• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CIA closes its climate change offices

According to your article, they had one to study security implications. I believe they do this with nearly anything they can envision possible threats growing from.

You were correct on this!
 
So are those that are hallucinating.


I seem to recall that there was a faction in our society that was very upset because the Republican Administration did not "connect the dots" prior to the 9/11, the original 9/11, terrorist attacks.

The dots here seem to be far more prominent and noticeable and far more connectable than those that used to cause outrage.
 
The criticism of the Bush administration was and still is over the fact that after having been told by the departing Clinton people that terrorism would be the number one problem on their watch, the Bush people simply back-burnered the whole idea. They already had an agenda, and terrorism wasn't on it. When the administration (i.e., Bush and Cheney) received the CIA's final report on responsibility for the USS Cole bombing in February 2001, they decided the issue was "stale" and simply walked away from it. Too busy with other things.

It would have been unrealistic to have expected the Bush administration to uncover the 9/11 plot. These things always depend to a great degree on luck. It is entirely realistic however to understand that the plot could in fact have been discovered, but only by those who were actually paying attention and were thus in a position to take advantage of whatever luck happened to come their way. The Bushies had no one in such a position.

As for the CIA move, the staff and mission of the previously separate office were simply moved on an organization chart to become part of another office. The idea that this constitutes closing it down is kind of far-fetched. Leave it to the media.

As for the climate debate itself, there actually isn't one, and clown-bots and their pathetic challenges to the actual science have no reason to be part of it in any case. It is CO2 that is causing the increase in temperature. There are no natural causes that can explain the rise in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution and the accompanying increase in the rates at which carbon-based fuels have been burned. Some people can put two and two together. Some people -- for political, financial, or other similarly not at all relevant reasons -- simply refuse to.
 
I seem to recall that there was a faction in our society that was very upset because the Republican Administration did not "connect the dots" prior to the 9/11, the original 9/11, terrorist attacks.

The dots here seem to be far more prominent and noticeable and far more connectable than those that used to cause outrage.

No, they so far appear to be imaginary dots.
 
exactly! down right ignorance.

No, we are certainly aware the gospel of climate change is an important tenet of left-wing propaganda. That doesn't mean we should be excited to see resources wasted by the CIA pretending to investigate this. Now go make Al Gore richer by buying carbon offsets from his company.
 
Probably a top secret weapon to melt the ice caps to flood Russia. They closed it because the cold war is over.

Now, the warmers objected to the word "cold". :lol:
 
I'm pretty sure the assassinated ambassador agreed with you as he was being murdered.
Rather obviously. But since you somehow saw it all coming, maybe you should have jotted down all your dots on a postcard and sent them off to the US Embassy. Why didn't you do that again? Was it because you weren't actually aware of any of the dots until some bilge-pumping propaganda site suggested them to you weeks after the fact?
 
Now, the warmers objected to the word "cold". :lol:
Way to not understand at all. The models point to decreases in moderation. That means extremes that expand across the board -- gustier winds, drier droughts, wetter rains, warmer highs, and colder lows. Among other things.
 
Rather obviously. But since you somehow saw it all coming, maybe you should have jotted down all your dots on a postcard and sent them off to the US Embassy. Why didn't you do that again? Was it because you weren't actually aware of any of the dots until some bilge-pumping propaganda site suggested them to you weeks after the fact?



It's not my job to be aware of these things. The time line of events shows that the staff on site called for more security more than once and was refused. It shows that there were incidents on several occasions that showed that the locals were interested in causing mischief. We now know with absolute certainty that members of Al Qaeda were involved in the attacks that went on for hours.

Is it your belief that people who are paid by the Departments of State and Defense to know about this stuff and are required to know know more about it should have no greater knowledge than some regular guy in Indiana involved in the football season? That, apparently is the measuring stick used by the Obama administration, but a thinking individual might suppose that professionals would know more about their job than a person who is not paid to think about this stuff.
 
It's not my job to be aware of these things.
Yada, yada. Your hindsight is wonderful. Clearly, the ambassador had NOT connected these dots you think everyone should so easily have connected or he would not have made the trip. If you believe that even well paid security and intelligence personnel will somehow be able to know all, see all, and tell all, you are simply deceiving yourself.
 
Yada, yada. Your hindsight is wonderful. Clearly, the ambassador had NOT connected these dots you think everyone should so easily have connected or he would not have made the trip. If you believe that even well paid security and intelligence personnel will somehow be able to know all, see all, and tell all, you are simply deceiving yourself.


Maybe it is a progressive thing to just ignore the facts when they don't line up, but that unfortunately for them, doesn't mean that they don't exist....

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News.
The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.”

Security Team Commander Says Ambassador Stevens Wanted His Team to Stay in Libya Past August - ABC News

The revalations came a day after it emerged that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens repeatedly pleaded with the State Department to ramp up his security team in Libya -- requests that the Pentagon ultimately denied -- in the weeks, days and hours leading up to the terrorist attack that killed him and three other Americans, newly released cables have revealed.

Read more: Christopher Stevens: Ambassador pleaded for extra security in Libya hours before he was killed | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Chris Stevens' request for additional security officials was turned down by the Obama administration in order to project a friendly atmosphere to the distrusting Islamic population, an anonymous security official in Washington, D.C., informed the Law Enforcement Examiner on Wednesday.

U.S. diplomats in Libya begged for more security to no avail - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com


Sounds like Stevens knew the dots very well, but it was the Obama administration that refused to connect them in order to further their own political agenda at the time....Wonderful. We now have a President that sacrificed the lives of Americans for his own political ends....
 
Yada, yada. Your hindsight is wonderful. Clearly, the ambassador had NOT connected these dots you think everyone should so easily have connected or he would not have made the trip. If you believe that even well paid security and intelligence personnel will somehow be able to know all, see all, and tell all, you are simply deceiving yourself.



Deceiving one's self seems like an area in which you are expert so I will defer to your expertise.
 
Maybe it is a progressive thing to just ignore the facts when they don't line up, but that unfortunately for them, doesn't mean that they don't exist....
Your slip is showing. Facts are rarely found in the Examiner or the Daily Mail. These are low-grade hack outlets.

Sounds like Stevens knew the dots very well, but it was the Obama administration that refused to connect them in order to further their own political agenda at the time....Wonderful. We now have a President that sacrificed the lives of Americans for his own political ends....
A security support team had been assigned to Tripoli as extra security manpower associated with reopening the US embassy. The team had been scheduled to depart Libya at the end of April. The embassy requested and was granted a four-month extension. No further extension of their presence was requested as out-rotation at the end of August approached. The dots from early in the year were no longer visible. In the meantime, additional diplomatic security agents had been deployed, meaning that the level of fully trained and qualified US personel in-country never fell below the levels requested by the Regional Security Officer. The embassy knew full well what those approved levels were and had already demonstrated its capacity to request and justify support that might be actually be needed above those levels. They did not produce any such further request or justification.

In summary, you aren't concerned with any of the facts of the matter at all. You are concerned with exploiting the events by playing rah-rah dude in attempts to fabricate a partisan mythology and hang that around the neck of a politician you dislike. That's as far as your two-bit interest extends and that's all that it covers.
 
Again, emotionalism doesn't equal connecting dots.


I am not the guy who needed to connect the dots. The people who do this stuff for a living are supposed to be able to do this.
 
I am not the guy who needed to connect the dots. The people who do this stuff for a living are supposed to be able to do this.

Do you know what we're talking about?
 
Think of the story of Chicken Little. Why, the whole danged thing is about the reaction.
 
Back
Top Bottom