Oh, no, not this again....

[irishjayhawk]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/30/AR2008063001940.html?hpid=sec-nation

A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb.

The onetime undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.

The former operative alleged in a 2004 lawsuit that the CIA fired him after he repeatedly clashed with senior managers over his attempts to file reports that challenged the conventional wisdom about weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Key details of his claim have not been made public because they describe events the CIA deems secret.

The consensus view on Iran's nuclear program shifted dramatically last December with the release of a landmark intelligence report that concluded that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons design in 2003. The publication of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran undermined the CIA's rationale for censoring the former officer's lawsuit, said his attorney, Roy Krieger.

"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all," Krieger said in an interview.

In court documents and in statements by his attorney, the former officer contends that his 22-year CIA career collapsed after he questioned CIA doctrine about the nuclear programs of Iraq and Iran. As a native of the Middle East and a fluent speaker of both Farsi and Arabic, he had been assigned undercover work in the Persian Gulf region, where he successfully recruited an informant with access to

sensitive information about Iran's nuclear program, Krieger said.

The informant provided secret evidence that Tehran had halted its research into designing and building a nuclear weapon. Yet, when the operative sought to file reports on the findings, his attempts were "thwarted by CIA employees," according to court papers. Later he was told to "remove himself from any further handling" of the informant, the documents say.

In the months after the conflict, the operative became the target of two internal investigations, one of them alleging an improper sexual relationship with a female informant, and the other alleging financial improprieties. Krieger said his client cooperated with investigators in both cases and the allegations of wrongdoing were never substantiated. Krieger contends in court documents that the investigations were a "pretext to discredit."

Krieger maintains that his client is being further punished by the agency's decision prohibiting him from fully regaining his identity. "He is not even allowed to attend court hearings about his own case," Krieger said.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment on the specifics of the case but flatly rejected the allegation that the agency had suppressed reports. "It would be wrong to suggest that agency managers direct their officers to falsify the intelligence they collect or to suppress it for political reasons," he said. "That's not our policy. That's not what we're about."

[Mr. Kotter]

He said, he said.... :shrug:

:rolleyes:

[Adept Havelock]

Second verse, same as the first. :shake:

Hopefully, there will be considerably more pushback the next time an administration tries to force a specific preconceived result from the intelligence community.

I find it interesting they brought internal investigations against him, both of which were dismissed as unsubstantiated.

[irishjayhawk]

He said, he said.... :shrug:

:rolleyes:

What reason do you have to believe a 22 year old CIA operative isn't telling the truth?

It's not like he went along with it and then wrote a book. Like McClellan.

[Taco John]

He said, he said.... :shrug:

:rolleyes:



What's funny to me is that you were so outraged over a blow job....

[Adept Havelock]

What reason do you have to believe a 22 year old CIA operative isn't telling the truth?

It's not like he went along with it and then wrote a book. Like McClellan.

He's a 22 year operative, not a 22 year old operative.

Kotter doesn't want to believe that an administration would attempt to force the intelligence community to give a result that matches their preconceived notions, I suspect. That might mean the intel was "cooked" to rationalize a policy that was going to be carried out anyway.

What's funny to me is that you were so outraged over a blow job....

That wasn't business. That was personal. [/M. Corleone]

[Mr. Kotter]

What's funny to me is that you were so outraged over a blow job....


I guess rule of law, perjury, and obstruction of justice....means nothing, as long as the aggrieved is from a "trailer park," eh? :shrug:

I mean, afterall....it only took 3/4 of $1 million to "shut" up that Ho, right? ;)


I'm sure your "God" would be very proud of you.

[irishjayhawk]

He's a 22 year operative, not a 22 year old operative.

Kotter doesn't want to believe that an administration would attempt to force the intelligence community to give a result that matches their preconceived notions, I suspect. That might mean the intel was "cooked" to rationalize a policy that was going to be carried out anyway.



That wasn't business. That was personal. [/M. Corleone]

That's what I meant but not what I typed.

[irishjayhawk]

I guess rule of law, perjury, and obstruction of justice....means nothing, as long as the aggrieved is from a "trailer park," eh? :shrug:

I mean, afterall....it only took 3/4 of $1 million to "shut" up that Ho, right? ;)


I'm sure your "God" would be very proud of you.

But how did we get to all of that? Because we pursued a president BECAUSE OF A BLOW JOB.

[Adept Havelock]

That's what I meant but not what I typed.

NP.

[Mr. Kotter]

He's a 22 year operative, not a 22 year old operative.

Kotter doesn't want to believe that an administration would attempt to force the intelligence community to give a result that matches their preconceived notions, I suspect. That might mean the intel was "cooked" to rationalize a policy that was going to be carried out anyway.



That wasn't business. That was personal. [/M. Corleone]

You and TJ are reading WAY too much into my response; I'm merely waiting until I hear all the evidence....both sides.

I know the whole, "innocent, until proven guilty thing" is so passe'...especially when our political "enemies" are the target of accusations, but I guess I'm old-fashioned that way....

:)

[irishjayhawk]

You and TJ are reading WAY too much into my response; I'm merely waiting until I hear all the evidence....both sides.

I know the whole, "innocent, until proven guilty thing" is so passe'...especially when our political "enemies" are the target of accusations, but I guess I'm old-fashioned that way....

:)

Well, considering society has adopted the "guilty until proven innocent" mantra, I don't think it's passe' any more.

[Mr. Kotter]

But how did we get to all of that? Because we pursued a president BECAUSE OF A BLOW JOB.


No, it was because of a....valid, and ultimately vindicated....SEXUAL HARRASSMENT suit in civil court.

Damn, for a lawyer, Bill wasn't too bright afterall, was he??? :shrug:

;)

[Mr. Kotter]

Well, considering society has adopted the "guilty until proven innocent" mantra, I don't think it's passe' any more.

For political enemies, I'd agree....it does seem most of us have adopted the "guilty until proven innocent" standard, haven't we?

Too bad; cause we are worse, as a nation, because of it IMHO.

[irishjayhawk]

For political enemies, I'd agree....it does seem most of us have adopted the "guilty until proven innocent" standard, haven't we?

Too bad; cause we are worse, as a nation, because of it IMHO.

It's not even all political. The most striking example of that message being adopted is in the entertainment business. With the anti-piracy videos playing before a legally purchased video and the RIAA itself....

[Mr. Kotter]

It's not even all political. The most striking example of that message being adopted is in the entertainment business. With the anti-piracy videos playing before a legally purchased video and the RIAA itself....

Technology makes things difficult, don't it? I still think ultimately, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution....as it should.

Except when it comes to politics, of course; accusations are proof...in the 24/7 world of cable news, partisan nutjob/moonbat websites, and the internet, eh? BOTH sides are guilty as hell..... :shrug:

:shake:

[banyon]

No, it was because of a....valid, and ultimately vindicated....SEXUAL HARRASSMENT suit in civil court.



Clinton was not found by a court to have sexually harassed Paula Jones.

[WoodDraw]

I can't imagine a scenario where a covert CIA agent suing the agency can be considered a positive. Regardless of who is right, they need to get their shit together. When these things get played out in the media, some one is not doing his job.

[CRONUS]

I guess rule of law, perjury, and obstruction of justice....means nothing, as long as the aggrieved is from a "trailer park," eh? :shrug:

I mean, afterall....it only took 3/4 of $1 million to "shut" up that Ho, right? ;)


I'm sure your "God" would be very proud of you.Well, now we are insulting other peoples devoutness to their God. That might be a new standard for low conduct.

[Mr. Kotter]

Clinton was not found by a court to have sexually harassed Paula Jones.


Nah, he just paid $800,000 to make the case "go away," cause he felt "sorry" for her.... :rolleyes:

[Mr. Kotter]

Well, now we are insulting other peoples devoutness to their God. That might be a new standard for low conduct.

If you honestly think that, Jim...GFY (good for you, FTR...heh)

Otherwise, you're stirrin' shit with the wrong guy.

TJ's self-righteous and transparent hypocritical pious bullshit has become a joke to everyone on the board, except fellow trolls and shit-stirrers. You know, like you, Zach, PG, me, and the ilk....FTR, you've admitted you are a "shit-stirrer."

[banyon]

Nah, he just paid $800,000 to make the case "go away," cause he felt "sorry" for her.... :rolleyes:

Well, it's not "vindicated" like you said, though I agree that you can draw some informal inferences from settlements.

[Mr. Kotter]

Well, it's not "vindicated" like you said, though I agree that you can draw some informal inferences from settlements.

Democratic/Liberal rationalization. ;)

Exhibit #1, though I appreciate your qualifier and candor....

[Adept Havelock]

You and TJ are reading WAY too much into my response; I'm merely waiting until I hear all the evidence....both sides.

I know the whole, "innocent, until proven guilty thing" is so passe'...especially when our political "enemies" are the target of accusations, but I guess I'm old-fashioned that way....

:)

Bul**hit. [/cough]

[Taco John]

I guess rule of law, perjury, and obstruction of justice....means nothing, as long as the aggrieved is from a "trailer park," eh? :shrug:

I mean, afterall....it only took 3/4 of $1 million to "shut" up that Ho, right? ;)


I'm sure your "God" would be very proud of you.


Are you on acid or something?

[CRONUS]

If you honestly think that, Jim...GFY.

Otherwise, you're stirrin' shit with the wrong guy.

TJ's self-righteous and transparent hypocritical pious bullshit has become a joke to everyone on the board, except fellow trolls and shit-stirrers. You know, like you, Zach, PG, and the ilk....You know when you group people as ilk you have not exactly distinguished anything. If I am grouped with Zach and TJ I have no problem with that, I have no idea who PG is so:spock:.

[Mr. Kotter]

Are you on acid or something?

Crack. And Meth. Damn teacher salary, you know. Heh.

Shots of tequila also.

Oh, and PCP too.

Aren't you impressed I can still type?

;)


LMAO

[banyon]

You know when you group people as ilk you have not exactly distinguished anything. If I am grouped with Zach and TJ I have no problem with that, I have no idea who PG is so:spock:.

Pitt Gorilla, I think.

[Mr. Kotter]

Pitt Gorilla, I think.

We have a WINNER!!! PBJ

;)

[irishjayhawk]

So, Kotter, you are not in the least going to admit any slight feeling that somewhere along the line the administration tried to falsify things for propaganda use?

[Taco John]

Nah, he just paid $800,000 to make the case "go away," cause he felt "sorry" for her.... :rolleyes:



I'm not going to defend Bill, but I will attack your bullshit rationalization.

We have an employee suing our company right now for racial descrimination. The guy did nothing all day but work on his get rich quick schemes, surf porn, and suck up to the boss.

Right now, the cost of court are to the point where it might just make more sense to pay him off and make him go away. It's not becuase we feel sorry for him. It's because we need to stop the bleeding and focus on our business.

Bill looks as guilty as hell. But under your stated philosophy in this thread, he is innocent until proven guilty. Of course, nobody believes that you really believe that. You're a shallow pool.

[CRONUS]

Pitt Gorilla, I think.That is a pretty great group, no wonder he edited his post to add himself.

[Dave Lane]

What's funny to me is that you were so outraged over a blow job....

Maybe he doesn't like blowjobs :p Or maybe it was because Clinton lied. At least Bush brought us a presidency with honor and they never lied to us.

Dave

[irishjayhawk]

Maybe he doesn't like blowjobs :p Or maybe it was because he lied. At least Bush brought us a presidency with honor and they never lied to us.

Dave

It isn't a life IF [/patteeu]

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm not going to defend Bill, but I will attack your bullshit rationalization.

We have an employee suing our company right now for racial descrimination. The guy did nothing all day but work on his get rich quick schemes, surf porn, and suck up to the boss.

Right now, the cost of court are to the point where it might just make more sense to pay him off and make him go away. It's not becuase we feel sorry for him. It's because we need to stop the bleeding and focus on our business.

Bill looks as guilty as hell. But under your stated philosophy in this thread, he is innocent until proven guilty. Of course, nobody believes that you really believe that. You're a shallow pool.


Yeah, selling out the "truth" for expediency is a reasonable rationalization to morally grounded folks. :rolleyes:

If you "settle," you have admitted guilt. Anyone with an ounce of integrity understands that. Period.

You fight until the end...especially when you CAN afford it. Not being able to afford it, literally, is the ONLY excuse for knuckling to extortion.

[Adept Havelock]

That is a pretty great group, no wonder he edited his post to add himself.
LMAO Nice catch.

Yeah, selling out the "truth" for expediency is a reasonable rationalization to morally grounded folks. :rolleyes:

If you "settle," you have admitted guilt. Anyone with an ounce of integrity understands that. Period.

You fight until the end...especially when you CAN afford it. Not being able to afford it, literally, is the ONLY excuse for knuckling to extortion.


You really are delusional tonight. Why on earth would TJ's company keep throwing money down the hole when it's becoming a distraction to the business at hand? Why wouldn't Clinton do the same? To fight it for fightings sake? Puh-leeze. :shake:

Right, how could I forget your misapprehension of moral superiority gives you a perspective unaccessible to us mere mortals. LMAO

If you "settle', the only thing you are admitting is it's not worth the hassle.

Your feeling of personal betrayal by Billy Boy is seriously clouding your judgment on that one.

[Mr. Kotter]

So, Kotter, you are not in the least going to admit any slight feeling that somewhere along the line the administration tried to falsify things for propaganda use?

Falsify? Maybe. But where's the indictment and conviction? :shrug:

And, frankly, how is it any different, really, from any previous administration from either side of the isle.....the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, TR's "Big Stick" foreign policy, Wilson's forray to Mexico City, FDR's ignoring evidence of the Holocaust, Eisenhower's escalation in Vietnam, Kennedy's reneging on promises to Cuban Nationalists, or LBJ's wink-and-nod to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

Welcome to the "Imperial Presidency." I don't necessarily like it, but it ain't nothing new....unless you didn't pay attention in history class. :shrug:

[Mr. Kotter]

You really are delusional tonight. Why on earth would TJ's company keep throwing money down the hole when it's becoming a distraction to the business at hand? Why wouldn't Clinton do the same? To fight it for fightings sake? Puh-leeze. :shake:

Right, how could I forget your misapprehension of moral superiority gives you a perspective unaccessible to us mere mortals. LMAO

If you "settle', the only thing you are admitting is it's not worth the hassle.

Your feeling of personal betrayal by Billy Boy is seriously clouding your judgment on that one.


Welcome to the world of moral relativism.

Money is more important than honor and integrity. :thumb:

:rolleyes:

[Adept Havelock]

Welcome to the world of moral relativism.

Money is more important than honor and integrity. :thumb:

:rolleyes:

Money? It's merely one of a number of considerations. Also time, emotional investment, and such when it becomes a detriment to accomplishing more important goals. Sorry, I don't see the point in ruining a company just to prove some fool's half-baked definition of "Honor and Integrity". If someone is pulling what is happening to TJ's business with yours, and it's your own business, I suppose it's worthwhile to ruin your business and manner of providing for your family just to stand on that point and not "settle".

Careful Kotter, if you don't think it's worth ruining your business, the way you provide for your family, etc. , that's "Moral Relativism". ;)

If you're foolish enough to believe that "Settling" automatically equals an admission of guilt, you're far more deluded than I thought.

As for Moral Relativism, that's what you just spent post #37 defending. I guess it's OK, as long as your name doesn't end in Clinton. LMAO

Seriously, your feeling of betrayal by Clinton leaves you completely unable to look at this issue rationally.

As for your so-called Moral Absolutism, you're welcome to it. Unlike you, I'm intelligent enough to recognize that a crime in one society might be a moral "requirement" in another. So stick that in your meth pipe and smoke it. :D

[CRONUS]

Maybe he doesn't like blowjobs :p Or maybe it was because Clinton lied. At least Bush brought us a presidency with honor and they never lied to us.

Dave
Nah Kotter is just jealous of Bill, because he has never had a BJ.LMAO

[Mr. Kotter]

Money? Nope. Just time, emotional investment, and such when it becomes a detriment to accomplishing more important goals.

If your foolish enough to believe that "Settling" automatically equals an admission of guilt, you're far more deluded than I thought.

As for Moral Relativism, that's what you just spent post #37 defending. I guess it's OK, as long as your name doesn't end in Clinton. LMAO

Seriously, your feeling of betrayal leaves you completely unable to look at this issue rationally.

For folks with integrity and the resources available to allow lawyers to defend their honor in court....."settling" is purely and simply an admission of guilt, IMHO.

Period. :)

Rationalizations about "emotion" and 'energy' spent....are nothing more than that: rationalizations. Emotion and energy is such conversations are nothing more than euphemisms, for "money."

"I want dis chit to go away....cause it crampin' my style, man. Legally, I is guilty; how can I claim....I was not found "guilty"---oh, hell yeah, man....I is gonna just pay da damn Ho/"Liar. Word, bitch?"

#37 was NOT about "moral relativism;" it was about innocent until proven guilty, about benefit of the doubt, and about.....due process. Those things use to mean something in this country.

:shrug:



Good Night, AH.

;)

[Mr. Kotter]

Nah Kotter is just jealous of Bill, because he has never had a BJ.LMAO

Heh.

Or maybe her "skillz" is one of the many reasons why I am still married to the woman I married? :shrug:

Honestly, at this point....I understand I'm lucky; and consider it a fringe benefit of choosing well.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jimbo. Heh.


:hmmm:

[Adept Havelock]

For folks with integrity and the resources available to allow lawyers to defend their honor in court....."settling" is purely and simply an admission of guilt, IMHO.

Period. :)

Rationalizations about "emotion" and 'energy' spent....are nothing more than that: rationalizations. Emotion and energy is such conversations are nothing more than euphemisms, for "


That would be hilarious, if I didn't believe you're actually convinced that's the truth. :shake: Since you refused to address the example, I suppose you're willing to throw away everything, including your family's economic well being, just to avoid "settling". Damn, I'm glad I can't comprehend that kind of crazed self-righteousness. I guess I had you (wrongly) figured as more of a pragmatist than that. Actually, I suspect you are when it comes to anyone whose name doesn't end in "Clinton". :D



#37 was NOT about "moral relativism;" it was about innocent until proven guilty, about benefit of the doubt, and about.....due process. Those things use to mean something in this country.

:shrug:

Partly. It was also about "those other administrations did wrong, so it must be OK if this one does too", which is what most self-righteous morally absolute (fools, IMO) proclaim is "Moral Relativism". ;)


Good Night, AH.

Back at ya, Kotter.

;)

[Mr. Kotter]

That would be hilarious, if I didn't believe you're actually convinced that's the truth. :shake: Since you refused to address the example, I suppose you're willing to throw away everything, including your family's economic well being, just to avoid "settling"...

Wow. You are presuming that the case that TJ mentioned, and that Bill's case would have meant...."throw away everything, including [their] families well-being???"

:eek:

My, funny how "frivilous" and "unfounded" civil cases (which you are inferring here) can present such a threat to folks who, financially, are pretty well off. Not to mention that bankruptcy laws in this country [I]do not allow the sort of raping of one's estate that you are suggesting.....

Projection? Or rationalization? Or moral relativism?

"Alex, how about....all of the above for 400?"

:hmmm:

Night, AH. And THIS time I mean it...damn it. ;)

[CRONUS]

Heh.

Or maybe her "skillz" is one of the many reasons why I am still married to the woman I married? :shrug:

Honestly, at this point....I understand I'm lucky; and consider it a fringe benefit of choosing well.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Jimbo. Heh.


:hmmm:Well I guess someone is sensitive tonight, that one was meant as a joke. I really did not think you had never had a BJ, if that is true that is just sad. Also if it is true maybe I need to get you and Clayton together so you can experience your first ones together. Might change your thinking on gay marriage.o:-)

[Adept Havelock]

Wow. You are presuming that the case that TJ mentioned, and that Bill's case would have meant...."throw[ing] away everything, including [their] families well-being???"

:eek:

ROFL

What a creative way to dodge the point. I'm not surprised really.

No, I'm suggesting that if "settling" is so horrible, and an abhorrent admission of guilt, as you paint it, then unless you embrace "moral relativism" you must be willing to throw everything you have away in defense of that principle.

Otherwise, you're completely forsaking the very "Integrity and Honor" you were discussing earlier. If it's as much an ironclad principle as you claim it is, how can you as a man of "Honor and Integrity" do anything less than sacrifice everything to avoid settling and admitting guilt?

Again, lets say you have a private business that provides for you and your family. It's slapped with a lawsuit like TJ's. It reaches a point where you can either continue to fight the suit (and wreck your company in the process) or settle. If you are so dedicated to "Honor and Integrity" and wish not to admit guilt by "Settling", then the Morally Absolute thing to do is throw it all away to defend that principle. After all, it's only money, a company you likely invested years of sweat equity in, and the mechanism by which you provide for your family. What's that stacked against your (somewhat twisted, IMO) definition of "Honor and Integrity" which would be lost by "settling"?

If you're not willing to do that, congrats. You just accepted a degree of "Moral Relativism". And also you've proved yourself a bit more rational and pragmatic than you have painted yourself in your last few posts.

Or is it only a "Moral Absolute" to avoid settling if it can be done while keeping yourself and your family financially comfortable? LMAO That sounds like another variety of "Moral Relativism" to me, not unlike your "other administrations did wrong, so it's OK if the current one does to" example in post #37. ;)

Put that in your pipe, and good night. :D

[Mr. Kotter]

Well I guess someone is sensitive tonight, that one was meant as a joke. I really did not think you had never had a BJ, if that is true that is just sad. Also if it is true maybe I need to get you and Clayton together so you can experience your first ones together. Might change your thinking on gay marriage.o:-)

Clayton? Eh....he's too young. :rolleyes:

You are more my type, sweet cakes. I dig real ASSholes, not just assholes. ;)

[CRONUS]

Clayton? Eh....he's too young. :rolleyes:

You are more my type, sweet cakes. I dig real ASSholes, not just assholes. ;)OK that was pretty funny, especially for a guy from the frosty North.LMAO

[Adept Havelock]

OK that was pretty funny, especially for a guy from the frosty North.LMAO

The frosty North? Nah. Kotter lives in the "Good" Dakota.

.

[go bowe]

If you honestly think that, Jim...GFY (good for you, FTR...heh)

Otherwise, you're stirrin' shit with the wrong guy.

TJ's self-righteous and transparent hypocritical pious bullshit has become a joke to everyone on the board, except fellow trolls and shit-stirrers. You know, like you, Zach, PG, me, and the ilk....FTR, you've admitted you are a "shit-stirrer."and the ilk???

are you suggesting that i am an ilk?

no-one has ever called me an ilk to my face, but you probably would...

what's that? elk? were you trying to say elK?

oh shit, never mind...

[Adept Havelock]

and the ilk???

are you suggesting that i am an ilk?

no-one has ever called me an ilk to my face, but you probably would...

what's that? elk? were you trying to say elK?

oh shit, never mind...

Now I have a craving for an Elkburger.

There was a great little place in Estes Park last time I was there. They had the best damn Elkburgers.

[go bowe]

Yeah, selling out the "truth" for expediency is a reasonable rationalization to morally grounded folks. :rolleyes:

If you "settle," you have admitted guilt. Anyone with an ounce of integrity understands that. Period.

You fight until the end...especially when you CAN afford it. Not being able to afford it, literally, is the ONLY excuse for knuckling to extortion.oh shit, here we go again...

but i'm pretty sure i'm safe because i've only got a few grams of integrity left, nowhere near an ounce...

hmmmm, grams?

ounces?

i think i need to take a break about now...

[go bowe]

Clayton? Eh....he's too young. :rolleyes:

You are more my type, sweet cakes. I dig real ASSholes, not just assholes. ;)WHOA, put anton back in his cage before somebody gets hurt...

[go bowe]

Now I have a craving for an Elkburger.

There was a great little place in Estes Park last time I was there. They had the best damn Elkburgers.guess i shouldn't have driven through there so fast...

elk burgers? that sound's interesting...

[Taco John]

Yeah, selling out the "truth" for expediency is a reasonable rationalization to morally grounded folks. :rolleyes:

If you "settle," you have admitted guilt. Anyone with an ounce of integrity understands that. Period.

You fight until the end...especially when you CAN afford it. Not being able to afford it, literally, is the ONLY excuse for knuckling to extortion.


It scares the shit out of me that you are a public teacher. Some good kids are being robbed an education.

[patteeu]

Second verse, same as the first. :shake:

Hopefully, there will be considerably more pushback the next time an administration tries to force a specific preconceived result from the intelligence community.

I find it interesting they brought internal investigations against him, both of which were dismissed as unsubstantiated.

There's nothing in that article about the administration trying to force a specific preconceived result from the intelligence community. You may need to read more than just the bolded part to get that though. Even if this guy's allegations are true, he's accusing CIA personnel (most likely career bureaucrats) of doing these things, not "the administration" which IMO indicates someone from the WH or a high level appointee like the DCI. Nothing in this article indicates that such a person was involved.

[Taco John]

There's nothing in that article about the administration trying to force a specific preconceived result from the intelligence community. You may need to read more than just the bolded part to get that though.



And the reason for him being ordered on five occassions to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all is?

[patteeu]

And the reason for him being ordered on five occassions to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all is?

Because they think they know what their bosses want to hear or because they think it's bad information or because they don't want to upset the apple cart with aberrant data, who knows? :shrug: But none of those reasons imply that Bush, Cheney or anyone else besides the CIA officials mentioned in the article laid down the law. And of course, there's also the reasonable possibility that the allegation is false to begin with.

[Taco John]

Likewise, there's no reason to believe that this is a squirrel...


http://www.sugarbushsquirrel.com/image/8378174_scaled_490x506.jpg

^^^^^^
Well... other than this part...

Aside from that though -

[penchief]

I guess rule of law, perjury, and obstruction of justice....means nothing, as long as the aggrieved is from a "trailer park," eh? :shrug:

I mean, afterall....it only took 3/4 of $1 million to "shut" up that Ho, right? ;)


I'm sure your "God" would be very proud of you.

And the state of the world hung in the balance.

[penchief]

I can't imagine a scenario where a covert CIA agent suing the agency can be considered a positive. Regardless of who is right, they need to get their shit together. When these things get played out in the media, some one is not doing his job.

This administration has corrupted every agency it could by installing crooks and ideologues to gut them. HUD, Justice, CIA, EPA, etc. Anybody who hasn't figured that out by now is a blind partisan and just doesn't care.

This administration's "fox guarding the henhouse" approach to governance is a perfect example as to why good government is necessary. They are providing us a glimpse of what life would be like without any government at all.

[penchief]

There's nothing in that article about the administration trying to force a specific preconceived result from the intelligence community. You may need to read more than just the bolded part to get that though. Even if this guy's allegations are true, he's accusing CIA personnel (most likely career bureaucrats) of doing these things, not "the administration" which IMO indicates someone from the WH or a high level appointee like the DCI. Nothing in this article indicates that such a person was involved.

Naw, suppressing evidence contrary to illegitimate attempts by the government to propagandize for a war agenda is all good. Sounds supremely fascist to me.

Career people throughout the government in all agencies are leaving in droves because those agencies have been handed over to crooks and ideologues for the purpose of destroying their missions and utilizing them for purely political purposes.

[Mr. Kotter]

It scares the shit out of me that you are a public teacher. Some good kids are being robbed an education.

Repost.

Rinse and repeat.... :rolleyes:

What's really scary is that you have actually diluted the gene pool and reproduced--and are attempting to be a father.

May God take pity on your child.

[patteeu]

Naw, suppressing evidence contrary to illegitimate attempts by the government to propagandize for a war agenda is all good. Sounds supremely fascist to me.

Career people throughout the government in all agencies are leaving in droves because those agencies have been handed over to crooks and ideologues for the purpose of destroying their missions and utilizing them for purely political purposes.

Yes, as long as government agencies are filled with liberal crooks and ideologues, everything is peachy. :rolleyes:

[patteeu]

Likewise, there's no reason to believe that this is a squirrel...


*pic deleted*

^^^^^^
Well... other than this part...

Aside from that though -

Do you have a connect-the-dots picture with mysterious saboteurs rigging WTC 7 with demolition explosives?

[Mr. Kotter]

...

Career people throughout the government in all agencies are leaving in droves because those agencies have been handed over to crooks and ideologues for the purpose of destroying their missions and utilizing them for purely political purposes.

:spock:

"droves" eh? That sounds like a lot.

Link? :shrug:

I'd like to see numbers/statistics to back up this specious claim.... :hmmm:

[patteeu]

:spock:

"droves" eh? That sounds like a lot.

Link? :shrug:

I'd like to see numbers/statistics to back up this specious claim.... :hmmm:

I'm hoping he's right.

[penchief]

Yes, as long as government agencies are filled with liberal crooks and ideologues, everything is peachy. :rolleyes:

Liberals care about government. Righties want to kill government so they can wield uncontested power. Which is exactly what this administration has tried to do.

[irishjayhawk]

Repost.

Rinse and repeat.... :rolleyes:

What's really scary is that you have actually diluted the gene pool and reproduced--and are attempting to be a father.

May God take pity on your child.

Umm, in his defense, you did say that settling is the same thing as admitting guilt. That's not true at all.

There's plenty of things that can happen for that not to be true.

1) Could be too expensive to continue to fight even though you're innocent.
2) Evidence could be overwhelming but it could be planted. No way you'll win, so you settle with the plea.

Those are two easy things that negate your "SETTLING = GUILTY" ounce of integrity mantra.

[Mr. Kotter]

Umm, in his defense, you did say that settling is the same thing as admitting guilt. That's not true at all.

There's plenty of things that can happen for that not to be true.

1) Could be too expensive to continue to fight even though you're innocent.
2) Evidence could be overwhelming but it could be planted. No way you'll win, so you settle with the plea.

Those are two easy things that negate your "SETTLING = GUILTY" ounce of integrity mantra.

You should read the thread more carefully if you are going to interject yourself in the spat TJ and I have had going on for years now....

1) I conceded---that is the only exception or excuse for it.
2) I suppose if you have a really crappy lawyer, and you are careless AND stupid....it could be grounds.

NEITHER apllies in the Clinton case though; so your point is moot.

For clarity, I'll amend my statement: "Settling = Guilty"....99% of the time. Like in the Clinton case.