Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's still a different part of the oath? You're a goddamn retard. Once out you no longer have an office to defend, that's a fact not a quibble. YOU are what's wrong with today's military, standards are obviously WAY down. The only thing you're qualified to do is polish your superior's knob.Correct. Still a different part. You can quibble all you like. Again, if you said the part "So help me God", then it's between you and God. Did you?"Different part of the oath" is part of the oath. How can you be expected to carry out the duties of your office when you have no office?
You are free to focus on the part about the office. I'll focus on the part about "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic", Weasel.
Unlike me? I'm not under military control, dumbfuck. How am I supposed to defend my station that doesn't exist and who do I take orders from?Unlike you, it's not just words. It means something. Do you think Trump will just mouth the words like you did and not give a flying fuck what they mean, Weasel?What is it with you and the oath? The CIA can't be politicized due to an oath? so when Trump steps in and they sing a different tune you'll believe them again?
No one knows whether the intelligence is right or wrong. But I am aware that the CIA is a clandestine organization with many tasks which can include public manipulation. The intelligence can also be politicized. We just don't know. And I for one don't trust them. Here is your citation from the report.Are you people for real? Why are you people focused on the oath part of Divine.Wind's comment? I see that he mentioned that, but who in their right mind would latch onto that tidbit as the basis for doubting the intelligence community's assertion that the Russian governmentally authorized actors hacked U.S. organizations and used the information as best they could to influence the 2016 election? A toothpick floats, but it won't keep your head above water.
You can catterwaul about the oath government officials take if you want to, but if you are going to do that, then you need to at least show that the key individuals who participated in developing and issuing the CIA's reports and statements are not credible, cannot be relied upon and did misrepresent the facts by presenting something other than the truth to executive and legislative branch officials.
Is this what you people do on this forum? Instead of directly taking on the heart of a claim or argument, you take to grasping at the straw of "I don't know the people who did whatever therefore I don't believe them." Does everything here come down basically to a conspiracy theorist's argument that derives mostly from an anti-intellectualist approach to political debate that depends on the notion that one person's ignorance is just as good as another's knowledge?
That's the kind of the kind of questions and concerns you expect when you discuss things with eighth graders not other presumably smart adults and definitely not with adults mature enough not to beyond the level of their ability to fully understand.
When it comes to what the intelligence community says, you can pretty much in the near term forget about them fully disclosing all the information they collect and analyze. I would think everyone understands that much. Another thing is that we only find out about the actions government decision makers take and that turn out to have been the wrong action to take. What we rarely find out is what the intelligence community actually tells decision makers, namely the president.
Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell made it quite clear. "As [President Bush's] briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV." Elected and appointed leaders will make what they want of what the intelligence community tells them.
Take the intelligence estimate, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," the Bush Administration used as its basis for the second Iraq war. Here is an excerpt from it.
Iraq "probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant" to manufacture biological weapons "but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed." The NIE also said Hussein did not have sufficient material to manufacture any nuclear weapons and the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. (see page 8)
October 7, 2002 - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat - "The Iraqi regime...possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons," and "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
That is just one example, but it clearly illustrates the point that what the intelligence community says and what of it comes our way need not be the same things in spirit and letter. Based on what appears in the report, it's fair to say the prevailing view of the intelligence community was consistent with what Bush reported, but that State and DOE dissented saying the evidence was in their opinion unpersuasive that Iraq was pursuing WMDs. State's job is to understand the people and policies of the countries with whom we have relations and DOE's job is to understand the hard science of nuclear weapons. I realize that the CIA and military gather human intelligence, but they didn't indicate any of their sources were scientists working on the alleged Iraqi programs. They were getting their information from zealots whom they tortured.
As goes Russian hacking, I haven't read the report that was released a few days ago, but I also haven't seen anyone citing specific passages from it that make it clear the intelligence community is wrong. What I have seen is people talking about an oath. Come on. That's weaker than dishwater.
You misspelled caterwaul. It means to create a shrill howling noise. In most cases, we heard Trump caterwauling about the Hacking issue to reporters on New Years Eve, but that sends Congress questioning a magnitude. He needs to stop talking.Are you people for real? Why are you people focused on the oath part of Divine.Wind's comment? I see that he mentioned that, but who in their right mind would latch onto that tidbit as the basis for doubting the intelligence community's assertion that the Russian governmentally authorized actors hacked U.S. organizations and used the information as best they could to influence the 2016 election? A toothpick floats, but it won't keep your head above water.
You can catterwaul about the oath government officials take if you want to, but if you are going to do that, then you need to at least show that the key individuals who participated in developing and issuing the CIA's reports and statements are not credible, cannot be relied upon and did misrepresent the facts by presenting something other than the truth to executive and legislative branch officials.
Is this what you people do on this forum? Instead of directly taking on the heart of a claim or argument, you take to grasping at the straw of "I don't know the people who did whatever therefore I don't believe them." Does everything here come down basically to a conspiracy theorist's argument that derives mostly from an anti-intellectualist approach to political debate that depends on the notion that one person's ignorance is just as good as another's knowledge?
That's the kind of the kind of questions and concerns you expect when you discuss things with eighth graders not other presumably smart adults and definitely not with adults mature enough not to beyond the level of their ability to fully understand.
When it comes to what the intelligence community says, you can pretty much in the near term forget about them fully disclosing all the information they collect and analyze. I would think everyone understands that much. Another thing is that we only find out about the actions government decision makers take and that turn out to have been the wrong action to take. What we rarely find out is what the intelligence community actually tells decision makers, namely the president.
Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell made it quite clear. "As [President Bush's] briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV." Elected and appointed leaders will make what they want of what the intelligence community tells them.
Take the intelligence estimate, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," the Bush Administration used as its basis for the second Iraq war. Here is an excerpt from it.
Iraq "probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant" to manufacture biological weapons "but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed." The NIE also said Hussein did not have sufficient material to manufacture any nuclear weapons and the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. (see page 8)
October 7, 2002 - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat - "The Iraqi regime...possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons," and "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
That is just one example, but it clearly illustrates the point that what the intelligence community says and what of it comes our way need not be the same things in spirit and letter. Based on what appears in the report, it's fair to say the prevailing view of the intelligence community was consistent with what Bush reported, but that State and DOE dissented saying the evidence was in their opinion unpersuasive that Iraq was pursuing WMDs. State's job is to understand the people and policies of the countries with whom we have relations and DOE's job is to understand the hard science of nuclear weapons. I realize that the CIA and military gather human intelligence, but they didn't indicate any of their sources were scientists working on the alleged Iraqi programs. They were getting their information from zealots whom they tortured.
As goes Russian hacking, I haven't read the report that was released a few days ago, but I also haven't seen anyone citing specific passages from it that make it clear the intelligence community is wrong. What I have seen is people talking about an oath. Come on. That's weaker than dishwater.
and this;The NIE also said Hussein did not have sufficient material to manufacture any nuclear weapons and the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.
equate to this;"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
Based on what appears in the report, it's fair to say the prevailing view of the intelligence community was consistent with what Bush reported
How does this;
and this;The NIE also said Hussein did not have sufficient material to manufacture any nuclear weapons and the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.
equate to this;"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
Based on what appears in the report, it's fair to say the prevailing view of the intelligence community was consistent with what Bush reported
LOL Nice tantrum.....You're a goddamn retard.....The only thing you're qualified to do is polish your superior's knob.
Nobody is claiming you're under military control. Thanks again for the insults. It's your best, most intellectual feature, as sad as that is.....I'm not under military control, dumbfuck....Go polish your boss's knob, he probably wants his little yes boy now.
All excellent points. Agreed the intelligence agencies do their best to provide timely and accurate information to our civilian leadership, but it's up to the civilian leadership to decide what to do with it....Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell made it quite clear. "As [President Bush's] briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV." Elected and appointed leaders will make what they want of what the intelligence community tells them.
Take the intelligence estimate, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," the Bush Administration used as its basis for the second Iraq war. Here is an excerpt from it.
Iraq "probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant" to manufacture biological weapons "but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed." The NIE also said Hussein did not have sufficient material to manufacture any nuclear weapons and the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. (see page 8)
October 7, 2002 - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat - "The Iraqi regime...possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons," and "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
That is just one example, but it clearly illustrates the point that what the intelligence community says and what of it comes our way need not be the same things in spirit and letter. Based on what appears in the report, it's fair to say the prevailing view of the intelligence community was consistent with what Bush reported, but that State and DOE dissented saying the evidence was in their opinion unpersuasive that Iraq was pursuing WMDs. State's job is to understand the people and policies of the countries with whom we have relations and DOE's job is to understand the hard science of nuclear weapons. I realize that the CIA and military gather human intelligence, but they didn't indicate any of their sources were scientists working on the alleged Iraqi programs. They were getting their information from zealots whom they tortured.
As goes Russian hacking, I haven't read the report that was released a few days ago, but I also haven't seen anyone citing specific passages from it that make it clear the intelligence community is wrong. What I have seen is people talking about an oath. Come on. That's weaker than dishwater.
If we are all adults here then I am going to assume that the material you excerpted and highlighted from the report was the information you wished to convey that substantiated what you were saying. If there was something else in the report that more adequately highlights your point then the next time I would suggest you use it instead. Don't expect anyone to go looking for the meaning of your post just because what you provide doesn't substantiate your point.How does this;
and this;The NIE also said Hussein did not have sufficient material to manufacture any nuclear weapons and the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.
equate to this;"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
Based on what appears in the report, it's fair to say the prevailing view of the intelligence community was consistent with what Bush reported
Read the linked intelligence estimate and the text of Bush's speech and you'll know.
You know, you are now the second person on here who I've come across and won't read the content that's made available? Am I talking to other grown ups here? I've just never seen this where people in written communication don't actually read what's presented. If you read an annual report, do you not read the notes to the financial statements as well as the statements themselves? You should. When you read non-fiction, do you read the footnotes or endnotes? You should.
I realize that in a textbook the author will spell out everything in the main body, but once you get out of school, people only provide the reference details that readers need to look up the information - contextual or factual - if they aren't already familiar with it. If discussions here are going to be like Romper Room, I don't have time for it. I put the links there; if you don't see the flow, you need to read the content you'll find at those links.
All excellent points. Agreed the intelligence agencies do their best to provide timely and accurate information to our civilian leadership, but it's up to the civilian leadership to decide what to do with it....Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell made it quite clear. "As [President Bush's] briefer, my job is to carry CIA's best information and best analysis to the president of the United States and make sure he understands it. My job is to not watch what they're saying on TV." Elected and appointed leaders will make what they want of what the intelligence community tells them.
Take the intelligence estimate, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," the Bush Administration used as its basis for the second Iraq war. Here is an excerpt from it.
Iraq "probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant" to manufacture biological weapons "but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed." The NIE also said Hussein did not have sufficient material to manufacture any nuclear weapons and the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. (see page 8)
October 7, 2002 - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat - "The Iraqi regime...possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons," and "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
That is just one example, but it clearly illustrates the point that what the intelligence community says and what of it comes our way need not be the same things in spirit and letter. Based on what appears in the report, it's fair to say the prevailing view of the intelligence community was consistent with what Bush reported, but that State and DOE dissented saying the evidence was in their opinion unpersuasive that Iraq was pursuing WMDs. State's job is to understand the people and policies of the countries with whom we have relations and DOE's job is to understand the hard science of nuclear weapons. I realize that the CIA and military gather human intelligence, but they didn't indicate any of their sources were scientists working on the alleged Iraqi programs. They were getting their information from zealots whom they tortured.
As goes Russian hacking, I haven't read the report that was released a few days ago, but I also haven't seen anyone citing specific passages from it that make it clear the intelligence community is wrong. What I have seen is people talking about an oath. Come on. That's weaker than dishwater.
Example: Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The intelligence said there was a strong likelihood he was in there, but couldn't be for certain. Intelligence and military advisors laid out the options which included waiting, bombing the compound and staging a raid. The decision wasn't up to the CIA or the military, but to the Commander in Chief. The same goes for the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, of which Hillary and Kerry supported, as well as actions in Libya and Syria.
Agreed. My point was that, IAW the Constitution, as Federal officers, they've all taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. A second point was that an oath is for life even if the law doesn't prosecute those who violate their oaths once they've left their position. An example is Timothy McVeigh. He swore an oath but violated that oath when he went to war against "We, the People".Just to be clear, but not to focus on it, intelligence professionals are, except for some of them working for military intelligence units, are civilians.....
While, no doubt, there have been some who have violated their oath while in office, the most do not. In short, most intelligence professionals work hard to provide the most accurate information possible. Agreed that it's up to the leadership to decide what to do with that information. OTOH, when the shit hits the fan, it's all too easy for an elected politician to blame the professionals.....I agree that the choice of what to do with the information received from intelligence organizations is what civilian government officials get to decide. As long as they don't misrepresent the information they receive, I don't have much to say about it. I can tell what hindsight says, but leaders don't get to decide using hindsight.
I know leaders will make what hindsight shows was the wrong decision. I would prefer they not make bad choices, but I know all of them will. What I need to be comfortable with is that when they chose they made the wrong decision for the right reasons.
When it comes to Trump, I don't believe he does anything for the right reasons. I think he does everything because it benefits him and whom it hurts doesn't matter to him. His words don't in isolation suggest that, but taken in total they do, and his actions nearly always do. I don't think I've ever seen anyone who is more all about themselves than is Trump. That works for me in a CEO, but not in U.S. president.
A second point was that an oath is for life even if the law doesn't prosecute those who violate their oaths once they've left their position.
See? Once again alt-Left and alt-Right America-haters can join hands in agreement that an oath to God means nothing once a person leaves their position.It's an oath of office. The duration would be the time in office. It's irrelevant after that as you have highlighted here with your McVeigh example.
You swear allegiance and declare to faithfully discharge your duties for the office you are about to enter. I doubt god cares very much after you have fulfilled your obligations to the State. Assuming you had been faithful, your pact would be complete. It is nice though, that you take it to heart. Brings a tear to my eye.See? Once again alt-Left and alt-Right America-haters can join hands in agreement that an oath to God means nothing once a person leaves their position.It's an oath of office. The duration would be the time in office. It's irrelevant after that as you have highlighted here with your McVeigh example.
