-
Hoppy - you're right that it's naive to expect any Bush appointee to embarrass the WH (except perhaps Brownie 2006).
But let's not forget - by blowing Valerie Plame's cover, the WH recklessly compromised the lives and work of countless other CIA and foriegn agents that are still in the field working with terrorists and/or nuke traders.
Just because Goss is going to do all in his power to protect Cheney and punish NSA whistleblowers doesn't make the VP's actions any less criminal, treasonous, or potentially lethal.
BTW, does anyone remember this? It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50's to approximately the early 70's. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.
-- Rep. Porter Goss, March 3, 2004, Washington, DCPosted at February 11, 2006 12:44 PM in response to Attention Citizens, a Blue Dress Special
-
Unless BushCo is just blowing smoke in the public's eyes during a bad news week, why is it we're hearing about the LA plot 3+ years later? You would think the admin would have bragged about it back when it happened. Am I missing something?
Posted at February 9, 2006 4:10 PM in response to More Horse Hockey from President Bush
-
Bravo, Senator.
Let's not forget, though, that GWB himself went out of his way during a Buffalo, NY campaign speech in April 2004 to assure Americans that "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." Has anyone ever called him to account for this statement?
Posted at February 7, 2006 9:56 AM in response to WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
-
All of these discussions are moot if the GOP retains power over the executive and legislative branches of our government.
It is unbelievable to even be speculating on another military intervention in the Middle East right now. But if, even just for the sake of rhetoric, the Republicans are planning to work everyone into another fear frenzy over Iran with the objective of keeping majorities in the Senate and House in '06, what are the Dems to counter with?
Posted at January 14, 2006 3:03 PM in response to Iran Links
-
Here's an excellent collection of articles on the US governments' plans for Iran, last updated May 05.
Posted at January 14, 2006 1:48 PM in response to Iran Links
-
To clarify - when I referred to Bush's "bungling of Iraq" in my last post, I was not referring to the actual military execution but rather to the lack of planning, preparation, diplomacy, foresight, accountability and honesty that has brought us to where we are today. That's without even mentioning the lack of proper body armor for our soldiers and their vehicles, Abu Ghraib, the 8 billion dollars that has gone missing from reconstruction funds with no investigation pending, and Halliburton.
Posted at January 14, 2006 1:04 PM in response to Iran Links
-
With our military so overextended already, it's hard to imagine telling troops who think they're soon pulling out of Iraq that Bush has instead decided to post them at the Iranian border. It's also hard to envision having any friends left among the reformists in Iran once a few of our missiles have landed in their backyards.Is there a way for hawkish Dems to sound the alarm about our lack of options with Iran because of the Iraq occupation? Bush has bungled Iraq so badly that our threats of military action against rogue regimes hardly carry the weight they once did.Incompetence and corruption endanger our security (not to mention that of the Iraqis) - could it be that simple?
Posted at January 14, 2006 12:49 PM in response to Iran Links
