Smearing the US Intel Community

I’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop.

It’s more of the utterly and beautifully absurd pop-con culture of victimhood. Team Bush star in their very own martyrdom play.

The folks who left the Admin w/ unflattering things to say, they were horrid partisans who the innocent and naive Admin hired on. How was teh Admin to know that so many folks working for them were actually lying partisan hacks?

Now, the nation’s intel agencies and the Dept of State are in league w/ the Vast Liberal ConspiracyTM, the mind-control weilding MSM and the liberally biased reality itself. It all makes sense now. That’s where the MSM got their mind-control devices - the CIA.

It’s all here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/417aldhj.asp?pg=1

This is why it looks so bad for the Admin. It’s not that they screwed up or anything, it’s just that the US Intel Community has turned against them and is plotting their downfall.

Now every pop-con with a granny sandwich can go about their business and ignore the findings of one the world’s finest intel services simply by hiding in the belief that the CIA’s out to get poor, poor innocent Georgie.

I say, “Good luck,” to all the poor schmucks who hold the Admin as immaculate. Soon you won’t be able to back-track on you support for quickly enough.
[Yes, yes. Of course. I know you wouldn’t ever do that. You’ll be a true-blue red because it’s the right thing to do no matter what the facts are.]

Yeah, it’s the usual Repub partisan bullshit. Bush and his cronies never did anything wrong. It’s the evil CIA and their running dog lackies, the Democrats. What utter horse shit that article is. :rolleyes:

I’m with St. Pat on this one, numerous disagreements notwithstanding.

So that’s what shrill sounds like.

Much more subversive anti-CIA material here.

What a bizarre article. I’m particularly bemused by the author’s apparent contention that anyone who happens to object to a policy of the kidnapping and secret imprisonment of foreign nationals for for indefinite periods is “anti-American”.

Impulsive, aren’t we, Nurse-y?

Yeah. And after the USSR fell, suddenly Reagan became a genius for “engineering” their fall by his “brilliant plan” to force them into an arms race they could not afford to maintain. Meanwhile the Reagan true believers were singing Happy Days Are Here Again. The Iran Contra “thing” was all Reagan too. He gave the orders, the CIA followed the orders. I wonder how much of the “bad info” from intelligence was just like now - the ruling party sets up a culture in which they only hear what they want to hear, and only bringers of good news get the promotions. The party in power decides what they want to do, listen only to the “happy data” while ignoring any warning signs and then blame someone else. Vietnam/Laos/Camobida, can be put on the politicians who thought they were generals and thought they knew how to run a war.
Put the blame where it belongs - on those who make the decisisions, secret or otherwise.

Better watch your back, NurseCarmen, or you might just get two weeks of taunts like:

Nurse-y Carmen, Filthy and Harmin’
Scuzzy Nurse-y, what could be worse-y?

:rolleyes:

OMFG!
The CIA is flawed!
I guess that means they couldn’t be “one the world’s finest intel services” unless other intel agencies are also flawed. And since no other intel agency is flawed, I guess I was wrong.

An interesting side-note re faulty assessment of the USSR threat is that there was a Team B set by some of the same crew who advocated the set up of the OSP et al. And, just like the OSP, Team B got things even more wrong than the CIA. Team B presented the threat from the USSR as being even greater than the CIA.

Additionally, none of what was in the articles you posted assigns partisan motives to the CIA. Mr. Hinderaker asks us to believe that whoever it was who spilled the beans about the detention centers and the rendition was merely “out to get Bush” rather than concerned about the unethical and illegal actions of the agency. The entirety of the case presented for that interpretation requires that we accept the conclusion as one of the premises.

Hey, at least Isky isn’t pretending not to know English this time.

Oh yeah, forgot to ask:

Sounds interesting, but I haven’t a clue what it means. Would someone be kind enough to translate this into Englitch?

From the link in the OP:

Close enough.

Exactly.

Except I provided that link, not Isk

Hell if I know. It just came out. Googling reveals quite a diversity of opinions as what exactly one is. Apparently, one version is a pickle and peanutbutter sandwich.

Yeah, and another apparently involves three-way pr0n with someone’s grandmother. Hence my question.

And pop-con? Please forgive me, but I’m a cartoon horse from the '60s and am not up to date on the latest jargon.

Neato! I just found a New Iskander button, and I pushed it!

Most of the folks I know in the intel community do hate the Administration - but that’s mostly from their chronic dismissal of any intelligence that doesn’t support their preconcieved viewpoints, rather than any partisan differences.

pop-con is to conservative
as
pop-music is to music

Well if they weren’t so blinded by their hatred of all things Bush they would see that the intel supports Team Bush’s preconcieved viewpoints. :smack: