Help
obamba's kidding, right?
leon panetta?
#1
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2009-January-06, 05:25
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,724
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2009-January-06, 06:28
Here's a quote from the lead article on Talking Points Memo
Quote
I have 29 years of experience in the intel business both in government and as a consultant / contractor to the government. I recently retired after those 29 years as a Navy Captain (Intel). I have served with many in the "national intel community" and served on the WMD commission in 2004-05. This is my cred, now for my comment.
I think there is a lot more here than is being said. I believe that Feinstein did not want someone like Panetta who has a large and independent power base and network. If you get a career guy they are a lot easier to isolate and move around. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. I actually think that it is a good choice. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.
I do not discount the notion that many in the CIA feel slighted by the creation of the DNI and not being the "premier" agency anymore, at least when one looks at the totem pole. But if you look at the PDB more than 80% of the product still originates from the DI. It is the gold standard of intelligence agencies, both here and abroad. As a old colleague once said to me: there are a lot of jewels in the crown of the United States government but there are only a few large critical ones: CIA DI, NASA, NIH, State; that is where the intellectual might of the government is.
The issue is not intell guy or non-intell guy. The big issue for Blair and Panetta is strategic or tactical orientation. We are fighting two wars and the warfighter always screams they don't have enough intel or enough of anything for that matter. The dice are so loaded for support to the warfighter that critical strategic intelligence for the President and other senior leaders goes wanting due to time constraints on collection assets.
We need a significant re-orientation away from tactical support by CIA and other National agencies and back to their primary mission - direct intelligence support to the President. The last 15 years have seen an explosion of tactical intelligence capability with the advent of UAVs (which DoD fought against for so long due to the fighter pilot mentality). National systems need to be re-oriented to national priorities and away from tactical or operational desires of the warfighter.
I think the Panetta selection is another indication of the change coming. I was concerned that the selection of Jones as National Security Advisor and Blair as DNI underscored the great concern that I have about the militarization of intelligence. The selection of Panetta, with a much wider and deeper power base than either of them, makes me hopeful in this regard. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill -- much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.
I think there is a lot more here than is being said. I believe that Feinstein did not want someone like Panetta who has a large and independent power base and network. If you get a career guy they are a lot easier to isolate and move around. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. I actually think that it is a good choice. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.
I do not discount the notion that many in the CIA feel slighted by the creation of the DNI and not being the "premier" agency anymore, at least when one looks at the totem pole. But if you look at the PDB more than 80% of the product still originates from the DI. It is the gold standard of intelligence agencies, both here and abroad. As a old colleague once said to me: there are a lot of jewels in the crown of the United States government but there are only a few large critical ones: CIA DI, NASA, NIH, State; that is where the intellectual might of the government is.
The issue is not intell guy or non-intell guy. The big issue for Blair and Panetta is strategic or tactical orientation. We are fighting two wars and the warfighter always screams they don't have enough intel or enough of anything for that matter. The dice are so loaded for support to the warfighter that critical strategic intelligence for the President and other senior leaders goes wanting due to time constraints on collection assets.
We need a significant re-orientation away from tactical support by CIA and other National agencies and back to their primary mission - direct intelligence support to the President. The last 15 years have seen an explosion of tactical intelligence capability with the advent of UAVs (which DoD fought against for so long due to the fighter pilot mentality). National systems need to be re-oriented to national priorities and away from tactical or operational desires of the warfighter.
I think the Panetta selection is another indication of the change coming. I was concerned that the selection of Jones as National Security Advisor and Blair as DNI underscored the great concern that I have about the militarization of intelligence. The selection of Panetta, with a much wider and deeper power base than either of them, makes me hopeful in this regard. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill -- much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.
Alderaan delenda est
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2009-January-06, 17:15
hrothgar, on Jan 6 2009, 07:28 AM, said:
Here's a quote from the lead article on Talking Points Memo
Quote
I have 29 years of experience in the intel business both in government and as a consultant / contractor to the government. I recently retired after those 29 years as a Navy Captain (Intel). I have served with many in the "national intel community" and served on the WMD commission in 2004-05. This is my cred, now for my comment.
I think there is a lot more here than is being said. I believe that Feinstein did not want someone like Panetta who has a large and independent power base and network. If you get a career guy they are a lot easier to isolate and move around. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. I actually think that it is a good choice. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.
I do not discount the notion that many in the CIA feel slighted by the creation of the DNI and not being the "premier" agency anymore, at least when one looks at the totem pole. But if you look at the PDB more than 80% of the product still originates from the DI. It is the gold standard of intelligence agencies, both here and abroad. As a old colleague once said to me: there are a lot of jewels in the crown of the United States government but there are only a few large critical ones: CIA DI, NASA, NIH, State; that is where the intellectual might of the government is.
The issue is not intell guy or non-intell guy. The big issue for Blair and Panetta is strategic or tactical orientation. We are fighting two wars and the warfighter always screams they don't have enough intel or enough of anything for that matter. The dice are so loaded for support to the warfighter that critical strategic intelligence for the President and other senior leaders goes wanting due to time constraints on collection assets.
We need a significant re-orientation away from tactical support by CIA and other National agencies and back to their primary mission - direct intelligence support to the President. The last 15 years have seen an explosion of tactical intelligence capability with the advent of UAVs (which DoD fought against for so long due to the fighter pilot mentality). National systems need to be re-oriented to national priorities and away from tactical or operational desires of the warfighter.
I think the Panetta selection is another indication of the change coming. I was concerned that the selection of Jones as National Security Advisor and Blair as DNI underscored the great concern that I have about the militarization of intelligence. The selection of Panetta, with a much wider and deeper power base than either of them, makes me hopeful in this regard. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill -- much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.
I think there is a lot more here than is being said. I believe that Feinstein did not want someone like Panetta who has a large and independent power base and network. If you get a career guy they are a lot easier to isolate and move around. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. I actually think that it is a good choice. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.
I do not discount the notion that many in the CIA feel slighted by the creation of the DNI and not being the "premier" agency anymore, at least when one looks at the totem pole. But if you look at the PDB more than 80% of the product still originates from the DI. It is the gold standard of intelligence agencies, both here and abroad. As a old colleague once said to me: there are a lot of jewels in the crown of the United States government but there are only a few large critical ones: CIA DI, NASA, NIH, State; that is where the intellectual might of the government is.
The issue is not intell guy or non-intell guy. The big issue for Blair and Panetta is strategic or tactical orientation. We are fighting two wars and the warfighter always screams they don't have enough intel or enough of anything for that matter. The dice are so loaded for support to the warfighter that critical strategic intelligence for the President and other senior leaders goes wanting due to time constraints on collection assets.
We need a significant re-orientation away from tactical support by CIA and other National agencies and back to their primary mission - direct intelligence support to the President. The last 15 years have seen an explosion of tactical intelligence capability with the advent of UAVs (which DoD fought against for so long due to the fighter pilot mentality). National systems need to be re-oriented to national priorities and away from tactical or operational desires of the warfighter.
I think the Panetta selection is another indication of the change coming. I was concerned that the selection of Jones as National Security Advisor and Blair as DNI underscored the great concern that I have about the militarization of intelligence. The selection of Panetta, with a much wider and deeper power base than either of them, makes me hopeful in this regard. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill -- much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.
well while it's true that some dems (and maybe even some reps) don't mind the choice, the ones who've dealt with the intel agencies aren's as thrilled (i.e. feinstein)
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,724
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2009-January-06, 17:26
Feinstein and Rockefeller can screw themselves...
They've exercised zero overisght over the past eight years. I couldn't care less what they think. I hope that Obama's selection of Panetta is intended as a signal that the US is making a clean break from the systematic policies of torture and abuse that defined the Bush years.
Here's another good quote from a former intelligence professional
BTW, its worth noting that quite a few Republicans are supporting the pick.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...jhlYWM0NjI2MDY=
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/010...ta.html?showall
Don't get me wrong, I think that Feith, Pearle, and the lot are pieces of *****. I hope most of them get tried for war crimes. I'm just pointing about that its disingenuous to pretend that only a few Republicans are supporting the Pnetta choice.
They've exercised zero overisght over the past eight years. I couldn't care less what they think. I hope that Obama's selection of Panetta is intended as a signal that the US is making a clean break from the systematic policies of torture and abuse that defined the Bush years.
Here's another good quote from a former intelligence professional
Quote
Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2009
Leon Panetta: An Intel Outsider the CIA Needs
By Robert Baer
Leon Panetta may not have an intelligence background, but his appointment as CIA director shows that Barack Obama understands the CIA's problems. As a former White House chief of staff, Clinton Administration budget director and eight-term California Congressman, Panetta knows his way around Washington better than most people, and that kind of knowledge is exactly what the CIA needs right now.
Panetta is experienced enough to understand that the CIA was the victim of political manipulation under the Bush Administration. It was the Bush White House that cherry-picked the intelligence on Iraq, not the CIA. Panetta will have the ear of the new President to walk him through all of this and to make the case that there is no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Panetta will also serve as a good counterweight to retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the designated director of national intelligence who is unlikely to streamline the intelligence community or challenge the Pentagon's preeminent position.
The CIA will need Panetta to hold off the Senate and House intelligence committees, which are gearing up to rip into the CIA for the past eight years of renditions, secret prisons and bad intelligence on Iraq. Mistakes aside, the last thing the CIA needs is another round of overly intrusive congressional hearings like those that so badly damaged the agency in the 1970s. If today's Congress were to deliver a coup de grâce to the CIA, the Pentagon would effectively be the nation's only intelligence agency.
Panetta's service with the Iraq Study Group will serve him well. Aside from Afghanistan, how and when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq are the most pressing intelligence and foreign policy issues that the new Administration will face in the next two years. There is no time for a CIA director to play catch-up.
Leading Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein have already criticized the choice of Panetta, claiming the CIA needs to be led by an experienced intelligence professional. But right now, political clout and the ability to be a strong advocate for the CIA far outweigh the virtues of being a professional spy and knowing the difference between a "live drop" and a "dead drop." A professional from the ranks would be eaten up by Hillary Clinton at State or Bob Gates at Defense. Or he or she would end up like Bill Clinton's CIA director, Jim Woolsey, who was shut out of the White House, ignored, and became irrelevant.
I've noticed that Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes has become a report card for the CIA, a final and damning indictment. But what the lay reader might miss is that, while Legacy of Ashes catalogs the failed covert operations and finished intelligence manipulated by the White House in other words, the politicization of the CIA it fails to acknowledge the agency's successes. There's more than enough truth in Weiner's book, but what it misses is the point that when the CIA is left to the basics, it does just fine, thank you.
In spite of the past eight years, the CIA is an institution we don't want to, and shouldn't, give up on. The rank and file in the CIA understand that they need an advocate in the White House, just as the agency needs someone who is able to tell the President no. The only question now is whether Panetta will have the portfolio to do what is absolutely necessary: move the CIA out of Washington and away from politicians, get the CIA out of covert action once and for all, and pay CIA employees what they deserve for the hard work demanded of them.
Leon Panetta: An Intel Outsider the CIA Needs
By Robert Baer
Leon Panetta may not have an intelligence background, but his appointment as CIA director shows that Barack Obama understands the CIA's problems. As a former White House chief of staff, Clinton Administration budget director and eight-term California Congressman, Panetta knows his way around Washington better than most people, and that kind of knowledge is exactly what the CIA needs right now.
Panetta is experienced enough to understand that the CIA was the victim of political manipulation under the Bush Administration. It was the Bush White House that cherry-picked the intelligence on Iraq, not the CIA. Panetta will have the ear of the new President to walk him through all of this and to make the case that there is no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Panetta will also serve as a good counterweight to retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the designated director of national intelligence who is unlikely to streamline the intelligence community or challenge the Pentagon's preeminent position.
The CIA will need Panetta to hold off the Senate and House intelligence committees, which are gearing up to rip into the CIA for the past eight years of renditions, secret prisons and bad intelligence on Iraq. Mistakes aside, the last thing the CIA needs is another round of overly intrusive congressional hearings like those that so badly damaged the agency in the 1970s. If today's Congress were to deliver a coup de grâce to the CIA, the Pentagon would effectively be the nation's only intelligence agency.
Panetta's service with the Iraq Study Group will serve him well. Aside from Afghanistan, how and when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq are the most pressing intelligence and foreign policy issues that the new Administration will face in the next two years. There is no time for a CIA director to play catch-up.
Leading Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein have already criticized the choice of Panetta, claiming the CIA needs to be led by an experienced intelligence professional. But right now, political clout and the ability to be a strong advocate for the CIA far outweigh the virtues of being a professional spy and knowing the difference between a "live drop" and a "dead drop." A professional from the ranks would be eaten up by Hillary Clinton at State or Bob Gates at Defense. Or he or she would end up like Bill Clinton's CIA director, Jim Woolsey, who was shut out of the White House, ignored, and became irrelevant.
I've noticed that Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes has become a report card for the CIA, a final and damning indictment. But what the lay reader might miss is that, while Legacy of Ashes catalogs the failed covert operations and finished intelligence manipulated by the White House in other words, the politicization of the CIA it fails to acknowledge the agency's successes. There's more than enough truth in Weiner's book, but what it misses is the point that when the CIA is left to the basics, it does just fine, thank you.
In spite of the past eight years, the CIA is an institution we don't want to, and shouldn't, give up on. The rank and file in the CIA understand that they need an advocate in the White House, just as the agency needs someone who is able to tell the President no. The only question now is whether Panetta will have the portfolio to do what is absolutely necessary: move the CIA out of Washington and away from politicians, get the CIA out of covert action once and for all, and pay CIA employees what they deserve for the hard work demanded of them.
BTW, its worth noting that quite a few Republicans are supporting the pick.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...jhlYWM0NjI2MDY=
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/010...ta.html?showall
Don't get me wrong, I think that Feith, Pearle, and the lot are pieces of *****. I hope most of them get tried for war crimes. I'm just pointing about that its disingenuous to pretend that only a few Republicans are supporting the Pnetta choice.
Alderaan delenda est
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2009-January-06, 17:58
hrothgar, on Jan 6 2009, 06:26 PM, said:
Feinstein and Rockefeller can screw themselves...
They've exercised zero overisght over the past eight years. I couldn't care less what they think.
They've exercised zero overisght over the past eight years. I couldn't care less what they think.
well that settles it then
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,724
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2009-January-06, 18:08
luke warm, on Jan 7 2009, 02:58 AM, said:
hrothgar, on Jan 6 2009, 06:26 PM, said:
Feinstein and Rockefeller can screw themselves...
They've exercised zero overisght over the past eight years. I couldn't care less what they think.
They've exercised zero overisght over the past eight years. I couldn't care less what they think.
well that settles it then
Agreed, my opinion doesn't matter a whole lot...
Then again, it doesn't look like Feinstein's matters either. Obama didn't even bother to consult her about the prospective appointment. (He did consult with less senior members of the Intelligence Committee). Buzz around Washington was that this was a deliberate (though mild) slap to the face...
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/..._know_basis.php
Alderaan delenda est
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,779
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-January-06, 18:26
I think Mr.Obama wanted:
1) Someone loyal to him.
2) Change!
I have always advocated that elections matter and that the President should be allowed to place who he wants.
1) Someone loyal to him.
2) Change!
I have always advocated that elections matter and that the President should be allowed to place who he wants.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,779
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-January-06, 21:20
"In spite of the past eight years, the CIA is an institution we don't want to, and shouldn't, give up on. The rank and file in the CIA understand that they need an advocate in the White House, just as the agency needs someone who is able to tell the President no. The only question now is whether Panetta will have the portfolio to do what is absolutely necessary: move the CIA out of Washington and away from politicians, get the CIA out of covert action once and for all, and pay CIA employees what they deserve for the hard work demanded of them."
1)Side note, I would hate to move the CIA out of covert action but if that is what Mr. Obama wants, so be it, but that scares me.
2) Side note I would hate to move the CIA away from politicians, that scares me.
3) It would scare me if the CIA is in the BUSINESS to tell the President....NO! ADVICE YES but the President sets policy goals.
1)Side note, I would hate to move the CIA out of covert action but if that is what Mr. Obama wants, so be it, but that scares me.
2) Side note I would hate to move the CIA away from politicians, that scares me.
3) It would scare me if the CIA is in the BUSINESS to tell the President....NO! ADVICE YES but the President sets policy goals.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2009-January-06, 22:52
What is needed in the intelligence agencies is more career personel and fewer political hacks - people that care about the reputation, reliability, and effectiveness of the agency - we do not need more hucksters who believe that trying to find matching intel to the party's or President's agenda is the agency's primary responsibility.
The CIA doesn't need a Washington insider who can get things done - it needs an intelligence professional who will speak the truth to power.
The entire intelligence apparatus of the U.S. is a failure and has been since virtually the end of WWII. They are no longer in the business of getting things right. The are in the business of promotion and advertising.
The CIA doesn't need a Washington insider who can get things done - it needs an intelligence professional who will speak the truth to power.
The entire intelligence apparatus of the U.S. is a failure and has been since virtually the end of WWII. They are no longer in the business of getting things right. The are in the business of promotion and advertising.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,779
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-January-07, 00:40
Winstonm, on Jan 6 2009, 11:52 PM, said:
What is needed in the intelligence agencies is more career personel and fewer political hacks - people that care about the reputation, reliability, and effectiveness of the agency - we do not need more hucksters who believe that trying to find matching intel to the party's or President's agenda is the agency's primary responsibility.
The CIA doesn't need a Washington insider who can get things done - it needs an intelligence professional who will speak the truth to power.
The entire intelligence apparatus of the U.S. is a failure and has been since virtually the end of WWII. They are no longer in the business of getting things right. The are in the business of promotion and advertising.
The CIA doesn't need a Washington insider who can get things done - it needs an intelligence professional who will speak the truth to power.
The entire intelligence apparatus of the U.S. is a failure and has been since virtually the end of WWII. They are no longer in the business of getting things right. The are in the business of promotion and advertising.
In any event....this is a political hack....not what you want.
This is a DC insider.....In any case I think Mr. Obama should get the leadership he asks for.
Side note..the CIA came about after ww11 so....
"The entire intelligence apparatus of the U.S. is a failure and has been since virtually the end of WWII."
sidenote2: and before WW11 it was great?
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2009-January-07, 05:19
Winstonm, on Jan 6 2009, 11:52 PM, said:
What is needed in the intelligence agencies is more career personel and fewer political hacks - people that care about the reputation, reliability, and effectiveness of the agency - we do not need more hucksters who believe that trying to find matching intel to the party's or President's agenda is the agency's primary responsibility.
The CIA doesn't need a Washington insider who can get things done - it needs an intelligence professional who will speak the truth to power.
The entire intelligence apparatus of the U.S. is a failure and has been since virtually the end of WWII. They are no longer in the business of getting things right. The are in the business of promotion and advertising.
The CIA doesn't need a Washington insider who can get things done - it needs an intelligence professional who will speak the truth to power.
The entire intelligence apparatus of the U.S. is a failure and has been since virtually the end of WWII. They are no longer in the business of getting things right. The are in the business of promotion and advertising.
i agree
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#12
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2009-January-07, 09:32
Quote
Side note..the CIA came about after ww11 so....
Is why I said intelligence apparatus - the problems are not simply with the CIA
Quote
"The entire intelligence apparatus of the U.S. is a failure and has been since virtually the end of WWII."
sidenote2: and before WW11 it was great?
sidenote2: and before WW11 it was great?
During WWII it was useful.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#13
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2009-January-07, 09:50
I think what we need is espionage that is kinder and gentler and more political.
Sounds great.
The next James Bond can be Alan Alda. The script will be great. Alan A.K.A. James Bond will be sent secretly into Pakistan. Of course, it will be "scret" in the sense that we make no official comment about his visit. He will have "M," an "em"bedded journalist to cover the covert operation. While in Pakistan, after unofficial notice to the Pakistani government, of course, he will be covertly transported to a secret UN camp where food and medicine is handed out. His impossible mission will be to determine whether the people attempting to blow up the UN camp can be reasoned with.
The action scene will be exciting. James will use solar-powered electroskis to descend the mountainous terrain while being shot at, but deftly avoiding the bullets. Upon his arrival, he will tazer the assailants, enter the compound, and deliver a very nice note to the head terrorist, with a nice gift certificate to Panera Bread.
After escaping, he will return to a cheering crowd who have just learned of the great feat because of the sunshine doctrine (allowed to wait until 24 hours after the mission to reveal the mission), with information to relay during a senate hearing concerning the fine hospitality and openness of Sheik Bloziemuhp. We will regret the loss of 30 UN peacekeepers and 24 peace volunteer corpsmen, but we will be greatly pleased at the lack of any damage to the northern Pakistani fellowship hall (compound) or to any of the innocent civilians residing therein or to their peace bangers (guns).
Sounds great.
The next James Bond can be Alan Alda. The script will be great. Alan A.K.A. James Bond will be sent secretly into Pakistan. Of course, it will be "scret" in the sense that we make no official comment about his visit. He will have "M," an "em"bedded journalist to cover the covert operation. While in Pakistan, after unofficial notice to the Pakistani government, of course, he will be covertly transported to a secret UN camp where food and medicine is handed out. His impossible mission will be to determine whether the people attempting to blow up the UN camp can be reasoned with.
The action scene will be exciting. James will use solar-powered electroskis to descend the mountainous terrain while being shot at, but deftly avoiding the bullets. Upon his arrival, he will tazer the assailants, enter the compound, and deliver a very nice note to the head terrorist, with a nice gift certificate to Panera Bread.
After escaping, he will return to a cheering crowd who have just learned of the great feat because of the sunshine doctrine (allowed to wait until 24 hours after the mission to reveal the mission), with information to relay during a senate hearing concerning the fine hospitality and openness of Sheik Bloziemuhp. We will regret the loss of 30 UN peacekeepers and 24 peace volunteer corpsmen, but we will be greatly pleased at the lack of any damage to the northern Pakistani fellowship hall (compound) or to any of the innocent civilians residing therein or to their peace bangers (guns).
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2009-January-07, 11:15
Quote
The script will be great.
Authored by Tom Clancy?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#15
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2009-January-07, 11:41
Personally I don't see why anyone here thinks they have a better idea than Obama does about what qualities we need in an intelligence director. I know nothing about this guy, as I suspect none of us did until his announcement (edit: I may well be wrong about that I admit, given that he was a Chief of Staff), so at this point I'm perfectly happy to give him the benefit of the doubt since Obama has shown good judgment for such things thus far IMO.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#16
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,397
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2009-January-07, 11:58
Winstonm, on Jan 7 2009, 04:32 PM, said:
Quote
"The entire intelligence apparatus of the U.S. is a failure and has been since virtually the end of WWII."
sidenote2: and before WW11 it was great?
sidenote2: and before WW11 it was great?
During WWII it was useful.
And in WW eleven you won't need CIA since everybody will be able to read everybody's mind with remote brain imaging. (Just noticed that on BBF, 1 (one) and l (the lower-case letter) may or may not be identical depending on the browser configuration).
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#17
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2009-January-07, 12:30
jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 12:41 PM, said:
Personally I don't see why anyone here thinks they have a better idea than Obama does about what qualities we need in an intelligence director. I know nothing about this guy, as I suspect none of us did until his announcement (edit: I may well be wrong about that I admit, given that he was a Chief of Staff), so at this point I'm perfectly happy to give him the benefit of the doubt since Obama has shown good judgment for such things thus far IMO.
Yeah, that New Mexico thing was a winner pick.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#18
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2009-January-07, 12:36
kenrexford, on Jan 7 2009, 01:30 PM, said:
jdonn, on Jan 7 2009, 12:41 PM, said:
Personally I don't see why anyone here thinks they have a better idea than Obama does about what qualities we need in an intelligence director. I know nothing about this guy, as I suspect none of us did until his announcement (edit: I may well be wrong about that I admit, given that he was a Chief of Staff), so at this point I'm perfectly happy to give him the benefit of the doubt since Obama has shown good judgment for such things thus far IMO.
Yeah, that New Mexico thing was a winner pick.
I don't know what I should reply. That it WAS a good pick (he wasn't not-confirmed or anything, changing circumstances simply caused him to withdraw), or that I never claimed 100% accuracy, or that it may be fun to sit like hawks ready to pounce at anything that is less than perfect especially if you couldn't have done nearly as good of a job overall but that doing so is rather pointless.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#19
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2009-January-07, 12:38
So far I have been totally underwhelmed by Obama's choices. I think his inexperience is showing and he's looking for moderate-appearing choices so as to not rock the Washington boat too much.
Edit: This could be proven to be a wise stategy for an inexperienced leader - not to go off half-cocked one way or another until he feels comfortable in his own decisions.
Add to that this about the choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel and I feel better:
This is certainly the right direction and here it seems Obama is more trusting of his own beliefs and opinions.
Edit: This could be proven to be a wise stategy for an inexperienced leader - not to go off half-cocked one way or another until he feels comfortable in his own decisions.
Add to that this about the choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel and I feel better:
Quote
"One of the refreshing things about Dawn Johnsen's appointment is that she's almost a 180-degree shift from John Yoo and David Addington and (Vice President) Dick Cheney," said Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe, referring to the main legal architects of the administration's approval of harsh interrogation tactics.
Walter Dellinger, a Duke University law professor, said that Johnsen's appointment "sends a very strong message that the administration intends to make sure that its power is exercised in conformity with constitutional rights and respect for civil liberties."
Walter Dellinger, a Duke University law professor, said that Johnsen's appointment "sends a very strong message that the administration intends to make sure that its power is exercised in conformity with constitutional rights and respect for civil liberties."
This is certainly the right direction and here it seems Obama is more trusting of his own beliefs and opinions.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-January-07, 15:51
Army air force.
Navy air force.
Air Force
Why can't the marines have one? Oh yeah, they are part of the ....Navy? Army?
Empires (political or other) are built on expedience. What works best. Eventually, bills must be paid and someone has to clean house. Not the best time to do so. you say? Never is.....
Navy air force.
Air Force
Why can't the marines have one? Oh yeah, they are part of the ....Navy? Army?
Empires (political or other) are built on expedience. What works best. Eventually, bills must be paid and someone has to clean house. Not the best time to do so. you say? Never is.....
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!