Should The US Reinstate The Draft or Some Other Mandatory Service?

[Ringel05]

What do you expect (concerning his language), he's a Gunnery Sgt.
BTW here's a rebuttal to Paul Pillar:
A Wall Street Journal criticized Pillar's choices in releasing information. [20] Its author observed that " CIA officers on the cusp of retirement often enroll in a seminar that is supposed to help them adjust to life after the agency--teaching them, for example, how to write a résumé. I've begun to wonder if part of that program now includes a writing seminar on how to beat up on the Bush administration."

The author, Guillermo Christensen, agrees Pillar was central in the CIA's analysis of Iraq. Regarding the Foreign Affairs article, Christensen questions if that was the place to publicize that he thought the war was a bad idea and the President and advisors ignored him. He makes the assumption that But Pillar "actually did change his mind about all that work he'd done, and that he really did think the intelligence didn't support the case for war. If that was truly so, no one was better positioned to make the case against war within the government than Mr. Pillar himself." Christensen suggested that Pillar could have sent personal observations, with all relevant classified data, to senior Executive Branch officials. Further, Christensen suggested "that analysis with every single member of Congress by writing less-classified summaries of the conclusions, as is often done."

Thomas Joscelyn, in the Weekly Standard, writes that "Pillar demonstrates that he himself is a master of the art of politicizing intelligence. Far from being a dispassionate analyst, Pillar practices the very same 'manipulations and misuse' he claims to expose."

You might be amazed at the number of government personnel who use "similar" tactics for personal/political/monetary gain.

There are many, many other reports from many other sources claiming the same thing. I just posted one that was very relevant to the situation at hand.

While it is true that many of these people were in fact writing books, the Bush Administration certainly had a larger motivation to do what they said they did.

In addition, there have been so many instances of this type of reaction from the far-right media, like the articles you quoted from, that it's grown predictable:

Step 1: A whistle-blower appears talking about the Bush administration
Step 2: The right-wing media personally attacks the character of the whistle-blower
Step 3: The right-wing media implies that their personal attacks prove the data presented to be false.

Sounds to me like typical right/left-wing tactics, be honest. Although I wasn't paying close enough attention and should have left Thomas Joscelyn off. My appologies for that - bad example.
However, see above (ital & bold) puts his motivation in question, especially if you are familiar the "industry" and how it works. This doesn't mean he wasn't telling the truth from a certain perspective but it does call into question his why especially if he could have injected intel that potentially may have prevented the intire thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Intel hould be objective for policy making, but almost always is spun for agenda-driven ends. I used to see it at low a level as Battalion S-2 (an intel section in a headquarters that controlled several company-sized formations, generally of a like composition).

 

[Annie]

True, but thats why you monitor troop and threat levels and do things to maintain a proper balance. Such as incentives to join and re-enlist.

Nothing more than good business sense.

Seriously, give me a good reason to join the military under Obama? Check Holder.

I don't know your personal situation. For many though, it is a way to a better life for them, what with the GI Bill and such. These people also have a higher level of dedication since they are also trying to better themselves, instead of just marking time like many conscripts.

I understand what you are saying, I'm replying that under the current administration may not be the smartest choice. Look at Holder and CIA. Same sort of debasement is in line for military. Why volunteer to be shat upon?

 

[Vast LWC]

Bullshit pea brain. You do not like what I have to say and then go off on an ignorant rant about how the President can fund a war with out Congress. That proves just how ignorant you are. Then you claim the White House broke the law by cherry picking what data the Congress would get. Even though there have been at LEAST 3 investigations into the claims and every one has found no such thing occurred. You have yet to address how exactly Bush altered, edited or cherry picked Foreign Governments Intel reports or how he managed to get rank and file career CIA and other agency personnel to willingly illegally deceive Congress. And yet non one has actually come forward to make the claim they were ordered to change or hide or cherry pick information provided to Congress.

Wow, you really need some reading comprehension lessons, don't you?

Please point out where I claimed the "White House broke the law". I would not have made any such claim. I simply pointed out that congress was misled because of omission of contradictory data.

The white house did cherry pick data, and each investigation found evidence of just such occurences happening. Just because they were not deemed criminal acts does not mean they didn't happen.

How? Through the "Office of Special Plans":

The rise of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence." [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]

Also see:

CNN.com - Ex-official: Intel estimates cherry-picked like a buffet - Sep 27, 2006

Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong - The Atlantic (January/February 2004)

Annals of National Security: The Stovepipe : The New Yorker

Who told us about it?

Paul Pillar, Richard Clarke, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, the list goes on and on.

Here's an interesting video:

Pentagon Whistleblower Reveals How Iraq War Intel Was Cooked

 

[Vast LWC]

Bullshit pea brain. You do not like what I have to say and then go off on an ignorant rant about how the President can fund a war with out Congress. That proves just how ignorant you are. Then you claim the White House broke the law by cherry picking what data the Congress would get. Even though there have been at LEAST 3 investigations into the claims and every one has found no such thing occurred. You have yet to address how exactly Bush altered, edited or cherry picked Foreign Governments Intel reports or how he managed to get rank and file career CIA and other agency personnel to willingly illegally deceive Congress. And yet non one has actually come forward to make the claim they were ordered to change or hide or cherry pick information provided to Congress.

Oh, and by the way, the fact that you insulted me in this post, deliberately misrepresented what I said, and then lied about no one ever having come forward to make the claim that intel data was cherry-picked proved my point perfectly.

Thanks.

 

[Vast LWC]

Seriously, give me a good reason to join the military under Obama? Check Holder.

I don't know your personal situation. For many though, it is a way to a better life for them, what with the GI Bill and such. These people also have a higher level of dedication since they are also trying to better themselves, instead of just marking time like many conscripts.

I understand what you are saying, I'm replying that under the current administration may not be the smartest choice. Look at Holder and CIA. Same sort of debasement is in line for military. Why volunteer to be shat upon?

I'd much rather be in the military now than under W. W was a cowboy who would put your life in danger for the flimsiest of reasons.

I joined up under Bush senior, at least that guy seemed to know what he was doing.

Obama, whatever faults he may have, makes well-informed, careful decisions, and won't throw you into a war for no reason.

 

[namvet]

i say yes. BUT only if it gets Osama impeached.

 

[Wicked Jester]

No thanks.

Reservists and Guardsmen are bad enough (sorry guys) I can't imagine what a guy who REALLY didn't want to be in a war zone would be like.

That's because you wouldn't have the guts to serve in any capacity.
RLTW....ALL THE WAY!