Reply With Quote
Only now is the time to actually be doing it.
It's not my fault MBA Bush and the Republicans didn't balance the budget when they had complete control of the government. It's theirs.
OTOH, Obama may have been sending Pelosi a message along the lines of his OLC pick, Dawn Johnson.
Pelosi was briefed on our exotic interrogations and our extralegal domestic surveillance program and didn't even peep.
Maybe that's a designated area of change.
Only now is the time to actually be doing it.
It's not my fault MBA Bush and the Republicans didn't balance the budget when they had complete control of the government. It's theirs.
Please do not change the context of my words. I said "as politicized as he will likely make it." I never said it wasn't politicized. Just implying that it will be very highly politicized with Panetta.
Did you pass your English classes?
Will you stop using a 3rd grade mentality please. Re-read my words and apply proper English meanings to them.
Parsing. You do think Panetta will politicize the post, WC.
Ballijuana never imputed the point about prior politicization to you, but produced it for contrast.
Your umbrage is not well founded, and your jab at ballijuana for being illiterate is just childish.
Just guessing WC, but it's probably possible to make your points around here without gratuitously insulting others.
Or is that what you're here for?
I'm one for sure.
The non-hack analysis of this is that Panetta does two things:
1) Brings a certain amount of finesse and knowledge about Congress to the job. Part of the problem with the Bush CIA has been the perceived lack of congressional oversight (both Dems and Reps in Congress feel this way, by the way) on CIA affairs.
2) Brings in a guy who is not tainted somehow by the extra-ordinary renditions, illegal wire-taps and torture debalacles.
It is a very plain break with the last 8 years, and the guys relative inexperience with intel is an acknowledged drawback, outweighed by the above two factors in my opinion and, it would seem, that of the President-Elect.
Not a perfect choice, but probably one of the best options.
Like him or not he does have a good chunk of administrative skill.
Good point.
Echoes my own hacky analysis at #51..[/quote]
I doubt that would be Obama's goal here, and would not fit into the pattern he has established with what he has done so far.
Many CIA analysts have been under very explicit and implicit pressure from Cheney to make their assessments absolutely jive with whatever the executive branch thought they should be getting. This has been do ented and corroberrated by a lot of insiders, and not just the usual "disgruntled" ex-employees either. There is a good weight of evidence here that the CIA has been for the last 8 years highly politicized.
Given that Obama has gone out of his way to get opposing viewpoints, and has stated outright that he doesn't want "yes men" in his cabinet, I find it highly unlikely that you are correct in your assessment.
Once again, your inability to see things without using your partisan blinders leads you to piss-poor analysis of available data.
You and I most certainly interpret his remark the I replied to differently.
Remember, it was after Pixil's remark too. When I use a context of relative terms, and then he refers to the last 8 years... As if I don't see what's been happening? I still disagree with his implication, but he started with bitter remarks rather than valid debate points.
Remember. I never gave any indication of no politicization. Why attacked who first?
Besides, isn't it getting old to say "eight years" referring to president Bush for everything wrong?
Are people so lib ed as to thinking that's the correct answer to things?
I cannot stand such blatant stupidity. If you do not address the real problems, the problem will never be fixed! The propaganda and dogma that the left pursues only guarantee we will never get better. Only worse.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-07-2009 at 09:37 PM.
What happened to CHANGE?
Source?I have never seen anything solid. Only "unnammed sources" and quotes out of context. Maybe you are counting the lies of Tenent as well...
hmm......
Criminal Investigation of CIA Video Destruction is “Ongoing”
LinkyThe destruction by Central Intelligence Agency officials of videotapes showing the interrogation of suspected terrorists is the subject of “an ongoing criminal investigation” that is expected to conclude in the near future, according to a prosecution official.
“Investigators are now in the process of scheduling interviews with the remaining witnesses to be interviewed in this investigation,” wrote John H. Durham, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, in an affidavit (pdf) late last month. “Based on the investigative accomplishments to date, we anticipate that by mid-February 2009, and no later than February 28, 2009, we will have completed the interviews.”
His remarks came in the course of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the James Madison Project for do ents pertaining to the CIA videotape destruction. The government asked for a stay of the FOIA proceedings until witness interviews are completed. At a hearing on January 6, the request for a stay until February 28, 2009 was granted by the court, said attorney Mark S. Zaid, director of the James Madison Project.
Key details of the pending criminal investigation have been redacted from Mr. Durham’s affidavit, including the number of witnesses interviewed and the volume of do ents examined to date. But the affidavit does provide a sense of the level of activity involved, indicating that “a considerable portion of the work to be done in connection with the investigation has already been completed.”
So Dan...
what relevance does that have with Panetta?
I cannot stand such blatant stupidity. If you do not address the real problems, the problem will never be fixed! The propaganda and dogma that Wild Cobra pursues only guarantee we will never get better. Only worse.
OK, back that up please.
Actually, that's your job.
Keep up the good work!
Never mind.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-08-2009 at 01:25 AM. Reason: I was too mean, and the fruit was too low hanging. I've gotta learn to let it go.
Do you know Dennis Blair?
Beyond this, not really.
WC: O will make into a highly politicized office when it wasn't before.
RG: On, the contrary, it was a politicized office and he will make it less so, the very definition of change.
WC: what about change?
Seriously, are you re ed when it comes to reading comprehension or something?
Many CIA analysts have been under very explicit and implicit pressure from Cheney to make their assessments absolutely jive with whatever the executive branch thought they should be getting. This has been do ented and corroberrated by a lot of insiders, and not just the usual "disgruntled" ex-employees either. There is a good weight of evidence here that the CIA has been for the last 8 years highly politicized.
Fair enough. You want a source, I will try to give it to you, but it will take a bit of digging to re-find everything I have been reading about it for the last 5 years or so.
What would you find a sufficient level of proof?
I know that nothing I find will make you admit that a Republican administration really sucked at intel, so before I even start, I want you to set the ground rules so that your inability to see through your blinders and admit that a Democrat might do a better job than a Republican at this is really obvious.
Do tell, let me know what level of proof you say you require.
At least three people who are not unnamed sources who will testify that specific results were politically driven, with facts. Not conjecture, and that they name names. Also that they were in positions that avail them to such information.
I have seen allot of things that lacked any degree of credibility. Baseless allegations. What I see, is when a lie is repeated enough times, people believe it. I'm just not that naive.
Rummy had to invent a new office to sign off on ty intel.
That's all anyone needs to know.
yeah, you just think anything negative to republicans were obvious plants.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
