Bloodthirsty Liberal

So, is this part of that “Jewish lobby” I’ve heard-tell of so often?

Former CIA director George Tenet has acknowledged that elements of the counterintelligence investigation against a former Jewish attorney at the agency in the 1990s could be construed as anti-Semitic.

Tenet acknowledged this in a previously undisclosed sworn deposition, part of a privacy act lawsuit filed by the former attorney, Adam Ciralsky. In 1999, Ciralsky’s security clearance was revoked because of his alleged lack of candor about contact with Israelis and Israeli-Americans, effectively ending his brief career with the CIA. For the last dozen years Ciralsky has sued the CIA to bring to light how he believes a few agency officials—motivated by anti-Semitism—targeted him unfairly. On Friday he dropped his case.

“I am proud of my service with the CIA and have a deep and abiding respect for the organization and its mission,” Ciralsky said in a statement. “I am equally proud that by highlighting and confronting the misconduct of a few, I spurred positive change.”

While Tenet acknowledged in a 1999 letter to the Anti-Defamation League that some of the conduct of CIA investigators in the Ciralsky case was inappropriate, Tenet goes further and into more detail in the new deposition. Tenet authorized sensitivity training for the CIA on anti-Semitism following allegations of misconduct in the Ciralsky investigation. At the time the CIA said Ciralsky’s dismissal was not the result of anti-Jewish prejudice.

According to the transcript of a 2010 deposition viewed exclusively by The Daily Beast, Tenet said statements attributed to an officer who administered a polygraph to Ciralsky were “insensitive, inappropriate and unprofessional”—and could be construed as anti-Semitic.

The statement in question was from a polygraph administrator identified as “Charles B” in the court transcripts. In a sworn declaration, another CIA polygraph administrator, John Sullivan said, “I was in B’s office when he came and I asked him how the test was going. B’s response was to refer to Ciralsky as ‘that little Jew bastard.’ I don’t recall what B said after that but I believe that he said something to the effect that he, B, ‘knew Ciralsky was hiding something.’”

Who would construe that as antisemitic?

Or this?

Prominent Norwegian academic and founder of ‘peace and conflict studies’, Johan Galtung, claims that Jews control media, silence spurs antisemitism.

In an article published on Monday in the Norwegian magazine ‘Humanist’, professor Johan Galtung, founder of the academic discipline of ‘peace and conflict studies’ and an ‘Alternative Nobel Price’ laureate, lashes out against what he claims to be the ‘Jewish dominance’ of mass media.

Quoting an Pak Alert Press article republished on an internet blog focusing on islamic issues, he claims that ‘Six Jewish Companies own 96 % of world media’ and that ‘the directors of the three largest media conglomerates Walt Disney, Time Warner and Viacom are Jews; Similarly the three largest TV channels ABC, CBS and NBC before they joined the conglomerates.’

Galtung moves on to present a long list of American newspapers, publishing houses and movie production companies, which he states is under Jewish ownership.

- Is this coincidental for 1.9 percent of the US population? the Norwegian professor asks, adding that Jewish ownership is the equivalent of ‘Jewish control’. He links this to a bias on Middle East coverage, by pointing to several Jews who have stated that ‘Jews that write in the media, have a role to defend Israel.’

First of all, “prominent” can never be used to modify “Norwegian”, even in Norway—with the possible exception of Vidkun Quisling, the Nazi collaborator during WWII, whom Professor Galtung would remember. Galtung might also remember fondly the arrest and deportation of Jews under Quisling’s and the Nazi’s rule, and the seizure of their property.

It’s funny how this stuff isn’t better known in the Jew-dominated media.

Why is Eric Holder prosecuting the guys who found bin Laden?

As the whole of America takes a bin Laden victory lap, let us pause to remember some of this celebrated event’s most forgotten men: the Central Intelligence Agency officers who sit under the cloud of a criminal investigation begun in 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder into their interrogations of captured terrorists.

That’s right, the Americans whose interrogation of al Qaeda operatives may have put in motion the death of this mass murderer may themselves face prosecution by the country they were trying to protect.

It is time for the Holder CIA investigation to end. The death of bin Laden 10 years after 9/11 makes the Holder investigation of the CIA interrogators politically, emotionally and morally moot.

The whole thing is unsettling, isn’t it?

- Aggie

Cue the evil laughter:

The CIA built one of its secret European prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius, Lithuania, a current Lithuanian government official and a former U.S. intelligence official told ABC News this week.

Where affluent Lithuanians once rode show horses and sipped coffee at a café, the CIA installed a concrete structure where it could use harsh tactics to interrogate up to eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at a time.

“The activities in that prison were illegal,” said human rights researcher John Sifton. “They included various forms of torture, including sleep deprivation, forced standing, painful stress positions.”

Standing? The horror! Stress positions? Oh, the humanity!

What part of “suspected al-Qaeda terrorists” do these people not get?

Besides:

The prison pods inside the barn were not visible to locals.

So for all we know, the CIA could have been riding English and sipping tea. This story is as empty as Al Capone’s vault.

It’s been said (and proved) before, but it can’t be said enough. Nancy Pelosi is a liar.

NPL, for short:

Understandably, most of the media’s attention has been focused on the portion of the CIA IG’s report that deals with whether the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (“EITs”) caused suspected terrorists to provide information that they otherwise wouldn’t, i.e., whether the EITs “worked.”

But as today’s Wall Street Journal notes, the IG report also refutes the claim made by Nancy Pelosi in her infamous May press conference that she was never told about waterboarding by the CIA in fall 2002. (Pelosi went on to say that the CIA lies to Congress “all the time”). According to the IG report, the agency briefed the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees — that includes Speaker Pelosi — in the fall of 2002, as well as in February and March of 2003, and continued to do so thereafter.

The IG report states that none of the congressional participants — that includes Speaker Pelosi — expressed any concerns about the EITs or the program itself.

Unless we’re resigned to the premise that it’s routine for the Speaker of the House to lie to the American people about matters of national security, this is pretty serious stuff. CIA interrogators are facing the prospect of financially ruinous legal fees while a special prosecutor investigates their actions. Eric Holder may prosecute these individuals for taking actions that members of congress — that includes Speaker Pelosi — not only knew about, but that didn’t concern them.

If the EITs didn’t bother members of congress then, why are they a problem now?

Will any reporter call Pelosi on this?

I hate rhetorical questions. Don’t you?

NPL QED.

Obama’s health care plan is getting counseling from a “death panel”, and we start hearing of CIA “atrocities”. Anybody else think there’s a coincidence?

Team Obama may be ruthless and as unfamiliar with decency as they are with the surface of Venus—but they ain’t dumb.

U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), U.S. Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other senators today sent the following letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in response to his decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists:

“We are deeply disappointed by today’s announcement that you have chosen to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists. As we explained to you in a letter dated August 19, 2009, reopening those cases—which career prosecutors have already determined do not warrant criminal prosecution—could, among other things, have a chilling effect on the work of the intelligence community.

“We believe that the concerns raised in our letter warranted, at a minimum, careful consideration and a reasoned response. Instead, you moved forward without responding to our concerns or discussing with a coordinate branch of government the potential national security consequences that may result if the intelligence community is operating against a backdrop of prosecutions. The handling of this important issue calls into question your confirmation hearing commitments that you would establish a ‘full partnership’ with Congress and that you ‘recognize that congressional oversight and judicial review are necessary, beneficial attributes of our system of government.’

Yadda yadda.

This isn’t really that hard to understand: Obama’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t producing much more than a record number of body bags; his anti-terrorism policies so resemble Bush’s they recall the intelligence tests that challenge you to find the difference between two seemingly identical pictures; the best that can be said of his economic stimulus package is that it temporarily staunched the hemorrhaging—its most popular initiative, Bucks for Buckets (Lira for Lemons?), literally bribed people to buy new cars; he has suggested he might go both left and right on his health care plan.

…

Wouldn’t you appoint a special prosecutor? To investigate school lunches, the designated hitter, Paula Abdul—anything to distract the public and appease your rabid followers? Aggie pointed out the other day the Rasmussen poll that shows Obama’s haters now routinely outnumber his idolators by double figures. The man needs a piñata, and he needs it now, national security be damned.

We have become such a strange country: now, the mere presence of a power drill and the sound of a gunshot from the next room are evidence of monstrosity. The terrorists we catch and interrogate would think nothing of slitting Shirley Temple’s throat, and we think they are scarred by a Black & Decker cordless?

Whatever. If it were me, I’d put the gun on the table, and run the power drill in the next room—now, that would be disturbing—but that’s why I’m a bloodthirsty liberal.

Hey, Leon Panetta, why don’t you stick your big beak into what’s going on in Iran, instead of QUESTIONING THE PATRIOTISM of a former Vice President of the United States of America:

Vice President Cheney on Monday hit back at CIA Director Leon Panetta over his suggestion that Cheney wants another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

“I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted,” said Cheney in a statement provided to The Hill. “The important thing is whether or not the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the last eight years.”

Panetta, a veteran politician who served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, had criticized Cheney for “gallows politics” and said the former vice president hoped the country were subjected to another terrorist attack.

“I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue,” Panetta told The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer.

“It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”

I despise those liberals who can’t stay on topic and have a civil debate. Cheney told you what he thought—he held nothing back. So why put such a disparaging spin on his motives? Debate him on the issues if you disagree. It’s a cheap, ad hominem, personal attack.

For something like this to emanate from the mouth of the Director of the Agency is way, way, way out of line.

I’m serious about Iran, btw. They didn’t see the revolution coming 30 years ago, and they didn’t see this big fat mess coming. (Else why would they let President Obama say this: “We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran.” D’oh!) Do your effing job, Panetta.

John Kerry would cry like a little girl about questioning his patriotism if you so much as offered him a breath mint. Questioning patriotism would seem to be all this crew has to offer in the “robust debate” over national security.

No surprise here

WASHINGTON – House Democrats defeated a Republican push yesterday to investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s assertion that the CIA misled her in 2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects.

Republicans Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina joined Democrats in voting 252-172 to block the measure, which would have created a bipartisan congressional panel.

“To have this charge out there and not have it resolved I think is damaging to our intelligence efforts, and certainly will have a chilling effect on our intelligence professionals around the world,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Pelosi was not present at the time of the vote because she was giving a commencement speech at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on healthcare, energy, and education,” said Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami.

CIA Director Leon Panetta has defended the spy agency, saying it does not lie to Congress.

Too bad. I would have loved to see the evidence.

- Aggie

The Obama administration plays hardball

Question: Would the American Left cheer if the Marines invade Tel Aviv? Would they worry about their tax dollars going to fund a foreign war? Yes and No.

CIA chief: ‘Big trouble’ if Israel attacks Iran alone
By Haaretz Service
Tags: iran, leon panetta

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta said in remarks published Tuesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows that if Israel were to independently attack Iran it would lead to “big trouble.”

Panetta told political quarterly Global Viewpoint on Monday that it is clear that Israel is concerned about the possibility of Iran producing nuclear weapons, but added that Israel’s security would be better served if the government worked together with international powers to curb the threat.

“The threat posed by Iran has our full attention,” Panetta said. “Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Even though the administration is moving toward diplomatic engagement with that country, no one is naive about the challenges.” [Obama and his supporters are among the most naive adults in the world. It is not comforting to hear assurances from Panetta that they get it. If Iran bombs Israel, Obama will say: Sorry. We didn't see it coming. And he'd still be re-elected. - Aggie]

Panetta continued, “The judgment of the U.S. intelligence community is that Iran, at a minimum, is keeping open the option to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. It is our judgment that Iran halted weaponization in 2003, but it continues to develop uranium enrichment technology and nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.”

Assessing Iran’s intentions is a top priority, according to Panetta, who said, “The last thing we need in the Middle East is a nuclear arms race.”

An Israeli official said on Tuesday that Israel will be forced to take on Iran’s contentious nuclear program alone once U.S. President Barack Obama’s overture for dialogue with Tehran fails.

The official was quoted by Channel 10 as saying that Obama’s insistence on engagement with Iran would force Israel to make a “difficult decision” on the matter by the end of 2009.

Israel doesn’t call Aggie and ask for advice, but here it is just the same: The United States was furious when you blew up Saddam reactor, but you needed to do it to protect your own citizens. Do what you have to do to protect your country. This American administration will strangle you slowly, so you’re right – the choices suck. I think that boldness is better than whimpering and pleading with them to help you. The history of how western governments treat Jewish people is mixed, at best. Study outcomes rather than placing too much focus on glib assurances.

The bullying that we’ve seen used against business people in the United States is now being turned on Israel. The Obama administration is the slimy high school kid who cheats, the kid who destroys school property, the kid who is openly drunk at the prom while the teachers look away, the one with that dad who is a lawyer and threatens to sue every time his son or daughter gets into trouble. Not the little playground bully of elementary school, the older kid that slithers into Harvard, doing almost no work, and never gets called on it.

- Aggie