Comments on: Sympathy for the Company?

By: SPQR

SPQR — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:33:48 +0000

Another illustration of how the Bush bashers have no sense of historical context.

By: AD - RtR/OS

AD - RtR/OS — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:09:42 +0000

Ever since the evil genius Allan Dulles led the CIA, the Left has denigrated the CIA’s attempts to protect America, downplaying its’ successes, and magnifying its’ failures, in a long-term attack designed to minimize the effectiveness of the Agency, and to ultimately disband it.
Though we on the Right can find many things we dislike about how the Agency does its’ job (including things that are probably not in its’ charter, such as undermining the policy preferences of the Elected National Leadership), we do appreciate the efforts that the Agency makes to uphold its’ charter responsibilities, and to protect the American People from foreign threats.
What the Left forgets, or conveniently overlooks, is that between the Great Wars, there was no CIA (or any other orginization charged with compiling a comprehensive data-base of foreign threats to the security of the U.S.), and the attack at Pearl Harbor was the result.
Just as teen-agers believe themselves to be invincible, the immaturity of the Left shines through in their unshakable belief that America’s enemies would never harm “them”, and that we will be protected by their inherent “goodness” demonstrated in their leadership.
Well, as someone wiser than myself once said:
If you wish for Peace,
Prepare for War!

By: JD

JD — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:07:55 +0000

I see that horace has finally dropped the pretense of being a conservative. And another kitten gets waterboarded.

By: hortense (aka horace)

hortense (aka horace) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:43:41 +0000

Hey guys, which is it?

1) The CIA is an unimpeachable source of knowledge, never once stretching the truth for political reasons

Let’s call this the patterico position on the torture memos

2) it is an machiavellian group of shadowy spooks, out to twist public opinion to its own end

the neocon positon when they were trying to stop the orchestration of intelligence in service of an useless and costly war

By: JD

JD — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:02:35 +0000

Why does imdw hate kittens?

By: imdw

imdw — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:42:30 +0000

“What would Obama be doing differently if he were anti-American? Or a closet Muslim?

My answer would be: Not one damn thing!!!”

And what if he were even born in the states?

By: krusher

krusher — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:52:40 +0000

Terry Gain wants the question asked: What would Obama be doing differently if he were anti-American? Or a closet Muslim?

My answer would be: Not one damn thing!!!

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:11:42 +0000

Did they really think electing Obama would improve their situation?

Well, if quite a few people in the CIA have the political sentiments of a Valerie Plume, then, heck, yea, they’d have been thrilled to see the current guy in the Oval Office become the current guy in the Oval Office.

By: imdw

imdw — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:52:33 +0000

“I might also ask who is that elected these miserable jerks to undercut and undermine a sitting U.S. President? How many votes did they get?”

I mean, what people do you have in mind, and why were they doing all these mean things to bush?

By: Mike Myers

Mike Myers — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:29:51 +0000

Why was it that people at the top of the CIA were undermining the Bush admin?

I can respond by saying, “Why is that some people are flaming hemorrhoids throughout their pathetic miserable lives?”

I might also ask who is that elected these miserable jerks to undercut and undermine a sitting U.S. President? How many votes did they get? What powers were allocated to them under the U.S. Constitution? Why should their miserable little wishes override the votes of those people who elected the President? I wouldn’t tolerate these jerks actively seeking to undermine Obama–that is not their function in the scheme of things.