For years I said Never let the Democrats come anywhere the intelligence community. My analysis is not so generous as is Charles Krauthammers. Listen to what he said last night and I think you will see that Democrats abuse the intelligence community for more than making political hay. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreil...mas-foreign-policy-helping/?playlist_id=86923
To SFJEFF: I assume you are referring to Valerie Plame. If so, at least differentiate between a Republican of sorts, Richard Armitage, and elected Democrats (plural), who misuse the entire intelligence community in pursuit of their global agenda at every opportunity. Plame Out The ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington. By Christopher Hitchens|Posted Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2006, at 1:02 PM ET http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/08/plame_out.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJCUZHZjV8&feature=player_detailpage
Oh I refer to the Republican administration of George Bush outing a covert CIA agent as payback for her husband embarressing them.
To SFJEFF: You’re spouting the standard Democrat talking point. The truth is that Colin Powell was angry because he felt betrayed by Bush over that WMD speech he, Powell, gave at the UN; so his boy Armitage outed Plame to embarrass Bush & Chaney. This is from the Slate article I linked previously: Interestingly, Powell did not mention Niger-yellow cake in his UN speech. Yellow cake was the prime mover in the Plame-Wilson story. Powell calls himself a Republican, but he is loves the United Nations as much as does any Democrat traitor. In addition he longed for a return to his glory days of Desert Storm with him as secretary of state forming another UN coalition to deal with Iraq. The flaw in Powell’s thinking was that America won the first Gulf War militarily, but lost the peace before the first shot was fired because Powell/Bush gave the UN veto power over America’s military’s actions. Had Bush the Elder gone on to Baghdad in Desert Storm there would have been no Iraq War 12 years later. The whole silly Plame Affair was a combination of office politics and an attempt to embarrass Bush because he invaded Iraq unilaterally. When all is said and done nothing in the Plame story detracts from the fact that Democrats use the intelligence community to advance their worldview rather than defend this country from sworn enemies. Jamie Gorelick’s infamous Wall best shows that Democrats will go to any lengths to prevent America’s intelligence agencies from defending the country when their operations conflict with the socialism’s worldwide agenda. Finally, Afghanistan is a war being fought by a UN-approved coalition and it has turned into to a bigger political failure than Desert Storm. The blame for that failure falls squarely on making decisions designed to legitimize the United Nations, global government, and all the rest of the crap Democrats promote, yet you don’t hear liberals blaming the United Nations for anything. In fact, Hussein is making Afghanistan look like America was wrong to fight there in the first place when the only thing wrong about Afghanistan is Americans dying for nation-building instead of dying while defending their country. To be more precise, Afghanistan is one more Peace Without Victory disaster.
I completely agree. Take as an example Kennedy. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and Vietnam where his brainchild.
To Jason Bourne: That’s a bit convoluted. Using the intelligence community to fight communism is acceptable even when Democrats do it.
Flanders, et al, While I don't particularly care for Bill O'Reilly, I respect Charles Krauthammer. (COMMENT) But in this case, Krauthammer is making some assumptions. He assumes that the individual identified as the "Underwear Bomber Source" that was withdrawn (extracted), was actually the "real" source of the information. It may be the case that the activity having OI (Operational Interest) extracted the source and then disclosed it because they wanted to protect the real source. There could be any number of reasons for things to play-out the way they did. I don't think that Charles Krauthammer thinks like a real Agent Handler or Case Officer. I don't believe that Krauthammer has a complete picture in which to judge the events. (SIDEBAR) Do politicians use intelligence to their advantage in the domestic arena, well they most certainly do. But that is a different matter - a completely different discussion. Most Respectfully, R
To RoccoR: Your alternative scenario is interesting and quite possible. Still, it doesn’t excuse not pulling out Shakil Alfridi, the Pakistani doctor, immediately after bid Laden was killed. I know the Administration’s cover story. I just don’t believe the story, or anything Panetta says for that matter. See this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/intelligence/192647-putting-panetta-perspective.html At the very least, leaving Alfridi and his family in place was incredibly stupid. To RoccoR: Not so different. Let me make my case by going back to J. Edger Hoover (1895 - 1972). When he was running the FBI he kept the big shots in line with the stuff he had on them. Contrary to the Left’s long-running smear campaign against Hoover he never did anything to harm average Americans. He never tried to take away their liberties, imprison them without trial, and so on. And I doubt very much if he would have treated terrorists like criminals entitled to trials in civilian courts. Parenthetically, few people stood up to FDR. Hoover did just that during WWII: http://histclo.com/country/us/chron/940/ww2/intern/usi-jap.html Hoover died in 1972 at the height of the big push to save communism in Vietnam. It mattered not to American Communists that victory for communism in SE Asia meant bringing defeat to their own country. The end of the Vietnam War saw hardcore radicals solidify their grip on the Democrat party. Democrat politicians rolled over like $2 whores in order to appease their “constituents.” It was after Vietnam that elected Democrats, and some Republicans, began their long march to take control of every intelligence agency so those agencies could be used to advance the Socialist/Communist agenda, global government, and UN authority rather than defend the Constitution, and the country, against all enemies foreign and domestic. Fortunately, they did not acquire enough control in time to save the Soviet Union from imploding. Had Democrats had control of the intelligence community in 1989 - 1991 that they have today the Soviet Union would still be intact.
The democrats on the party level are a bunch of bullies and statist control freaks. It's a fundamental character flaw. They endanger our country. Yes, I said it and I meant it.
Flanders, et al, (COMMENT) Yes, well I cannot say I know the story. I can say that there have been many Pakistani that unconditionally believed in their country, and stayed because they believed that their country (the ISI included) was not knowing supporting the terrorists. I believe, although I can't remember for sure, which Discussion Group it was, I took considerable heat by a Pakistani Member because I dared to suggest that we should consider the NWFP as the al-Qaeda support derivative. Were was Osama bin Laden, in the NWFP. The Pakistani's have a patriotic belief that their country is fair and honest; not involved in terrorism; always on the side of good. No one (in Western Intelligence) has any doubt that if the US had coordinated the neutralization effort with, and disclosed the location of Osama bin Laden to, the ISI --- Osama bin Laden would still be alive today. It would have turned-out much differently. Pakistan, as a government, has two faces; one of which is a state supporter of terrorism. And so, we must be prepared to suffer the occasional loss of a source. Remember, this would not even be an issue if the ISI was trustworthy. Pakistan is upset because it was caught redhanded harboring a fugitive. (COMMENT) American Patriotism means something different to everyone. Consider Dan Akerson, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors, is he patriotic? The US taxpayer bailout to GM was about $80B. GM is now scaling down GM in the US, thousands of US autoworkers out of jobs, and - expanding operations in China. Is Akerson merely maximizing the wealth of the shareholder, or contribution to the GNP of China at the cost of US jobs, remembering that the replacement of high paying manufacturing jobs in the US are lower paying service industry jobs. In the days of J Edger Hoover, patriotism was unconditional. The perspectives were different and the priorities where in America's favor. Today, the emerging Superpower that will replace America in the coming decades is China. The weapons they will use are "economics and commerce." The will not be dependent on Nuclear Weapons that have done nothing but collect dust over the last half century. They will defeat the US military by running America out of general revenue necessary to support its infrastructure and our dwindling military; broken by years of war with no real return on our trillion dollar investment. If Hoover were alive today, he would no doubt have noticed this and worked against this trend. But today, there is no patriotism in America when it comes to business. And as the live style and prosperity in America declines, so will the interest in protecting liberty that you mention. America is in a downward spiral, and there is nothing that will save it short of retracting back to the US, adjusting its foreign policy, and diverting the taxpayer dollars used to payout in foreign and military aid to domestic education, research & development, scientific exploration, and infrastructure up grades that will usher in a new 21st Century era of enlightenment. Hoover and James Angleton would have appreciated that. But Hoover and Angleton would have never stood for US Business backed by an education process that puts greed above the interest of America and its people. But, in this, I've gone slightly off-topic. Relative to the Intelligence Community, it will take a very long time for it to come back to a production level that inspires confidence. Again, this was do to the attempt by leadership to replace HUMINT with technological forms of collection. And that crippled US capabilities. But the same logic responsible for outsourcing I described above, is responsible for the degradation of the IC's ability to meet todays challenges. Most Respectfully, R
As old a story as that is, I am still surprised at the number of liberals who actually think that story makes sense. Bush, Cheney, and Rove, driven mad because of an opinion article in which the writer went to Niger, asked some buddies in the leadership if they were violating UN sanctions, were told "Oh no, not us!" and decided the only way to get revenge is to "out" a CIA analyst married to the opinion article writer (Joe Wilson). How they tricked Richard Armitage to do that, and keep it a secret for the entire period of the investigation, including from the conspirators themselves, Bush, Rove, and Cheney; remains a mystery.
