|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2006 : 22:33:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
More qualified peoples then he were passed over, for an intelligence position!
Well, let's make one thing perfectly clear: the Intelligence Committee only has oversight, budgeting and very limited legislative power over the Intelligence Agencies, which are otherwise almost entirely run by the Executive Branch of the government. The IC does not and cannot make intelligence policy, nor does it get to direct intelligence activities on a daily basis. "CIA" doesn't stand for "Congressional Intelligence Agency."
The people who - without argument - should know the information that so many members of Congress didn't are Bush and his appointees to Homeland Security, the CIA, and other executive-branch groups. The IC will get such information when the executive screws up and the IC holds hearings to find out why. Or they won't, because many of them lack the necessary clearances to even hear the details. Whining about some lack of trivia knowledge on the part of the chairman of the IC really misses the big picture of who needs to know that information, and the idiot in charge of those people.quote:
I fail to see the rational behind the nominee.
On this, however, I'm sure you'll get little disagreement. From what I've seen, only Pelosi knows the reasons why she picked who she picked. But had she picked someone "more qualified" based upon the answers to a few questions, he/she would still be utterly worthless as a guarantor of good, solid intelligence work and an executive branch willing to make appropriate and rational use of the resultant data. The IC has no say in those aspects of our nation's intelligence activities, due to our Constitutional separation of powers.
Just what the heck do you expect of a "more qualified" chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, Bill? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 07:22:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Well, let's make one thing perfectly clear: the Intelligence Committee only has oversight, budgeting and very limited legislative power over the Intelligence Agencies,
I would not say, "only", when referring to budgeting. Wielding the money is a huge part of the game.
quote:
which are otherwise almost entirely run by the Executive Branch of the government. The IC does not and cannot make intelligence policy, nor does it get to direct intelligence activities on a daily basis. "CIA" doesn't stand for "Congressional Intelligence Agency."
Interesting. Thanks, Dave. But won't the IC be funding these agencies, therefor deciding who gets money and how much? I would then hope that they had, at least, a base knowledge of who the enemy is when divvying up these monies to our intelligence agencies.
quote:
The people who - without argument - should know the information that so many members of Congress didn't are Bush and his appointees to Homeland Security, the CIA, and other executive-branch groups. The IC will get such information when the executive screws up and the IC holds hearings to find out why. Or they won't, because many of them lack the necessary clearances to even hear the details. Whining about some lack of trivia knowledge on the part of the chairman of the IC really misses the big picture of who needs to know that information, and the idiot in charge of those people.
I give the Bush team 50/50 here. There was multinational intelligence all agreeing, to one degree or another, that Sadam had a WMD program and was not afraid to use it. This seemed to be general knowledge since the end of the first gulf war. That is why Clinton and Clinton dem's spoke of preemptive strikes on Iraq. Public support was not there in a pre-9/11 world so it never happened. Where the Bush team failed big time in policy is post war Iraq. To say the US military has lost, or is losing, in Iraq is insane. If naked aggression were our goal that country could have been under complete lockdown with in weeks. Where we have lost is in the nation building policy. We succeeded with this in Germany and Japan, but failed horrible in Iraq. If our goal was naked aggression we could unleash the full strength of the US military on that country and blow all the militias from here to the Nile. Now that might include many civilians but naked aggression does not care. No, we did not loose militarily, we lost the fight to build a democracy and a free market economy. Where the Bush team has won is homeland security. The fact that we have not been attacked again since 9/11, in spite of repeated vows and threats, speaks for itself in this area.
quote:
Just what the heck do you expect of a "more qualified" chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, Bill?
I would expect that a more qualified chairperson would have more merit and rational, when divvying up the monies through the proper chanels, don't you?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 07:25:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
quote:
But, even though you have STARTED several threads criticizing Dems, and even though you have yet to start even one thread criticizing the numerous and colossal blunders of the Repubs, you somehow are completely devoid of bias.
Mm-hmm, sure.
1. So now I have to start the thread in order for my criticism of pub's to count?
2. I have been critical of dem's and started a FEW threads because they are the ones taking over the hill and making all the questionable nominees. An ethically challenged majority leader and a flunky IC chairman to begin with.
quote:
Your debating technique is nothing more than "I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I?"
Debating technique? Give me an example, please. My point was/is that we just purged a pub house and senate because of questionable behavior and gave the keys to the opposing party. My message was/is, let's start holding our elected officials, from both sides of the isle, more accountable, and stop giving our preferred parties a free pass, on both sides. This message was meet with a Bush hate fest. Let give you a few examples:
"George W Bush didn't know the name of Mexico's foreign minister when he ran for president, but he was elected anyway."
Dr. Mabuse
"George Bush is one of the ignorant ones"
HalfMooner
"Bush and company, who were not up to speed on the issues,"
"After doggedly refusing to take the advice of experts who warned the Bush administration"
Kil
"Bush didn't know who led India or Pakistan either and those two countries have had near misses declaring war over Kashmir and they both have nuclear weapons."
beskeptical
"George W. Bush and the team he surrounds himself with are proven fuck-ups."
Gee Mac
"and the idiot in charge of those people. "
Dave W.
All but one was in the first 20 posts. Do I need to go on? May I remind you that the topic of the thread was the democratic nominee for IC leader and his knowledge, or lack there of, of the position. So I alleged that there might be some bias going around. Please show me where I have erred. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 09:59:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I would not say, "only", when referring to budgeting. Wielding the money is a huge part of the game.
Except that when it comes to intelligence activities, Congress doesn't get to appropriate money for particular activities (unless, perhaps, there are extreme circumstances). They're doing things like deciding how much money the entire CIA gets, not devoting money to particular CIA programs. And even then, the committee makes recommendations - the full Congress has to approve the final bills, after open debate.quote:
Interesting. Thanks, Dave. But won't the IC be funding these agencies, therefor deciding who gets money and how much? I would then hope that they had, at least, a base knowledge of who the enemy is when divvying up these monies to our intelligence agencies.
But it's just gross billions, and not "the CIA gets three million bucks to infiltrate Al Aqueda this year." The agency heads (executive-branch appointees) are the ones who take the big pile of money given to them by Congress and divvy it up for salaries, intelligence operations, the headquarters cafeteria, trash collection,etc.quote:
Where the Bush team failed big time in policy is post war Iraq.
The Bush team failed to appreciate what Bush's father did: there's no good way to get out, so we shouldn't have gone in.quote:
To say the US military has lost, or is losing, in Iraq is insane.
Now we're really drifting off-topic, but going into Iraq without a solid strategy for leaving was insane. Oh, and what would you call what happened in Anbar province?quote:
Where the Bush team has won is homeland security. The fact that we have not been attacked again since 9/11, in spite of repeated vows and threats, speaks for itself in this area.
Yeah, you've just gotta sweep Richard Reid, anthrax, the assassination of Lawrence Foley and the attacks on the USS Ashland and USS Kearsarge (for four examples) under the rug for that to be true.  Meanwhile, we're living with ridiculous "safety" provisions which do nothing but give us the appearance of security, while actually accomplishing nothing (like the proscriptions on "gels and liquids"). You're living under a magic spell, an illusion of security, Bill, and you should stop allowing people to delude you.quote:
quote:
Just what the heck do you expect of a "more qualified" chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, Bill?
I would expect that a more qualified chairperson would have more merit and rational, when divvying up the monies through the proper chanels, don't you?
No, I meant how would you expect someone who knew the trivia that the current pick didn't to better serve the citizens? How should a good pick for IC leadership divvy up money based upon data points like the predominance of one Islamic sect over another in one particular country? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2006 : 12:00:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Except that when it comes to intelligence activities, Congress doesn't get to appropriate money for particular activities (unless, perhaps, there are extreme circumstances). They're doing things like deciding how much money the entire CIA gets, not devoting money to particular CIA programs. And even then, the committee makes recommendations - the full Congress has to approve the final bills, after open debate.
Ok, but I would still ask the question, why pass over a more qualified candidate for a lesser, no matter how trivial the position up for nominee? If for nothing else this just shows me that the dem's pledge of no more of the same was just a nice campaign slogan. Passing over for a lessor with no explanation or reasoning offered appears to be politics as usual to most.
quote:
But it's just gross billions, and not "the CIA gets three million bucks to infiltrate Al Aqueda this year."
That would mean that the IC chairmen plays a big role in whither the CIA gets one billion or twenty billion, correct?
quote:
The agency heads (executive-branch appointees) are the ones who take the big pile of money given to them by Congress and divvy it up for salaries, intelligence operations, the headquarters cafeteria, trash collection,etc.
So the prez nominates these appointees?
quote:
The Bush team failed to appreciate what Bush's father did: there's no good way to get out, so we shouldn't have gone in.
I agree. And this goes back to my nation building point. We can't get out because our goal was/is to build a democratically elected government that can stabilize the country and stand on it's own two feet. Not simply defeat Sadam and his henchmen and then destroy any WMD program leaving the country in sambles as we exit. We could have accomplished that feat in months. Again, if our goal were to simply take over the country with naked aggression and then rule it we could have been finished years ago. If one of these radical clerics and his militia act up we go in a flatten the whole town. If it takes more the once so be it. Sooner or later the rest will fall into line and we own the country. The task we took on is infinitely more complex then simple military victory. To bring democracy to the ME. In hindsight an apparent pipe dream.
quote:
Now we're really drifting off-topic, but going into Iraq without a solid strategy for leaving was insane.
They had a strategy, it just failed. It was to support the new Iraq government until they could stand on their own two feet and stabilize their own country. As they stand up we stand down. At this point the insane part seems to be the idea of this Government ever getting a hold of the country and being able to stabilize it. Hence the Americans have to stay to try and do their job, stabilize the country. I believe the only way we can do this right now is through unbridled brut force. Of course the repercussions here would be the extreme price the general Iraq public would pay with this type of policy in place.
quote:
Oh, and what would you call what happened in Anbar province?
I am not sure what your referring to.
quote:
quote:
Where the Bush team has won is homeland security. The fact that we have not been attacked again since 9/11, in spite of repeated vows and threats, speaks for itself in this area.
Yeah, you've just gotta sweep Richard Reid,
I suppose I should have clarified, a successful attack.
quote:
anthrax,
This has not been a major issue since 2001 and we still don't know if this was international terrorism or a disgruntled government employee.
quote:
the assassination of Lawrence Foley
When I said Homeland Security I guess I just assumed that this implied attacks on the homeland. If you want to live in Jordan as an employee of the US government then there will be up front risks that come with the position.
quote:
and the attacks on the USS Ashland and USS Kearsarge (for four examples) under the rug for that to be true.
When I said Homeland Security I guess I just assumed that this implied attacks on the homeland. Besides, these were military targets that were abroad.
quote:
Meanwhile, we're living with ridiculous "safety" provisions which do nothing but give us the appearance of security, while actually accomplishing nothing (like the proscriptions on "gels and liquids"). You're living under a magic spell, an illusion of security, Bill, and you should stop allowing people to delude you.
The fact that we have had no major terrorist attacks on the homeland since 9/11 speaks louder to me then your unfounded accusations do. Can you give me some examples of all the ridiculous safety provisions that you have had to put up with since 9/11 in return for no more major attacks?
quote:
No, I meant how would you expect someone who knew the trivia that the current pick didn't to better serve the citizens? How should a good pick for IC leadership divvy up money based upon data points like the predominance of one Islamic sect over another in one particular country?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2006 : 00:47:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Ok, but I would still ask the question, why pass over a more qualified candidate for a lesser, no matter how trivial the position up for nominee? If for nothing else this just shows me that the dem's pledge of no more of the same was just a nice campaign slogan. Passing over for a lessor with no explanation or reasoning offered appears to be politics as usual to most.
As I said, you'd get little argument over that. Why do you appear to be refusing to acknowledge agreement on that point?quote:
quote:
But it's just gross billions, and not "the CIA gets three million bucks to infiltrate Al Aqueda this year."
That would mean that the IC chairmen plays a big role in whither the CIA gets one billion or twenty billion, correct?
Only if you ignore the fact that the leader doesn't just get to pick a number, but has to negotiate with the other committee members. And then only if you ignore the fact that the whole Congress votes on spending bills, not just the committees. The idea that budgeting falls to just one person is ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that the person who submits a budget to Congress is the President.quote:
quote:
The agency heads (executive-branch appointees) are the ones who take the big pile of money given to them by Congress and divvy it up for salaries, intelligence operations, the headquarters cafeteria, trash collection,etc.
So the prez nominates these appointees?
Yeah, and they're approved by the Senate. You know, you really should understand the basic functionality of the government before you make a big stink about one guy who may or may not do an adequate job among his hundreds of coworkers.quote:
quote:
The Bush team failed to appreciate what Bush's father did: there's no good way to get out, so we shouldn't have gone in.
I agree. And this goes back to my nation building point. We can't get out because our goal was/is to build a democratically elected government that can stabilize the country and stand on it's own two feet. Not simply defeat Sadam and his henchmen and then destroy any WMD program leaving the country in sambles as we exit. We could have accomplished that feat in months. Again, if our goal were to simply take over the country with naked aggression and then rule it we could have been finished years ago. If one of these radical clerics and his militia act up we go in a flatten the whole town. If it takes more the once so be it. Sooner or later the rest will fall into line and we own the country. The task we took on is infinitely more complex then simple military victory. To bring democracy to the ME. In hindsight an apparent pipe dream.
Go find the reasons for going in back in early 2003. It was not to bring democracy to the Middle East. It was only to protect the U.S. from Saddam's alleged WMDs. And even that was just an excuse to implement war plans created years earlier. The pipe dream is that there's been this pipe-dream goal from the beginning.quote:
quote:
Now we're really drifting off-topic, but going into Iraq without a solid strategy for leaving was insane.
They had a strategy, it just failed.
A solid strategy shouldn't have failed.quote:
It was to support the new Iraq government until they could stand on their own two feet and stabilize their own country. As they stand up we stand down.
That wasn't the strategy they went in with.quote:
At this point the insane part seems to be the idea of this Government ever getting a hold of the country and being able to stabilize it. Hence the Americans have to stay to try and do their job, stabilize the country. I believe the only way we can do this right now is through unbridled brut force. Of course the repercussions here would be the extreme price the general Iraq public would pay with this type of policy in place.
And the U.S. public, too. Pissing off the entire world is not sound policy for keeping one's citizens safe.quote:
quote:
Oh, and what would you call what happened in Anbar province?
I am not sure what your referring to.
Just the fact that the military has said that Anbar is lost.quote:
quote:
Yeah, you've just gotta sweep Richard Reid,
I suppose I should have clarified, a successful attack.quote:
anthrax,
This has not been a major issue since 2001 and we still don't know if this was international terrorism or a disgruntled government employee.quote:
the assassination of Lawrence Foley
When I said Homeland Security I guess I just assumed that this implied attacks on the homeland. If you want to live in Jordan as an employee of the US government then there will be up front risks t |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2006 : 03:02:05 [Permalink]
|
Considering the incredible incompetence as evidenced by the results of the "Bush team", Bill, I find your view to be the typical denial I hear from most Bush supporters. Claiming everyone else was just as bad is an ego saving brain reflex called rationalization.
This administration blew it big time. No one else comes close. No one else made these incredible blunders in foreign policy in my adult lifetime. I can't say "ever" not being knowledgeable enough about history. But I can say your comparisons to Clinton are pure BS.
And this statement, "No, we did not loose militarily, we lost the fight to build a democracy and a free market economy. Where the Bush team has won is homeland security. The fact that we have not been attacked again since 9/11, in spite of repeated vows and threats, speaks for itself in this area." is nonsense!
First, with the dead troops about to cross the 3,000 mark, we have no military victory. All you are looking at is we can bomb the shit out of them and they can't fly MIGs over the US. That ain't no military victory. We leave and all is lost. We stay and nothing is won. Your claim that the nation building was lost but military victory occurred is meaningless. There is no victory and there ain't likely gonna be a victory of any kind.
Then there is the BS claim of no homeland attacks. So what? There have been attacks in both London and Spain. What makes you think we're so safe here? We aren't. It's only a matter of time. And you can bet Bush will blame everyone but himself when that happens.
The Middle East is about to blow up into world war three for real. Hamas and the PLO are fighting. Saudi Arabia threatens to back the Sunnis, Iran the Shiites. Pakistan has no control over the border region with Afghanistan and the Taliban are gaining power again. The Taliban may get enough power to threaten Musharif and those nukes aren't leaving with him when he flees.
Do you honestly think this gives us any homeland security? Are you that short sighted?
Time to plan for the coming oil crisis. I'm wondering how much I should invest in solar panels for the house or just save the money to live off for a few years should I not be able to drive anywhere. Of course that means there won't be any affordable food in the stores either since we're so dependent on the trucking distribution system.
I don't know about you, but I certainly don't feel very safe in my "homeland" considering the incredible mess Bush has turned the Middle East into. Or you can claim allowed to turn into if you want to throw some of the blame on the inhabitants of the region. I'll go that far. But there ain't no security in this country right now and it doesn't look like there will be any time soon.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 12/16/2006 03:20:20 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2006 : 07:20:26 [Permalink]
|
The only thing left I have to add is about the point of "more qualified people." That ranks in with my general disgust wth the political system.
How many of you know at least one person that could be a damn fine politician if they wanted to bother with sullying themselves in the system?
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2006 : 15:50:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Ok, but I would still ask the question, why pass over a more qualified candidate for a lesser, no matter how trivial the position up for nominee?
Who gets to decide what qualities are necessary? You?
Holding a top position in an organisation (no matter what they do) requires leadership and administrative qualities. I'm considered one of the top trouble-shooters at my work, thanks to my critical thinking skills and general electronics. I pass the internal certification tests with flying colours, but the head of the factory cannot quote Kirchoff's second law, and the CEO of Ericsson probably doesn't even know Ohm's law. That doesn't make me more qualified to run the plant, or even Ericsson (or SONY/Ericsson, the cell phone manufacturer)
If Reyes have qualities in leadership and administration, so what if he lacks in certain details right now? He can get up to speed on that once he takes the position. Leadership and administration are much more important skills for his position. Until you prove otherwise, I'll consider you full of hot air, and definitely biased with a purpose to smear Democrats.
However, if you can find a candidate who is a better leader and administrator than Reyes, and at the same time also know more about security-related issues, then I will agree that Pelosi may have made a bad choice. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2006 : 01:04:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
The only thing left I have to add is about the point of "more qualified people." That ranks in with my general disgust wth the political system.
How many of you know at least one person that could be a damn fine politician if they wanted to bother with sullying themselves in the system?
Peace
Joe
That's part of it but the other part is campaigning and fundraising are what candidates do. So you get fundraisers and campaigners elected rather than qualified leaders. We need a system that actually looks at candidates resumes rather than their sound bites.
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2006 : 10:38:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
The only thing left I have to add is about the point of "more qualified people." That ranks in with my general disgust wth the political system.
How many of you know at least one person that could be a damn fine politician if they wanted to bother with sullying themselves in the system?
Peace
Joe
That's part of it but the other part is campaigning and fundraising are what candidates do. So you get fundraisers and campaigners elected rather than qualified leaders. We need a system that actually looks at candidates resumes rather than their sound bites.
A big AMEN.
However, people don't want reality, they want soundbites. They want to consider themselves imformed after watching the begining of the new (before the important stuff like what Brad is doing with Angelina, or what Jessica was wearing, and the sport of course).
Hell, we are in a war, and it's pretty much business as usual....
Also...
Don't get to overworried about an oil crisis perse...
THere is more then enough oil in the ground in the US to keep critical things flowing with the building of a few refineries. We could keep all of us mobilating with enough refineries.......
I am not saying that it is desirable to do so. I do think we need more refinery capability in the US to be more self-sufficient, but at the same time we need to break the addiction to oil. Solar panels are a great idea, but not too cost-effectve at this time.
I don't believe for a second we couldn't. During the drain of WWII, we still managed the Manhatten Project at a comparable price of about 40 billion.
But Americans want their freedom to mobilate. Most don't want the inconviences of mass-transit. They want the ability to go where they want go when they want to go. If they build it, will they come? Even with gas at 5+ dollars a gallon? Some will, but a lot will bitch about the gas being $5 a gallon, without caring to know the reason why, or caring even if they do.
We are like drunks on our last hurrah, trying to stretch it out while looking at the bottom getting closer, but not caring to stop it.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2006 : 17:17:40 [Permalink]
|
Although off-topic, I would like to point out something on the topic of homeland security. If you look at the London bombings, they were committed by radical muslims from within England. They were english citizens, subjected to the indoctrination of radical islamic clerics. The last time I was in America, none of the visible measures taken by homeland security help against such an attack in any way. Unless there is a crack-down on islamic extremism in mosques in the USA, such an attack could happen anywhere in the USA at any time.
I would agree that there have not been any really major terrorist attacks in the USA since 9-11. However, when saying that the homeland security has done a good job you imply that there also have been attempts. Sure, there have been threats made, but have those also resulted in attempts? I don't know. I know we have had quite a few of those threats, quite serious ones also, in the Netherlands. Nothing has happened, but whether that means that the attempts were defused or that there were no attempts, only threats, I really cannot tell. At this point, with all the attention of the muslim world aimed for a large part in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that despite a lot of threats, no real attempts to something big have really been made. At this point, they have a war to fight at homefront. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 08:12:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
quote:
Ok, but I would still ask the question, why pass over a more qualified candidate for a lesser, no matter how trivial the position up for nominee? If for nothing else this just shows me that the dem's pledge of no more of the same was just a nice campaign slogan. Passing over for a lessor with no explanation or reasoning offered appears to be politics as usual to most.
As I said, you'd get little argument over that. Why do you appear to be refusing to acknowledge agreement on that point?
I am not refusing. I offered praise to beskeptical when she/he said she/he was writing Nancy on this. I only continued to "argue" when I got a bombardment of responses attacking GWB off topic, rather then addressing the questionable behavior of the speaker, which was the topic. I am not a Bush apologist, so attacking the pubs will not divert me from the topic of the thread.
quote:
quote:
That would mean that the IC chairmen plays a big role in whither the CIA gets one billion or twenty billion, correct?
Only if you ignore the fact that the leader doesn't just get to pick a number, but has to negotiate with the other committee members. And then only if you ignore the fact that the whole Congress votes on spending bills, not just the committees. The idea that budgeting falls to just one person is ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that the person who submits a budget to Congress is the President.
I never said one person decides the whole budget. So I agree, that's ludicrous. Never the less, the leader would still decide, or at least influence, whether to start the negotiating at one or twenty billion, correct?
quote:
You know, you really should understand the basic functionality of the government before you make a big stink about one guy
Why do you hold me to these standards (basic understanding of the issues), while chatting on a backwoods internet forum, when you seem to defend this (not having a basic understanding of the issues) when it comes to our elected officials and their nominated positions?
quote:
who may or may not do an adequate job among his hundreds of coworkers.
So why not just throw a monkey in there? I am sure we can pay him a lot less. And bananas are all you would need for a good bribe.
quote:
Go find the reasons for going in back in early 2003. It was not to bring democracy to the Middle East. It was only to protect the U.S. from Saddam's alleged WMDs.
Installing democracy was not the reason and the WMD's were, I agree. Installing the deomocracy was the exit stradighy after the WMD's and Saddam were gone. And how many separate international intelligence agencies offered up this alleged WMD program of Saddam's before going to war?
quote:
And even that was just an excuse to implement war plans created years earlier.
Why did Clinton and Clinton dems speak of preemptive strikes on Iraq from 1992-2000?
quote:
A solid strategy shouldn't have failed.
I agree, but your claim was that they had no strategy. I pointed out that they had a strategy, but it was a failed one.
quote:
quote:
It was to support the new Iraq government until they could stand on their own two feet and stabilize their own country. As they stand up we stand down.
That wasn't the strategy they went in with.
So what exit strategy did Bush give to congress before they signed off on his war?
quote:
Just the fact that the military has said that Anbar is lost.
Lost to what, sectarian violence? The whole country is.
quote:
quote:
I suppose I should have clarified, a successful attack.
This has not been a major issue since 2001 and we still don't know if this was international terrorism or a disgruntled government employee.
When I said Homeland Security I guess I just assumed that this implied attacks on the homeland. If you want to live in Jordan as an employee of the US government then there will be up front risks that come with the position.
When I said Homeland Security I guess I just assumed that this implied attacks on the homeland. Besides, these were military targets that were abroad.
And above we see all the excuses you're making, Bill. You claimed it was a fact that "we have not been attacked again since 9/11," but we have. And now you're just backpedalling away from your claim, trying frantically to move the goalposts.
Franticly? Stop it, just stop it. Your making me laugh. Try defining it, rather then moving it. Least you bring up the guy from down the street, who beat up his wife, as an example of how Bush, and his homeland security, have failed to prevent a terrorist attack on US soil.
quote:
But the fact is that U.S. warships are U.S. territory (and the g |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 12:58:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So why not just throw a monkey in there? I am sure we can pay him a lot less. And bananas are all you would need for a good bribe.
You've had one for president for 6 years, and look where that got you: a disaster in Irak and alianating almost every country on planet earth.
Sorry, this is off topic, but when you throw me a soft-ball like this I just cannot help myself but take a swing...
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2006 : 13:18:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
So why not just throw a monkey in there? I am sure we can pay him a lot less. And bananas are all you would need for a good bribe.
You've had one for president for 6 years, and look where that got you: a disaster in Irak and alianating almost every country on planet earth.
Sorry, this is off topic, but when you throw me a soft-ball like this I just cannot help myself but take a swing...
He does resemble a monkey in many of his characters passed along on the internet. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
