Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anyone looking for a detail summary of the Goss/WH/CIA feud should look here: http://www.justoneminute.typepad.com

I'm not particularly impressed by that summary. The author seems to think he's discovered something important by announcing that bureaucracies like to defend their turf. Surely true, but something more is going on now. This piece in today's Salon, by Spencer Ackerman of TNR, gives some of the background over the last year.

No one thinks the CIA's performance over the past five years has been perfect. But the belief here is that the President is using the CIA as a scapegoat for policy fuck-ups -- most obviously, blaming the agency for the WMD debacle -- and is "reforming" the CIA into an agency that will support the Administration's policies rather than being a professional and independent broker. I don't want a DCI who sees his job as supporting what the President has already decided to do. I want a DCI who tells the President what's happening in the world. With Porter Goss, it looks like we're already screwed on that score.

These paragraphs from the Salon piece give the flavor of what's happening at ground level:

• Illustrating this fear is the cautionary tale of the CIA's 2002 examination of the dubious connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. As a result of intense pressure from senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Cheney -- many of whom had already concluded that a solid connection existed -- CIA analysts prepared a report titled "Iraq and al-Qaida: Assessing a Murky Relationship." Or at least a few of them did. Circulated that June, as the administration sought rationales for an invasion of Iraq, the report excluded the assessments of the agency's Near East and South Asia (NESA) office, which generally cast doubt on either an existing or a prospective alliance between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. The paper was chiefly the product of the CIA's terrorism analysts, who explained that their approach was "purposefully aggressive in seeking to draw connections, on the assumption that any indication of a relationship between these two elements could carry great dangers." Jami Miscik, the CIA's deputy director for intelligence, told Senate Intelligence Committee investigators that the paper was intended to "stretch to the maximum the evidence you had." The exclusion of NESA prompted an inquiry by the agency's ombudsman into politicization.
  
  Despite CIA professionals' general skepticism about the White House's desired conclusions and attempt to stay within the confines of responsible intelligence work, a slanted study still emerged. Yet the facts did constrain the analysis, and the report stated that there existed "no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations." In frustration, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst detailed to the office of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, who sponsored much of the effort to manipulate intelligence to connect al-Qaida to Saddam, contended to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his chief deputies that the "CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored." (In its public pronouncements about the alleged ties, the Bush administration generally followed the DIA analyst's advice.)
  
  Now, with Goss at the helm and the independence of the agency under siege, many at Langley fear that the Bush administration won't have to worry anymore about being told anything it doesn't already believe.

Club's blogger suggests that the agency is just trying to defend its turf. Maybe so, but can't we all agree that the CIA should be free to call it like it sees it?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think in most states you have to be within X% to challenge the results.

I don't think that's the case in Ohio. Bednarik is also challenging Ohio. Nader is apparently challenging New Hampshire.

In Houston, we have a huge question mark about whether an election will be challenged. Rookie Dem Hubert Vo beat out longtime vet Talmadge Heflin for a Texas leg House seat by 36 votes. The problem for the Rs is that Heflin is the only one that knows anything about budgeting. They wouldn't care as much if it had been some oSo there are two options.

1.) Recount. It's been really funny for Dems in Houston to hear all the Rs yelling "Let all the votes be counted" over and over again in the first week. That rallying cry sort of died down when it was pretty clear that a recount wasn't going to salvage their guy.

2.) Bring the election in front of the (Republican) House and ask for the results to be set aside and a new election to be held. Which makes the Rs look like sore losers who change the rules when it looks like things aren't going their way.

As far as I've been able to tell, there are no allegations of voter fraud on either side, and there were probably 12 people on each side watching the first count. (The R. chair of elections in Harris county was quite in a tizzy about the whole thing.) But the Rs really, really don't want to loose Heflin and the House Speaker Craddick has said flat out that Heflin will be in the House.

This whole thing hasn't really endeared the Rs to the Asian population here in Houston, who aren't really committed to either party. Vo immigrated to the US from Vietnam 30 years ago.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You're gay? NTTAWWT

Because anal penetration is big in the lesbian world?

Yeah, I'm a gay man trapped in a woman's body.

Whatever.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe so, but can't we all agree that the CIA should be free to call it like it sees it?

Absolutely, but not publicly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Absolutely, but not publicly.

As I said yesterday, the people who were leaking had to know that they were going to get canned. But what Goss et al. are way beyond responding to that.

The leaking is also what the Administration gets when it says things that aren't true. For example, Cheney tried on many occasions to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda when the intel folks were telling him it wasn't true. Why do you think we're not well served when public officials let the truth out? Do you think the country would be better off if Daniel Elsberg hadn't leaked the Pentagon Papers? I can understand why Administration officials don't want people to hear anything but what they're saying, but someone with your commitment to the First Amendment ought to believe that a lively and informed debate serves us all.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have a partner who poll-watched for Bush at a Youngstown Church polling place. The Reps decided on not challenging any votes other than the most obvious extremes. There were less than 10 or 20 challenges state-wide.

What did happen was the voting rules were broken repeatedly by ACT reps. wandering around the room where the actual voting was taking place and telling people how to vote. When the practice was challenged a judge supervising refused to do anything about it.

The whole fiction these people keep driving is vile.

Hank,

What is ACT?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hank,

What is ACT?

Americans Coming Together. It's a 527, and it co-sponsored the concerts in swing states. Their main objective was GOTV efforts in swing-states. They had $127million to work with and they started hitting the ground back in May. They were probably the most visible 527 on the ground, and I think they had something like 45000 paid people on the ground on Nov 2 and another 25000 volunteers.

ETA: Well, I guess that just blew the "Hank" sock. Back to the drawer.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Americans Coming Together. It's a 527, and it co-sponsored the concerts in swing states. Their main objective was GOTV efforts in swing-states. They had $127million to work with and they started hitting the ground back in May. They were probably the most visible 527 on the ground, and I think they had something like 45000 paid people on the ground on Nov 2 and another 25000 volunteers.

ETA: Well, I guess that just blew the "Hank" sock. Back to the drawer.

I have newfound respect for your acting abilities.

Did you play "Benny" on LA Law?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I said yesterday, the people who were leaking had to know that they were going to get canned. But what Goss et al. are way beyond responding to that.

The leaking is also what the Administration gets when it says things that aren't true. For example, Cheney tried on many occasions to link Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda when the intel folks were telling him it wasn't true. Why do you think we're not well served when public officials let the truth out? Do you think the country would be better off if Daniel Elsberg hadn't leaked the Pentagon Papers? I can understand why Administration officials don't want people to hear anything but what they're saying, but someone with your commitment to the First Amendment ought to believe that a lively and informed debate serves us all.

Funny. John McCain doesn't think so and we all know that his word is the Gospel.

I'm not really sure how to evaluate what's going on at CIA, but my bet is that the truth is somewhere in the middle, as usual. As for being served by leaks, I think there is a different standard for an intelligence apparatus than there is for other areas of government. Of course, leaks that rebut blatant untruths are helpful, but leaks that are merely to discredit a policy one disagrees with are not.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Because anal penetration is big in the lesbian world?

Yeah, I'm a gay man trapped in a woman's body.

Whatever.

HAH!


Sorry, that really made me laugh out loud. If I had been drinking Chai it would have been all over the keyboard.

By the way, I'm a lot more left than Tyrone. In fact, I sit almost exactly where Ghandi sat on the sample given for the test. I'm sure you are all shocked. Actually, I was surprised, I didn't realize I was that far left. I keep getting less conservative as I get older. I think that's just strange.

As far as lawsuits, here in the 'burg we had some lawyers who decided it was appropriate to tell people who were wearing partisan stickers that they couldn't vote. I believe the appropriate response to such behavior is not a lawsuit. I believe the appropriate response to such behavior is a whack upside the head. I don't really care what party the moron belongs to.

I would also like to whack members of the Green party upside the head. Mainly because they annoy me.

I think I just lost my Ghandi cred.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by leagleaze
HAH!


Sorry, that really made me laugh out loud. If I had been drinking Chai it would have been all over the keyboard.

By the way, I'm a lot more left than Tyrone. In fact, I sit almost exactly where Ghandi sat on the sample given for the test. I'm sure you are all shocked. Actually, I was surprised, I didn't realize I was that far left. I keep getting less conservative as I get older. I think that's just strange.

As far as lawsuits, here in the 'burg we had some lawyers who decided it was appropriate to tell people who were wearing partisan stickers that they couldn't vote. I believe the appropriate response to such behavior is not a lawsuit. I believe the appropriate response to such behavior is a whack upside the head. I don't really care what party the moron belongs to.

I would also like to whack members of the Green party upside the head. Mainly because they annoy me.

I think I just lost my Ghandi cred.

You see, I'm in about the same place, but probably more conservative than I used to be.

However, I still think there is nothing wrong with whacking members of the Green party upside the head, perhaps even with rifle butts. The Revolution is not a Tea Party.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The problem for the Rs is that Heflin is the only one that knows anything about budgeting.... So there are two options.

1.) Recount.

2.) Bring the election in front of the (Republican) House and ask for the results to be set aside and a new election to be held.

Which makes the Rs look like sore losers who change the rules
This whole thing hasn't really endeared the Rs to the Asian population here in Houston, who aren't really committed to either party. Vo immigrated to the US from Vietnam 30 years ago.

Serious question, if he's that important, why don't they just bring him in as a consultant at 3 or 4 times his salary as a legislator? This seems too easy, so what am I missing?

Hello

[Replaced_Texan]

So the R.s are probably changing their rules to make sure that if DeLay gets indicted, he gets to keep his Majority Leadership position.

Party of law and order, right? Party that doesn't like criminals, correct? They were going to bring back ethics to government.

Ya'll really want to be led by this guy? By my count, there are four separate scandals that the man is intertwined with (Weststar, TRMPAC, Medicare-bill arm twisting, and Indian lobbying (hearings resume today in the Senate on that one)). Why the hell do you want to keep him as your leader in the House? Yes, yes, I realize that there isn't a corporation left that somehow isn't in his pocket, and he's probably the most blindly loyal Republican ever, but fuck. He's a sleezy slimebag that shouldn't be given further protection if a Grand Jury in Travis County (or any other place for that matter) decides that there's enough evidence out there to indict him.

He's a fucking cockroach (Gatti, I'll up the retainer...). It's hard enough to kill them. Why the fuck does he need armor?

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You see, I'm in about the same place, but probably more conservative than I used to be.

However, I still think there is nothing wrong with whacking members of the Green party upside the head, perhaps even with rifle butts. The Revolution is not a Tea Party.

Maybe we could bring the liberals and the conservatives together by having an event called Whack a Greeny?

I don't have a rifle, but I have no problem with other people having them, so do feel free to bring yours. Just don't use the business end please. Even Green party people deserve to live.

I'm sure the anti-death penalty people and the pro-life people (I have noticed by the way that rarely are these the same people) would agree.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The poll apparently gives you libertarian points for left-leaning economic answers, which IMHO is a load of bunk.

You get what you pay for, commie.