Intelligence Czar

Superman · 02-18-2005, 10:59 AM

Well, after consolidating the nation's intelligence authority into one politically appointed position, Dubya now seems to notice this opportunity to demonstrate both the imporance of protecting our national security, and also illustrating the accuracy of his moral compass.

And so, he's nominated a convicted felon for the Intelligence Czar position. I'm told the comfirmation hearings could get interesting. I'm told this guy's last confirmation hearing was on September 12, 2001 and that it went very smoothly in spite of the very intense questioning that had been expected. Well, the dems will get their chance. Apparently this guy was an Iran-Contra figure.

Tell me more. I'm always amazed at Dubya's moral code. I gues "moral" should have been in quotations in that last sentence.

ronin · 02-18-2005, 11:43 AM

shame on me, buut I honestly didn't know he is an ex-con. enighten me, Supe

Moneyguy1 · 02-18-2005, 11:44 AM

I usually do not take sides, and just live my little life on a day to day basis. However, I have been on this planet for many moons, and have seen a number of White House occupants. This is the first time in over five decades that I am truly worried about the future of not only the Country, but of the world. It truly appears that in some cases the inmates are running the asylum.

I felt far more secure when Bush Sr. was at the helm. Even when Bill was there.

Overpaid Slacker · 02-18-2005, 11:51 AM

Well, Bob, you're supposed to be scared. You are a media consumer, after all. Congrats -- you just made target demographic of the month!!

The consolidation of intelligence authority (as you put it) was not W's idea, and in fact, it was Congress' idea and W resisted it until he got too much pressure from our MSM. Surprise!! Now to pillory him as though this was his nefarious scheme to centralize and usurp all power deserves its own plinth in the Liberal Dishonesty Hall of Shame -- right in the lobby, in fact.

JP

creaturecat · 12:10 PM

Negroponte is the man who "spiced up " the intelligence reports when the CIA reports were dismissed.
He was as well involved in the contra affair - seems like a perfect compliment to the rest of the hawks - here is some background:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Negropontes-diplomatic-comeback/2005/02/18/1108709439207.html

Honduras - another proud moment:

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/honduras/cia/

tabs · 02-18-2005, 12:06 PM

The polarization of American Politics is something to behold...we are a nation that is literally tearing the fabric of our society apart.

If Gore or Kerry had won the election instead of the conservative canidate it would be the conservatives who would be crying about being scared about who is manning the helm of the ship of state...

Superman · 12:16 PM

In all fairness ronin, Negroponte's conviction was overturned by a conservative judge. But the conviction happened, and it happened because he did the deeds. That was for his role in the Iran-Contra matter.

As I say, Dubya could nominate Charles Manson and the nation would, I believe, continue to think of him as a pure-as-the-drive-snow conservative christian with uminpeachable blue collar values. I see something completely different. And I see him being consistent in making decisions I consider to run contrary to the interests of my country. Pretty much each and every one of Dubya's decisions look like this to me. He is worse than the worst possible (actually possible) president I could have imagined five years ago.

Overpaid Slacker · 02-18-2005, 12:21 PM

Supe -- what was the conviction for, in what jurisdiction, and who overturned it? What were these "deeds"?

Negroponte is a force, and that's why Libs fear him. For the last 6 mo he has been Ambassador to Iraq -- and turned the "green zone" into a very professionally run US Embassy. He's been Ambassador to the United Nations and before that, to Honduras.

Note, before the REAL pants-wetting begins that the bill creating the NID contains a provision that the NID will not "abrogate the statutory responsibilities" of any existing agency handling intelligence matters. This doesn't mean that he's a figurehead, but it does mean that the NID can't strong-arm the DoD, whose statutory responsibilities include DIA, NRO, NGIA and NSA -- and therefore about 80% of the US Intelligence budget.

JP

creaturecat · 02-18-2005, 12:24 PM

Tabs - with all due respect - the fright is not necessarily about "manning the helm " it is about the potential of WWIII - having an administration that truly aspires to being " leaders of the free world" (G W's words - not mine) does nothing to diminish that fright. An administration filled with war hawks scares me - I couldn't care less whether they are republicans,democrats,socialists or communists.

Overpaid Slacker · 02-18-2005, 12:47 PM

Are we not already the leaders of the free world? If not us, who else?

Trouble is, and I mean this w/o sarcasm, during the Interregnum, we got used to 8 years of foreign policy "success" measured exclusively by number of treaties signed and summits attended (which pumps up the applause-meter), and specifically not by results achieved.

W is exactly not that way and it's unsettling to many that we need to be confident, assertive and even arrogant. But what's really, fundamentally wrong with arrogance? Mostly it annoys those with low self-esteem.

JP

creaturecat · 02-18-2005, 01:29 PM

leaders of the free world my a#$!
assertive and arrogant - yessir
results achieved? where exactly?

stevepaa · 02-18-2005, 01:30 PM

Fundamentally arrogance leads to an "above the law" attitude. Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Monica. An arrogant man is not to be trusted.

I still view Oliver North with disdain, but he is the neocon's favorite.

RoninLB · 02-18-2005, 03:01 PM

not my words

"OK you whining, panty-waist, pathetic Maggots, it's time for a little refresher course on exactly why we Americans occasionally have to fight wars. See if you can tear yourself away from your "reality" TV and Starbucks for a minute, pull your head out of your flabby ass -- and LISTEN UP!!

Islam a peaceful religion???
Millions of these sons-of-*****es are plotting as we speak to destroy our country and our way of life any way they can.
Some of them are here among us now. They don't want to convert you and don't want to rule you. You are a vile infestation of Allah's paradise. They don't give a sh^t how "progressive"
you are, how peace-loving you are, or how much you sympathize with their cause.

They want you dead, and think it is God's will for them to do it. And you think Bush and Ashcroft are your worst enemies?

Some think if we give them a hug or listens to them, then they'll
like us ... and if you agree? Then you are a dumb ass!

If they manage to get their hands on a nuke, chemical agents, or even some anthrax -- you will wish to God we had hunted them down and killed THEM while we had the chance.

How many more Americans must be killed before you stop blaming Bush for all your troubles -- and grow some balls for a change."

02-18-2005, 03:11 PM

touche' Ron!

stevepaa · 02-18-2005, 03:13 PM

Is that Sean Hannity?

JSDSKI · 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoninLB
"Millions of these sons-of-*****es are plotting as we speak to destroy our country and our way of life any way they can.

Millions? - just hyperbole. Most Muslims are like most Methodists - they just want to have coffee and cookies. There are some, a tiny few, that want to destroy us - likely they are not true muslims. Just like there are some Christians, a tiny few, who believe the world unsafe until all Muslims are destroyed.... could they still be considered Christian?

Quote:

"They want you dead, and think it is God's will for them to do it.

We expand the power of a tiny band of extremists when we react to their propaganda and therefore expand their influence. We lose momentum whenever we treat them as equal partners in destructive ability rather than as the simple fascist criminals they are.

Moneyguy1 · 02-18-2005, 10:51 PM

Slacker..

Actually, your concept of me is totally wrong. I inform myself by every means available, and am a long time student of human behavior. Unfortunately, there are people every day in this world who do not understand the lessons history tries to teach us. No where did I say I was scared.

When anyone posting here can come up with a rational explanation of the world situation and defend their point of view, I will consider it. However, I see very narrow interpretations. I see the media telling one story and the administration telling another. Some prefer to believe one over the other. Both have an agenda. Anyone who believes that the motives of the administration or the media are pure and well intentioned might be interested in a certain bridge in Manhattan.