Skip to comments.
C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders
NYT ^
| July 13, 2009
| By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE
Posted on 07/14/2009 5:23:00 AM PDT by freed0misntfree
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
To: freed0misntfree
Lyndon Johnson told a reporter that after he became president he discovered the Kennedy brothers had been running a “Murder Incorporated in the Caribbean.” Dominican Republic ruler Rafael Trujillo was assassinated four months after JFK took office. Robert Kennedy was White House liaison to Operation Mongoose, the CIA program to destabilize the Castro regime. This included schemes to kill Castro. JFK also plotted a military coup in Vietnam that ended in the death of President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother.
41
posted on
07/14/2009 6:29:52 AM PDT
by
Brad from Tennessee
(A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
To: Sergeant Tim
Wait until unemployment hits 12%. Congress will investigate whether Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks.
42
posted on
07/14/2009 6:29:59 AM PDT
by
Richard Kimball
(We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
To: freed0misntfree
Another new tempest in a teapot to try and distract the masses from their woes: “Gee, I woke up this morning and forgot I don’t have a job and can’t find one. I was just so outraged to find out that the CIA was trying to kill Bin Laden and didn’t tell Nancy eight years ago. You Bastards! You tried to kill Binny!”
43
posted on
07/14/2009 6:31:41 AM PDT
by
catnipman
(Cat Nipman: Made from The Right Stuff)
To: Richard Kimball
Wait until next time. Congress will investigate if Cheney ordered al Qaeda to hit us again.
44
posted on
07/14/2009 6:33:35 AM PDT
by
Sergeant Tim
(In the War on Terror, there is no place to run from here.)
To: freed0misntfree
This is truly the silliest thing I've ever read. The CIA was looking into assassinations instead of bombing and risking civilian lives and Democrats have a problem with it, even though the plan never got off the ground! I would think they would be smarter to argue incompetence at not getting the program in place!
Canceling it shows that Panetta/Obama are weak on terrorism; why would the Dems want to expose that?
45
posted on
07/14/2009 6:39:00 AM PDT
by
Neverforget01
(Talk is cheap...except when Congress does it.)
To: freed0misntfree
Before 9/11, the last time we had an attack against us of that severity was Pearl Harbor. When we found out on April 14, 1943, that its planner and leader, Admiral Yamamoto, would be within reach of our air power we went after him specifically and killed him on April 18, 1943. FDR's order was to "Get Yamamoto". If our leaders and press took the current war one tenth as seriously as WW II this wouldn't be an issue.
As a little add on: The Japanese war aims were not to destroy the United States. They just wanted us out of the Pacific so we couldn't interfer with their plans to take over most of Eastern Asia and the Pacific. On the other hand Al Qaeda has stated it wants to destroy us. Which one of those two should be treated more seriously.
46
posted on
07/14/2009 6:41:27 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Chrysler and GM are what Marx meant by the means of production.)
To: freed0misntfree
The CIA under Panetta is a joke.
Lets just close them down and save Billions.
I bet the morale there really sucks.
47
posted on
07/14/2009 7:15:36 AM PDT
by
Venturer
To: freed0misntfree
How could the role of the United States be masked? Operationally, our SpecOps guys already know how to do this. Beyond that, just don't tell the New York Enemy Intelligence Briefing Paper ("Times").
Should allies be informed and might they block the access of the C.I.A. teams to their targets?
True allies wouldn't. Still wouldn't tell 'em. Give them plausible deniability.
What if American officers or their foreign surrogates were caught in the midst of an operation?
Well, it would be a learning experience-- how not to get the next team caught.
It's a war. Our side gets captured, wounded, and killed in war just like the enemy. We're pretty good at keeping our numbers down, but we will never reach 0% casualty on any significant operation, and we had better accept that.
Would such activities violate international law or American restrictions on assassinations overseas?
If so, change the US law and [have intercourse with] the rest.
Unasked: what if they retaliate by attmpting to assassinate people on our side?
You mean like in Khobar, Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen and New York City? How would it be fundamentally different?
48
posted on
07/14/2009 7:27:14 AM PDT
by
ExGeeEye
(Free men don't need government permission.)
To: SolidWood
CIA: YOU CAN NEVER CARRY OUT A SECRET OPERATION IF YOU HAVE TO SHARE THE DETAILS WITH CONGRESS BEFOREHAND.
So much for protecting the nation!!
49
posted on
07/14/2009 9:30:46 AM PDT
by
noah
(noah)
To: freed0misntfree
50
posted on
07/14/2009 10:26:04 AM PDT
by
jmaroneps37
(Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
To: freed0misntfree
Gee, it was an actual secret for eight years, till Panetta “briefed” the Democrats...
51
posted on
07/14/2009 10:28:58 AM PDT
by
Deb
(Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
To: DB
I do believe he said something about invading one of our sovereign allies to get bin Laden. Maybe he had his fingers crossed.
52
posted on
07/14/2009 10:31:02 AM PDT
by
Deb
(Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson