Obama owes thanks, apology, to CIA

[Samson]

Yeah......and don't forget the CIA operatives who shipped back drugs from Viet Nam.

Speaking of pulling bullshit outta asses, you wanna site a source for that, or shall we consider it just one more idiotic remark among many?

 

[Samson]

I agree with the opinion piece. He not only owes them an apology, and a bitchslap for the idiots at 'Justice', he owes them a public thank you.

It is the left who rant about the CIA and it was the CIA who found Bin Laden. If the left had their way, we would have no CIA.

God bless the CIA.

The CIA has been historically ineffective and at times have even been more damaging to national security than helpful. Read Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner for more context.

Here's just one small example:

CIA transnational human rights actions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suppose your point is that maybe now, after they eliminated Osama, it would be a good time for Obama to revisit the CIA's failings.

That sounds like a great idea.

 

[California Girl]

I agree with the opinion piece. He not only owes them an apology, and a bitchslap for the idiots at 'Justice', he owes them a public thank you.

It is the left who rant about the CIA and it was the CIA who found Bin Laden. If the left had their way, we would have no CIA.

God bless the CIA.

The CIA has been historically ineffective and at times have even been more damaging to national security than helpful. Read Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner for more context.

Here's just one small example:

CIA transnational human rights actions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, was the code name for a CIA mind-control research program that began in 1950, involved primarily with the experimentation of drugs and other "chemical, biological and radiological" stimuli on both willing and uninformed subjects.
Rockefeller Commission

In December 1974, The New York Times reported that the CIA had conducted illegal domestic activities, including experiments on U.S. citizens, during the 1960s. The report prompted investigations by both the U.S. Congress (in the form of the Church Committee) and a presidential commission (known as the Rockefeller Commission). The congressional investigations and the Rockefeller Commission report revealed that the CIA and the Department of Defense had in fact conducted experiments to influence and control human behavior through the use of psychoactive drugs such as LSD and mescaline and other chemical, biological, and psychological means. Experiments were often conducted without the subjects' knowledge or consent.

MK-ULTRA was started on the order of CIA director Allen Dulles, largely in response to alleged Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean use of mind-control techniques on U.S. prisoners of war in Korea. The goal of the experiments was to study mind-control in order to develop methods of interrogation and behavior modification and manipulation, as well as to develop a possible truth drug.

Good lord, Moddie. I've read it. I've read several books about the CIA. I am capable of making up my own mind... unlike some who prefer to spout bullshit from left wing media as thought that's the fucking gospel.

And, for the love of God, stop fucking linking to fucking wiki like that is the fucking Bible too.

Critical thought requires studying ALL sides of a subject, not just one fucking book, or fucking wiki.

No wonder this country is so fucking ignorant.

 

[Modbert]

I suppose your point is that maybe now, after they eliminated Osama, it would be a good time for Obama to revisit the CIA's failings.

That sounds like a great idea.

My point is that their involvement with eliminating Osama does not negate all the wrong they have done and how ineffective they truly have been.

 

[Modbert]

Good lord, Moddie. I've read it. I've read several books about the CIA. I am capable of making up my own mind... unlike some who prefer to spout bullshit from left wing media as thought that's the fucking gospel.

And, for the love of God, stop fucking linking to fucking wiki like that is the fucking Bible too.

Critical thought requires studying ALL sides of a subject, not just one fucking book, or fucking wiki.

No wonder this country is so fucking ignorant.

Did I say you should stop at just one book? No. I think Legacy of Ashes however is the best book on the subject. Especially considering how comprehensive it is.

Of course, you rather just talk down to me.

 

[Samson]

I suppose your point is that maybe now, after they eliminated Osama, it would be a good time for Obama to revisit the CIA's failings.

That sounds like a great idea.

My point is that their involvement with eliminating Osama does not negate all the wrong they have done and how ineffective they truly have been.

What?

A government agency is NOT PERFECT!!


Modbert, please: Alert the media.

They need to get this information out to the public before November 2012.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah......and don't forget the CIA operatives who shipped back drugs from Viet Nam.

Speaking of pulling bullshit outta asses, you wanna site a source for that, or shall we consider it just one more idiotic remark among many?

You want a source? Here.......

CIA drug trafficking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But.....I know you probably won't believe Wikipedia, so here........

Vietnam, the CIA's Illegal Drug Trafficking

That one is from some researcher who cites their sources.

 

[Ravi]

Obama owes thanks, and an apology, to CIA interrogators

Marc A. Thiessen,

In normal times, the officials who uncovered the intelligence that led us to Osama bin Laden would get a medal. In the Obama administration, they have been given subpoenas.

On his second day in office, Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives, Obama eviscerated the men and women of the CIA, accusing them of “torture” and declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.”

Obama owes thanks, and an apology, to CIA interrogators - The Washington Post

Should anyone wonder if Osama's death will help the perpetually clueless Obama?

What high value interrogation program would that be?

 

[California Girl]

Good lord, Moddie. I've read it. I've read several books about the CIA. I am capable of making up my own mind... unlike some who prefer to spout bullshit from left wing media as thought that's the fucking gospel.

And, for the love of God, stop fucking linking to fucking wiki like that is the fucking Bible too.

Critical thought requires studying ALL sides of a subject, not just one fucking book, or fucking wiki.

No wonder this country is so fucking ignorant.

Did I say you should stop at just one book? No. I think Legacy of Ashes however is the best book on the subject. Especially considering how comprehensive it is.

Of course, you rather just talk down to me.

You 'think' it is the best book. Great. Fine. I prefer to read a whole variety of books, from a variety of perspectives... and draw my own conclusions.

I talk down to anyone who links to wiki like that's the be and and end all of reference sources. It's pathetic, moronic and downright fucking dumb.

I suggest that you develop your ability to think critically. You're young, you appear reasonably intelligent.... there is no reason why you cannot learn to think more critically.

 

[Modbert]

What?

A government agency is NOT PERFECT!!


Modbert, please: Alert the media.

They need to get this information out to the public before November 2012.

Should take that comedy act of yours on the road there Samson.

 

[Samson]

But.....I know you probably won't believe Wikipedia, so here........

Vietnam, the CIA's Illegal Drug Trafficking

That one is from some researcher who cites their sources.

This is the source they cite:

Source: babelmagazine.com

Why is it not surprising that you put "babelmagazine.com" on a pedestal above "Wikipedia"

 

[Modbert]

You 'think' it is the best book. Great. Fine. I prefer to read a whole variety of books, from a variety of perspectives... and draw my own conclusions.

I talk down to anyone who links to wiki like that's the be and and end all of reference sources. It's pathetic, moronic and downright fucking dumb.

I suggest that you develop your ability to think critically. You're young, you appear reasonably intelligent.... there is no reason why you cannot learn to think more critically.

Once again, you're talking down to me and not to me.

You're not the only one who prefers to read a variety of books from a variety of perspectives. I also don't link to wiki as if it is the end-all reference source. However, I link to wiki because it is easy to navigate for everyone.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You 'think' it is the best book. Great. Fine. I prefer to read a whole variety of books, from a variety of perspectives... and draw my own conclusions.

I talk down to anyone who links to wiki like that's the be and and end all of reference sources. It's pathetic, moronic and downright fucking dumb.

I suggest that you develop your ability to think critically. You're young, you appear reasonably intelligent.... there is no reason why you cannot learn to think more critically.

Once again, you're talking down to me and not to me.

You're not the only one who prefers to read a variety of books from a variety of perspectives. I also don't link to wiki as if it is the end-all reference source. However, I link to wiki because it is easy to navigate for everyone.

Yanno......wiki is a good source to start with, because yeah, it's easy to navigate and find stuff out. But here's the thing........wiki gets it's sources from all over the planet, and people can contribute to it. And you've gotta admit, they've gotten a hell of a lot better checking things out than when they first started. Matter of fact, I'd trust wiki as much as I trust HS textbooks, which is to say, quite a bit.

However..........I also check other sources like MSNBC and the BBC, and cross check to make sure all of 'em match. If they don't, then I start looking for why.

 

[Modbert]

Yanno......wiki is a good source to start with, because yeah, it's easy to navigate and find stuff out. But here's the thing........wiki gets it's sources from all over the planet, and people can contribute to it. And you've gotta admit, they've gotten a hell of a lot better checking things out than when they first started. Matter of fact, I'd trust wiki as much as I trust HS textbooks, which is to say, quite a bit.

However..........I also check other sources like MSNBC and the BBC, and cross check to make sure all of 'em match. If they don't, then I start looking for why.

BBC is a fantastic website. The Guardian is as well. I'd also recommend foreignpolicy.com. They always have fantastic articles about current events and both sides are represented.

As for wiki, I like to think of it as a good starting point. If anything seems off-kilter, good to see where the information is being originally sourced from. And they have gotten better at checking things over the years.

 

[Samson]

But.....I know you probably won't believe Wikipedia, so here........

Vietnam, the CIA's Illegal Drug Trafficking

That one is from some researcher who cites their sources.

This is the source they cite:

Source: babelmagazine.com

Why is it not surprising that you put "babelmagazine.com" on a pedestal above "Wikipedia"

Yanno......wiki is a good source to start with, because yeah, it's easy to navigate and find stuff out. But here's the thing........wiki gets it's sources from all over the planet, and people can contribute to it. And you've gotta admit, they've gotten a hell of a lot better checking things out than when they first started. Matter of fact, I'd trust wiki as much as I trust HS textbooks, which is to say, quite a bit.

However..........I also check other sources like MSNBC and the BBC, and cross check to make sure all of 'em match. If they don't, then I start looking for why.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno......wiki is a good source to start with, because yeah, it's easy to navigate and find stuff out. But here's the thing........wiki gets it's sources from all over the planet, and people can contribute to it. And you've gotta admit, they've gotten a hell of a lot better checking things out than when they first started. Matter of fact, I'd trust wiki as much as I trust HS textbooks, which is to say, quite a bit.

However..........I also check other sources like MSNBC and the BBC, and cross check to make sure all of 'em match. If they don't, then I start looking for why.

BBC is a fantastic website. The Guardian is as well. I'd also recommend foreignpolicy.com. They always have fantastic articles about current events and both sides are represented.

As for wiki, I like to think of it as a good starting point. If anything seems off-kilter, good to see where the information is being originally sourced from. And they have gotten better at checking things over the years.

Thanks for the tips. I'll check 'em out sometime. And, yeah.......my favorite kind of news sites are the ones that show both sides of the issue, leaving it up to me to decide, not all the partisan hackery you see on the FAUX Nooze channel.

 

[California Girl]

Yanno......wiki is a good source to start with, because yeah, it's easy to navigate and find stuff out. But here's the thing........wiki gets it's sources from all over the planet, and people can contribute to it. And you've gotta admit, they've gotten a hell of a lot better checking things out than when they first started. Matter of fact, I'd trust wiki as much as I trust HS textbooks, which is to say, quite a bit.

However..........I also check other sources like MSNBC and the BBC, and cross check to make sure all of 'em match. If they don't, then I start looking for why.

BBC is a fantastic website. The Guardian is as well. I'd also recommend foreignpolicy.com. They always have fantastic articles about current events and both sides are represented.

As for wiki, I like to think of it as a good starting point. If anything seems off-kilter, good to see where the information is being originally sourced from. And they have gotten better at checking things over the years.

The BBC admits that it leans left. It's been criticized for years for their left wing bias. The Guardian is Britain's major left wing newspaper. Why and I not surprised that your 'sources' all lean left? Where the hell is your balance?

 

[Samson]

Yanno......wiki is a good source to start with, because yeah, it's easy to navigate and find stuff out. But here's the thing........wiki gets it's sources from all over the planet, and people can contribute to it. And you've gotta admit, they've gotten a hell of a lot better checking things out than when they first started. Matter of fact, I'd trust wiki as much as I trust HS textbooks, which is to say, quite a bit.

However..........I also check other sources like MSNBC and the BBC, and cross check to make sure all of 'em match. If they don't, then I start looking for why.

BBC is a fantastic website. The Guardian is as well. I'd also recommend foreignpolicy.com. They always have fantastic articles about current events and both sides are represented.

As for wiki, I like to think of it as a good starting point. If anything seems off-kilter, good to see where the information is being originally sourced from. And they have gotten better at checking things over the years.

The BBC admits that it leans left. It's been criticized for years for their left wing bias. The Guardian is Britain's major left wing newspaper. Why and I not surprised that your 'sources' all lean left? Where the hell is your balance?

BBC has always impressed me with a POV balanced with just facts, not all the Bombastic Bullshit of all US News

 

[Modbert]

The BBC admits that it leans left. It's been criticized for years for their left wing bias. The Guardian is Britain's major left wing newspaper. Why and I not surprised that your 'sources' all lean left? Where the hell is your balance?

Again, those are just two sources that I listed. You're making the assumption that's all of them. Though you even ignored foreign policy in your attack against me. Furthermore, the BBC is also very fair in it's POV and certainly a lot better than any U.S news channel.

Foreign policy, The Economist, CATO Institute, Politico, and LewRockwell for example are all left wing leaning though? Interesting. I'd go on, but I really have nothing to prove to you or anyone else here. I get my news from many sources, not just one. And that's all there is to it.

 

[Samson]

The BBC admits that it leans left. It's been criticized for years for their left wing bias. The Guardian is Britain's major left wing newspaper. Why and I not surprised that your 'sources' all lean left? Where the hell is your balance?

Again, those are just two sources that I listed. You're making the assumption that's all of them. Though you even ignored foreign policy in your attack against me. Furthermore, the BBC is also very fair in it's POV and certainly a lot better than any U.S news channel.

Foreign policy, The Economist, CATO Institute, Politico, and LewRockwell for example are all left wing leaning though? Interesting. I'd go on, but I really have nothing to prove to you or anyone else here. I get my news from many sources, not just one. And that's all there is to it.

Are any of the sources topical in this thread?