On Fri, 15 May 2009 08:07:50 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Now you are an expert on the inner workings of the CIA?

They have missed on some rather important work. Failing to predict the
fall of the Soviet Union, and WMDs come to mind.

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 08:07:50 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Now you are an expert on the inner workings of the CIA?

They have missed on some rather important work. Failing to predict the
fall of the Soviet Union, and WMDs come to mind.

The CIA is a "Bureaucracy" and it will be extremely difficult to
discipline and replace them and they know it. When they screw up they
will claim it was due to a lack of funding. Whose to argue, their inner
workings are classified and you can't debate them in public. It's a no
win situation.

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...


Bond is a Republican. The Repugs are circling the wagon and, in fact,
Bond gave a circuitious answer. You bit.


I didn't "bite" at anything. I can think for myself and believe what I
want, thank you.
You truly are amazing. You are so committed to *your* beliefs and are
so arrogant in your confidence in yourself that you are totally blind to
any other valid viewpoints.

I can't deal with people like that. Sorry.

Eisboch


*The* issue is over a Republican Administration, a Republican justice
department, a Republican CIA and a Republican senate and house
inflicting torture on captives. The GOP is working mightily to divert
attention away from that any way it can.

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...


Too bad. The CIA is just another failed federal agency, just like the
FBI. The CIA is too damned political and has not been a reliable
gatherer/source of intel for years.


Now you are an expert on the inner workings of the CIA?

Wow.

Eisboch


There's been serious criticism aplenty in the CIA for those very
reasons.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 07:03:59 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 2009 07:22:50 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


What's funny is that Obama, as usual, threw her under the bus by backing
off on the memos. He opened the proverbial five pounds of crap in a one
pound bag and now he can't stuff it back in - somebody has to be
sacrificed and it's her.

Pelosi is a light weight, and I wouldn't mind seeing her gone, but it
will take considerably more than this furor to down a House Speaker.
Still, if it isn't this one, it might be the next one, and there will be
a next one.

Perhaps, but I think you made the point - she is a light weight - she
even makes Hastert look good and he was the Republican's very own
version of Harry Reid. Light weights don't survive this kind of lying
and obstruction of the truth.

I originally thought this would be swept under the rug, but I'm
begining to think that this may be a pivotal point in the Obama
Administration - he's made a huge mistake, he knows it and doesn't
know what to do about it.

Plus he's not exactly endearing himself to the power brokers in the
economy - there's a lot of buyers remorse begining to fester and the
more he looks like he's interfering rather than assisting the economy
the worse it's going to be.

He needs a distraction and Pelosi is going to be that distraction.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 07:16:12 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 2009 08:07:50 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Now you are an expert on the inner workings of the CIA?

They have missed on some rather important work. Failing to predict the
fall of the Soviet Union, and WMDs come to mind.

I am not an apologist for the Caught In Act people, but it is the
nature of the business that successes tend to stay secret, while the
failures are often famous. Their true batting average is a bit
difficult to discern.

Casady

Richard Casady wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 07:16:12 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 2009 08:07:50 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Now you are an expert on the inner workings of the CIA?
They have missed on some rather important work. Failing to predict the
fall of the Soviet Union, and WMDs come to mind.

I am not an apologist for the Caught In Act people, but it is the
nature of the business that successes tend to stay secret, while the
failures are often famous. Their true batting average is a bit
difficult to discern.

Casady


Indeed, and isn't that a wonderful way to hide the massive number of
intel failures.

Let's see...


Downfall of Batista
Bay of Pigs
Shah of Iran
Vietnam
Contras
Chile
PLO and its offshots
WMDs (well, who really knows)
And about a zillion more.


We'd be better served by 100 chimpanzees sitting in a room with
shortwave radios and typewriters.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:41:51 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"jim7856" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Disguised as your Speaker of the House, the Master Chef is stirring up
more pudding.

I believe it would be wise for your President-elect to stuff the mummy
back into the coffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwZa8jvNp4

Fun to watch them dancing over hot coals. It's amazing how so many liars
thieves and crazys have slithered into high government positions.\\




A couple of things stand out in my mind as I watch and listen to this now
famous Pelosi news conference.

In her statement, she talks about a signed oath she took not to divulge
information she may received during classified briefings. She states that
she has always honored that obligation. Then, she goes on to discuss
information provided during the subject briefing in an attempt to cover her
ass.

She was not free to divulge. Now that information has made it to
public light otherwise, she's no longer bound to hold secret what's in
the public domain.

You must have dealt with this 100 times in the tech industry. It's
called a NDA. When the information is publicly available, you're no
longer bound.

The second stand-out. She states several times that her job was to elect a
new president who did not subscribe to policies under the Bush
administration. She seems to gloat and be very proud of her accomplishment
in doing so.

They attempted to clarify Bush's torture policy as illegal and he
vetoed the bill. It could not be overridden since Republicans
supported the torture policies of the Bush Administration.

The only way out is to elect a new president with a different view of
torture. As an American, I'm glad she did what she could.

She seems to ignore the fact that a new president was going to be elected
with or without her involvement or position in Congress. Bush's time was
over. Both candidates .... Obama and McCain were and are on record has
opposing torture.

That's a good point.

She really doesn't serve the Democratic Party very well. She serves
herself.

Who can you cite within the Republican party that serves the party
well?

On Fri, 15 May 2009 07:32:08 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


His answer? "I've attended many classified intelligence briefings. They
are not conducted to inform you of what is *not* being done."

That's a bull**** answer. As Pelosi has maintained since her first
interview with Rachael Maddow in February, they briefed the members on
what they had established as legal and did not suggest that they were
using such techniques, only that they had been determined by the Bush
Admin as legal.

As we now know, they were using the techniques before they developed
their legal theories.

Pelosi is a red herring and you know it.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 05:16:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Poor Krause. So desperate.

Yes, his party is so out of power and his political agenda is laying
fallow in a ditch.

Oh, no. That's your party.