Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is Porter Goss off his rocker, or are we not getting told everything? Saying "I have an excellent idea where bin Laden is" but sovereignty concerns prevent his capture has to be one of the more boneheaded quips of late, unless I'm missing something. If we know where he is, and it's a country with whom we have bad relations, can't we make a covert capture? What's going to happen? They complain to the world that we violated sovereignty to catch him? Or is it another one of those "we know he's in southeast afghanistan" kind of comments, which is entirely stupid because we know generally where he is (I hope), so that tells us nothing.

Sounded sort of like "nanny, nanny boo, boo, I can see you" to me.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Sounded sort of like "nanny, nanny boo, boo, I can see you" to me.

"And if it weren't for those meddling kids, he would get away with it"?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is Porter Goss off his rocker, or are we not getting told everything? Saying "I have an excellent idea where bin Laden is" but sovereignty concerns prevent his capture has to be one of the more boneheaded quips of late, unless I'm missing something. If we know where he is, and it's a country with whom we have bad relations, can't we make a covert capture? What's going to happen? They complain to the world that we violated sovereignty to catch him?

What if he is in Pakistan in an area where, if we went in it would pose a serious risk of destabilizing the country/Musharraf being overthrown? Rather than risk that, we have him pinpointed and contained and for now that is good enough.

What if (ignoring all the reasons why this might not make sense to indulge the hypo) he was Iran? The Europussies and the UN would howl, plus given Carter's experience it might not be that easy to covert him out.

What if he is in North Korea? Going in could incite nucular war!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
What if he is in Pakistan in an area where, if we went in it would pose a serious risk of destabilizing the country/Musharraf being overthrown? Rather than risk that, we have him pinpointed and contained and for now that is good enough.

What if (ignoring all the reasons why this might not make sense to indulge the hypo) he was Iran? The Europussies and the UN would howl, plus given Carter's experience it might not be that easy to covert him out.

What if he is in North Korea? Going in could incite nucular war!

Why say anything at all?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
"And if it weren't for those meddling kids, he would get away with it"?

does that refer to the Democrats, Europeans, the UN or their shills in the media?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Why say anything at all?

Tactical. See if it incites him to move; see what "chatter" results; make him think, which might incite him to move or do something else that would make it easier for us to catch him.

What's the risk in saying what Goss said? Other than the dems and the media trying to turn his words against him for political gain.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Tactical. See if it incites him to move; see what "chatter" results; make him think, which might incite him to move or do something else that would make it easier for us to catch him.

True. Worked well for us in 2004, when Spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty declared "we're sure that we'll catch bin Laden this year." I wonder if Col. Hilferty has received his Presidential Medal of Freedom yet.

What's the risk in saying what Goss said? Other than the dems and the media trying to turn his words against him for political gain.

In an era in which Cheney declares that the insurgency is in its final throes, I doubt that credibility is at risk, so hey, go for it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would much rather have seen an article with the following title:

"REPUBLICANS LOSE; AMERICANS WIN "

Given the current state of the federal budget/deficits, it takes a lot of nerve for the GOP to criticize DEMs for fiscal irresponsibility.

This statement is ignorant on so many levels. So the Republicans in the State Government in California are responsible for what the Republicans are doing in Washington? Because the Republicans in Washington are running a deficit, does that mean that Democrats all over the nation are now above criticism if they run deficits? Are the macro situations facing the State government in California the same as the Federal government? So in 1993 when the Dems controlled every branch of the federal government and were running deficits, that meant that during that time the Democrats lost all moral standing to critisize Republicans in control of state capitals for runing deficits? Do you really not grasp the ramifications of a two party system?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the Republicans in the State Government in California are responsible for what the Republicans are doing in Washington? Because the Republicans in Washington are running a deficit, does that mean that Democrats all over the nation are now above criticism if they run deficits?

So it's okay now to coerce underlings to blow me?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Gattigap
True. Worked well for us in 2004, when Spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty declared "we're sure that we'll catch bin Laden this year."

That's a more problematic statement. If Goss had said, "We know he's at 1313 Mockinbird Lane" and he wasn't then Goss would have a similar problem. Or if Hilferty had said, "we will catch him, eventually", he would have cya'd properly.

Originally posted by Gattigap

In an era in which Cheney declares that the insurgency is in its final throes, I doubt that credibility is at risk, so hey, go for it.

Exactly. It's like a one of my (a) retirements; or (b) comebacks; what fun are they without the empty rhetoric?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
or are we not getting told everything?

Obviously, none of us really know what is going on here. Pete Goss, in most probability, would not make this kind of statement unless it was part of some sort of Administration strategy. You can critisize this administration on many levels, but one area this administration excels at is controlling the message. This statement was clearly planned, and its use is part of some strategy on the part of the administration. It may be to apply pressure some where, it may be used to hamper some recent initiative by Al Queda, may be telling Pakistan you grab him now or we will, who knows. But what is for sure is that we don't know what the hell they are up to so critisizing this statement is not only premature but pretty stupid. Until we know more speculating on the reasons why is sensible, but speculating on its wisdom reflects more on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the person making the speculation than it does on the administration.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
speculating on its wisdom reflects more on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the person making the speculation than it does on the administration.

Wow, there's a recipe for tyranny like I haven't seen since, well, I guess pretty recently on Capitol Hill.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wow, there's a recipe for tyranny like I haven't seen since, well, I guess pretty recently on Capitol Hill.

Let me gets this straight. If our elected representatives stop making conclusions and trying to effect foreign policy without any of the pertinent facts, and instead do some investigation and try to obtain a good portion of the facts before making conclusions and sounding off, our contry is headed down the road to dictatorship and oppression?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Let me gets this straight. If our elected representatives stop making conclusions and trying to effect foreign policy without any of the pertinent facts, and instead do some investigation and try to obtain a good portion of the facts before making conclusions and sounding off, our contry is headed down the road to dictatorship and oppression?

I have no idea what that's coming from in what I said. Did Paigow get into you?

Let's see what happened:

1. Goss makes a cryptic statement about bin Laden
2. I asked why he made it, speculating that it seemed odd.
3. You said it could have a strategic/intelligence purpose.
4. Accordingly, any questioning of it was misplaced an unwise.

Now, 3 I could see, but seems pretty thin, as there are plenty of ways to reach bin Laden through less public channels of communication (e.g., unnamed sources, counterintelligence "chatter"). Likewise for any diplomatic issues. If there truly is a problem with sovereignty issues, why is Goss making public statements about it as opposed to having Condi Rice make the proper inquiries? If someone's dicking you over, and you want them to change, you don't say it in public.

As for 4, why bother with a politics board if not? For that matter, why bother with debate and dissent in Congress?

Did paigow get to you over the weekend?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
This statement is ignorant on so many levels. So the Republicans in the State Government in California are responsible for what the Republicans are doing in Washington? Because the Republicans in Washington are running a deficit, does that mean that Democrats all over the nation are now above criticism if they run deficits? Are the macro situations facing the State government in California the same as the Federal government? So in 1993 when the Dems controlled every branch of the federal government and were running deficits, that meant that during that time the Democrats lost all moral standing to critisize Republicans in control of state capitals for runing deficits? Do you really not grasp the ramifications of a two party system?

Who put out the statement?