Sigh... one last time:

I wrote: "We now have a brand-new intelligence agency that reports
directly to the White House called the HIG. Three letters, as in KGB.
Coincidence?"

You wrote: "your contention is that all 3 letter intelligence groups
are evil"

Then I pondered: "Wow... you took my comparison of the HIG to the KGB
as an assertion that *all* 3 letter intelligence groups are evil?!?"

Then you accused me of moving the goalposts? I'll type slowly... I
compared the HIG to the KGB. Not to any other agency. Not to "all"
three letter agencies. Just the KGB. "The KGB maintained the one-
party Soviet State by suppressing "ideological subversion" (political
dissent) and anti-Soviet public figures (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
Andrei Sakharov, et al.)." That KGB.

Got it, nudnick?

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:45:47 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:


Sigh... one last time:

I wrote: "We now have a brand-new intelligence agency that reports
directly to the White House called the HIG. Three letters, as in KGB.
Coincidence?"

You wrote: "your contention is that all 3 letter intelligence groups
are evil"

Then I pondered: "Wow... you took my comparison of the HIG to the KGB
as an assertion that *all* 3 letter intelligence groups are evil?!?"

Then you accused me of moving the goalposts? I'll type slowly... I
compared the HIG to the KGB. Not to any other agency. Not to "all"
three letter agencies. Just the KGB. "The KGB maintained the one-
party Soviet State by suppressing "ideological subversion" (political
dissent) and anti-Soviet public figures (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
Andrei Sakharov, et al.)." That KGB.

Got it, nudnick?

I agree it is a mistake is falling for the little known "Three Letter
Directive."
This has been propagated by SMERSH and CHAOS to direct attention away
from them by misdirecting attention to three letter operations.
Some of us aren't fooled by this.
Even the "fact"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...918298,00.html

that the HIG will be administered by the FBI and be provided
"strategic policy guidance" by the NSC should be considered
in context of "Three Letter Directive."
Note the usual sleight of hand in tossing out three letter agencies.
Good to see you are on your toes.

--Vic

On Aug 25, 4:16*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:45:47 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:







Sigh... one last time:

I wrote: "We now have a brand-new intelligence agency that reports
directly to the White House called the HIG. *Three letters, as in KGB.
Coincidence?"

You wrote: "your contention is that all 3 letter intelligence groups
are evil"

Then I pondered: "Wow... you took my comparison of the HIG to the KGB
as an assertion that *all* 3 letter intelligence groups are evil?!?"

Then you accused me of moving the goalposts? *I'll type slowly... I
compared the HIG to the KGB. *Not to any other agency. *Not to "all"
three letter agencies. *Just the KGB. *"The KGB maintained the one-
party Soviet State by suppressing "ideological subversion" (political
dissent) and anti-Soviet public figures (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
Andrei Sakharov, et al.)." *That KGB.

Got it, nudnick?

I agree it is a mistake is falling for the little known "Three Letter
Directive."
This has been propagated by SMERSH and CHAOS to direct attention away
from them by misdirecting attention to three letter operations.
Some of us aren't fooled by this.
Even the "fact"http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1918298,00.html

that the HIG will be administered by the FBI and be provided
"strategic policy guidance" by the NSC should be considered
in context of "Three Letter Directive."
Note the usual sleight of hand in tossing out three letter agencies.
Good to see you are on your toes.

--Vic

Humorous Vic, but even your own reference states: "allowing the NSC
(which is essentially a White House arm) to have oversight of the HIG
might give Obama and future Presidents too much control..."

Why create more bureaucracy when we already have plenty in place? And
then place it under the control of the White House?

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:



Humorous Vic, but even your own reference states: "allowing the NSC
(which is essentially a White House arm) to have oversight of the HIG
might give Obama and future Presidents too much control..."

Why create more bureaucracy when we already have plenty in place? And
then place it under the control of the White House?

Don't have a conclusive answer, but I have heard time and time again
that the FBI has the most productive interrogation techniques of any
agency, and the CIA can't hold a candle to them. No expertise.
As far as bureaucracy, I've heard that all the outsourcing done in the
last 15 or so years just adds layers, and costs.
Couldn't believe the Army can't cook for itself, and Blackwater gets
hired for that at much more cost.
I'd like to see some cost numbers on what the CIA paid its contracted
"interrogators" versus what it would cost the FBI to do it.

--Vic

On Aug 25, 5:01*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:



Humorous Vic, but even your own reference states: "allowing the NSC
(which is essentially a White House arm) to have oversight of the HIG
might give Obama and future Presidents too much control..."

Why create more bureaucracy when we already have plenty in place? *And
then place it under the control of the White House?

Don't have a conclusive answer, but I have heard time and time again
that the FBI has the most productive interrogation techniques of any
agency, and the CIA can't hold a candle to them. *No expertise.

That may be true, but the FBI's results are far more public than the
CIA's. Since they are rivals and government agencies, we mere mortals
only hear what we are allowed to hear.

As far as bureaucracy, I've heard that all the outsourcing done in the
last 15 or so years just adds layers, and costs.
Couldn't believe the Army can't cook for itself, and Blackwater gets
hired for that at much more cost.
I'd like to see some cost numbers on what the CIA paid its contracted
"interrogators" versus what it would cost the FBI to do it.

All that is nice, but has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
We're not talking about outsourcing, we're talking about the current
admin creating a new agency, directly under its control, with the
supposed agenda of gathering high value intel. According to you, the
FBI is already capable of this, and with some marching orders they can
do it. No outsourcing involved.

What are we not being told? Why the new agency, with direct report to
the White House? This smells, and you know it.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:29:48 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Aug 25, 5:01Â*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:



Humorous Vic, but even your own reference states: "allowing the NSC
(which is essentially a White House arm) to have oversight of the HIG
might give Obama and future Presidents too much control..."

Why create more bureaucracy when we already have plenty in place? Â*And
then place it under the control of the White House?

Don't have a conclusive answer, but I have heard time and time again
that the FBI has the most productive interrogation techniques of any
agency, and the CIA can't hold a candle to them. Â*No expertise.

That may be true, but the FBI's results are far more public than the
CIA's. Since they are rivals and government agencies, we mere mortals
only hear what we are allowed to hear.

As far as bureaucracy, I've heard that all the outsourcing done in the
last 15 or so years just adds layers, and costs.
Couldn't believe the Army can't cook for itself, and Blackwater gets
hired for that at much more cost.
I'd like to see some cost numbers on what the CIA paid its contracted
"interrogators" versus what it would cost the FBI to do it.

All that is nice, but has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
We're not talking about outsourcing, we're talking about the current
admin creating a new agency, directly under its control, with the
supposed agenda of gathering high value intel. According to you, the
FBI is already capable of this, and with some marching orders they can
do it. No outsourcing involved.

What are we not being told? Why the new agency, with direct report to
the White House? This smells, and you know it.

*I'm* talking about outsourcing interrogation to amateurs, which is
what the Bush admin did.
HIG is defined as an "interagency team of interrogators" in the
article I posted. For all we know HIG interrogation teams will be
staffed by FBI pros, already on the payroll, so there's no need to
bring in highly paid civilian jomocas whose expertise is crowing
"I can make the SOB talk. Give me some water and a board and he'll
tell us exactly what we want to hear."
How come all of a sudden you want to know all the anti-terrorism
secrets?
And it doesn't smell to me, or worry me at all.
That's what opposing parties are for. I wish the Reps all the luck
the Dems had in protecting the interests of American citizens.
Whine away.
BTW, I'm opposed to selling the store to the executive, whatever the
party. So I want to hear the Reps whine at least as loud as the Dems
did. It'll be fun hearing the Dems call them traitors and terrorist
sympathizers too. And so it goes.
That's why America is great!

--Vic

On Aug 25, 3:45*pm, Jack wrote:
Sigh... one last time:

I wrote: "We now have a brand-new intelligence agency that reports

directly to the White House called the HIG. *Three letters, as in KGB.
Coincidence?"

You wrote: "your contention is that all 3 letter intelligence groups

are evil"

Then I pondered: "Wow... you took my comparison of the HIG to the KGB
as an assertion that *all* 3 letter intelligence groups are evil?!?"

Then you accused me of moving the goalposts? *I'll type slowly... I
compared the HIG to the KGB. *Not to any other agency.

well, no. you called it a '3 letter agency'. for right wing numerology
i realize this as high as you can count since it's the IQ of the most
intelligent right winger in the US....but the number seemed to have
some significance for you

*Not to "all"
three letter agencies. *Just the KGB. *"The KGB maintained the one-
party Soviet State by suppressing "ideological subversion" (political
dissent) and anti-Soviet public figures (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
Andrei Sakharov, et al.)." *That KGB.

Got it, nudnick?

let me know when your IQ reaches 2. always strive to better yourself!