Anything for ratings. Not unlike stateside:
In one murder after another, the "Canal Livre" crime TV show had an uncanny knack for being first on the scene, gathering graphic footage of the victim.
Too uncanny, say police, who are investigating the show's host, state legislator Wallace Souza, on suspicion of commissioning at least five of the murders to boost his ratings and prove his claim that Brazil's Amazon region is awash in violent crime. Police also have accused Souza of drug trafficking.
David Brooks is an example of a rational conservative. He made these remarks while appearing on Meet The Press. Read the complete transcript or excerpt below:
MR. DAVID BROOKS: I hadn't seen the Rush Limbaugh thing. That is insane. What he's saying is insane. But I guess I would say the, the first thing is it has been a conventional wisdom among the smartest people in Washington that this is such a tough issue you got to do it on a bipartisan basis. And the Obama administration, for better or worse, decided not to do that. There was a thing called the Wyden-Bennett bill that really could have launched a bipartisan, so leaders of both parties could have gone out to these town meetings. They didn't do it, they chose more or less a Democratic plan and now all hell is breaking loose. And we are now--and it's not just the crazies, among whom we just saw some. But if you take overall poll ratings for health care, they are--people are--the American public is now as skeptical as they were when Clinton care collapsed. So there--it's not just the crazies, there's a real public concern about real issues, aside from the stuff that Rush Limbaugh says.
MR. GREGORY: David, Sarah, Sarah Palin on Facebook, to the point of the opposition, this is what she writes: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's `death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide...whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." There is the rhetoric; there's also the question of what's true and what's false in what people are arguing about this notion of a death panel.
MR. BROOKS: Yeah. Again, that's crazy. If--the, the, the crazies are attacking the plan because it'll cut off granny, and that--that's simply not true. That simply is not going to happen. The real reason for public skepticism is that Obama very eloquently and very truthfully said, "We've got to bring down healthcare costs." Everybody's healthcare costs are rising. It's eaten into your wages, it's eaten into the budget, it's eaten into everything. And the problem with the House plan is that instead of bending the cost curve down, it would increase the cost curve so inflation would be 8 percent a year when it's all implemented, and that's just disaster. So what the Obama administration has got to do, and I agree with Jon about this, is make this Obama-like; which is to say, "We're going to produce a plan." And from I hear, by the end of this month they will have a plan. And they are going to say, "This is what we stand for." And you can't sell anything without a plan. But it's got to be a plan that actually cuts costs so you can have a rational discussion instead of the scare stories about cutting off grandma.
You would never know that we had almost plunged into a great depression just months ago. Professional athletes are making the kinds of obscene salaries did prior to the near collapse. The latest example: Eli Manning. He is having his contract extended for a near $100 million. Is that rational? The free enterprizers would insist that the marketplace is always right therefore it's a good thing. At a time when Americans are barely able to make ends meet, such a salary hike for playing a game is obscene. And who pays those salaries? You and I do with ever rising ticket prices.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
I'm watching MSNBC and they are showing the video created by that Pennsylvania killer. We see a seriously disturbed individual give a tour of his house. And once again a mass killer is given what they want--attention and fame. This encourages others to do the same.
No mention of the fact that once again a gun is used to commit terrible crimes. Its almost as if the press/media were under orders to ignore the issue of guns in our society. As long as the Congress is owned by the gun lobby, mass murder will continue to be America's fastest rising sport.
Also appearing on the program was disgraced former NY Governor, Elliott Spitzer. It seems you can't tell the difference between news programs and reality shows.
The headline reads "Putin Bares Chest." Who is Putin? Do we care? And why is this news? And aren't we romanticizing a dictator who has control over nuclear weapons pointed at the U.S.? The media/press aren't concerned about these questions. A headline isn't about informing as much as it is about sensationalism. And a good headline has to reach the biggest audience. And that's done through the lowest common denominator. Is it any wonder why most of us couldn't even say who Vladimir Putin is, eventhough we should.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Listened to Glenn Beck's radio program this morning, which I do rarely. In a span of less than an hour the Conservative host mocked Michael Jackson's death, blasted Obama, and parodied Congressman Rangel's corruption issues. This was done in consecutive segments. And what do all three of these gentlemen have in common? They're all African-Americans.
Once again this shows how the Republicans/Conservatives are using race baiting as their main political strategy.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
There seems to be a continuation, if not a rising level, of racist hatred directed at Barack Obama. And the Republicans seem to be anning the flames. The attacks now include references to the President's birth certificate, or lack thereof. Some critics use the same language once directed at Martin Luther King Jr. suggesting he was some kind of left wing extremist. These are all code words for racial hatred. The Hillary Clinton campaign used it during the primaries last year. The Republicans used it during the general election. And now the hostility has been ratcheted up.
The GOP has no message so all they have is good ole fashioned racial/nativist hatred. If barack Obama is assasinated the Republicans/Conservatives will be to blame.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Mass shootings are now just commonplace. Get used to it. Unless, you decide to do something about the number of guns in our society.
At least one gunman opened fire at a backyard cookout, wounding a dozen people, Baltimore police said Monday.
Police spokesman Donny Moses said none of the wounds were life-threatening in the shooting late Sunday night. At least twelve people were hit, including a 2-year-old girl and a pregnant 23-year-old woman.
Moses said the victims were wounded in the legs, arms, shoulders and backs.
Police had no immediate suspects or motive in the attack. Moses says a gunman or gunmen walked into the small backyard of a rowhouse in East Baltimore and opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon before fleeing on foot.
Four people were killed yesterday in as many shootings throughout Philadelphia.
According to police, the killings started at 2:15 a.m., when a 28-year-old male was shot in the 3100 block of North Front Street in North Philadelphia. Two minutes later, a 24-year-old man was shot in the 2600 block of Oakdale Street, also in North Philadelphia.
Are we prepared? I don't think so.
In a disturbing new projection, health officials say up to 40% of Americans could get swine flu this year and next and several hundred thousand could die without a successful vaccine campaign and other measures.
The estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are roughly twice the number of those who catch flu in a normal season and add greater weight to hurried efforts to get a new vaccine ready for the fall flu season.
Swine flu has already hit the United States harder than any other nation, but it has struck something of a glancing blow that's more surprising than devastating. The virus has killed about 300 Americans and experts believe it has sickened more than 1 million, comparable to a seasonal flu with the weird ability to keep spreading in the summer.
Governments are scrambling to buy up hundreds of millions of doses of swine flu vaccine but health experts warn the poor may lose out as wealthy countries corner strictly limited supplies.
The World Health Organisation has unofficially estimated that the world's labs may only be able to produce around 900 million doses for the A(H1N1) strain per year, for a planet that is home to 6.8 billion people.
Global pharmaceutical companies are more optimistic about how much of the drug they can produce but, since each potential victim needs two doses, most of the world's population will inevitably miss out.
And there are already signs that the wealthiest countries will snap up more than their fair share in the rush to halt the outbreak, while Africa, Asia and Latin American will struggle to secure adequate amounts of vaccine.
You can tell we are losing in Afghanistan if the military wants to use hired guns to help out with the war. Obviously Mr.Obama never heard of Clearwater. It didn't work for Rome why should it work for us. It is an act of desperation on our part.
U.S. military authorities in Afghanistan may hire a private contractor to provide around-the-clock security at dozens of bases and protect vehicle convoys moving throughout the country.
The possibility of awarding a security contract comes as the Obama administration is sending thousands of more troops into Afghanistan to quell rising violence fueled by a resurgent Taliban. As the number of American forces grow over the next several months, so too does the demand to guard their outposts.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he wants to cut back on the use of contractors that now provide a wide range services to American troops in war zones, including transportation, communications, food service, construction, and maintenance. As recently as February, however, Gates called the use of private security contractors in certain parts of Afghanistan "vital" to supporting U.S. bases. A contract for the work also creates job opportunities for Afghans, he said.
But the use of private contractors in Iraq has been highly contentious. Since a September 2007 shooting of Iraqi civilians in Baghdad by guards employed by Blackwater (now Xe Services), critics have urged U.S. officials to maintain much tighter controls over hired guards.
The Washington Post reported Saturday that the Army published a notice July 10 informing interested contractors it was contemplating a contract for "theater-wide" armed security.
An American service member was fatally wounded by insurgent fire in southern Afghanistan, the U.S. military said Sunday, bringing to at least 39 the number of U.S. troops killed this month in the country.
Officials released no other details about the Saturday battle, which was reported by the NATO command. A U.S. military spokesman, Navy reservist Lt. j.g. Tommy Groves, would only confirm that the service member was American.
July has been the deadliest month for U.S. and NATO forces in the Afghan war. Some 60,000 U.S. forces now operate in Afghanistan — a record number. President Barack Obama has increased the U.S. focus on Afghanistan as American troops pull out of Iraq.
Overall, at least 68 international troops have died in July.
Also Sunday, one of President Hamid Karzai's vice presidential running mates in next month's election escaped injury when his convoy came under fire in northern Afghanistan, officials said.
Gunmen on Sunday opened fire with machine guns and rockets on a motorcade carrying the running mate of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in northern Afghanistan, but no one was hurt, officials said.
Up to 50 vehicles were accompanying vice-presidential candidate Mohammed Qasim Fahim from insurgency-hit northern Kunduz province to neighbouring Takhar province when an unknown number of attackers launched an ambush.
"They fired a couple of rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. I don't think the rockets reached the vehicles," said Kunduz governor Mohammad Omar.
"No one, thank God, was hurt."
The attack comes less than four weeks before Afghanistan's second-ever presidential elections, in which Karzai hopes to win a second term.
This news conference was supposed to be on healthcare. It turned out to be more. Read the complete transcript. Excerpt below.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Congress, as you alluded to, is trying to figure out how to pay for all of this reform. Have you told House and Senate leaders which of their ideas are acceptable to you? If so, are you willing to share that stand of yours with the American people? And if you haven't given that kind of direction to congressional leaders, are you willing to -- are you willing to explain why you're not stepping in to get a deal done, since you're the one setting a deadline?
OBAMA: Well, before we talk about how to pay for it, let's talk about what exactly needs to be done. And the reason I want to emphasize this is because there's been a lot of misinformation out there.
Right now, premiums for families that have health insurance have doubled over the last 10 years. They've gone up three times faster than wages. So what we know is that, if the current trends continue, more and more families are going to lose health care, more and more families are going to be in a position where they keep their health care but it takes a bigger biting out of their budget.
Employers are going to put more and more costs on employees or they're just going to stop providing health care altogether.
We also know that health care inflation on the curve that it's on, we're guaranteed to see Medicare and Medicaid basically break the federal budget. And we know that we're spending -- on average we, here in the United States, are spending about $6,000 more than other advanced countries where they're just as healthy.
And I've said this before, if you found out that your neighbor had gotten the same car for $6,000 less, you'd want to figure out how to get that deal. And that's what reform is all about. How can we make sure that we are getting the best bang for our health care dollar.
Now, what we did very early on was say two-thirds of the costs of health care reform, which includes providing coverage for people who don't have it, making it more affordable for folks who do, and making sure that we're, over the long term, creating the kinds of systems where prevention and wellness and information technologies make the system more efficient.
That the entire cost of that has to be paid for and it has got to be deficit-neutral. And we identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars that are already being spent right now.
So taxpayers are already putting this money into the kitty. The problem is, they're not getting a good deal for the money they're spending. That takes care of about two-thirds of the cost.
The remaining one-third is about what the argument has been about of late. What I've said is that there may be a number of different ways to raise money. I put forward what I thought was the best proposal, which was to limit the deductions, the itemized deductions, for the wealthiest Americans.
People like myself could take the same percentage deduction that middle class families do. And that would raise sufficient funds for that final one-third.
Now so far we haven't seen any of the bills adopt that. There are other ideas that are out there. I continue to think my idea is the best one. But I'm not foreclosing some of these other ideas as the committees are working them through.
The one commitment that I've been clear about is I don't want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy.
And so, if I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle class families, I'm going to be opposed to that because I think there are better ideas to do it.
Now there are -- you know, I have not yet seen what the Senate Finance Committee is producing. They've got a number of ideas. But we haven't seen a final draft. The House suggested a surcharge on wealthy Americans. And my understanding, although I haven't seen the final versions, is that there has been talk about making that basically only apply to families whose joint income is $1 million.
To me, that meets my principle that it's not being shouldered by families who are already having a tough time.
But what I want do is to see what emerges from these committees, continuing to work to find more savings, because I actually think that it's possible for us to fund even more of this process through identifying waste in the system.
Try to narrow as much as possible the new revenue that's needed on the front end. And then see how we can piece this thing together in a way that's acceptable to both Democrats and I hope some Republicans.
This is starting to look a lot like the Clinton healthcare reform fiasco of the early 1990s. The President is playing into the hands of the Republicans by giving them an issue. Even the commercials on TV seem a lot like those that killed the previous attempt. And the same people, the heath care lobby that rule Washington, are paying for those ads and opposition.
A new poll suggests public approval of the way President Barack Obama is handling health care reform is slipping.
The Washington Post-ABC News survey says since April, Obama's approval rating on the issue has declined from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent.
The president's overall approval rating stands at 59 percent positive and 37 percent negative. It's the first time Obama's approval rating has fallen below 60 percent in Post-ABC polling since he took office.
Media accounts portray the Obama team as playing defense on issues such as the overhaul costs, taxes and GOP charges that the President's plan would lead to "rationing." The mounting hurdles are delaying passage of the healthcare bill in both chambers, and indeed, some Senate Democrats believe they will need 60 votes including Republicans to clear the bill. The AP says the White House faces "both a "skeptical public" and "independent budget predictions that contradict the White House's rhetoric." NBC Nightly News reported GOP "critics and some moderate Democrats ratcheting up their criticism."
The AP notes that Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag played down "reports that lawmakers are bogged down over the health care overhaul," and said "good progress is being made toward Obama's goal of a bill in August." The Hill, however, reports that the President's "top cabinet advocates for universal healthcare were grilled on Sunday over how to raise taxes."
In a piece about White House strategy in pushing the President's agenda, The Politico reports that "the battle over health care" has "hardened into a fairly conventional Washington fight, a new president's sweeping agenda colliding with congressional caution." Meanwhile, the New York Times says Orszag "appeared to soften on the administration's insistence that a health care reform bill be delivered by August."
"If President Obama’s analogy holds true that reforming healthcare is a long race, this week might just be Heartbreak Hill," The Hill notes. "Beginning on Monday, Obama will find out if Congressional Democrats have the wherewithal to push ahead with their -- and his -- ambitious goal of crossing the healthcare finish line before August, or whether they have to stop and stretch before limping across at a later date. It’ll be close."
The need for 60: "The rules governing reconciliation are so complex and restrictive that the Senate Democratic leaders’ backup reconciliation plan could become mired in the same 60-vote problem they currently face as liberals, centrists and a handful of Republicans battle it out over the direction of a final Senate bill," Roll Call notes.
And on timing, is the White House softening its August timeline after last week's CBO report that costs would bend upward?
The Republican questioning of Sotomayor suggest they are less interested in having a fair judge on bench than playing politics. In particular, they are playing the kind of race politics that they showed during the last campaign and continue to show today in their attacks on President Obama. It is the politics of scapegoating and stereotyping.
I heard Pat Buchanan, a well known racial provocateur, calling Sotomayor a extremist and product of affirmative action. He dismissed all academic credentials as essentially having been given to her. In essence, he was arguing that her nomination was totally political. She is essentially a foot soldier in Obama's cultural war. This is how this bigot thinks, Buchanan. He also thinks Sarah Palin would make a great President.
This is how narrow minded the Republicans/Conservatives are.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Good to hear some banks are doing well. But what about the rest of the economy? This proves that the bailout of Wall St. was first about protecting big business and secondly the economy.
JP Morgan reported record revenues in the second quarter on Thursday on soaring investment banking fees and a strong performance from its commercial banking business.
The US bank’s earnings beat analysts’ most bullish expectations, jumping 36 per cent and producing net income of $2.7bn, or 28 cents a share, compared with $2bn, or 53 cents, in the same quarter the prior year.
Revenues climbed by 41 per cent in the quarter to a record $27.7bn. This was driven by $7.3bn from JP Morgan’s investment banking division, which saw fees soar grow by 29 per cent. Retail banking revenues climbed 44 per cent to $970m on higher deposit-related fees and balances and gains from its acquisition of Washington Mutual.
This is the complete transcript of yesterday's confirmation hearings considering Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor shows herself to be an impressive candidate for the highest court. She was thoughtful and responded in a dignified manner. Her answers were not evasive, which is typical of candidates to the Supreme Court, despite being grilled by small minded politicians whom are incapable of similar thoughtfulnes.
LEAHY: Well, and isn't that what -- you've been on the bench for 17 years. Have you set your goal to be fair and show integrity, based on the law?
SOTOMAYOR: I believe my 17-year record on the two courts would show that, in every case that I render, I first decide what the law requires under the facts before me, and that what I do is explain to litigants why the law requires a result. And whether their position is sympathetic or not, I explain why the result is commanded by law.
LEAHY: Well, and doesn't your oath of office actually require you to do that?
SOTOMAYOR: That is the fundamental job of a judge.
SOTOMAYOR: You are correct, Senator, that the panel, made up of myself and two other judges in the Second Circuit, decided that case on the basis of the very thorough 78-page decision by the district court and on the basis of established precedent.
The issue was not what we would do or not do, because we were following precedent, and you, when on (ph) circuit court, are obligated on a panel to follow established circuit precedent. The issue in Ricci was what the city did or could do when it was presented with a challenge to one of its tests that -- for promotion.
This was not a quota case; this was not an affirmative action case. This was a challenge to a test that everybody agreed had a very wide difference between the pass rate of a variety of different groups. The city was faced with the possibility recognized in law that the employees who were disparately impacted -- that's the terminology used in the law and is a part of the civil rights amendment that you were talking about in 1991 -- that those employees who could show a disparate impact, a disproportionate pass rate, that they could bring a suit and that then the employer had to defend the test that it gave.
The city here, after a number of days of hearings and a variety of different witnesses, decided that it wouldn't certify the test and it wouldn't certify it in an attempt to determine whether they could develop a test that was of equal value in measuring qualifications, but which didn't have a disparate impact.
And so the question before the panel was, was the decision a -- of the city based on race or based on its understanding of what the law required it to do?
SOTOMAYOR: Given Second Circuit precedent, Bushey v. New York State -- New York State Civil Services Commission, the panel concluded that the city's decision in that particular situation was lawful under established law.
The Supreme Court, in looking and review that case, applied a new standard. In fact, it announced that it was applying a standard from a different area of law and explaining to employers and the courts below how to look at this question in the future.
The Turkey government apparently has more backbone than American politicians in calling out China. It will be interesting to see if China forces Turkey to take back it's criticism. Or will the West urge Turkey to play down the matter. As with the Tibetans, the world does not give a damn about the Chinese persecution of the Uighurs.
China has demanded that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan retract his accusation that Beijing practised genocide against ethnic Uighurs.
Mr Erdogan made the claim after riots in the Uighur heartland of Xinjiang during which 184 people were killed.
Separately, more than 100 Chinese writers and intellectuals have signed a letter calling for the release of Ilham Tohti, an outspoken Uighur economist.
Xinjiang's capital, Urumqi, is under heavy police and military control.
China's rejection of Mr Erdogan's remarks came in an editorial headlined "Don't twist facts" in the English-language newspaper China Daily.
It said the fact that 137 of the 184 victims were Han Chinese "speaks volumes for the nature of the event".
The newspaper urged Mr Erdogan to "take back his remarks... which constitute interference in China's internal affairs", describing his genocide comments as "irresponsible and groundless."
Mr Erdogan made the controversial comments last Friday, telling NTV television: "The incidents in China are, simply put, a genocide. There's no point in interpreting this otherwise."
He had called on Chinese authorities to intervene to prevent more deaths.
Heavily armed security forces were out in force in China's volatile Urumqi on Tuesday close to where police shot dead two Muslim Uighurs who state media said were calling for jihad.
Large groups of police armed with semi-automatic weapons and batons were deployed close to the scene of Monday's violence, where Chinese authorities said police shot and killed two Uighur "lawbreakers" and wounded another.
The shootings showed the capital of the northwest Xinjiang region remained a powder keg more than a week after ethnic unrest on July 5 left at least 184 people dead, despite an ongoing security clampdown.
Nepalese police detained 15 Tibetans who were demonstrating against China in front of a U.N. office outside Kathmandu on Tuesday, a police official said.
Superintendent Kedar Mansingh Bhandari, head of Lalitpur police, said the Tibetans were detained while chanting anti-China slogans in front of the U.N. building in Lalitpur.
Bhandari also accused the Tibetan demonstrators of obstructing traffic. "We are discussing what action they will face," he said.
The Nepalese government has authorized the police to charge people who obstruct traffic under the Public Offense Act in a bid to check the almost-daily traffic obstructions in Kathmandu by groups making various demands.
Those charged under the public offense law face imprisonment of up to six months.
Tibetans in Nepal have staged anti-China protests since March 10 last year when China crushed protests in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital.
Thanks to the American taxpayer, Goldman Sachs is doing better than ever. That was pretty quick. So why isn't the rest of the economy doing as well? Their stocks have boomed but the rest of the economy is still anemic. Someone might want to ask that question of the administration:
Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s second- quarter profit exceeded analysts’ estimates as record trading and stock underwriting led the company to its highest quarterly profit.
Net income in the three months ended June 26 was $3.44 billion, or $4.93 a share, the New York-based bank said today in a statement. That surpassed the $3.65 per-share average estimate of 22 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg and compared with $2.09 billion, or $4.58 per share, in last year’s second quarter.
Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, 54, made Goldman Sachs the highest-paying Wall Street firm in history before last year’s credit freeze led him to convert to a bank, accept government funds and report the first quarterly loss as a public company. This year Goldman Sachs has issued new stock, returned $10 billion to the U.S. Treasury and reaped fees from selling stocks and bonds.
“Goldman’s got a sweet spot in here, they were the go-to players,” said Peter Sorrentino, a senior portfolio manager at Huntington Asset Advisors in Cincinnati, which oversees $13.8 billion including Goldman shares, before earnings were released. “For the time being, they’ve got kind of an open playing field all to themselves.”
Crooks and liars quotes a government report, from the NY Times, arguing that all illegal wiretapping, and the dastardly tactics used to obtain it, accomplished very little in protecting our country. That traditional methods of intelligence gathering were just as effective. Cheney, who's in trouble for ordering the CIA to lie to Congress about a secret program to kill terrorists, did not have to use these illegal methods.
It seems to me that the Bush administration was more interested in making up for their failure to prevent 9-11 by acting macho after the attacks. They wanted to look like they were doing everything possible to punish those responsible even if it meant breaking the law. In that way they could clear their consciences. In the process they've made America weaker.
More proof that this country has lost it's moral fiber. It is the latest example of a nation headed for an abyss. It has been become fashionable and "cool" to smoke marijuana. We thank the popular culture/media for the change in attitudes. But look at the people who the biggest supporters of legalization: gangster rappers and rockers. Then there is the notion that marijuana has medicinal use. Legalization should be limited to prescriptions only. Just every other drug. So don't buy these bogus arguments. Marijuana is more destructive to the body than cigarettes.
A CBS News Poll released today finds that 41 percent of Americans think the use of marijuana should be made legal. Fifty-two percent disagree.
The percentage supporting legalization has varied a bit recently. In March of this year 31 percent favored legalization but the number was higher in January at 41 percent, matching what it is now.
Thirty years ago just 27 percent thought the use of marijuana should be made legal.
Younger Americans are more likely than those who are older to support legalization.
The Wall St. Journal says the secret plan was intended to kill or capture al Qaeda members. So why hide it? It would've been acceptable to Congress. Unless it included more torture. Then again, let's not forget WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the CIA program concealed from the U.S. Congress was a secret plan to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives.
Former intelligence officials tell the Journal that the plan, which was ordered halted by agency Director Leon Panetta, was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential finding authorized by President George W. Bush.
Citing anonymous sources, the newspaper reported Monday ($) that the CIA spent money on planning and maybe some training, but it never became fully operational. The plan was highly classified and the CIA has refused to comment on it.
WALLACE: In our final moments, I want to turn to another subject, and this involves your role, Senator Feinstein, as chair of the Intelligence Committee.
CIA director Panetta briefed you recently on an 8-year-old program that he had stopped but that Congress had never been told about. Now there are reports that Vice President Cheney ordered the CIA not to tell Congress about it.
One, should Congress have been told about this program, which apparently was never fully implemented? And what do you make of the vice president's apparent role in telling the CIA not to brief Congress?
FEINSTEIN: The answer is yes, Congress should have been told. We should have been briefed before the commencement of this kind of sensitive program.
Director Panetta did brief us two weeks ago — I believe it was on the 24th of June — said he had just learned about the program, described it to us, indicated that he had canceled it and, as had been reported, did tell us that he was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress. This is...
WALLACE: And what do you think of that?
FEINSTEIN: Oh, I think this is a problem, obviously. This is a big problem, because the law is very clear. And I understand the need of the day, which was when America was in shock, when we had been hit in a way we'd never contemplated, where we had massive loss of life, where there was a major effort to be able to respond and — but this — see, I don't — I think you weaken your case when you go outside of the law.
And I think that if the Intelligence Committees had been briefed, they could have watched the program. They could have asked for regular reports on the program. They could have made judgments about the program as it went along. That was not the case because we were kept in the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me switch subjects, here, because there's a pretty startling allegation in this morning's New York Times.- Additional links:
The headline is "Cheney is Linked to Concealment of CIA Project."
And both of you gentlemen have served, in the past, on the Intelligence Committee.
According to this article, the Central Intelligence Agency, at the beginning of this decade, for eight years, withheld information on the secret counterterror program at the direct orders of the vice president.
This is according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter. They say that Leon Panetta told the intelligence committees that.
Senator Durbin, do you think this has to be investigated?
DURBIN: Absolutely, it does. Let me tell you, we have a system of checks and balances. There's accountability in our Constitution. The executive branch of government cannot create programs like these programs and keep Congress in the dark. There is a requirement for disclosure.
It has to be done in an appropriate way so it doesn't jeopardize our national security, but to have a massive program that is concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate; it could be illegal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you want the Intelligence Committee to look into this?
DURBIN: Absolutely.
