Darts in a tavern? Way cool. And I am bored to death with Arnold and Rush.
The quote by Clark is an example of why I like him.
Revealing the names of CIA agent is supposed to be a crime, but I bet nothing comes of the latest leak from this administration.
BTW, any volunteers for the CIA?
According to a news item I saw last evening, recruitment for the CIA is way up. This was attributed to the fancy shmancy TV shows currently running with brave and good looking heroes and heroines all over the place and making the world safe for....um....Chrysler?...not sure on that part of it. But it's damned heroic stuff anyway.
And maybe that explains people voting for Arnold. He's a hero. That was brave **** he did on Mars, no question. And he's got sexual brio - lots of that. Without the accent, gosh, he'd sure seem right at home on an apaloosa ridin' across the lone praireee. And like every great hero, he has his own hero.
He's got everything. And damn, wouldn't he look great in a uniform! He's like....a nazi John Wayne.
Wondering if this new info on revealing the CIA agent's name by this administration will have any chilling effect on their recruitment?
Just hypothesizing here ... playing a little "what if", more or less, as The Plame Game plays out. Bear with me here as I lay out a conspiracy theory.
The trigger incident occurred months ago ... with very little mainstream press attention, though generating determined interest on the internet. George Tenet, CIA Director and Democrat, who recently suffered the ignominy of having discovered it necessary to offer his own neck to the headsman, is unfond of Republicans as a matter of ideologic perspective, but its no secret Dick Cheney enjoys a very long-established special place in Tenet's worldview. Now, if one devastating leak, carefully crafted to create maximum negative impact on one's opponent, didn't have the desired effect, would it not be both prudent and logical to press one's attack? Say, for instance, to give the issue some legs, to see to it that media attention is called to a routine, more-or-less weekly, relatively obscure, otherwise-certain-to-be-overlooked legal filing which was of interest solely for its relationship to the earlier matter? Now, what if it turns out that the ultimate source for the entire current flap is someone in a position first to structure the somewhat improbable assignment of Administration-critic, non-technocrat Wilson to a technical verification mission in Niger on behaf of the Current Administration, then apprise a "trustworthy" "Senior Administration Figure" of highly priviliged information involving a putatively secret, and essentially irrelevant, relationship existing among Wislon, Ms Plame, and the CIA, with intent to counter and deflect ongoing criticism of the CIA's value in the Iraq Matter? Can you think of anyone better positioned to pull all that off, or to gain the most personal satisfaction and job security, than George Tenet? I'm sure he's read both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.
Admittedly ... that's far-fetched. The issue is sure to generate more energy in the near term, and it is in the best interest of The Current Administration to resolve the matter as expeditiously and economically as can be achieved. To manage that without incurring significant cost could be difficult. To turn it to advantage would be extraordinarily slick.
I don't really figure this was all set up by Tenet. Still, I expect this will be of far less service to The Democrats than they would wish, and result in far less inconvenience to The Republicans than they would prefer. If nothing else can be said of The Current Administration, it is widely opinined that them boys is slick. It is neither impossible nor unprecedented that The Current Administration might come out of this very well indeed.
And whether or not CIA recruiting is affected one way or the other, I'm reasonably confident that the CIA will shortly have a senior-management position to fill.
timberlandko wrote:It is clear to me that some of Italgato's posts confuse argument with argumentiveness, opinion for perjoration, and logical decuction for unfounded speculation.
By the evidence it would appear to me Italgato intends to convey other than the informed, rational, civil discourse he repeatedly purports to favor. If one is to take his assertions of his own wisdom, learning, and forensic skill at face value, one is forced to the conclusion he does so out of malice, not ignorance, and therefore merits the designation "Troll".
He appears to be a master of the practice known as "Baiting". I think perhaps Italgato needs more fiber in his diet.
That's a very elegantly-put insult. Congratulations.
timberlandko wrote:
Quote:Now, if one devastating leak, carefully crafted to create maximum negative impact on one's opponent, didn't have the desired effect, would it not be both prudent and logical to press one's attack? Say, for instance, to give the issue some legs, to see to it that media attention is called to a routine, more-or-less weekly, relatively obscure, otherwise-certain-to-be-overlooked legal filing which was of interest solely for its relationship to the earlier matter? Now, what if it turns out that the ultimate source for the entire current flap is someone in a position first to structure the somewhat improbable assignment of Administration-critic, non-technocrat Wilson to a technical verification mission in Niger on behaf of the Current Administration, then apprise a "trustworthy" "Senior Administration Figure" of highly priviliged information involving a putatively secret, and essentially irrelevant, relationship existing among Wislon, Ms Plame, and the CIA, with intent to counter and deflect ongoing criticism of the CIA's value in the Iraq Matter? Can you think of anyone better positioned to pull all that off, or to gain the most personal satisfaction and job security, than George Tenet? I'm sure he's read both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.
Granted, I am just working on my second cup of coffee, but my brain would not compute this. Could you put it another way?
Thanks, McT ... I try.
Sumac, what it says is the whole scheme coulda been worked out and implimented by Tenet ... he would have had motive, means, and opportunity. He could have engineered Wilson's asignment as the starting point for an elaborate, "If Necessary", revenge plot. He, and his department, have come under fire. He might well have been prepared to fire back. Maybe the Novak article did not generate sufficient flap on its own, so maybe Tenet saw to it that folks who were at once critical of The Administration and ill-disposed toward Novak learned the matter was under investigation. It would not require suspension of disbelief to assume the Nation's chief spook might be devious enough to hide a skeleton or two in any number of closets, "just-in-case". That'ts called "Contingency Planning". While it would be an audacious, imaginitive, brazen, byzantinely elaborate scheme, such a progression of events is plausible, perhaps more plausible than that someone in The Administration might have perceived opportunity to have lain in leaking Ms. Plame's tenuous connection with the matter. Now, while it coulda gone down that way, I doubt it. But it does make a neat conspiracy theory ... for what those are worth.
The theory would also most certainly require a willingness to sacrifice Mrs. Wilson - not just her career, but possibly her life.
A mindset capable of such would not be out of character for one adept at navigating the diplomatic underworld. Besides, as Ms. Plame's job was, and long had been, securely tethered to a desk in Langley, she was and is at negligible risk.
I had the impression, and I don't know why, that she was a covert operative overseas.
sumac, That's the same impression I had. I'm sure I didn't just imagine it.
According to this, she was undercover:
NY Times Article
Quote:But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that Nocs have especially dangerous jobs.
"Nocs are the holiest of holies," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former agency officer who is now director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. "This is real James Bond stuff. You're going overseas posing as a businessman, and if the other government finds out about you, they're probably going to shoot you. The United States has basically no way to protect you."
Timber- You disappoint me and have severely wounded my "self-esteem". Troll indeed. It is clear that you are not a compassionate person who believes in diversity and the airing of all opinions.
But, I am very curious as to just where your opinion derives.
I am careful to document my opinions. I do not see characters such as Lola, who blissfully toss around unsupported statements doing so.
I posted on Oct. 1 and told Lola that she was quite mistaken about the Moral Majority she talked about and that the organization called the Moral Majority was disbanded years ago.
I am correct.
Is it that Lola would like to have us think that the organization Moral Majority still exists?
If she wishes to rail about a "moral majority" she may do so.
If she wishes to moan about the fact that the right wing wishes to establish a Theocracy in this country she may do so.
But if one is free to correct errors on these threads, I will and have pointed out the definition of Moral Majority and the first amendement.
It seems to be that Lola's messages are rather gaseous and unsupported by documentation.
I will, of course, at your suggestion, add bran to my diet, but is that your objective,Timber?
Is not your objective to shut me up?
I am surprised that you are not conversant with the fifth amendment.
I would respectfully suggest that the best way to "shut me up" is to destroy my arguments.
Failing that, I am very much afraid that, Bran or no, you will just have to put up with my messages.
You need not read them, of course.
People who are afraid of competing ideas need not read them.
People who can't handle competing ideas can go right past them.
I will continue to post for MYSELF and for the small contingent of persons who do wish to read them.
I would welcome any post from you, timber, which showed that my posts were in error.
Thank you!!
Timber- I took time to re-read the Debate Guidelines.
Please correct me if I am in error:
The Guidelines say:
Objective is
An increased appreciation of DIFFERING viewpoints held by others.
( Doesn't that mean all viewpoints?)
and
"The assumption that we are uniquely in possession of the truth is as an effective bar to learning something new as anything anyone might possibly devise"
Quite true.
One must keep an Open mind.
\
But I sincerely hope that an Open mind is not one which does not accept facts.
quote
"The Unemployment rate in Sept. 2003 was 6.1%"
And, to me, the most important part of the Guidelines,
"If your claim is not something you are able to verify note that it is YOUR OPINION ONLY"!
I realize, Timber, that the moderators enforce the guidelines. Is a poster prohibited from asking someone whether their post indeed is THEIR OPINION ONLY?
Cheers- Timber
Another well-said position.
No, Italgato, I have no desire to shut you up. It is however my sincerest wish you demonstrate a far less confrontational, disparaging, perjorative approach. There's no need to be nasty, even if there isn't a rule against it. Your interactions more resemble goading, argumentiveness, and contempt than debate, argument, and respect. Respect is reciprocal; it must be given to be received. I have no quarrel with much of what you say; the way you say it, however, does little to enhance your standing among the audience to which you have chosen to communicate.
You're entirely welcome.
hobit, Thanks for that confirmation of Ms Plame's overseas assignments. I think there is a more disconcerting issue of exposing others that she 'worked' with undercover, who is now at risk for their lives. This was one of the important points brought out on Night Line couple days ago.
