks and balances and all that.
-XT
They’re not just starting now. They supported Hussein in his war on Iran. Remember?
Riddle me this one. When President Hillary Clinton is the CinC, will you then feel that the Executive Branch should be allowed, and, apparently encouraged, to act in a completely unsupervised answer?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
-Joe
Since this Admin has publicly taken the position that “Congress has no oversight” WRT the Justice Department, I incline to be skeptical that they’re making full disclosure of much more clandestine agencies’ affairs to the relevant subcommittee.
So a democratically elected goverment is only sovereign if they are not on our shit list? How does this reflect on our efforts to promote domocracy in the Middle East, if one of the only freely elected democracies is knocked off by us??
You will find I am as rabid about the 1st amendment rights of the press as others are regarding the 2nd amendment right to own guns. The right of the press to freely print the covert activities of our government trumps the power of the president to make and conduct foreign policy.
Why would you have seen any evidence? None of the folks in Congress is authorized to make stuff like this public. Even now, they probably have to just say “no comment”.
The Administration can publically take the position that the moon is REALLY made of green cheese…that doesn’t make it reality. Congress has no oversight only if they LET the Administration’s position become reality.
And, AFAIK (correct me if I’m wrong BG), even the Administration hasn’t taken the public position that Congress has no oversight WRT the INTELLIGENCE services. Have they? Did I miss it somehow?
-XT
I’m afraid it will not suffice as it may not accurately convey my feelings. (“unsupervised answer” aside. 
)
Hillary or Obama or Kucinich shold be allowed to pursue matters of national security with the secrecy necessary to make their plans effective—with whatever congressional oversight the the Constitution states. I don’t call that unsupervised. I think this should be the case even if she or he is planning things that I don’t agree with. And if her plans (of the ilk we are discussing) are leaked and published, both those who leaked and those who published should be tried for treason. In the abstract, and that is what we have to operate in, it is no difference than someone leaking and publishing the plans for the D-Day invasion. And that is not meant as hyperbole.
Was it Carl Levin who talked about how the Secrets Act prevented him from disclosing that what the Bushiviks were telling him and the Intel Cmmte. was in direct contradiction to what they were shoveling out to us? And he couldn’t say anything, because it was against the law?
Perhaps the best answer is to quote: “If this be treason, make the most of it.”
They did?
You didn’t ask me this, but I’d like to take a shot at answering if its ok.
If President Clinton indeed acts in a completely unsupervised way I will be completely appalled myself. Because that will mean our system has well and truely broken down and America isn’t the country I grew up in anymore.
Of course, if she acts within her Presidential powers, then…well, while I may or may not LIKE her, she will be acting within the powers my fellow American’s gave to her. I may have a beef with her policies…but not in using the powers she was given.
Sort of like how I feel about Bush…well, honestly will probably like President Clinton a hell of a lot more than I like GW at the helm. But the principal is the same.
-XT
No…but even if they did, it would be so much hot air. Unless, as I said, Congress allows it. :dubious:
-XT