Thread: Outing our friends

The democrats on the party level are a bunch of bullies and statist control freaks.
It's a fundamental character flaw. They endanger our country. Yes, I said it and I meant it.

Flanders, et al,

Originally Posted by Flanders

Your alternative scenario is interesting and quite possible. Still, it doesn’t excuse not pulling out Shakil Alfridi, the Pakistani doctor, immediately after bid Laden was killed. I know the Administration’s cover story. I just don’t believe the story, or anything Panetta says for that matter.

At the very least, leaving Alfridi and his family in place was incredibly stupid.

(COMMENT)

Yes, well I cannot say I know the story. I can say that there have been many Pakistani that unconditionally believed in their country, and stayed because they believed that their country (the ISI included) was not knowing supporting the terrorists.

I believe, although I can't remember for sure, which Discussion Group it was, I took considerable heat by a Pakistani Member because I dared to suggest that we should consider the NWFP as the al-Qaeda support derivative. Were was Osama bin Laden, in the NWFP. The Pakistani's have a patriotic belief that their country is fair and honest; not involved in terrorism; always on the side of good.

No one (in Western Intelligence) has any doubt that if the US had coordinated the neutralization effort with, and disclosed the location of Osama bin Laden to, the ISI --- Osama bin Laden would still be alive today. It would have turned-out much differently. Pakistan, as a government, has two faces; one of which is a state supporter of terrorism. And so, we must be prepared to suffer the occasional loss of a source.

Remember, this would not even be an issue if the ISI was trustworthy. Pakistan is upset because it was caught redhanded harboring a fugitive.

Originally Posted by Flanders

Not so different.

Let me make my case by going back to J. Edger Hoover (1895 - 1972). When he was running the FBI he kept the big shots in line with the stuff he had on them. Contrary to the Left’s long-running smear campaign against Hoover he never did anything to harm average Americans. He never tried to take away their liberties, imprison them without trial, and so on. And I doubt very much if he would have treated terrorists like criminals entitled to trials in civilian courts.

(COMMENT)

American Patriotism means something different to everyone.

Consider Dan Akerson, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors, is he patriotic? The US taxpayer bailout to GM was about $80B. GM is now scaling down GM in the US, thousands of US autoworkers out of jobs, and - expanding operations in China. Is Akerson merely maximizing the wealth of the shareholder, or contribution to the GNP of China at the cost of US jobs, remembering that the replacement of high paying manufacturing jobs in the US are lower paying service industry jobs.

In the days of J Edger Hoover, patriotism was unconditional. The perspectives were different and the priorities where in America's favor. Today, the emerging Superpower that will replace America in the coming decades is China. The weapons they will use are "economics and commerce." The will not be dependent on Nuclear Weapons that have done nothing but collect dust over the last half century. They will defeat the US military by running America out of general revenue necessary to support its infrastructure and our dwindling military; broken by years of war with no real return on our trillion dollar investment. If Hoover were alive today, he would no doubt have noticed this and worked against this trend.

But today, there is no patriotism in America when it comes to business. And as the live style and prosperity in America declines, so will the interest in protecting liberty that you mention. America is in a downward spiral, and there is nothing that will save it short of retracting back to the US, adjusting its foreign policy, and diverting the taxpayer dollars used to payout in foreign and military aid to domestic education, research & development, scientific exploration, and infrastructure up grades that will usher in a new 21st Century era of enlightenment. Hoover and James Angleton would have appreciated that.

But Hoover and Angleton would have never stood for US Business backed by an education process that puts greed above the interest of America and its people.

But, in this, I've gone slightly off-topic.

Relative to the Intelligence Community, it will take a very long time for it to come back to a production level that inspires confidence. Again, this was do to the attempt by leadership to replace HUMINT with technological forms of collection. And that crippled US capabilities. But the same logic responsible for outsourcing I described above, is responsible for the degradation of the IC's ability to meet todays challenges.

Most Respectfully,
R

Originally Posted by SFJEFF

Oh I refer to the Republican administration of George Bush outing a covert CIA agent as payback for her husband embarressing them.

As old a story as that is, I am still surprised at the number of liberals who actually think that story makes sense.

Bush, Cheney, and Rove, driven mad because of an opinion article in which the writer went to Niger, asked some buddies in the leadership if they were violating UN sanctions, were told "Oh no, not us!" and decided the only way to get revenge is to "out" a CIA analyst married to the opinion article writer (Joe Wilson). How they tricked Richard Armitage to do that, and keep it a secret for the entire period of the investigation, including from the conspirators themselves, Bush, Rove, and Cheney; remains a mystery.