Or were they just making shit up as they went along?
Don’t know if they’re precisely the kind of thing sailor was talking about (although I suspect the last two carry the flavor he spoke of), but it does establish that Lockheed produces commercials for public viewing.
Ohh, I’m scared now, tough guy.
Does France conduct diplomacy based on what Belgium thinks? Does Greece base theirs on Italian public opinion?. Why would anyone in the US care what some loser from some crappy island thinks?
The link I gave in that post gets even more insane if you can believe that:
– bolding mine. More batshit insane crap at source. I mean in addition to what is being spouted here by Starvin’ and Carol.
Seriously though, what’s the point of engaging raving loons?
Thanks, kaylasdad99, those were totally awesome. Very cool.
Like sailor I also live in Northern Virginia. I hear radio ads on the local station for large government contractors - both for civilian and military agencies. I’m pretty sure Lockheed-Martin and KBR advertise on the radio, but I’m usually just waiting for the traffic report. I remember a radio ad, I think it was from Sun Microsystems, that was so full of trendy buzzwords and contract-speak that it was barely in English. If I wasn’t in computing I would have had no idea whatsoever of the topic of the ad.
For TV ads, I think it’s not so much where you live as what you watch. The Sunday morning political talk shows are full of ads for large companies that have no consumer products. Agribusiness conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland advertised on one of those show for many years (I think it was This Week With David Brinkley).
If your cable system has the Military History Channel, you’ll see a lot of ads from big aerospace/defense contractors among the shows about cool ships and planes and guns, and people blowing stuff up. 
(I’m a guy, in case you hadn’t figured that out.)
But yes, living in the DC area makes the military-industrial complex appear very real.
kaylasdad99, those ads look like ones I have seen.
When it comes to ads from big computer systems contractors, I prefer this particular one, because managing programmers is like herding cats: Meow!
We now return to our regularly scheduled “Cheney is Scum” rant, already in progress.
And then there were those who were just after power, the New American Century guys. They liked to talk about “Middle East hegemony”, and a lot of other thinly veiled references to empire. So we apparently have the “end of days” crazies, and the “Caesar wannabe” crazies.
Even Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t engage the Dominican Republic before he decides what his foreign policy is. Why should this MB?
Actually I’m doing nothing of the sort. Remember when I mentioned various terrorist groups around the world itching to attack the U.S.? Again, in my opinion Hussein (or his henchmen acting on their own) could have sold or given WMD to al-Qaeda (the enemy of my enemy and all that) or any of a dozen or more terrorist groups looking to attack the U.S., with no friendship whatsoever required.
Based on your opinion I’m sure it is. The question I’d have before I looked into what she had to say would be how much can an Air Force Lt. Colonel know about the goings on in the White House and Pentagon intelligence centers and war rooms?
Look, what this all boils down to is a matter of trust. We elect our leaders to act on our behalf based upon the information they have at hand, and hopefully because we feel they’ve demonstrated they have the intelligence and judgement to make the right decision. But once that happens, they occupy a rarified world of info-data that we can’t imagine. They have access to information that is kept from us for a variety of reasons, and they have to deal with issues that are far too complex to explain through sound bites and news conferences.
So in other words, we elect people to act on our behalf with the understanding that they will be dealing with information and issues that we don’t have a clue about, and we trust them to make the right decisions. The problem is that we don’t trust each other. Democrats trust Democratic politicians to deal with things in a way they feel will be most logical, and because they view Republican politics as illogical or even ‘evil’, they expect Republican politicians to act illogically or out of evil intent. Similarly, Republicans don’t trust Democratic politicians to do the right thing because Democratic politics don’t make sense to us.
So each of us is suspicious of the motives of the nation’s leaders who get elected from the other side of the ideological divide, and our biases are reflected in how we percieve their actions. Republicans think that Democratic presidents are weak-kneed and ineffectual when it comes to dealing with threats from other countries, and Democrats think that Republican presidents are evil, cold-hearted Imperialists bent on world domination and don’t care how many people get killed in the process.
So, in the final analysis none of us is privvy to the information really necessary to arrive at a correctly informed conclusion about what should or shouldn’t have been done with regard to these issues, and so we are left with the fact that almost all of what goes on around here is little but ignorant squabbling among impassioned political partisans.
Or so it seems to me on this, the twenty-fifth day of May, in the year 2009. 
Oh yes, PLEASE go and take a long hard look at that site - Project for a New American Century. Go ALL the way through it. Especially the earliest stuff (it’s organized by year). These people were spoiling for a fight, even before Bush had said a damn thing about anything. Take note of some of the names too. Very interesting. You’ll recognize some of them.
I suppose yours doesn’t either since you were asked to share it and declined. No one is interested any more.
Here is a 42 year CIA vet discussing how the CIA has systematically lied to congress , the people and politicians since its inception. It is what they do.
Where was I asked to share it? I may have missed it.
As mentioned before, there was no evidence for this. And with what WMDs?
Curious friendship to have when they are not getting anything.
Eventually, besides believing silly theories, the Bush supporters have to lie to themselves.
God you’re an idiot. Your link goes to a webpage that is clearly labled commentary. How about an unbiased news source?
Opinion is just that. Nothing more.
Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born 24 September 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency.
…
Her most comprehensive writings on the subject of a corrupting influence of the Pentagon on intelligence analysis leading up to the Iraq War appeared in a series of articles in The American Conservative magazine in December 2003 and in a March 2004 article on Salon.com. In the latter piece (“The New Pentagon Papers”) she wrote:
I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.
Kwiatkowski described how a clique of officers led by retired Navy Captain Bill Luti, assistant secretary of defense for NESA and former aide to Dick Cheney when the latter was Secretary of Defense, took control of military intelligence and how the “Office of Special Plans” (OSP) grew and eventually turned into a censorship and disinformation organism controlling the NESA.[5]
That’s fine, but there is a difference between trust, and willful ignorance. You don’t continue to trust someone after they’ve been caught violating the trust you gave them.
So, they become gods and deign to no longer answer to us, the mere mortals, as we are too stupid to comprehend.
At the point of sounding arrogant, I really doubt I would be “lost” in any discussion at any level. I think, if a politician were to “splain” to me, I’d understand what he was saying. I can also recognize circular bullshit when said politician is resorting to that.
So. Do we have a president who is accountable to the people who elected him, or are we all serving some sort of god king?
For that matter, why trust mortals to elect the god king? Surely we couldn’t possibly handle such an awesome respnisibility.
Tell me you are just pulling my leg. Tell me you are setting me up for a big whoosh. The alternative is simply horrific.
I would point out that there was no evidence that Hurrican Katrina was going to come along and virtually wipe New Orleans off the face of the map either, and yet Bush was thoroughly reviled by left in this country for a) not having forseen the likelihood of it and put protective measures in place, and b) for not taking the appropriate steps to deal with it once it happened.
We expect our leaders to exercise judgement and foresight. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they don’t. Had president Clinton acted with foresight and judgement, bin Laden would have been captured or killed on his watch and 9/11 avoided; If Bush had acted with judgement and foresight, New Orleans might have been better protected from the onslaught of Hurrican Katrina and its aftermath.
If ‘evidence’ is the only qualifier for action, judgement and foresight become useless, and I don’t think that even around here judgement and foresight on the part of our leaders would be deemed unneccesary.
He didn’t take ANY steps. There was a video recording of Heckuvajob Brownie telling him it was coming and would be bad, he was ignored. Instead Bush ran off to play guitar somewhere. Afterwards, Brownie took the fall for it.
Nope, you are attempting to ignore the other half of the point, that the information was tainted before hand. With hurricane Katrina it would be similar to imagine if Bush had put in place an incompetent to screw up the planning and the response to the disaster…
But I see that you have done a heck of a job to forget who Bush had in place. 
As it was shown before, most of the ideas that had Clinton ignoring Bin Laden are doubtful, the accusations of Clinton not doing anything in Africa against Bin Laden were debunked.
Good foresight is reached only when proper information is used, not the cherry picked one or the tainted one furnished by your VP.
Heck of a job indeed.
Thanks for the information on Lt. Colonel Kwiatkowski. I hope you’ll understand if I take her undoubedly heartfelt position with a grain of salt, as, once again, she could be correct or she could be looking the lens of simple disagreement and/or a disgruntled whistle-blower mentality. But sinse I have no way of knowing, and since President Bush’s actions with Iraq are in harmony with my own thinking on the subject, I am left with the belief that, this or that misunderstanding or machination notwithstanding, he and his aides made the right choice and took the right action. You believe the opposite because Bush’s actions are not in line with your thinking, so to you every piece of evidence, no matter how insignificant in a big-picture sense, proves his malfeasance.
Like I said, it’s all a matter of politics. On both sides.
Calling Equipoise! Calling Equipoise! Blowjob alert! Blowjob alert!
Did you continue to trust Clinton about Whitewater, the Vince Foster documents, the bimbo eruptions, foreign intelligence and missle-lobbing after he stuck his finger in your face and lied about “that woman, Miss Lewinski”?
I’ll wager you did.
And did you continue to trust Hillary Clinton after she said, time and again over a number of weeks, that she came under fire upon deplaning in Bosnia?
And did you still trust her husband after he claimed that she only said it once, at 11:00 at night after an exhausting day? (As though that would be an excuse, even if the timing were to be believed. I’ve been up for close to 72 hours at times in the past and never once thought I came under sniper fire.)
I’ll wager you did.
Since I never said nor implied any such thing, I hope you’ll forgive me for passing on this silly little bit of hyperbole.
The point isn’t that you couldn’t understand, but rather that such attempts would soon find themselves to be considered TLDL (too long, didn’t listen). It would be a virtual impossibility for any president to go on television and describe in detail every bit of information that he has to consider, the conversations he’s had with his aides and military advisors, foreign leaders and intelligence services, etc. And even if he were to try, he’d have to turn around and do the same thing the next day. It would be like expecting you to read War and Peace every day, only with ever-changing details.
Of course he’s accountable to the people who elected him. And in the case of GWB, when the nation’s voters had a chance to assess his accountabilty in 2004, they reelected him for a second term in office. And later - after the left and its willing accomplices in the news media finally succeeded in turning public sentiment against him - the electorate chose a Democratic congress and president.