Friday, January 16, 2009

Billo, still clueless on the facts…….this surprises you?

Billo criticizes Obama’s choice of CIA Director; says it may lead to more terror attacks; supports advice given by George Tenet (who was CIA director during the worst terror attack in US history!)

by Larry Simons
January 16, 2009

Nutball Billo is at it again. So hell bent on condemning those who don’t support his ideologies that he puts both feet in his mouth…again. On his stupid website, billoreilly.com, under the “column archives” section, Billo has written the amazingly hysterical column “Obama’s Big Gamble”, in which the Lord of loofahs goes on to criticize Obama’s selection of new CIA Director, Leon Panetta:

“The choice is perplexing. Mr. Panetta is very smart but has absolutely no intel experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice.”

Let’s just clear up something first. Panetta served in Vietnam, served on the Iraq Study Group, and as Clinton’s Chief of Staff he sat in on National Security briefings. This alone made him a hell of a lot more experienced than Porter Goss was when he was appointed CIA Director in 2004 by President Bush. Goss had not worked at the CIA in 33 years and even admitted in 2004 during an interview with Michael Moore’s production company that he was “probably not qualified” to work at the CIA (today).

Porter Goss admitting he’s “not qualified” (removed from YouTube----why????)


I don’t give a rat’s ass if Panetta is experienced or not. That’s not even the point here. The point is the overwhelming and mind-boggling hypocrisy of the right-wing Republicans to make such an issue over experience, when there has been a smorgasbord of unexperienced Republican appointees and selections (for certain posts over the last 6 years) that make Leon Panetta’s nomination the best match for a role since Anthony Hopkins was chosen to play Hannibal Lector.


(Michael Brown, Harriet Miers and Sarah Palin...among the many selections of the GOP that had little or no experience)

Yet, the likes of O’ Reilly come out in droves crying inexperienced, inexperienced! Even some Democrats, like Dianne Feinstein, have sneered at Obama’s pick, most likely because they wanted the nomination themselves and are crying they didn’t get selected.

Republican Christopher “Kit” Bond had this to say:

"Job number one at the CIA is to track down and stop terrorists"......."In a post-9-11 world, intelligence experience would seem to be a prerequisite for the job of CIA director."

What about the pre-9-11 world, Kit? Stopping terrorists wasn’t important then? If it was, why wasn’t George Tenet not fired for his massive incompetence for letting 3,000+ Americans die? Hmmm??

Billo goes even farther than not accusing Tenet of incompetence, he uses his advice! Billo said this:

“Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries. Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged.”

How in the hell does Tenet know what’s effective? 3,000+ people died under his tenure as CIA Director, and Billo wants Panetta to take advice from him? And what advice (as Billo mentions)? “Opposes any kind of coerced interrogation.” What Billo means is ‘torture’, but he wanted to use the words “coerced interrogation” because it sounds better than saying “torture”. No spin huh? Billo sure as hell wasn’t going to say "waterboarding!" Are you kidding?

“Wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed..” Maybe because it’s not just for calls made in the USA to overseas, but calls made from the USA to within the USA. Many would argue that it’s just domestically, and of course, that makes it unconstitutional. Since Billo hates the Constitution is probably why he is against the law being repealed.

“Would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.” What Billo means here is that Panetta wants to disband the unconstitutional rendition program which states that anyone can be deemed an enemy combatant if Bush or his minions just think they are (no evidence required).

What Billo means by “other countries” is Guantanamo Bay, which, for the last 106 years the United States has had territorial control. What Billo also fails to mention, to the stupefied morons who watch his show and listen to his radio show, is that ever since June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that detainees were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Eight days later on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued a memo stating that all future detainees will have these protections.

So, even though our own Supreme Court ruled that detainees will be protected under the Geneva Conventions, Billo wants you to think not drowning detainees, not listening in on phone calls of American citizens and not swiping them off the streets of American cities will lead to the next terrorist attack. But, prior to 9-11 we did none of this and yet 3,000+ died under the watch of George Tenet, and Billo not only does not vilify Tenet, but also ordains Tenet’s advice on anti-terror tactics. Simply amazing.

As if it couldn’t get worse, Billo says this:

“So why is Obama putting himself in this position? Well, the media has convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers-people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide.”

The media did this? The media? So, the Supreme Court is now the media? Navy Judge Advocate General Michael Lohr is the media? Oh, and let me guess Billo, ABC News put a gun to Dick Cheney’s head and forced him into admitting he oversaw the torture program?

Here he is last month admitting he approved of torture.


Billo then says this:

“Now, the committed left-wing media are demanding Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives.”

What he means here is that the media are demanding that Obama reject anyone who would be in defiance to the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Supreme Court.

Billo puts the icing on his delusional cake when he says this:

“It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat.”

Here he is again; calling torture “coerced interrogation” because it’s a fancier, more serious sounding term. What Billo is simply saying here is that the President should be above the law and should be able to do anything he wants when it comes to stopping terrorists, even if it means violating the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution. In other words, The President should have dictatorial powers. This coming from the same guy who demonized others, including teacher Jay Bennish, for comparing Bush to Hitler….and you just read his own words, admitting the President should have the power to do anything he wants.

Naturally, Billo doesn’t give one shred of evidence that proves torturing detainees is effective in extracting correct information. And naturally, Billo conveniently does not mention the fact that we (the United States) convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war after WWII. I guess you can chalk that up as yet another thing that Americans are completely justified in doing to others, but if you do it to us, then watch out buddy!

And thus ends another column by Billo that is riddled with unsubstantiated opinions, spin, deception and facts conveniently omitted. Looks like Billo is starting out the new year on the path to stealing the Fraud of the Year crown away from David H. Willis.

No comments: