What should bear thinking about is that the CIA, while an incredibly stupid, politically calculating, and often incompetent creature at the organizational level, is populated by some very smart and effective people who often as not have been hindered rather than helped by their own bureaucracy.
The other side of this coin is that sometimes the bureaucratic oversight has been the only standing between egos in the Agency tipping us into disaster.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that ex-Spooks are forming or joining companies that will do largely the exact same thing that the Agency is supposed to be doing, and selling their intelligence product to the highest bidder.
Hopefully, that will include the USA.
When a law is passed that abolishes the Navy, everyone with a ship and a brace of cannon becomes a Privateer.
When the government stops issuing Letters of Marque, every Privateer becomes a Pirate.
That's how it's always worked.
File this one under your "Hard History Coming" dossier.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that ex-Spooks are forming or joining companies that will do largely the exact same thing that the Agency is supposed to be doing, and selling their intelligence product to the highest bidder.
It's already happening. Except that most of these companies are selling intel to private corporations, not foreign governments. (I hope, anyway.)
They also contract for the US government, in particular niches.
I interviewed at one such place. The grant they were gunning for (which would have paid my salary) didn't come through, alas.
Mastiff:
"It's already happening. Except that most of these companies are selling intel to private corporations, not foreign governments. (I hope, anyway.)"
And now isn't that JUST what I needed in the dead hours of the dog watch, when you struggle to stay awake?
Now let's place the above article in context with this line
"And forgive me for making this personal, but if you support this weakening of our defenses and the politicians that call for them, then you become responsible for the consequences of the next attack.."
Not. Getting. It. At. All
And I would pay large quantities of money for Whittle and General Jones to have a fucking conversation...
George W Bush: handed report in Aug of 2001 that said "Al Qaeda determined to attack inside US."
TSM posters: free (WTF??!!) pass to President Bush, Obama actually the weak one.
Pay no attention to what you see with your own eyes. Hey, maybe if you wish REAL hard...there will be another attack on our country. Will you be happy?
Kevin, while you are busy getting exuberant over yet another nauseating example of hyper paranoia and fear, Bono, President Obama, a 40 year marine veteran and myself will ACTUALLY be defending this country.
I don't generally comment on Markadelphia's comments because others fisk him so much better than I could, but I have to say something to this stupidity:
'George W Bush: handed report in Aug of 2001 that said "Al Qaeda determined to attack inside US."'
First off, talk about a "No sh*t Sherlock" statement. As always, the devil is in the details. I, for instance, can guarantee you that somewhere within a five mile radius of where I currently sit is someone who is ready, willing, and able to cut my throat for the contents of my wallet. Yes, somewhere within that seventy-five-ish square mile area I have an enemy who would attack me. The questions are where is he? How does he plan to attack me? When does he plan to make his attack? If I were the type of paranoid monster you regularly accuse Conservatives of being I'd simply kill every person who got within reach of me, but I don't. If my prospective enemy and I meet I'll deal with him as best I can once I have SPECIFIC information.
So Al Quaida wanted to attack us? When? Sometime within the next couple months? With what? Fly airplanes into buildings? Nukes in shipping containers? Backpack bombs in train stations? Anthrax in envelopes? Has Bush responded to this report by closing down all seaports, air travel, and mail delivery would you have supported that decision? Especially since there WOULDN'T have been an attack then, since the planes would have been grounded, and the terrorists would have slunk into their holes until things looked better for them
"Well, I happen to be European, and I can project with the best of them. So here's why I think the virtual Obama is the real Obama, and why I think the man might deserve the hype. It starts with a quotation from a speech he gave at the United Nations last month:
"We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year's summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time."
They're not my words, they're your president's. If they're not familiar, it's because they didn't make many headlines. But for me, these 36 words are why I believe Mr. Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity — if the words signal action.
First off, Bono thinks the "virtual Obama is the real Obama" because he made a campaign promise. And what was that promise? That Obama would have a PLAN!
Like he had a plan to get us out of Iraq? Close Guantanimo? Fight the war in Afghanistan? Fix all of our health care problems?
I seem to recall that Obama promised us a LOT of "plans" during his campaign. Let's take the health care "plan" just as an example.
Anybody seen the legislation? Not the promises, not the description, the legislation?
So far all that's come out of the Obama administration has been promises and platitudes. We've been told that the issue is too urgent to actually read the legislation, we must simply vote on it immediately! Once that was stopped, whatever it was that was actually written (described by various pols as "too confusing to understand") got revised.
What happened to OBAMA'S much-vaunted "plan"?
Bono says later in his piece:
(I)n the fight against extreme poverty, it's action, not intentions, that counts. That stirring sentence he uttered last month will ring hollow unless he returns to next year's United Nations summit meeting with a meaningful, inclusive plan, one that gets results for the billion or more people living on less than $1 a day. Difficult. Very difficult. But doable.
Given Obama's current track record on delivering plans - much less ones that "get results" - I think Bono is going to get his worldview shattered next year.
Not that he'll notice. Leftists never do. "Caring" after all, is much more important than doing.
(Since Brave Sir Ralph has run away (No I haven't!) from all the other discussions (I did NOT!) I'll put this here...)
So, Ralphie Boy, remember when you challenged/ordered me to go forth to Krugman's site to ... somehow prove some point that you couldn't express or explain but apparently I'd be broken by the sheer sadness of all the people the educational system has turned out (But how dare I say that!) and I said it was edited/moderated and very biased? (For instance, you Are Not Allowed To Talk About How Krugman made $500k in "consulting" from Enron before they became toxic and he was attacking them - and those on their payroll...)):
Okay Mark, explain if you can how attacking the CIA helps fight "extreme poverty, extreme ideology, and extreme climate change".
Also, I'd like a link to that report that Bush was handed. I'm not contesting that it happened, but so far all your post says is that he was given a month's warning to attempt to find fewer than 2 dozen people in a country of 300 million. Note that this was without the benefit of a Department of Homeland Security. That makes about as much sense as calling Obama a traitor because he hasn't found Bin Laden in the whole 9 months he's been President.
As for "hyper paranoia", I'd like to hear specifics on what you are referring to. Are you claiming that the CIA is not, in fact, under attack by the White House? Are you claiming that such attacks do not weaken our defenses and make us less secure? Are you claiming that there are no enemies of the US with whom there are no "irreducible conflicts of fundamental basic interests"? Enlighten us, O Awakened and Engorged One.
And while we're on the subject of "hyper paranoia and fear", will you really contend that an attempt to remake the economy of the entire world based on slipshod research and sloppy science, trumpeted with the "fear-shit your pants" (recognize that one?) tone of "all the Earth's coastal cities will be drowned within 10 years" and allowing no dissenting opinions, regardless of the science backing up said opinions, is not paranoid, even "hyper paranoid"?
I agree that "extreme ideologies" are a problem. But since you consider Bush, who told his speechwriter Matt Latimer "There is no conservative movement... I redefined the Republican Party" an ideological extremist, but do not consider Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters or Bill Ayers to be ideological extremists, I suspect we'd disagree on both the nature of the problem and how to deal with it.
And really, considering that you are willing to forgive any amount of actual criminal activity committed by those who agree with your ideology, yet support punishing those who disagree even when they are cleared of any wrongdoing, I fail to see how you can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
"... myself will ACTUALLY be defending this country."
What language is this, teacher boy? "... myself will ..." Golly. Try that on an English teacher and watch the reaction.
What is most amusing is that your goofy little language faux pas is much more important that any notion that you"will actually be defending this country." Whatcha gonna do, sack boy?
Markadelphia:
"Kevin, while you are busy getting exuberant over yet another nauseating example of hyper paranoia and fear, Bono, President Obama, a 40 year marine veteran and myself will ACTUALLY be defending this country."
Ah, good, as a former Marine Grunt, I can tell you that the other three were in need of someone to walk the point, so guess who just volunteered?
BTW, the others would like to know what your shoe size is?
Here's a hint for you before you pull on your "Combat Love Beads" and take up your "Tactical Tambourine" to go perform "Deliberate Acts of Unkindness".
Lace one dog-tag apiece into the first lace of each boot so that they'll at least be able to identify enough of which parts belong to you to mail home in the body bag.
Also, getting your blood-type tattooed inside your left arm is a VERY GOOD idea.
Hmmm, he got awfully quiet. Surely he didn't puss out this early? I mean, I know leftists are cowards and all, but I thought he was all Giant and Awakened and Engorged and stuff.
"So, last week just didn't happen at all? How was your weekend?"
My grandmother turned 92 and I went to St Louis for most of the week and weekend. Conferences and MEA week. She's been pretty blue since my grandfather died so I hope it's OK with you that I hung out with her for so long. She doesn't own a computer so I had to use the one at the library. I tried to comment a few times but I couldn't on their computers. Java thing? No idea...
"Know this; more than one of your students knows your innanity, and mocks you without mercy. There's always at least one, count on it."
Actually, several do (in front of me) and not just about history and/or politics:) What's your point?
"So, sack boy, did you find a statement yet?"
I don't have to, DJ. By the rules you laid out, it is actions not statements on which a man should be judged. If you have changed those rules, then please forward them to me and I can use them to wipe my ass.
"Also, I'd like a link to that report that Bush was handed."
"Are you claiming that the CIA is not, in fact, under attack by the White House?"
The relationship between the CIA and the White House has been acrimonious forever. Bush didn't get along with the CIA and got pissed off at them constantly. Was he weak on defense? No, because of the eternal free pass given to him by his zombie army.
The single best recruitment tool that hirabis have had in the last few years has been our embrace of torture during the Bush Administration. In addition to being proved as ineffective, it actually increases the threat. President Obama is not the only saying this...Gates, Powell, and Rice have all said the same thing. Are they giving the US AIDS as well?
Time and again, we see example after example of how intelligence gathering and human intelligence gets the job done more effectively. Interrogation by "giving them a cookie" has proved to be far more effective. If my grandfather were alive, you could ask him how they got information from the Japanese from 1942-1945. There have been several current examples of information that we got from hirabis simply by being nice to them. Books have been written about it.
You can ignore this information and continue to subscribe to the violence fetish that some on the right appear to have regarding torture or, as I stated above, actually protect this country. We aren't supposed to be like them, GOF, remember? And yet Mr. Whittle would like us to be...further support of my JLAQ theory:)
The link you posted to Fox News gave me a blank. The other one works, but in effect it says that Bush was notified that:
AQ wanted to, and was trying to, plan attacks on US soil.
It had been doing so since Bush was Governor of Texas.
It had some members that were US citizens.
It could be pretty much anywhere in the country.
What is equally important is what it does not say:
It does not give him any real clues as to methods other than vague references to bombing and hijacking aircraft.
It does basically nothing at all to narrow the list of targets that need to be guarded down from every port, railway, aircraft, airport and major building in the entire country.
It provides him no actionable intel whatsoever against specific individuals within US borders.
So, in effect, the memo says:
They want to attack us, and are constantly looking for ways to do so, and the more they can hurt us the better from their point of view. (This is news?)
We don't know how many, we don't know where, we don't know when, we don't know how many are US citizens and how many are here illegally, we don't even have a specific type of target, and we don't know what methods they plan to use. (A matter of concern to be sure, but utterly useless so far as making plans to circumvent such attacks are concerned.)
Now correct me if I'm wrong.... you're claiming Bush was culpable in the attacks because he failed to go from this "try to nail fog to the wall" intel report to arrests of an AQ cell within 36 days? Keeping in mind that there was no DHS, no intel sharing between agencies, and that the political mood at the time was such that he got crucified by the Democrats for proposing DHS and intel sharing even after 9/11?
While you're at it, why not declare FDR a "war criminal" for "allowing" Pearl Harbor?
The relationship between the CIA and the White House has been acrimonious forever.
Yes, it has. But so far as I know, this is the first time that CIA members have been threatened with legal action for the "crime" of doing as they were told and checking first to make sure it was legal.
The single best recruitment tool that hirabis have had...
Fine and good, but that has nothing whatever to do with the point. The point is not whether waterboarding is "torture". The point is not whether it is effective. All that requires is a "this will no longer be US policy" from President Hussein, which he gave from the beginning. The point is that that was not enough for the President, or the Democrat Party. No, it's not enough to be content with "that was a horrible idea" and/or "we're not going to do that anymore", Obama, Pelosi et al had to threaten them with hard time in order to please their far-left base. That is how they are destroying the country's intel services.
And yet Mr. Whittle would like us to be...further support of my JLAQ theory.
Find me a single word in what he wrote that suggests that is true. On the contrary, you don't even get past the second paragraph without finding, "...Eric Holder has been tasked with prosecuting the people who have kept this country and its citizens safe against murderers that do not use armies and bombers and battleships but rather box cutters, airlines and anthrax powder..."
So I guess this isn't about what he actually said, but rather about what you assumed, huh?
Find the public statement by President Obamateur that he specifically supports and favors the portion of that bill (H.R. 627) which removes the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks and show it to us."
Sack boy:"By the rules you laid out, ..."
I laid out no rules. I issued a challenge in plain English.
Sack boy:"... it is actions not statements on which a man should be judged."
No, for the gazillionth time, teacher boy, I have told you that it is actions AND statements on which a POLITICIAN should be judged. Specifically, in the exchange in which I first issued this challenge, I wrote:
"I have told you repeatedly that what a politician has done OR SAID in the past when he was not campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors tells you much more about what his beliefs are than anything he says when he is campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors." (emphasis added)
Sack boy:"If you have changed those rules, then please forward them to me and I can use them to wipe my ass."
Yet again, little boy, you're dealing with grownups here, and you're not up to it.
Now, are you going to accept the challenge, or are you going to admit that Obamateur has never stated that he supports and favors the portion of H.R. 627 which removes the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks?
It essentially details the same doc in the Wiki link.
I am not saying that Bush was involved in anything. Clearly, he had no clue what was going on. What I am saying is that he is given a free pass by the right because he's...George Bush! Big, strong, tough torturer and defending of violence fetishes. And yet, Obama isn't tough and is weak. It's ludicrous when you think about it because the worst attack on our home soil occurred when Bush was president, after he was on vacation for a month, and was handed this report. If it were Gore, most of you would not be so lenient. Different rules...
"Find me a single word"
How about the entire thing? His whole approach is essentially the same as theirs is to us...violence. Now I'm not saying that violence isn't necessary sometimes...it sure is...but we don't neutralize these guys by being as savage as they are. We use our brains which, I happen to think, are more advanced and intelligent than their brains. We have been doing a pretty good job of catching these guys in the last few months and how is that exactly? Police work and intelligence which apparently means lily livered liberal whining in wing nut land.
I see. So "Threatening CIA agents with jail time when they not only committed no crime, but checked to be sure they were committing no crime, is crippling a vital defense we can ill afford to do without" = "Advocating violence."
I was right from the beginning. It has nothing to do with what he actually said, the only thing that matters is what you assume.
DJ, what's quite amusing about this continued line from you is the hypocrisy. You tell me that you don't care what President Obama says...it's what he does that counts. He does something, in this case, sign a bill which has a provision that increases gun rights. This is an irrefutable fact, something you continually point to as being all important. And yet now, when you know you are beat on this one, you are magically (as if out of someone's ass) now concerned about what he says.
Not being able to admit you are WRONG about President Obama (a problem that permeates modern conservatism...see: admission of error=end of world), you quickly switch the argument (something you accuse me of...tsk tsk) to a framed question (another staple of modern conservatism...see: "do you want to win or are you for the terrorists?) in this case the one above. There is no public statement by President Obama supporting this.
Of course, you know this. Please begin your hoots and howls about how you have been "right" all along about President Obama. How sad and pathetic. It's a pity that your supreme hubris forces you into this attempt to laughingly try to save some face. Sadder still is that all of you "thinkers" and "logicians" are so pathologically obsessed with proving me wrong (because, again, to admit that I am right about some things means, in a terribly twisted way, that all of you must be wrong about everything...!?...) at every moment that I am certain no one here will support me and say that you are the one in error here which you quite clearly are...
Not being able to admit you are WRONG about President Obama
Morning, Ralph.
Projecting a bit, are we?
You have specifically not dealt with his time as a Joyce Foundation (near-sole funder of all anti-gun organizations), his previous statements against guns and gun ownership, his "clinging" comment. You Have addressed his - still current policy, to ban "Assault weapons", to tell us that it's not a ban.
(And that only deals with Obama's gun-rights record, it's totally ignoring all the other things we called correctly and you were wrong about.)
DJ offered you a challenge, you're dodging it and engaged in ad hominums to project onto him your failures in logic, debate and critical thinking and your utter blithesome idiocy on the American Political System (one you assure us you're an expert in.)
This exactly the same sort of thing as your oft-cited case of Obama voting to "Expand gun rights" ... by allowing retired police officers to carry concealed. Yet you won't address that failure of your argument, you just keep citing it despite the fact it doesn't prove what you want it to.
Just as this doesn't. (Nor does the Vitter Amendment, which is toothless, untested, and unenforceable and which passed with 84 "Yes" votes, hardly controversial or risky.)
Different rules...
No, Mark. Just non-touchy-feely rules that let you break them to feel better or score better. They apply equally to everybody else here.
Just one of us has continually been dishonest, ignorant, dodged questions, ignored threads, insulting in lieu of argument.... That's the only "Difference" here. The rules are exactly the same.
"I have told you repeatedly that what a politician has done or said in the past when he was not campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors tells you much more about what his beliefs are than anything he says when he is campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors. The primary tool of a politician is the lie, and thus any politician is at his least untrustworthy when he has the least incentive to lie."
You keep on denying the words that words which are right in front of your face exist. Again, liar boy, "your fundamental dishonesty is why you get no respect here."
"He does something, in this case, sign a bill which has a provision that increases gun rights."
Yes, he did, as I have admitted numerous times.
"This is an irrefutable fact, something you continually point to as being all important."
No, this is something that you continue to point to as being "ALL IMPORTANT." You point to it as if nothing else concerning the matter has any significance. Your statement was:
"The simple act of signing the bill means that he supports it."
Well, duh, of course he supported the bill, which is why he signed it, but that does not mean that he supports and favors everything in it. I have explained this over and over to you but you continue to ignore it, all the while claiming to be ejikated about politics.
(Sorry to interrupt but this seemed the appropriate place: "[E]xposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures. . .he will refuse to believe it." - Yuri Bezmenov. - Ed.)
To illustrate, did you ever buy an automobile that you liked everything about? I've bought ten brand new ones over the years, and there's never been even one that I liked everything about. I bought them because, on balance, they did what I needed and the good outweighed the bad. Such is the nature of presidents signing bills into law.
"Not being able to admit you are WRONG ..."
That's pure projection, sack boy. This failure on your part is what drives you.
"... about President Obama ..."
I don't believe I am wrong about Obamateur. I will believe I am wrong if and when I see solid evidence of it. I haven't yet. I keep trying to get you to provide that evidence. You won't do it, even though it would help your position mightily.
"... to a framed question ..."
It's not a question, teacher boy, it's a challenge. It's not framed, it's plain English.
"Sadder still is that all of you "thinkers" and "logicians" are so pathologically obsessed with proving me wrong ..."
Little boy, I am trying and trying and trying to get you to prove that you are right. You won't even try.
Someday, maybe, you'll learn to think through the consequences of your words before posting them. You won't even try that either.
"Different rules..."
Same complaint.
No, same rules, little boy, always the same rules. One of the big ones is, if you would have us believe that something is true, then show us evidence it is true that we can verify ourselves.
In this case, you can't do it, and you know it, so you continue to complain about the request.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/quote-of-day-smackdown-edition.html (37 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Kevin:
What should bear thinking about is that the CIA, while an incredibly stupid, politically calculating, and often incompetent creature at the organizational level, is populated by some very smart and effective people who often as not have been hindered rather than helped by their own bureaucracy.
The other side of this coin is that sometimes the bureaucratic oversight has been the only standing between egos in the Agency tipping us into disaster.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that ex-Spooks are forming or joining companies that will do largely the exact same thing that the Agency is supposed to be doing, and selling their intelligence product to the highest bidder.
Hopefully, that will include the USA.
When a law is passed that abolishes the Navy, everyone with a ship and a brace of cannon becomes a Privateer.
When the government stops issuing Letters of Marque, every Privateer becomes a Pirate.
That's how it's always worked.
File this one under your "Hard History Coming" dossier.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that ex-Spooks are forming or joining companies that will do largely the exact same thing that the Agency is supposed to be doing, and selling their intelligence product to the highest bidder.
It's already happening. Except that most of these companies are selling intel to private corporations, not foreign governments. (I hope, anyway.)
They also contract for the US government, in particular niches.
I interviewed at one such place. The grant they were gunning for (which would have paid my salary) didn't come through, alas.
Mastiff:
"It's already happening. Except that most of these companies are selling intel to private corporations, not foreign governments. (I hope, anyway.)"
And now isn't that JUST what I needed in the dead hours of the dog watch, when you struggle to stay awake?
Oy!
Then there's this point of view...
Pay attention to the conversation with James Jones, current National Security Adviser and 40 year marine veteran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18bono.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Now let's place the above article in context with this line
"And forgive me for making this personal, but if you support this weakening of our defenses and the politicians that call for them, then you become responsible for the consequences of the next attack.."
Not. Getting. It. At. All
And I would pay large quantities of money for Whittle and General Jones to have a fucking conversation...
George W Bush: handed report in Aug of 2001 that said "Al Qaeda determined to attack inside US."
TSM posters: free (WTF??!!) pass to President Bush, Obama actually the weak one.
Pay no attention to what you see with your own eyes. Hey, maybe if you wish REAL hard...there will be another attack on our country. Will you be happy?
Kevin, while you are busy getting exuberant over yet another nauseating example of hyper paranoia and fear, Bono, President Obama, a 40 year marine veteran and myself will ACTUALLY be defending this country.
Morning, Ralph.
So, last week just didn't happen at all? How was your weekend?
Did you bring pastrami for lunch again?
What? Bono "defending this country?"
With what, pray tell, a freakin' damn microphone?
Or, his vast moral superiority? Yeah, that'll stop an AK round, sure 'nuff.
And Obama? Sure, he'll be manning the Bulwarks of Apology, on full auto. Full Auto Fascism.
You're delusional, Marky. Not just misguided, but flat out, brain-twisted delusional.
Know this; more than one of your students knows your innanity, and mocks you without mercy. There's always at least one, count on it.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
I don't generally comment on Markadelphia's comments because others fisk him so much better than I could, but I have to say something to this stupidity:
'George W Bush: handed report in Aug of 2001 that said "Al Qaeda determined to attack inside US."'
First off, talk about a "No sh*t Sherlock" statement. As always, the devil is in the details. I, for instance, can guarantee you that somewhere within a five mile radius of where I currently sit is someone who is ready, willing, and able to cut my throat for the contents of my wallet. Yes, somewhere within that seventy-five-ish square mile area I have an enemy who would attack me. The questions are where is he? How does he plan to attack me? When does he plan to make his attack? If I were the type of paranoid monster you regularly accuse Conservatives of being I'd simply kill every person who got within reach of me, but I don't. If my prospective enemy and I meet I'll deal with him as best I can once I have SPECIFIC information.
So Al Quaida wanted to attack us? When? Sometime within the next couple months? With what? Fly airplanes into buildings? Nukes in shipping containers? Backpack bombs in train stations? Anthrax in envelopes? Has Bush responded to this report by closing down all seaports, air travel, and mail delivery would you have supported that decision? Especially since there WOULDN'T have been an attack then, since the planes would have been grounded, and the terrorists would have slunk into their holes until things looked better for them
Yeah, I don't know why I bothered either.
So, sack boy, did you find a statement yet?
The monsters are still close and they aren't going away.
Oh, I've got to chime in here.
Bonobo - er, Bono says:
"Well, I happen to be European, and I can project with the best of them. So here's why I think the virtual Obama is the real Obama, and why I think the man might deserve the hype. It starts with a quotation from a speech he gave at the United Nations last month:
"We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year's summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time."
They're not my words, they're your president's. If they're not familiar, it's because they didn't make many headlines. But for me, these 36 words are why I believe Mr. Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity — if the words signal action.
First off, Bono thinks the "virtual Obama is the real Obama" because he made a campaign promise. And what was that promise? That Obama would have a PLAN!
Like he had a plan to get us out of Iraq? Close Guantanimo? Fight the war in Afghanistan? Fix all of our health care problems?
I seem to recall that Obama promised us a LOT of "plans" during his campaign. Let's take the health care "plan" just as an example.
Anybody seen the legislation? Not the promises, not the description, the legislation?
So far all that's come out of the Obama administration has been promises and platitudes. We've been told that the issue is too urgent to actually read the legislation, we must simply vote on it immediately! Once that was stopped, whatever it was that was actually written (described by various pols as "too confusing to understand") got revised.
What happened to OBAMA'S much-vaunted "plan"?
Bono says later in his piece:
(I)n the fight against extreme poverty, it's action, not intentions, that counts. That stirring sentence he uttered last month will ring hollow unless he returns to next year's United Nations summit meeting with a meaningful, inclusive plan, one that gets results for the billion or more people living on less than $1 a day. Difficult. Very difficult. But doable.
Given Obama's current track record on delivering plans - much less ones that "get results" - I think Bono is going to get his worldview shattered next year.
Not that he'll notice. Leftists never do. "Caring" after all, is much more important than doing.
(Since Brave Sir Ralph has run away (No I haven't!) from all the other discussions (I did NOT!) I'll put this here...)
So, Ralphie Boy, remember when you challenged/ordered me to go forth to Krugman's site to ... somehow prove some point that you couldn't express or explain but apparently I'd be broken by the sheer sadness of all the people the educational system has turned out (But how dare I say that!) and I said it was edited/moderated and very biased? (For instance, you Are Not Allowed To Talk About How Krugman made $500k in "consulting" from Enron before they became toxic and he was attacking them - and those on their payroll...)):
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/paul-krugman-censors-comments-on-his.html
Lessee.. Were this you, the comment you would make would be "Point proven."
Okay Mark, explain if you can how attacking the CIA helps fight "extreme poverty, extreme ideology, and extreme climate change".
Also, I'd like a link to that report that Bush was handed. I'm not contesting that it happened, but so far all your post says is that he was given a month's warning to attempt to find fewer than 2 dozen people in a country of 300 million. Note that this was without the benefit of a Department of Homeland Security. That makes about as much sense as calling Obama a traitor because he hasn't found Bin Laden in the whole 9 months he's been President.
As for "hyper paranoia", I'd like to hear specifics on what you are referring to. Are you claiming that the CIA is not, in fact, under attack by the White House? Are you claiming that such attacks do not weaken our defenses and make us less secure? Are you claiming that there are no enemies of the US with whom there are no "irreducible conflicts of fundamental basic interests"? Enlighten us, O Awakened and Engorged One.
And while we're on the subject of "hyper paranoia and fear", will you really contend that an attempt to remake the economy of the entire world based on slipshod research and sloppy science, trumpeted with the "fear-shit your pants" (recognize that one?) tone of "all the Earth's coastal cities will be drowned within 10 years" and allowing no dissenting opinions, regardless of the science backing up said opinions, is not paranoid, even "hyper paranoid"?
I agree that "extreme ideologies" are a problem. But since you consider Bush, who told his speechwriter Matt Latimer "There is no conservative movement... I redefined the Republican Party" an ideological extremist, but do not consider Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters or Bill Ayers to be ideological extremists, I suspect we'd disagree on both the nature of the problem and how to deal with it.
And really, considering that you are willing to forgive any amount of actual criminal activity committed by those who agree with your ideology, yet support punishing those who disagree even when they are cleared of any wrongdoing, I fail to see how you can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
"Given Obama's current track record on delivering plans ..."
As I've said before:
"I think he looked into a mirror after he'd won the election and asked, "What the hell do I do now?""
It appears that I was right, doesn't it?
Well, no one else jumped on this, so I will:
"... myself will ACTUALLY be defending this country."
What language is this, teacher boy? "... myself will ..." Golly. Try that on an English teacher and watch the reaction.
What is most amusing is that your goofy little language faux pas is much more important that any notion that you "will actually be defending this country." Whatcha gonna do, sack boy?
Markadelphia:
"Kevin, while you are busy getting exuberant over yet another nauseating example of hyper paranoia and fear, Bono, President Obama, a 40 year marine veteran and myself will ACTUALLY be defending this country."
Ah, good, as a former Marine Grunt, I can tell you that the other three were in need of someone to walk the point, so guess who just volunteered?
BTW, the others would like to know what your shoe size is?
Here's a hint for you before you pull on your "Combat Love Beads" and take up your "Tactical Tambourine" to go perform "Deliberate Acts of Unkindness".
Lace one dog-tag apiece into the first lace of each boot so that they'll at least be able to identify enough of which parts belong to you to mail home in the body bag.
Also, getting your blood-type tattooed inside your left arm is a VERY GOOD idea.
Golly. Y'think he's gonna do more than just yammer?
Hmmm, he got awfully quiet. Surely he didn't puss out this early? I mean, I know leftists are cowards and all, but I thought he was all Giant and Awakened and Engorged and stuff.
Standard Response #10. He'll be back, acting like this never happened.
He can't help himself.
Shhh ...
There be monsters about ...
"So, last week just didn't happen at all? How was your weekend?"
My grandmother turned 92 and I went to St Louis for most of the week and weekend. Conferences and MEA week. She's been pretty blue since my grandfather died so I hope it's OK with you that I hung out with her for so long. She doesn't own a computer so I had to use the one at the library. I tried to comment a few times but I couldn't on their computers. Java thing? No idea...
"Know this; more than one of your students knows your innanity, and mocks you without mercy. There's always at least one, count on it."
Actually, several do (in front of me) and not just about history and/or politics:) What's your point?
"So, sack boy, did you find a statement yet?"
I don't have to, DJ. By the rules you laid out, it is actions not statements on which a man should be judged. If you have changed those rules, then please forward them to me and I can use them to wipe my ass.
"Also, I'd like a link to that report that Bush was handed."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116766,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIA_Memo.JPG
"Are you claiming that the CIA is not, in fact, under attack by the White House?"
The relationship between the CIA and the White House has been acrimonious forever. Bush didn't get along with the CIA and got pissed off at them constantly. Was he weak on defense? No, because of the eternal free pass given to him by his zombie army.
The single best recruitment tool that hirabis have had in the last few years has been our embrace of torture during the Bush Administration. In addition to being proved as ineffective, it actually increases the threat. President Obama is not the only saying this...Gates, Powell, and Rice have all said the same thing. Are they giving the US AIDS as well?
Time and again, we see example after example of how intelligence gathering and human intelligence gets the job done more effectively. Interrogation by "giving them a cookie" has proved to be far more effective. If my grandfather were alive, you could ask him how they got information from the Japanese from 1942-1945. There have been several current examples of information that we got from hirabis simply by being nice to them. Books have been written about it.
You can ignore this information and continue to subscribe to the violence fetish that some on the right appear to have regarding torture or, as I stated above, actually protect this country. We aren't supposed to be like them, GOF, remember? And yet Mr. Whittle would like us to be...further support of my JLAQ theory:)
The link you posted to Fox News gave me a blank. The other one works, but in effect it says that Bush was notified that:
AQ wanted to, and was trying to, plan attacks on US soil.
It had been doing so since Bush was Governor of Texas.
It had some members that were US citizens.
It could be pretty much anywhere in the country.
What is equally important is what it does not say:
It does not give him any real clues as to methods other than vague references to bombing and hijacking aircraft.
It does basically nothing at all to narrow the list of targets that need to be guarded down from every port, railway, aircraft, airport and major building in the entire country.
It provides him no actionable intel whatsoever against specific individuals within US borders.
So, in effect, the memo says:
They want to attack us, and are constantly looking for ways to do so, and the more they can hurt us the better from their point of view. (This is news?)
We don't know how many, we don't know where, we don't know when, we don't know how many are US citizens and how many are here illegally, we don't even have a specific type of target, and we don't know what methods they plan to use. (A matter of concern to be sure, but utterly useless so far as making plans to circumvent such attacks are concerned.)
Now correct me if I'm wrong.... you're claiming Bush was culpable in the attacks because he failed to go from this "try to nail fog to the wall" intel report to arrests of an AQ cell within 36 days? Keeping in mind that there was no DHS, no intel sharing between agencies, and that the political mood at the time was such that he got crucified by the Democrats for proposing DHS and intel sharing even after 9/11?
While you're at it, why not declare FDR a "war criminal" for "allowing" Pearl Harbor?
The relationship between the CIA and the White House has been acrimonious forever.
Yes, it has. But so far as I know, this is the first time that CIA members have been threatened with legal action for the "crime" of doing as they were told and checking first to make sure it was legal.
The single best recruitment tool that hirabis have had...
Fine and good, but that has nothing whatever to do with the point. The point is not whether waterboarding is "torture". The point is not whether it is effective. All that requires is a "this will no longer be US policy" from President Hussein, which he gave from the beginning. The point is that that was not enough for the President, or the Democrat Party. No, it's not enough to be content with "that was a horrible idea" and/or "we're not going to do that anymore", Obama, Pelosi et al had to threaten them with hard time in order to please their far-left base. That is how they are destroying the country's intel services.
And yet Mr. Whittle would like us to be...further support of my JLAQ theory.
Find me a single word in what he wrote that suggests that is true. On the contrary, you don't even get past the second paragraph without finding, "...Eric Holder has been tasked with prosecuting the people who have kept this country and its citizens safe against murderers that do not use armies and bombers and battleships but rather box cutters, airlines and anthrax powder..."
So I guess this isn't about what he actually said, but rather about what you assumed, huh?
Me: ""So, sack boy, did you find a statement yet?"
Sack boy: "I don't have to, DJ."
No, of course you don't. I issued a challenge and you are free to accept it or not. You keep on not accepting it while denying what it is.
The challenge was, and is (verbatim):
Find the public statement by President Obamateur that he specifically supports and favors the portion of that bill (H.R. 627) which removes the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks and show it to us."
Sack boy: "By the rules you laid out, ..."
I laid out no rules. I issued a challenge in plain English.
Sack boy: "... it is actions not statements on which a man should be judged."
No, for the gazillionth time, teacher boy, I have told you that it is actions AND statements on which a POLITICIAN should be judged. Specifically, in the exchange in which I first issued this challenge, I wrote:
"I have told you repeatedly that what a politician has done OR SAID in the past when he was not campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors tells you much more about what his beliefs are than anything he says when he is campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors." (emphasis added)
Sack boy: "If you have changed those rules, then please forward them to me and I can use them to wipe my ass."
Yet again, little boy, you're dealing with grownups here, and you're not up to it.
Now, are you going to accept the challenge, or are you going to admit that Obamateur has never stated that he supports and favors the portion of H.R. 627 which removes the feddle restrictions on guns in National Parks?
You just can't admit error, can you?
I'll borrow a bit from Wiley: Ignorance is a condition. Dishonesty is a choice.
You made that choice, sack boy, and your fundamental dishonesty is why you get no respect here.
GOF, Fox link works for me...it reads
"Raw Data: Text of Released PDB"
It essentially details the same doc in the Wiki link.
I am not saying that Bush was involved in anything. Clearly, he had no clue what was going on. What I am saying is that he is given a free pass by the right because he's...George Bush! Big, strong, tough torturer and defending of violence fetishes. And yet, Obama isn't tough and is weak. It's ludicrous when you think about it because the worst attack on our home soil occurred when Bush was president, after he was on vacation for a month, and was handed this report. If it were Gore, most of you would not be so lenient. Different rules...
"Find me a single word"
How about the entire thing? His whole approach is essentially the same as theirs is to us...violence. Now I'm not saying that violence isn't necessary sometimes...it sure is...but we don't neutralize these guys by being as savage as they are. We use our brains which, I happen to think, are more advanced and intelligent than their brains. We have been doing a pretty good job of catching these guys in the last few months and how is that exactly? Police work and intelligence which apparently means lily livered liberal whining in wing nut land.
"How about the entire thing?"
How about the statement, sack boy?
How about the entire thing?
I see. So "Threatening CIA agents with jail time when they not only committed no crime, but checked to be sure they were committing no crime, is crippling a vital defense we can ill afford to do without" = "Advocating violence."
I was right from the beginning. It has nothing to do with what he actually said, the only thing that matters is what you assume.
Thanks for clearing that up.
"How about the statement, sack boy?"
DJ, what's quite amusing about this continued line from you is the hypocrisy. You tell me that you don't care what President Obama says...it's what he does that counts. He does something, in this case, sign a bill which has a provision that increases gun rights. This is an irrefutable fact, something you continually point to as being all important. And yet now, when you know you are beat on this one, you are magically (as if out of someone's ass) now concerned about what he says.
Not being able to admit you are WRONG about President Obama (a problem that permeates modern conservatism...see: admission of error=end of world), you quickly switch the argument (something you accuse me of...tsk tsk) to a framed question (another staple of modern conservatism...see: "do you want to win or are you for the terrorists?) in this case the one above. There is no public statement by President Obama supporting this.
Of course, you know this. Please begin your hoots and howls about how you have been "right" all along about President Obama. How sad and pathetic. It's a pity that your supreme hubris forces you into this attempt to laughingly try to save some face. Sadder still is that all of you "thinkers" and "logicians" are so pathologically obsessed with proving me wrong (because, again, to admit that I am right about some things means, in a terribly twisted way, that all of you must be wrong about everything...!?...) at every moment that I am certain no one here will support me and say that you are the one in error here which you quite clearly are...
Different rules...
Not being able to admit you are WRONG about President Obama
Morning, Ralph.
Projecting a bit, are we?
You have specifically not dealt with his time as a Joyce Foundation (near-sole funder of all anti-gun organizations), his previous statements against guns and gun ownership, his "clinging" comment. You Have addressed his - still current policy, to ban "Assault weapons", to tell us that it's not a ban.
(And that only deals with Obama's gun-rights record, it's totally ignoring all the other things we called correctly and you were wrong about.)
DJ offered you a challenge, you're dodging it and engaged in ad hominums to project onto him your failures in logic, debate and critical thinking and your utter blithesome idiocy on the American Political System (one you assure us you're an expert in.)
This exactly the same sort of thing as your oft-cited case of Obama voting to "Expand gun rights" ... by allowing retired police officers to carry concealed. Yet you won't address that failure of your argument, you just keep citing it despite the fact it doesn't prove what you want it to.
Just as this doesn't. (Nor does the Vitter Amendment, which is toothless, untested, and unenforceable and which passed with 84 "Yes" votes, hardly controversial or risky.)
Different rules...
No, Mark. Just non-touchy-feely rules that let you break them to feel better or score better. They apply equally to everybody else here.
Just one of us has continually been dishonest, ignorant, dodged questions, ignored threads, insulting in lieu of argument.... That's the only "Difference" here. The rules are exactly the same.
"You tell me that you don't care what President Obama says...it's what he does that counts."
Still in denial, aren't you, liar boy? Yet again, I keep telling you and telling you and telling you:
"I have told you repeatedly that what a politician has done or said in the past when he was not campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors tells you much more about what his beliefs are than anything he says when he is campaigning for office or for a piece of legislation that he favors. The primary tool of a politician is the lie, and thus any politician is at his least untrustworthy when he has the least incentive to lie."
You keep on denying the words that words which are right in front of your face exist. Again, liar boy, "your fundamental dishonesty is why you get no respect here."
"He does something, in this case, sign a bill which has a provision that increases gun rights."
Yes, he did, as I have admitted numerous times.
"This is an irrefutable fact, something you continually point to as being all important."
No, this is something that you continue to point to as being "ALL IMPORTANT." You point to it as if nothing else concerning the matter has any significance. Your statement was:
"The simple act of signing the bill means that he supports it."
Well, duh, of course he supported the bill, which is why he signed it, but that does not mean that he supports and favors everything in it. I have explained this over and over to you but you continue to ignore it, all the while claiming to be ejikated about politics.
(Sorry to interrupt but this seemed the appropriate place: "[E]xposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures. . .he will refuse to believe it." - Yuri Bezmenov. - Ed.)
To illustrate, did you ever buy an automobile that you liked everything about? I've bought ten brand new ones over the years, and there's never been even one that I liked everything about. I bought them because, on balance, they did what I needed and the good outweighed the bad. Such is the nature of presidents signing bills into law.
"Not being able to admit you are WRONG ..."
That's pure projection, sack boy. This failure on your part is what drives you.
"... about President Obama ..."
I don't believe I am wrong about Obamateur. I will believe I am wrong if and when I see solid evidence of it. I haven't yet. I keep trying to get you to provide that evidence. You won't do it, even though it would help your position mightily.
"... to a framed question ..."
It's not a question, teacher boy, it's a challenge. It's not framed, it's plain English.
"Sadder still is that all of you "thinkers" and "logicians" are so pathologically obsessed with proving me wrong ..."
Little boy, I am trying and trying and trying to get you to prove that you are right. You won't even try.
Someday, maybe, you'll learn to think through the consequences of your words before posting them. You won't even try that either.
"Different rules..."
Same complaint.
No, same rules, little boy, always the same rules. One of the big ones is, if you would have us believe that something is true, then show us evidence it is true that we can verify ourselves.
In this case, you can't do it, and you know it, so you continue to complain about the request.
Mark is really flailing here to avoid simple questions.
I think I'll make popcorn.
When in doubt, turn the stupid up!
If my argument failed last time, REPEAT IT, only HARDER!
Russell, that's Standard Response #5.
;)
Too true, Ed, but this time I think I can hear the white noise coming from his comment, the stupid is just that loud!
IMHO, this comment is the ultimate of type. Even nearly two weeks later, I still have no idea what he actually meant.
Not to worry, Ed. Likley he had no idea what he meant when he wrote it, but golly, doesn't it sound sophisticated?
He persists in deluding himself. How intelligent can he be?
I believe that one translates as "You're a poopie-head."
ROTFL!!!!
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>