Redstate

"In the past, presidents set up buffers to distance themselves from covert action," said A. John Radsan, assistant general counsel at the CIA from 2002 to 2004. "But this president, who is breaking down the boundaries between covert action and conventional war, seems to relish the secret findings and the dirty details of operations."

If this article gets wide play in the MSM, expect another 5 point increase in Bush's approval numbers.

And then there's this:

"Everything is done in the name of self-defense, so they can do anything because nothing is forbidden in the war powers act,"

That's the kind of stuff that resonates with ordinary Americans.  People want their leaders to do everything in their power to protect them.  Otherwise, why do we have any leaders?

Also, could it be that the Washington Post has stumbled upon the reason President Bush ultimately went along with the McCain amendment?  Because the White House believes it has the authority under the war powers act and the AUMF to order aggressive interrogation techniques whether or not Congress likes it.  "Let 'em try and stop me," says Bush.  Based on what we have learned about how this president operates in the GWOT in the last few weeks, I wouldn't be surprised.

The effort President Bush authorized shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to fight al Qaeda has grown into the largest CIA covert action program since the height of the Cold War

And who was it that won the Cold War?  

Correlation maybe?

Thanks for sharing.  

I really hope the president can get the agency turned around, and it seems that's what he is doing.  I always thought of the CIA as being some sort of higher power in government that could get anything done once it put its mind to it.  I was disappointed to discover that there was a mountain of politics involved, thanks to Bill Clinton.  Now that President Bush has finally gotten a grip on the situation things seem to be turning around.

I want the CIA to be an agency that does things I don't want to know about.  I want these men and women saving the world every single day.  That might sound a little dramatic, but it's what I expect, even if it isn't reality.  I like knowing there are people, whose names and faces we will never know or see, that will do anything and everything to keep the people of this country safe from those who would destroy it.  Real heroes, not people like so called "covert agent" Valerie Plame.  

that the Bush administration takes because you happen to agree with the outcome is just as unprincipled as the stance that conservatives attribute to the "anyone but Bush" crowd.

Although you may not, I have a huge problem with a president who will tell me we are at war, but who lied to get into it and who won't give any benchmarks for when we have won.  Why exactly should I be trusting that his administration will use their expanded powers responsibly, and how will any of us know when the war has ended so we can begin to ask questions of our government again?

here we go again

Why exactly should I be trusting that his administration will use their expanded powers responsibly, and how will any of us know when the war has ended so we can begin to ask questions of our government again?

When the bad guys aren't as numerous and they aren't trying to destroy my way of life with their very existance.  When democracy is so rampant throughout the Middle East that tyrannical regimes are stifled or done away with altogether.  That's how we'll know we've won.

BushLied™, then what good are benchmarks or timetables?

Would you believe them?

New Years Day and I'm in an expansive mood otherwise I'd gladly dropkick you for abusing your Talking-Point-o-Matic™.

1. The Congress told you were at war. You don't like it, take it up with Tom Daschle who authored the resolution.
   
2. Yes. He lied. Along with the Brits, French, Russians, Egyptians, Germans, and Jordanians.
   
3. Go to whitehouse.gov, there's plenty of info there if you care to read it.
   
4. No one cares who you trust.
   
5. When did you guys stop asking questions? I must have missed that.

Wonderful. Someone hasn't even been paying close attention to the story, since the AUMF and resultant NSA was in response to 9/11 and in the pursuit of Al Qaeda, and had nothing to do with Iraq (which, of course we all know, BushLied™ about.)

Unless, of course, BushLied™ about 9/11 happening, and Al Qaeda being responsible. It's possible, I suppose, if we faked a moon landing, perhaps we could fake some planes flying into a building.. and the burning rubble afterwards.. and the fact that the WTC isn't there anymore... if you only have enough BDS, anything is possible!

Oh yeah, BushLied™ idiocy is a de facto bannable offense. Blam.

God forbid that the CIA use any "unorthodox measures" - that quote is priceless and pretty much tells us in a nutshell how it was possible for us to be blindsided by Sept. 11.

I try to have some respect for those that are troubled by these percieved civil liberties violations- the "black prisons," the NSA intercepts, etc. And maybe I could take them seriously if they would make any attempt to actually outline how they believe our campaign against Al-Qaeda SHOULD be conducted.

I'm guessing they believe we should either ignore A.Q. and get on with life or treat it as a law enforcement action with all governing legalities. But those positions are major losers with the American public, so no one has the guts to advocate them.

That leaves treating our confrontation with A.Q. as a War, which is what Bush is doing, and what it appears to me the AUMF empowered him to do. You can talk about China, N. Korea and Iran still posing threats, but IMO we will never see the kind of major military force engagements we dealt with in "traditional" wars of WWI/WWII/Korea, and even Vietnam. We still need to maintain the capability to do so, but going forward, our military actions will be like what we are dealing with now, with the highest-intensity conflict being a couple of mech or marine divisions burning through a rag-tag 3rd world force like a hot knife through butter, and the more common situation a much lower intensity action against terror groups not aligned with any specific state but with cells and operatives operating in many.

This is a new chapter in warfare, and the Bush admin is writing the book on how we are going to conduct it. I'm sure he's not getting everything right, but I give Bush a lot of credit for sticking to his guns on what he thinks is the right way to conduct it. From the point of view of those of us who like to see America win, it would be nice if some of our other leaders could find it within themselves to offer some constructive input rather than endless sniping and whining.

I'm supposed to be the hair-trigger guy.

And someone by the name of Bill Casey was running the CIA... and Casey was very serious about winning the Cold War.

are in your mind.

But then, they always have been, regarding the false claim you depend on.

the really interesting question is why so many people like yourself chooose to tell yourselves things that are proven to be untrue in order to continue hoping America loses?

Justice Dept. announces investigation into whole affair...Fox News

the are announcing an investigation of the leak to the NYT on the NSA surveillance.

Fox News reports that the US Justice Department announced, on Friday, that it will open and begin a full investigation into the NSA eavesdropping leaks. The ongoing leaks are viewed as being a threat to US national security.

The New York Times has published a number of articles releasing information on the specifics of NSA surveillance of terrorists. The NY Times divulged information was formerly top-secret. Justice Department officials say that they will now begin probes into how this information was obtained.

There is a new report on Drudge that it was Clinton who authorized the Bin Laden unit to s/u the CIA prisons.

But I guess since Bush Lied, he will continue to be blamed for that.

What would the whine be from Dem's had there been another 9/11 attack? The old newsmen Brokaw and Coppel are saying that 9/11 would not have happened under Clinton/Gore.

It initially cut out ...the Justice Department's criminal division, which traditionally dealt with international terrorism.

And did such a darned fine job of it, too!

Here's hoping for a bunch of perp walks.

how much fun "Fitzmas" is when the shoe's on the other foot.

That is jaw droppingly funny, if they actually said that.

And that's where my problem comes in.  The bad guys will always be trying to destroy your way of life with their very existence.  (Or, rather, by the stuff they do, which I suspect is what you meant.)  They might become less numerous, but as long as America is a superpower, there are always going to be a heck of a lot of them.

And we're a long way away from the end of tyrannical regimes in the Middle East.  Even if Iraq resolves itself relatively positively, there's no end of other dangerous states in the Middle East alone.  (And to be dangerous states, they don't even really have to be tyrannical...just unable to police their people!)

I'm just not willing to let any one person gather so much power.  I would absolutely hold a Democratic president to the same standard.  I don't think Bush is gathering power to himself because he hates freedom, I think he's doing it because he has his own ideas about the best way to make America better and wants to put them all into action.  You simply don't end up being President without that kind of love of power.

But people in government don't always make the right decisions.  I think that liberals and conservatives can agree on that, if not always who's making the right decisions.  

There's no line we're ever going to be able to cross where we'll be able to say "We've won the war on terrorism."  We can of course decrease the risk of terrorism to ourselves and people of other nations.  And, yes, we can even kill a heck of a lot of terrorists.  But "winning the war on terrorism" is like winning the war on cockroaches...some will always remain.  So I think giving the President too free a rein for as long as the war continues is a bad idea.

Upon closer look it was posted on NewsBusters.org as a letter to editor from some crybaby lib. Koppel and Brokaw did not say it, but I bet they would agree it was all "Bush's" fault.

Though I do not have high hopes that anything will come out of it. They need to put Fitzgerald on it.

There's no line we're ever going to be able to cross where we'll be able to say "We've won the war on terrorism."  We can of course decrease the risk of terrorism to ourselves and people of other nations.  And, yes, we can even kill a heck of a lot of terrorists.  But "winning the war on terrorism" is like winning the war on cockroaches...some will always remain.  

I think this is a boogeyman.

The GWOT is only different from the War on Drugs because right now Bush has the AUMF from Congress to hunt down al-Qaeda in all its permutations and all its generations. At some point we are going to eradicate al-Qaeda. Personally, I don't think that point is very far in the future. At some point it would seem the Congress can declare that goal has been met and then the actual "war" part is over.

But I am not really clear on why you would wish to stop the current regime of clandestine operations against terrorists at any point for any reason. I see these actions as being integral parts of our national security.

Although you may not, I have a huge problem with a president who will tell me we are at war, but who lied to get into it and who won't give any benchmarks for when we have won.

You know, you read stuff like this and you just realize that people forgot 9/11 ever happened...

made a stunning confession of their own ignorance.

It would require ignoring not only WTC I, Khobar Towers, but also the African Embassy bombings. It would require ignoring the Jamie Gorelick policy of strict seperation between intel and law enforcement. Additionally, it would require ignoring the USS Cole (non)response and the clintonista decisions to not take Osama into custody when offered. It would also require one to ignore what clinton did in the face fo direct terror attacks in somalia: cut and run. Finally it would require ignoring the the fact that the 19 killers who did highjack the planes on 911 were in the country prior to January of 2001.

But of course, that would be par for course of a modern defeatocrat.

Nothing that peace, love, understanding, and lots of free nuclear reactors can't solve.

Well, I think Bush is serious about winning the war on terror.  There hasn't been an attack here since 9/11.  I think that the NSA and CIA had a lot to do with that.

That being said, Porter Goss needs to do some serious cleaning up/out at the CIA.  Time will tell if he is as serious as Casey was.

<<Bush has never publicly confirmed the existence of a covert program, but he was recently forced to defend the approach in general terms, citing his wartime responsibilities to protect the nation>>

The ingrate.

Much like the dinosaur media itself, the CIA is populated by the idiot children of East Coast elites (yes, I generalize, but this is mostly true). As the locus of political and economic power has shifted away from the DC to Boston axis, the shrillness from these folks has intensified. I can only imagine the frustration on the part of the agents who leaked this story to the Post, and the newspaper itself, to the public response. In the days when television was black and white and the New York Times was considered a serious source of information, this could have led to the downfall of a president. As it is, the only ones likely to suffer will be the Post and the CIA.

I read an article last night on msnbc.com that used that quote as well, the one about "breaking down the boundaries between covert action and conventional warfare".  I read over it several times, and as best I could tell this was apparantly viewed as a bad thing.

Is this going to become the new Church & State or something?  Is anybody actually going to suggest that there SHOULD be ANY boundary between covert and conventional war?  Weren't they listening when even the all-powerfull and omniscient 9/11 Commitee warned us about boundaries?

if you are refering to America's ability to turn a blind eye to what is occuring in the Middle East without taking action.  

Even if Iraq resolves itself

Specific US actions are resolving the situation in Iraq, it has not or will not resolve itself.

no end of other dangerous states in the Middle East

Specific US action including military, diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian actions need to continue in the area until the Middle East is no longer a terrorist breeding ground.  It helps them, it helps us, and I will refuse to vote for a President that will withdraw from the area and wait for the imminent attack.

doing it because he has his own ideas about the best way to make America better and wants to put them all into action

This is why I vote for a President, he has the same philosophy as I do.  Fix the problem instead of pretending that it does not exist.

You are right in one aspect, Al Queda may continue to exist even if we attain all the goal of the WOT much in the way the American Nazi Party exists today.  The only way they can operate at this point is within the rules of  a civilized society, their message may be abhorrent, but for the most part they are powerless to impress their views on others.

9/11 was a response to Wal-Mart not providing a sense of community in small towns.

I'm firmly convinced that if Ralph Nader had become president in January of 2001, there wouldn't have been any planes flying by September of 2001.

Problem solved.

again, we will all look forward to your oversight.

all planes as "Unsafe at Any Height".

Attention readers. This is a wonderful opportunity to determine if your are terminally stupid, ignorant, deluded or an enemy of the United States. If you find anything in this article that makes sense to you, you are.

is actually serious, there are plenty of trees on the grounds at Langley --- I'll donate some rope.

The end result would be similar, as Nader would order the WTC to be bulldozed as a cause of the wealth gap in the nation.

to the video of reporters and editors, and maybe even "Pinch", heading off the the Federal slammer until they reveal their sources.

The GWOT is only different from the War on Drugs because right now Bush has the AUMF from Congress to hunt down al-Qaeda in all its permutations and all its generations. At some point we are going to eradicate al-Qaeda. Personally, I don't think that point is very far in the future.

Do you think the complete destruction of al-Qaeda is grounds for ending the war on terror?

I said.

Read again.

At the top of the hour news cast on ABC radio at 12 noon, 1 PM and 2 PM, they played a quote from some professor at Southwestern School of Law saying that this investigation will have a chilling effect on the press in its role of gov't watchdog.  He was quoted as saying that the press was only protecting the privacy rights of all Americans by revealing the existence of the program and that the investigation into who revealed the info to the NYT was an assault on a free press.

These people aren't even embarrassed.

I know that's not what you said--that's why I was asking for clarification.

Of course not. The AUMF should end then but not the campaign against terrorists.

If memory serves, this nitwit is the same one who published the classified, uber-sensitive info this fall that the CIA was making use of facilities in Eastern Europe to house and interrogate high-value prisoners in the GWOT.

Thanks again, Dana, we knew you were both an idiot and a traitor, but we welcome the occasional reminder that skunks don't change their stripes.  I look forward to your perp walk when the DOJ is done with their investigation.

the boundaries between covert action and conventional warfare

Next we'll hear that our troops in Iraq are guilty of sneaking up on the enemy and shooting them, instead of blowing trumpets on their way in, to warn the Bad Guys that trouble's a-comin'.

First, I don't think it's likely that we'll eliminate al-Qaeda anytime soon.  Eliminate them as an effective force, maybe...kill the leaders and keep the rest constrained enough that they can't do much.  But not eliminate.  Some will escape our direct grasp, and we'll never know whether they've gone to ground forever or are still plotting against us.

And, of course, even if the leadership changes over entirely, the name al-Qaeda has power now.  It has ever since 9-11.  It seems entirely plausible that the name will be picked up by other terrorists with similar goals.

Secondly, I certainly don't want to stop clandestine operations against terrorists in general.  I disagree with the way this particular operation is being carried out.  I don't know how important these particular warrantless wiretappings are to our national security.  Neither, I suspect, do you, unless you have some high-level security clearance I don't know about.  Just because something is potentially abusable and questionably legal (and no, I'm not getting into an argument by saying it is illegal, but posts such as those by the Orin Kerr at the conservative Volokh Conspiracy make it clear it is at least questionably legal) does not make it useful.

Tried to fix a typo and posted twice.  Sorry!

A lot of evidence indicates the al Qaeda brand is becoming a loser. I'd be willing to bet that before Jan 20 (or so) 2009, al Qaeda will be declared destroyed.

As to bin Laden, we never go Hitler either (though the Soviets claim they have the bones), we never got Bormann, we never got a lot of the top leaders of the Third Reich. But we did get most of them and we destroyed their mythos (except in areas of Idaho and Arkansas).

Isn't the AUMF the basis for many of the anti-terrorist practices that libs find so objectionable, e.g. Padilla, NSA taps, etc.?

Isn't it Wagner blaring from the choppers?

Padilla for sure. The NSA I don't think so, from what I've read I think it is legal without the AUMF though I think the AUMF trumps any FISA objections.

I don't know why we'd keep people like Padilla, or the non-convicted detainees at Guantanamo absent the AUMF directed at al Qaeda.

whom you do or don't trust.  Can you deal with the answer?

As for asking questions of your government--who's stopping you?  You may not like Bush's answers (e.g., he feels that his Article II authority gives him the power he needs to conduct the GWOT in this manner), though.

They write for the pleasure and approval of the NPR/Manhattan/Georgetown/Ivy League crowd.  You know--the same people who award Mary Mapes with a Peabody (Abu Gharaib) and give a Pulitzer to the AP for being "lucky" enough to catch Iraqi election workers being executed.

I'll bet they wear our criticism as a badge of pride.  They've rationalized that any damage to American security (or deaths or injuries) resulting from their reporting are counterbalanced by their actions as members of a free and vigorous press.  (And, their NPR friends applaud their actions and softpedal any criticism).

In so doing, they miss the fact that many of us can tell the difference between those that talk, and those that do.  The President may get things wrong, but he is a doer.  These reporters, while they perform (per se) an important public service, will only be talkers.  So, when they act indignant and petulant, they should expect many of us to view them, as talkers not doers, with contempt.

Leon got his double barrel blammer all warmed up and sited in the Roe diary.  He's just keeping it tuned up now.  If you want to beat him, just shoot in amongst them, we'll all get some relief (to paraphrase the immortal Jerry Clower).  :-)

That's so passè.