Wait Panetta, what? You DON'T want to assassinate terrorists?

The NYTimes has done it again today by laying out a continuation of its annoying obsession with not knowing everything. I am pretty sure this is what it comes down to, that NYTimes writers and editors feel they are better than everyone else and that they should be controlling the country and, gosh darnit, how can they do that when secret information isn't shared with them on a regular basis so they can publicly broadcast it and wreck havoc on our nation's security policy?

Thank you, again, for clarifying why the liberals will destroy the earth - see "C.I.A. had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders"

To the extent this is true, that Panetta canceled this program, that the CIA couldn't figure out how to carry it out (??), that miscellaneous Congressmen feel they have a right to know the goings-on of the CIA, that the CIA really isn't committing covert assasinations because of something Ford of all people put forth, this is an absolute disaster.

Panetta was obviously a terrible choice for this position, except as a useless figure-head - he is weak and extremely liberal to a point where his lack of international experience can only spell disaster for this position (liberals, especially those terribly concerned about relative nonsense like the environment, tend not to understand how violent and ruthless our enemies are). What's the point of canceling the program? Because we caught all the leaders? Because we've successfuly killed them? Because we've ended the source of their frustration and extremism - the cruel and oppressive poverty put upon them by their leaders (whom we fully support, without ever acknowledging that we're doing this) and the mass psychological brain-washing by extremists that is possible only because of these dire circumstances? When did we fix all those problems? Was it before or after Joe the Plumber came along to share his infinite wisdom about political policy?

As to the CIA being unable to figure out a tactical way to enact this, well, I just find that absurd. Whoever the undercover source is used here clearly isn't part of an elite corps, or at least, I certainly hope not. If we can't logistically figure out how keep intelligence on the ground that can kill at notice, we're dead in the water. Who is this character who says they couldn't figure out where to keep the people who would go in and kill the Qaeda leaders? I don't know, I mean, pretty much anywhere? Has our intelligence and technology fallen so far behind that we can't keep ahead of people living in mountains who are traveling around the world to kill our citizens and allies? If so, and I've said this many times over the past few years, we need to seriously recalibrate our funding and absolutely plow money into international undercover missions and programs which are accountable to no one but the Agency. This is why I am a citizen of a nation - it is to be protected. Everything else is a burden to me, but the protection, that's important.

Finally, the last thing I want is for Congressmen, who are just random people who earn a pittance and whose obsession in life is being the center of attention, is to be fully briefed on CIA programs. I want them briefed on absoutely nothing the CIA does. They don't know enough to comment, can't be trusted to secrecy and if they could be useful, they'll be sought out by those in power. Just seeing part of these Sotomayor hearings is enough to convince me that there is very little intelligence in either of those chambers and to the extent it does exist, it is being used for personal or political gain and not for the betterment of our nation.

Apart from being a non-story, this doesn't begin to address the major issues, such as why Panetta has this job, what he's accomplished, whether Congress should be informed about these things, and why this information is being publicly broadcast. New York Times: Please stop already with the publishing of information about secret programs etc. There's a reason they're secret. I promise. Grow up already and learn that someone may actually know better than you and stop putting national security at risk and encouraging those who do.