rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 512
- 48
- Banned
- #21
Will Wade ever tire of looking foolish?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What does it all mean?
- Thread starter nakedemperor
- Start date
W
wade
Guest
Comrade said:
That is not the same thing. That is not people being fired, that is two figurehead retirements. Firings mean people responsible loosing retirement pay and other benefits making them very likely to sue or speak out if they feel wronged. What you are pointing to are two people who will get their benefits and who would likely loose them if they speak out.
No heads have rolled - that means firings not retirements which may not even be Iraq WMD related.
Comrade
Senior Member
wade said:That is not the same thing. That is not people being fired, that is two figurehead retirements. Firings mean people responsible loosing retirement pay and other benefits making them very likely to sue or speak out if they feel wronged. What you are pointing to are two people who will get their benefits and who would likely loose them if they speak out.
No heads have rolled - that means firings not retirements which may not even be Iraq WMD related.
You don't have to be a political insider to understand that when the top two officials resign from the head of government agency for unspecified 'personal reasons', heads ARE rolling.
:rotflmao:
W
wade
Guest
Comrade said:You don't have to be a political insider to understand that when the top two officials resign from the head of government agency for unspecified 'personal reasons', heads ARE rolling.
This is not what I meant. What I meant was that no analysts who provided the bad data have been fired for incompetance. There should have been a massive firing of such people. That is what normally happens.
Seeing these guys "retire" is just a couple of good o'le boys "taking one for the team". Neither one of them is going to speak out about how they did what they were told to do and have now been wrongly dismissed.
Comrade
Senior Member
wade said:This is not what I meant. What I meant was that no analysts who provided the bad data have been fired for incompetance. There should have been a massive firing of such people. That is what normally happens.
That assumes massive incompetance among the more or less permanent staff of the CIA is assumed to have led to 9-11.
Somehow I don't think firing the verteran core of workers who've worked years at the desk of 'country X' is the winning strategy.
I couldn't wait to hear from the Dems on that one! Bush would get slammed for picking on the 'little guy' when we all would get an earfull over how the real fault was with the decision makers at the top.
Again, this isn't being honest with yourself, as you've been consistent with the Dems about these affairs since day one on this board.
Seeing these guys "retire" is just a couple of good o'le boys "taking one for the team". Neither one of them is going to speak out about how they did what they were told to do and have now been wrongly dismissed.
Now there you go, wade.
Somehow you'd like to post the blame is among the good old boys who covered for Bush and his top people by 'resigning'.
That's pretty much the de-facto anti-Bush position you've held on this board since day one.
If you are now recognizing that indeed heads have rolled in the CIA, you only get to spin this one way... either up or down the ladder.
Do you understand why your two paragraphs are logical contradictions with each other?
W
wade
Guest
No contradiction at all. Read it again, it's totally consistant. We've been subjected to fabricated info and when this fact was exposed a couple of serimonial sheep were (maybe) sacrificed. If indeed the long term analysts generated this bad intel, what worth are they and why keep them on since they are obviously incompetant?
As for holding a position that is consistantly "Dem", well you have held a position that is consistantly "Rep". So what?
As for holding a position that is consistantly "Dem", well you have held a position that is consistantly "Rep". So what?
Comrade
Senior Member
wade said:No contradiction at all. Read it again, it's totally consistant. We've been subjected to fabricated info and when this fact was exposed a couple of serimonial sheep were (maybe) sacrificed.
So which is it? Did heads roll or not?
Which obviously means the long term analysts who generated the intel, what worth are they and why keep them on since they are obviously incompetant?
Which contradicts your earlier assurance in this same thread that:
When there is a massive intelligence failure, the normal result is those involved are fired. This has not happened. The only explanation that makes sense to me is they did not really fail, they did what they were charged to do.
:huh:
So which is it wade, are they 'obviously incompentent' or is the 'only explanation that makes sense to you is they did not really fail'?
As for holding a position that is consistantly "Dem", well you have held a position that is consistantly "Rep". So what?
I didn't call you a Democrat, I called you anti-Bush.
You're far more left than the average Democrat in America.
W
wade
Guest
They didn't fail.. they (the intel analysts) provided the info requested - even if it was fabricated. This is why they are not being fired. No contradition in my argument at all.
er, man you are out there... Nothing to base your argument on other than some vast conspiracy theory... Say, was Bill Clinton really running cocaine throught the Mena, Ark airport?
Boyo, talk about your looney left I believe you're a card carrying member.
Yeah it's easy to cover up for a President requesting an ENTIRE department of the federal government lie? Brain-dead alert... There are plenty of dems working at CIA.. Do you believe for a second that someone wouldn't leak info to hurt Bush if your charges were true...
By the way which psychoactive drugs are you taking? Lesseeee, conspiracy theories---paranoia--- I got it!!!! Hallucinogins..... Post when the trip is over dude... Watch out for those tracers man--- it's Bush trying to read your mind...
Boyo, talk about your looney left I believe you're a card carrying member.
Yeah it's easy to cover up for a President requesting an ENTIRE department of the federal government lie? Brain-dead alert... There are plenty of dems working at CIA.. Do you believe for a second that someone wouldn't leak info to hurt Bush if your charges were true...
By the way which psychoactive drugs are you taking? Lesseeee, conspiracy theories---paranoia--- I got it!!!! Hallucinogins..... Post when the trip is over dude... Watch out for those tracers man--- it's Bush trying to read your mind...
Comrade
Senior Member
wade said:They didn't fail.. they (the intel analysts) provided the info requested - even if it was fabricated. This is why they are not being fired. No contradition in my argument at all.
So really what your saying is the drones in the CIA fabricated the info and should be fired, or maybe that they aren't fired because they did their job, or ... um... you can't be serious. What the hell, I can't possibly go on with you wade. :duh3:
rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 512
- 48
- Banned
- #31
wade said:They didn't fail.. they (the intel analysts) provided the info requested - even if it was fabricated. This is why they are not being fired. No contradition in my argument at all.
Fabricating info is a miscarriage of their duty, asweepay!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20041013.shtml
Those pesky terrorists
Tony Blankley (back to web version) | email to a friend Send
October 13, 2004
Whether or not he intended it, John Kerry's much commented upon statement -- that terrorism should be reduced to a nuisance like prostitution or gambling -- has engaged the central issue of this presidential campaign. His statement was neither an accident nor as easily dismissed as many people have asserted. Rather, it reflects the institutional policy of the CIA, and is at the heart of the almost open warfare between the Bush White House and the CIA.
To give Mr. Kerry his due, let me quote his entire statement: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."
Since the rise of modern terrorism in the 1960s-70s, the CIA has viewed terrorism as essentially a permanent fever to be managed. Sometimes it spikes, sometimes it subsides. It should not be moralized into a fight to the death, as with Hitler's Germany. This view was well expressed by the CIA's Paul Piller, currently on the CIA's National Intelligence Council and the author of the recent pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that was leaked to the New York Times last month.
Mr. Piller's prior writings on this topic were quoted by Mr. John B. Roberts II in a recent Washington Times article (Oct. 1, 2004):
"Mr. Piller criticizes as "simplistic" those who "think of terrorism simply as an evil to be eradicated." He writes that "overheated rhetoric" about weapons of mass destruction results in a "tendency to treat the whole subject of terrorism in terms of body counts and to focus not just mainly but exclusively on the number of people (and more specifically the number of Americans) whom terrorism kills or might kill." Mr. Pillar warns that this leads to a "tendency toward absolute solutions and a rejection of accommodation and finesse."
"If counter-terrorism is conceived as a war, " Mr. Piller writes, "it is a small step to conclude that in a war there is no substitute for victory, and thus no room to compromise." Mr. Pillar's prescription for counter-terrorism is "more finesses and, if not less fight, then fighting in a carefully calculated and selective way."
It is this pre-Sept. 11 view of terrorism institutionally still held by the CIA that John Kerry has bought into: Terrorism has always been managed. Military action will only inflame masses of Muslims. The risks of the latter are greater than the risks of the former. So keep the Pentagon and its big battalions out of the CIA's traditional covert management of terrorists.
And in buying into it, he has also bought the CIA as a political ally during this presidential campaign. Should he win the election, presumably he would re-institute the CIA's policy.
It was precisely President Bush's decision to declare and fight an actual, not a metaphorical, war on terrorism that so enraged the CIA and has led them to release damaging leaks against the president at key moments in the election campaign. This same view is held by much of the State Department's Foreign Service Officer corp. It is rumored that sometime in the next three weeks, they, too, will leak some damaging document or information against the president. And it is a fair guess, that Sen. Kerry will be primed to exploit that leak when it comes.
Thus, Mr. Kerry's Sunday statement was not merely a careless lapse of verbal judgment. It represents a considered view of the world, and would be likely to define his strategy in fighting terrorism should he be elected president. So it is fair to ask whether Sen. Kerry's and the CIA's view of counter-terrorism can stand the test of the post-Sept. 11 world.
As always in this discussion, the debate comes back to WMD -- what the CIA's Mr. Piller called the "overheated rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction" that drives policy to seek "victory" rather than "leave room for compromise accommodation and finesse." If that doesn't sound Kerryesque, I'll eat my chapeaux.
It may have been reasonable in the latter part of the last century to seek compromise and accommodation with the terrorists when they were armed only with pistols and hand grenades. But what would such a policy look like today when Islamic terrorists are seeking WMD with which to "teach" America a terrible lesson?
At the minimum such a policy would tend to drive us to withdraw from the world as instructed by bin Laden or his successors. Certainly we would abandon Israel. Probably we would abandon the Middle East oil fields to the control by the terrorist regime. Doubtlessly we would have to pay tribute (foreign aid) to beneficiaries designated by the terrorists in "compensation for our past abuses." We might well try to tamp down the export of our Hollywood, MTV culture to appease the terrorist's sensitivities. Perhaps we would have to offer special dispensations to Islamic Americans. Then, we would hope for the best.
We would then be managing terrorism in the way we manage prostitution or gambling. It would be a policy of live and let live. Of course, prostitution and gambling are "victimless "crimes. If the terrorists didn't want to be "accommodated," "finessed" and "compromised with," there would be victims -- American victims by the hundreds of thousands.
And SO Wade your assumption is wrong,, your "theory" is not based in fact... The CIA is NOT going to cover for some Bush-made-it-up conspiracy...
Those pesky terrorists
Tony Blankley (back to web version) | email to a friend Send
October 13, 2004
Whether or not he intended it, John Kerry's much commented upon statement -- that terrorism should be reduced to a nuisance like prostitution or gambling -- has engaged the central issue of this presidential campaign. His statement was neither an accident nor as easily dismissed as many people have asserted. Rather, it reflects the institutional policy of the CIA, and is at the heart of the almost open warfare between the Bush White House and the CIA.
To give Mr. Kerry his due, let me quote his entire statement: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."
Since the rise of modern terrorism in the 1960s-70s, the CIA has viewed terrorism as essentially a permanent fever to be managed. Sometimes it spikes, sometimes it subsides. It should not be moralized into a fight to the death, as with Hitler's Germany. This view was well expressed by the CIA's Paul Piller, currently on the CIA's National Intelligence Council and the author of the recent pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that was leaked to the New York Times last month.
Mr. Piller's prior writings on this topic were quoted by Mr. John B. Roberts II in a recent Washington Times article (Oct. 1, 2004):
"Mr. Piller criticizes as "simplistic" those who "think of terrorism simply as an evil to be eradicated." He writes that "overheated rhetoric" about weapons of mass destruction results in a "tendency to treat the whole subject of terrorism in terms of body counts and to focus not just mainly but exclusively on the number of people (and more specifically the number of Americans) whom terrorism kills or might kill." Mr. Pillar warns that this leads to a "tendency toward absolute solutions and a rejection of accommodation and finesse."
"If counter-terrorism is conceived as a war, " Mr. Piller writes, "it is a small step to conclude that in a war there is no substitute for victory, and thus no room to compromise." Mr. Pillar's prescription for counter-terrorism is "more finesses and, if not less fight, then fighting in a carefully calculated and selective way."
It is this pre-Sept. 11 view of terrorism institutionally still held by the CIA that John Kerry has bought into: Terrorism has always been managed. Military action will only inflame masses of Muslims. The risks of the latter are greater than the risks of the former. So keep the Pentagon and its big battalions out of the CIA's traditional covert management of terrorists.
And in buying into it, he has also bought the CIA as a political ally during this presidential campaign. Should he win the election, presumably he would re-institute the CIA's policy.
It was precisely President Bush's decision to declare and fight an actual, not a metaphorical, war on terrorism that so enraged the CIA and has led them to release damaging leaks against the president at key moments in the election campaign. This same view is held by much of the State Department's Foreign Service Officer corp. It is rumored that sometime in the next three weeks, they, too, will leak some damaging document or information against the president. And it is a fair guess, that Sen. Kerry will be primed to exploit that leak when it comes.
Thus, Mr. Kerry's Sunday statement was not merely a careless lapse of verbal judgment. It represents a considered view of the world, and would be likely to define his strategy in fighting terrorism should he be elected president. So it is fair to ask whether Sen. Kerry's and the CIA's view of counter-terrorism can stand the test of the post-Sept. 11 world.
As always in this discussion, the debate comes back to WMD -- what the CIA's Mr. Piller called the "overheated rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction" that drives policy to seek "victory" rather than "leave room for compromise accommodation and finesse." If that doesn't sound Kerryesque, I'll eat my chapeaux.
It may have been reasonable in the latter part of the last century to seek compromise and accommodation with the terrorists when they were armed only with pistols and hand grenades. But what would such a policy look like today when Islamic terrorists are seeking WMD with which to "teach" America a terrible lesson?
At the minimum such a policy would tend to drive us to withdraw from the world as instructed by bin Laden or his successors. Certainly we would abandon Israel. Probably we would abandon the Middle East oil fields to the control by the terrorist regime. Doubtlessly we would have to pay tribute (foreign aid) to beneficiaries designated by the terrorists in "compensation for our past abuses." We might well try to tamp down the export of our Hollywood, MTV culture to appease the terrorist's sensitivities. Perhaps we would have to offer special dispensations to Islamic Americans. Then, we would hope for the best.
We would then be managing terrorism in the way we manage prostitution or gambling. It would be a policy of live and let live. Of course, prostitution and gambling are "victimless "crimes. If the terrorists didn't want to be "accommodated," "finessed" and "compromised with," there would be victims -- American victims by the hundreds of thousands.
And SO Wade your assumption is wrong,, your "theory" is not based in fact... The CIA is NOT going to cover for some Bush-made-it-up conspiracy...
Mr. Shaman
Senior Member
- May 4, 2010
- 23,892
- 822
- 48
I don't think Bush meant it the way in which you are asking. I think Bush is glad there were no weapons, but wished our intelligence would have been correct.nakedemperor said:"I wasn't happy when we found out there wasn't weapons." -Dubya
Isn't the best-case scenario no weapons?
It's lookin' like Lil' Dumbya & Uncle Dick are plying their "wares" in Israel, now......
"They (the Iranians) are working now and investing a lot of billions of dollars in order to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles," said Steinitz, a former chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee.
"And we estimate that in two to three years they will have the first intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the east coast of America. So their aim is to put a direct nuclear ballistic threat ... to Europe and to the United States of America," he said in English."
Last edited:
Mr. Shaman
Senior Member
- May 4, 2010
- 23,892
- 822
- 48
"Fuck....I dunno!! I thought YOU brought the missile!"
Similar threads
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 386
- Replies
- 60
- Views
- 588
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 304
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 350
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 46
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 107
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8051
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-