Obama administration dismantling CIA; Clinton Years Take 2

It's not covering up. It's called covert. We have been safe from terrorist acts for the last 8 years because the Bush Administration didn't shine a spotlight behind the scenes, thus educating our enemies, just to placate a few left wing looney birds.

 

You're almost right. There were lights. They were just low watt bulbs...

Why is no one pointing out that Bush Appointee and GOP-to-the-bone Robert Gates agreeing with the move?

Do we really think that this is going to fuel the fires of ignorance needed to provoke retaliation for potential suicide bombers? Really? These people can't even decipher what's common sense in the Koran and you really think that they're channel surfing, see the "evidence" of American brutality and decide to take up the Jihad?

Really?

When did the Middle East region ever need evidence to support their beliefs? It's not exactly an area of the world known for their rationale and reasoning. They respect brutality and force over everything.

Odds are that we just gained their respect before we created another terrorist. This is such a non-issue. Some of you are like a bunch of old women, bickering about the best cornmeal to use, your friends new hairdo or how gross it is when men stand up to pee.

 

Is that kool-aid in your avatar?

 

Probably because that is merely his latest position, that has given in to the inevitability once Obama released the first memos. He certainly was against it before, as were the 4 previous and current head of the CIA. But what would they know about operational security in comparison to a one term senator?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/us/politics/24military.html?ref=world

Gates did not change his mind. He just accepted that the horse is out of the barn. Big difference.

The fact that you would even pose this question, knowing that images and videos of Americans being beheaded were posted by "These people can't even decipher what's common sense in the Koran", tells me you don't get it. And won't get it, because you don't want to.

By your logic, it is perfectly acceptable to throw gasoline on to a fire. Most people probably disagree with that notion.

You see that would be the case, if there wasn't a segment of our govt crying like little girls because we put a bug in some guys cell, or kept him awake, or squirted some water in his face. If this country were unified in how to deal with our enemies than that might work. You know, they way the dems like Pelosi were all for it when they were showed these very techniques years ago?

This is your analogy of releasing state/military secrets in the midst of a war, and threatening to prosecute former administration officials because the political winds have changed?

Yeah, I can see that.

 

411mania.com: Politics - Nancy Pelosi Was Into Waterboarding When It Was Cool

 

now dude, dont go lumping us all into one category. after all, if a jihadist is on fire......


:grin:

 

or is this his real opinion that he's free to express now that he's under no pressure to parrot GWBush and Cheney?

I'm not really concerned with the opinions of the previous CIA heads as they are directly co-responsible for our current state of affairs. Besides, they're former CIA. Their first instinct is to protect all information, just like Tom Benson's first instinct is to snatch up anything that's the color green and stuff it in his pocket.

So he's spineless?

Apparently "it" is irrational fear and partisan politics. +1 to you for picking up on me not wanting any part of either.

There's no need to concern yourself with not adding bulletin board material with that bunch. They find it in everything. Either they point to photos as proof or they point to the absence of photos as America hiding the proof. There are thousands in the region who think that Saddam is still alive. They're not a bright bunch, but you already knew that when they are easily convinced to wrap themselves in explosives and scrap metal for the grand prize of 70 virgins.

Any smart man would trade 70 virgins for 10 experienced women with loose morals... :lol:

Not at all. I'm pointing out that they have an ample supply of their own gasoline and they tend to pour it on themselves regardless of anyone else's actions.

I don't care what our intelligence-gathering agencies do to those people. I don't care if they show the photos or not. Again, it's a non-issue because there are bigger issues facing this country. This is a distract-and-ignore tactic used by the pols in DC like other non-issues like gay marriage, Terri Schaivo, etc. to hide the fact that they are not doing their jobs and they are not interested in real solutions to our problems.

These are hardly damaging state/military secrets that we should be concerned about. F-22 avionic technology, location of deployed Navy vessels, size and strength of troops, location of CIA assets, etc. are all military/state secrets whose security concerns me. Not some Sergeant's Flickr account.

Yes. Free-thinking kool-aid. You should try some. The GOP vs. Dems game is probably hurting our country more than any terrorist attack ever could.

 

This is the line of thinking that scares the hell out of me. The terrorist threat is being hustled to the back burner. Meanwhile, back at the mosque, spilling infidel blood is the only issue on the table.

 

Pressure he was feeling this year? While working under his new pres? You actually peddling this as a theory?

Yeah, I get it.

Interesting how you claim to not be in to the whole partisan politics thing, but then refuse to recognize that the very release of the documents was just that. It's only partisan because some republicans didn't want them disclosed.

Okay.




As to your other points? They have gasoline so what difference does it make if we add to it? Or your claim that this is not gasoline?
I will just skip this one.

And glossing over the experience of men, 3 different presidents have entrusted with our intelligence community, in favor of a one term senator?
Yeah, I will skip that one too. It speaks for itself.

 

It's not very interesting at all because I don't refuse to recognize it. I felt no need to bring it up because it's so obvious. I case you were wondering, water is wet. Anything else that's obvious you wish for me to make mention of?

My point is bringing those pictures to light isn't going to make a difference. Abu Ghraib sure as hell didn't, so where is the evidence supporting your line of thought? Again: It's a non-issue.

Well for one, the idea that a one-term Senator arrived at this idea solely on his own without the advise of more knowledgeable people is pretty silly. No president makes any decision involving intelligence unilaterally.

As for the more experienced men formerly entrusted with America's intelligence community: If it mean they were wiser, then we wouldn't find ourselves in our current predicament. It's less me glossing over their experience and more cynicism for their motivations and opinions given their poor body of work.

I thought both points were pretty clear if you take them at face value and leave the mind-reading to the NFL Draft Threads...