-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize
- Thread starter Show-me
- Start date
Still stoking the civil discourse embers? I guess I shouldn't wait for your explanation of your blatant distortion of my comments. I figured as much...Still beating that illegal removal drum, huh? You sure picked a lousy definition of a coup to support your reasoning. Oh, but I forgot. You still think that Zelaya's very removal from office (regardless of how he was removed) was illegal. Never mind that the Honduran constitution, Honduran Supreme Court, Honduran National Congress, all acted according to their own laws! Facts be damned! Good luck with that...
So much for rational discourse. Here's something else for you.
Although many on the far right are crying out that Zelaya himself was trying to subvert the Honduran constitution-- which he wasn't -- it is certainly clear that Micheletti and his oligarchs could have followed a legal procedure had that been the case. The Honduran constitution allows for impeachment, as well as a precise legal structure in which an official can be officially charged and allowed to defend himself. Micheletti and General Romeo Vasquez, by contrast, with the support of the Honduran Supreme Court and most of Congress, completely subverted the rule of law and occupied the country militarily.
See. Rational discourse is much better.
I don't really see how I've distorted what you said. I just offer an alternative view on the matter. It's not my definition, but the definition from the political dictionary found on answers.com
Here's another definition from dictionary.com:
A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power
So it's not MY definition. Perhaps you should bring it up with them. Maybe we should just put a disclaimer on their definition "except Honduras in 2009". See OBGibby or something.
Although many on the far right are crying out that Zelaya himself was trying to subvert the Honduran constitution-- which he wasn't -- it is certainly clear that Micheletti and his oligarchs could have followed a legal procedure had that been the case. The Honduran constitution allows for impeachment, as well as a precise legal structure in which an official can be officially charged and allowed to defend himself. Micheletti and General Romeo Vasquez, by contrast, with the support of the Honduran Supreme Court and most of Congress, completely subverted the rule of law and occupied the country militarily.
See. Rational discourse is much better.
I don't really see how I've distorted what you said. I just offer an alternative view on the matter. It's not my definition, but the definition from the political dictionary found on answers.com
Here's another definition from dictionary.com:
A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power
So it's not MY definition. Perhaps you should bring it up with them. Maybe we should just put a disclaimer on their definition "except Honduras in 2009". See OBGibby or something.
Last edited:
Phil,
I’ve watched all of the Frontline shows, and have several from season’s 26, 27 and 28 on my iPod. I really hope you haven’t based your entire foundation of knowledge on this subject based upon a Frontline episode.
You can access the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (unclassified key judgments) from the Director of National Intelligence’s official government website: http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_keyjudgements.html
Feel free to peruse it at your leisure. I'm sure you'll find the "dissent" from the State Department's Intelligence and Research (INR) to be a little less than what you were hoping for. Funny thing is, you've presented this notion that INR (and possibly others) were all crying foul about the intelligence. The facts just don't support that conclusion. For example, while INR did dissent about Iraq's nuclear goals, INR did state "Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities.” Oh, and that big dissent from INR about chem/bio you might have been wishing for, it didn't happen either. INR agreed with the rest of the NIE’s assessment of Iraq’s biological and chemical programs.
“Then why didn't Germany, France and Russia join us in our Iraq invasion?” Well, let’s examine that one, shall we. The last time I heard, Germany is basically prohibited by their constitution from using military force unless it’s a matter of self-defense. You’ll notice that even though they are members of NATO, they rarely take part in combat operations. Why didn’t France and Russia join in? You’ll have to ask them, Phil. But most folks, I would hazard a guess, know damn well why they didn’t.
Ah, yes. The old “stove piping” of intelligence, straight from the Pentagon to the White House. Classic stuff that has a half-live of 1,000 years apparently. You may want to read “War and Decision” by Douglas J. Feith, the man at the center of that controversy that seems to come up from time to time. Feith’s book is easily the best documented work on Iraq yet.
“The 9/11 report states that there were no operational ties between Iraq and OBL. Are you saying this was politically motivated?” To answer your question – no, I was not. I was simply wondering why the 9/11 Commission Report saw fit to add within their report that Iraq and al Qaeda held no “collaborative operational relationship,” apparently implying as if someone within the Bush administration had claimed such.
The Plame Affair – nothing warms the hearts of the “we were lied to” crowd like Joe Wilson’s crusade! For pete’s sake, you throw so much malarkey around it’s hard to keep up.
I, too, have read George Tenet’s book (along with dozens of other books on Iraq, al Qaeda, Afghanistan, terrorism, etc). Apart from some factually inaccurate accounts (though the self-serving intentions are to be expected in an autobiography), it was entertaining.
See my next post regarding Tenet's letter to Senator Graham on the links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Here’s his letter to Senator Graham regarding the links between Iraq and al Qaeda. You can find in the Congressional Record, 107th Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 148, No. 13 (October 9, 2002), p. S10154.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, late last night in a colloquy between myself and the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Oregon read into the RECORD portions of a letter addressed to Senator
GRAHAM, chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, signed by
George Tenet. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the RECORD today, followed by a statement issued by Mr. Tenet bearing on his interpretation and intent in writing that letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.
Hon. BOB GRAHAM,
Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made unclassified material available to further the Senate’s forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution concerning Iraq.
As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and
methods. We have also been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and
shortcoming, or with insight into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns is only heightened by the possibility for hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam’s decisionmaking regarding the use
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request
with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested. Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States. Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism
might involve conventional means, as with Iraq’s unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW. Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact
vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify the following dialogue.
Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack—let me put a time
frame on it—in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.
Senator LEVIN: Now if he did initiate an attack
you’ve . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . .But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what’s the likelihood in response to our attack
that he would use chemical or biological weapons?
Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.
In the above dialogue, the witness’s qualifications—‘‘
in the foreseeable future, given
the conditions we understand now’’—were intended
to underscore that the likelihood of
Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence,
or otherwise grows as his arsenal
builds. Moreover, if Saddam used WMD, it
would disprove his repeated denials that he
has such weapons.
Regarding Senator Bayh’s question of Iraqi
links to al-Qa’ida, Senators could draw from
the following points for unclassified discussions:
Our understanding of the relationship between
Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is
based on sources of varying reliability. Some
of the information we have received comes
from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts
between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back
a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq
and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and
reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we
have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of
al-Qa’ida members, including some that have
been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida
leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could
help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting
also stated that Iraq has provided
training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of
poisons and gases and making conventional
bombs.
Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians,
coupled with growing indications
of a relationship with al-Qa’ida, suggest that
Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase,
even absent US military action.
Sincerely,
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN
(For George J. Tenet, Director).
STATEMENT BY DCI GEORGE TENET, October 8,
2002
There is no inconsistency between our view
of Saddam’s growing threat and the view as
expressed by the President in his speech. Although
we think the chances of Saddam initiating
a WMD attack at this moment are
low—in part because it would constitute an
admission that he possesses WMD—there is
no question that the likelihood of Saddam
using WMD against the United States or our
allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence,
or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues
to build. His past use of WMD against
civilian and military targets shows that he
produces those weapons to use not just to
deter.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, late last night in a colloquy between myself and the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Oregon read into the RECORD portions of a letter addressed to Senator
GRAHAM, chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, signed by
George Tenet. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the RECORD today, followed by a statement issued by Mr. Tenet bearing on his interpretation and intent in writing that letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.
Hon. BOB GRAHAM,
Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made unclassified material available to further the Senate’s forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution concerning Iraq.
As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and
methods. We have also been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and
shortcoming, or with insight into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns is only heightened by the possibility for hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam’s decisionmaking regarding the use
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request
with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested. Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States. Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism
might involve conventional means, as with Iraq’s unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW. Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact
vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify the following dialogue.
Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack—let me put a time
frame on it—in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.
Senator LEVIN: Now if he did initiate an attack
you’ve . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . .But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what’s the likelihood in response to our attack
that he would use chemical or biological weapons?
Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.
In the above dialogue, the witness’s qualifications—‘‘
in the foreseeable future, given
the conditions we understand now’’—were intended
to underscore that the likelihood of
Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence,
or otherwise grows as his arsenal
builds. Moreover, if Saddam used WMD, it
would disprove his repeated denials that he
has such weapons.
Regarding Senator Bayh’s question of Iraqi
links to al-Qa’ida, Senators could draw from
the following points for unclassified discussions:
Our understanding of the relationship between
Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is
based on sources of varying reliability. Some
of the information we have received comes
from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts
between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back
a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq
and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and
reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we
have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of
al-Qa’ida members, including some that have
been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida
leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could
help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting
also stated that Iraq has provided
training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of
poisons and gases and making conventional
bombs.
Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians,
coupled with growing indications
of a relationship with al-Qa’ida, suggest that
Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase,
even absent US military action.
Sincerely,
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN
(For George J. Tenet, Director).
STATEMENT BY DCI GEORGE TENET, October 8,
2002
There is no inconsistency between our view
of Saddam’s growing threat and the view as
expressed by the President in his speech. Although
we think the chances of Saddam initiating
a WMD attack at this moment are
low—in part because it would constitute an
admission that he possesses WMD—there is
no question that the likelihood of Saddam
using WMD against the United States or our
allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence,
or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues
to build. His past use of WMD against
civilian and military targets shows that he
produces those weapons to use not just to
deter.
The Plame Affair – nothing warms the hearts of the “we were lied to” crowd like Joe Wilson’s crusade! For pete’s sake, you throw so much malarkey around it’s hard to keep up.
So....what's the answer here? The answer is that Libby was indicted. Malarkey? Was Libby convicted by some kangaroo court? Look at the facts.
I’ve watched all of the Frontline shows, and have several from season’s 26, 27 and 28 on my iPod. I really hope you haven’t based your entire foundation of knowledge on this subject based upon a Frontline episode.
Then you can see from the conversations that these people in the intelligence community were just plain wrong about WMD. They resigned. They took responsibility. They interviewed everyone, and their comments are clear. Frontline did a great job of talking to everyone involved.....except Tenet and the VP. They both declined. Nope, I don't base it entirely on the PBS documentary. There's a lot more out there, but having the principals in the community, side by side with public statements, is priceless.
You can access the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (unclassified key judgments) from the Director of National Intelligence’s official government website: http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_keyjudgements.html
It clearly shows the dissent from INR about Iraq having nuclear capability. That much is valid. There was no evidence of nukes......because there were no nukes. An intelligence failure caused by bureaucratic infighting between DOD and the CIA. Total cost: about a trillion dollars. Stovepiping intelligence directly to the administration, without any vetting of what they were getting......and openly discussing this raw intelligence with the media. I think that Tenet probably regrets not resigning then. In any case, we attacked Iraq because the administration wanted to attack. That was fairly clear to many people.
Maybe a better answer was to continue to act diplomatically and other things outside direct invasion. It would've saved the taxpayers a lot of money. The Iraqis would've saved money on the flowers that they were going to greet our troops with. Maybe the intelligence community could have done a better job, rather than start an ill-conceived foreign adventure.
“Then why didn't Germany, France and Russia join us in our Iraq invasion?” Well, let’s examine that one, shall we. The last time I heard, Germany is basically prohibited by their constitution from using military force unless it’s a matter of self-defense.
Really? Then why did Germany and France send troops to Afghanistan? Please do examine this one.
Ah, yes. The old “stove piping” of intelligence, straight from the Pentagon to the White House. Classic stuff that has a half-live of 1,000 years apparently. You may want to read “War and Decision” by Douglas J. Feith, the man at the center of that controversy that seems to come up from time to time. Feith’s book is easily the best documented work on Iraq yet.
Feith was a political appointee who came with pre-conceived notions about Iraq, particularly from the INC. In the end, Rumsfeld and Feith finally gave way to Gates and the realists. I'm aware of his book, but I place little credence in it. After spending over 500 billion dollars in Iraq, and being no closer to winning, I have good reason. Additionally, he tried to install Chalabi. That was another failure of epic proportions. For some reason, I get the impression that this was the war that the Pentagon wanted to fight, not the war that was necessary to fight. In the end, Iraq was coming apart under their administration. That's why Gates (former CIA) came to take over. Iraq was a failure. It took about 4 years and multiple failures in Iraq to come to that conclusion. I still don't know why. To understand more fully about why the Iraqi adventure was wrong, I would refer you to SecDef Cheney after the first gulf war. He gave a perfectly good explanation as to why we weren't trying to take out SH. It made a lot of sense then, and more sense now. Maybe "listen to your own advice" is the best advice.
“The 9/11 report states that there were no operational ties between Iraq and OBL. Are you saying this was politically motivated?” To answer your question – no, I was not. I was simply wondering why the 9/11 Commission Report saw fit to add within their report that Iraq and al Qaeda held no “collaborative operational relationship,” apparently implying as if someone within the Bush administration had claimed such.
Did you even look at the video clips from the pre-Iraq war period? The President and VP were bringing in to public discussion "facts" that were not true at all. They weren't vetted. If anyone tried to show otherwise (Plame), they were attacked. That sent a chilling message, didn't it? The commission was bipartisan. Leak the false information to the press, then quote the information you've leaked as "proof" just doesn't cut it when the information you're getting is from every source in the world. Some of this was coming directly from OSP, an intelligence agency created to compete with the other agencies. A trillion dollar disaster ensued.
I, too, have read George Tenet’s book (along with dozens of other books on Iraq, al Qaeda, Afghanistan, terrorism, etc). Apart from some factually inaccurate accounts (though the self-serving intentions are to be expected in an autobiography), it was entertaining.
See my next post regarding Tenet's letter to Senator Graham on the links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Again, Tenet and the intelligence people took responsibility. They resigned in 2004. This probably paved the way for Rumsfeld's exit. He left about 2 1/2 years after Tenet. Way too late. He was replaced by Gates. What does this tell us?
So....what's the answer here? The answer is that Libby was indicted. Malarkey? Was Libby convicted by some kangaroo court? Look at the facts.
I’ve watched all of the Frontline shows, and have several from season’s 26, 27 and 28 on my iPod. I really hope you haven’t based your entire foundation of knowledge on this subject based upon a Frontline episode.
Then you can see from the conversations that these people in the intelligence community were just plain wrong about WMD. They resigned. They took responsibility. They interviewed everyone, and their comments are clear. Frontline did a great job of talking to everyone involved.....except Tenet and the VP. They both declined. Nope, I don't base it entirely on the PBS documentary. There's a lot more out there, but having the principals in the community, side by side with public statements, is priceless.
You can access the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (unclassified key judgments) from the Director of National Intelligence’s official government website: http://www.dni.gov/nic/special_keyjudgements.html
It clearly shows the dissent from INR about Iraq having nuclear capability. That much is valid. There was no evidence of nukes......because there were no nukes. An intelligence failure caused by bureaucratic infighting between DOD and the CIA. Total cost: about a trillion dollars. Stovepiping intelligence directly to the administration, without any vetting of what they were getting......and openly discussing this raw intelligence with the media. I think that Tenet probably regrets not resigning then. In any case, we attacked Iraq because the administration wanted to attack. That was fairly clear to many people.
Maybe a better answer was to continue to act diplomatically and other things outside direct invasion. It would've saved the taxpayers a lot of money. The Iraqis would've saved money on the flowers that they were going to greet our troops with. Maybe the intelligence community could have done a better job, rather than start an ill-conceived foreign adventure.
“Then why didn't Germany, France and Russia join us in our Iraq invasion?” Well, let’s examine that one, shall we. The last time I heard, Germany is basically prohibited by their constitution from using military force unless it’s a matter of self-defense.
Really? Then why did Germany and France send troops to Afghanistan? Please do examine this one.
Ah, yes. The old “stove piping” of intelligence, straight from the Pentagon to the White House. Classic stuff that has a half-live of 1,000 years apparently. You may want to read “War and Decision” by Douglas J. Feith, the man at the center of that controversy that seems to come up from time to time. Feith’s book is easily the best documented work on Iraq yet.
Feith was a political appointee who came with pre-conceived notions about Iraq, particularly from the INC. In the end, Rumsfeld and Feith finally gave way to Gates and the realists. I'm aware of his book, but I place little credence in it. After spending over 500 billion dollars in Iraq, and being no closer to winning, I have good reason. Additionally, he tried to install Chalabi. That was another failure of epic proportions. For some reason, I get the impression that this was the war that the Pentagon wanted to fight, not the war that was necessary to fight. In the end, Iraq was coming apart under their administration. That's why Gates (former CIA) came to take over. Iraq was a failure. It took about 4 years and multiple failures in Iraq to come to that conclusion. I still don't know why. To understand more fully about why the Iraqi adventure was wrong, I would refer you to SecDef Cheney after the first gulf war. He gave a perfectly good explanation as to why we weren't trying to take out SH. It made a lot of sense then, and more sense now. Maybe "listen to your own advice" is the best advice.
“The 9/11 report states that there were no operational ties between Iraq and OBL. Are you saying this was politically motivated?” To answer your question – no, I was not. I was simply wondering why the 9/11 Commission Report saw fit to add within their report that Iraq and al Qaeda held no “collaborative operational relationship,” apparently implying as if someone within the Bush administration had claimed such.
Did you even look at the video clips from the pre-Iraq war period? The President and VP were bringing in to public discussion "facts" that were not true at all. They weren't vetted. If anyone tried to show otherwise (Plame), they were attacked. That sent a chilling message, didn't it? The commission was bipartisan. Leak the false information to the press, then quote the information you've leaked as "proof" just doesn't cut it when the information you're getting is from every source in the world. Some of this was coming directly from OSP, an intelligence agency created to compete with the other agencies. A trillion dollar disaster ensued.
I, too, have read George Tenet’s book (along with dozens of other books on Iraq, al Qaeda, Afghanistan, terrorism, etc). Apart from some factually inaccurate accounts (though the self-serving intentions are to be expected in an autobiography), it was entertaining.
See my next post regarding Tenet's letter to Senator Graham on the links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Again, Tenet and the intelligence people took responsibility. They resigned in 2004. This probably paved the way for Rumsfeld's exit. He left about 2 1/2 years after Tenet. Way too late. He was replaced by Gates. What does this tell us?
Last edited:
INR didn't get it completely right, but their dissent was closer to the truth than anyone else.
Why? Because these people have usually spent a great deal of time living in the regions. They are people who also don't have a political axe to grind, and just look at the facts.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.rood.html
is a story about the INR. They are the smallest, tiniest intelligence office in all of the different branches of government, but they don't bend to any political whim from either side. Even Secretary Powell went with the other agencies, much to his chagrin......now.
They're also a favorite target of the neocons, for obvious reasons. They just won't play ball. Even if it means more money.
Dispassionate discourse.
Why? Because these people have usually spent a great deal of time living in the regions. They are people who also don't have a political axe to grind, and just look at the facts.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.rood.html
is a story about the INR. They are the smallest, tiniest intelligence office in all of the different branches of government, but they don't bend to any political whim from either side. Even Secretary Powell went with the other agencies, much to his chagrin......now.
They're also a favorite target of the neocons, for obvious reasons. They just won't play ball. Even if it means more money.
Dispassionate discourse.
Birchtree
TSP Talk Royalty
- Reaction score
- 143
I see a suicide bomber killed 5 senior Revolutionary Guard Corps officers of Iran. I've been waiting for something like this to transpire and I hope to see more casualies from the Iranians side. These creeps are responsible for many American soldier deaths with their IEDs.
Viva_La_Migra
Market Veteran
- Reaction score
- 56
I'd like it to be the Chargers, but the Saints look damn good this year!So who do you think will win the Super Bowl this year?
My money is on the Colts.
- Reaction score
- 2,492
You can't rule out Obama.So who do you think will win the Super Bowl this year?
My money is on the Colts.
Viva_La_Migra
Market Veteran
- Reaction score
- 56
Good one! I wonder if he'll call himself when he wins the World Series.You can't rule out Obama.
grandma
Market Veteran
- Reaction score
- 38
Maybe they could ask him to do the `first quarterback pass' (like the first throw-out in baseball) and have his Czars as his defense -You can't rule out Obama.
I wonder how that would play out? We already know he's competing for The Heisman...
Steadygain
TSP Elite
- Reaction score
- 45
Buster -- I've pretty much known them all -- all Major Branches
As a Whole -- the USMC are by far the most outstanding !!
The FIRST to GO ---- the LAST to LEAVE
There are always a few that 'didn't stack up' but on the whole the other Marines did take their duty with a very similar honor and pride. THAT - MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE - IS WHAT MAKES THEM MARINES.
Viva_La_Migra
Market Veteran
- Reaction score
- 56
now that's funny!the world series is on fox, so he probably won't show up for that one.
Viva_La_Migra
Market Veteran
- Reaction score
- 56
I must admit, that's a funny one. Maybe soon they'll show a cartoon of the NBC peacock on an auction block and the money going to Rush to pay for the slander lawsuit. One can only hope...back on topic..... good cartoons.
