Sunday, July 12, 2009

Matlin's Defense of Cheney and NonDisclosure

makes no sense.

Here it is in its entirety.

MATALIN: Morning, Wolf.

BLITZER: Your former boss, the former vice president of the United States, you saw that front page New York Times. Let me put it up and show our viewers. "Cheney is linked to concealment of CIA project," "Congress was in dark." Panetta, the current CIA director is said to have oversight panels of direct orders.

How big of a problem, potentially, is this for the former vice president?

MATALIN: It's a big problem for the administration.

BLITZER: The Obama administration.

MATALIN: This is very suspect timing. The president's agenda is almost in shambles. His numbers are dropping. Isn't it coincidental they gin up a Cheney story. What The New York Times is saying in that story is they're accusing the vice president of telling -- of ordering the CIA to not tell the Congress about a program that didn't exist.

So Matalin first tries to change the subject by accusing the president of well, changing the subject. Her argument. The former vice president isn't the one in trouble. The current president is. President Barack Obama's s economic agenda isn't working so he has CIA Director Leon E. Panetta bring the former vice president's name up, knowing he is the person the media loves to demonize. Talk about conspiracy theories.

Obama doesn't need this disclosure to change the subject when the media's attention will shift to the Sonia Sotomajor nomination hearings tomorrow anyway. Besides, as I have noted in my last post, Panetta has his own motive for accusing the vice president of withholding CIA information from Congress.

"It wasn't operational, it was never operational. Further, there's a reason -- which he had every right to do, even if it was operational. There's a reason that executive branch withholds information, which they're entitled to do, because when it leaks it renders said programs ineffective or inoperative."

Matalin needs to read the paper so she can get her facts straight. The program was operational, according to this report in The New York Times, and there is every indication that it was in fact operational. Why? CIA officials would not object to the CIA Director's decision to terminate a non-operational program (what would be the point?) nor would there be any reason to withhold information concerning a program that did not exist.

No comments: