• 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.


Maybe this is why they couldn't envision a threat coming that turned out to be lethal for our Ambassador in Libya.

Our intelligence is pretty unintelligent.
 
C.I.A. Closes Its Climate Change Office - NYTimes.com


Question: Why the hell did the CIA have a climate change office to begin with? No wonder we are broke!

The reason departments like this is pretty sound. Say a natural disaster occurs in Asia. How does said natural disaster affect our policies there? How would it affect the politics? How could it destabilize the region and our interests. Without it having to do with 'climate change' it's pretty easy. Say Bolivia starts dumping waste in a river that flows into an ally. How does that affect U.S. interests in the region? How does it affect diplomatic ties?

In a world where politicians dedicate 100s of people to gathering data to win elections, this is pretty good. Calling it useless shows a lack of understanding of just how important ANY kind of climate related issues are to politics.
 
The reason departments like this is pretty sound. Say a natural disaster occurs in Asia. How does said natural disaster affect our policies there? How would it affect the politics? How could it destabilize the region and our interests. Without it having to do with 'climate change' it's pretty easy. Say Bolivia starts dumping waste in a river that flows into an ally. How does that affect U.S. interests in the region? How does it affect diplomatic ties?

In a world where politicians dedicate 100s of people to gathering data to win elections, this is pretty good. Calling it useless shows a lack of understanding of just how important ANY kind of climate related issues are to politics.

exactly! down right ignorance.
 
Maybe this is why they couldn't envision a threat coming that turned out to be lethal for our Ambassador in Libya.

Our intelligence is pretty unintelligent.

Maybe. But I think it is foolish to expect perfection. Invading Iraq and spreading democracy doesn't make the world safe.
 
Maybe. But I think it is foolish to expect perfection. Invading Iraq and spreading democracy doesn't make the world safe.



Is there a connection between what I said and what you said?

If we are to believe the leadership of our country, why should we not, then we must accept that our intelligence corps is blind to anything that is happening in the world.

They did not realize that the location was under attack, who was attacking, why, when, for how long or with what weapons.

Thankfully we have the wisest and most intelligent leadership any country could ever be thankful for having, so that helps to make up for the utter stupidity of the intelligence and their complete inability to react or defend.
 
Is there a connection between what I said and what you said?

If we are to believe the leadership of our country, why should we not, then we must accept that our intelligence corps is blind to anything that is happening in the world.

They did not realize that the location was under attack, who was attacking, why, when, for how long or with what weapons.

Thankfully we have the wisest and most intelligent leadership any country could ever be thankful for having, so that helps to make up for the utter stupidity of the intelligence and their complete inability to react or defend.

Yes there is. A real connection.

A no, not blind. But human. Not able to know all things at all times, or to make the world safe. Many argued not so long ago that imperial invasions like Iraq would spread democracy and make the world safe. Of course it doesn't work that way, and instead we just help the problems grow and helped train those who will continue attacking us.

Synthesis is where look at all your information and makes reasoned judgments.
 
Yes there is. A real connection.

A no, not blind. But human. Not able to know all things at all times, or to make the world safe. Many argued not so long ago that imperial invasions like Iraq would spread democracy and make the world safe. Of course it doesn't work that way, and instead we just help the problems grow and helped train those who will continue attacking us.

Synthesis is where look at all your information and makes reasoned judgments.


I'm of the Viet nam generation, so I have a healthy suspicion of any war. I will admit to being cautiously optimistic that planting a democracy in the Middle east might have caused it to spread. I thought it might take 50 years to see if it worked or not. I was wrong.

Wrong to be optimistic, wrong that it would take 50 years and wrong that it had any chance of working at all.

My post to which you responded was laced with sarcasm. I think our intelligence folks had the good info and the right diagnoses of everything that was going on, but the administration held off on the help for reasons that only they know. They seem to have intentionally sacrificed a good man and did so by omission. Whether they were frozen in fear, frozen in analysis, frozen in confusion or just frozen in debate, they froze at the time when action was needed.

This administration is a disgrace and it hurts us by lying to us and abandoning the brave front liners to our enemies.
 
I'm of the Viet nam generation, so I have a healthy suspicion of any war. I will admit to being cautiously optimistic that planting a democracy in the Middle east might have caused it to spread. I thought it might take 50 years to see if it worked or not. I was wrong.

Wrong to be optimistic, wrong that it would take 50 years and wrong that it had any chance of working at all.

My post to which you responded was laced with sarcasm. I think our intelligence folks had the good info and the right diagnoses of everything that was going on, but the administration held off on the help for reasons that only they know. They seem to have intentionally sacrificed a good man and did so by omission. Whether they were frozen in fear, frozen in analysis, frozen in confusion or just frozen in debate, they froze at the time when action was needed.

This administration is a disgrace and it hurts us by lying to us and abandoning the brave front liners to our enemies.

You may still be reading more of your bias or Fox's bias into this issue. We'll see when all the information is in.
 
C.I.A. Closes Its Climate Change Office - NYTimes.com


Question: Why the hell did the CIA have a climate change office to begin with? No wonder we are broke!

FYI, the office was not engaged in any kind of scientific work associated with the study of climate change. It focused on considering the possible implications of climate change. In any case, that work will continue, but there won't be a specific office dedicated to it.

From the NYT article to which a link was provided:

Todd Ebitz, a C.I.A. spokesman, said that the agency would continue to monitor the security and humanitarian challenges posed by climate change as part of its focus on economic security, but not in a stand-alone office.
 
I'm of the Viet nam generation, so I have a healthy suspicion of any war. I will admit to being cautiously optimistic that planting a democracy in the Middle east might have caused it to spread. I thought it might take 50 years to see if it worked or not. I was wrong.

Wrong to be optimistic, wrong that it would take 50 years and wrong that it had any chance of working at all.

My post to which you responded was laced with sarcasm. I think our intelligence folks had the good info and the right diagnoses of everything that was going on, but the administration held off on the help for reasons that only they know. They seem to have intentionally sacrificed a good man and did so by omission. Whether they were frozen in fear, frozen in analysis, frozen in confusion or just frozen in debate, they froze at the time when action was needed.

This administration is a disgrace and it hurts us by lying to us and abandoning the brave front liners to our enemies.

You're completely wrong on what happened in Bengazi. In every way. What happened, what the administration did and why, everything. The right wing media echo chamber has created this absolutely absurd scenario you've bought into.

Let's say Obama is this ridiculous comic book villain you think he is, and that he'd watch Americans die just for ****s and giggles. Why would he? If nothing else, wouldn't a comic book villain rescue them just to avoid the bad publicity in election season?

This Bad Action Movie Plot you think happened there? It didn't. The only people who think like you are the ones who believe everything Fox News writes at face value, without question, even when there's no source given.
 
And that's just one of probably dozens totally useless departments that our bloated government has come up with.

Hey they're letting our enemies get all the good climate change info on us. :lol:
 
C.I.A. Closes Its Climate Change Office - NYTimes.com


Question: Why the hell did the CIA have a climate change office to begin with? No wonder we are broke!

Youre broke because you have a fascist Corpocracy in charge of everything in the USA

Youre broke because when these fascist Corporate instruments and Banksters go broke, the state and tax payer bails them out - they are on a continual corporate welfare drip feed. Trillions of dollars funneled into these corporate scams and into the pockets of these bankster crooks

And you are worried about a CIA office in one city that is probably costing a few million dollars per year to run?

Have a good look around as to who is bending you over each day and de-rimming your essence
 
FYI, the office was not engaged in any kind of scientific work associated with the study of climate change. It focused on considering the possible implications of climate change. .[/i]

so how do you assertain the possible implications of climate change if you dont understand the science and apply a scientific approach to the problem?

Was agent 86 and Larraby looking at predictive climate modelling results?
 
You may still be reading more of your bias or Fox's bias into this issue. We'll see when all the information is in.



Might well be, but the guys who should have provided security to civilian employees in a war zone dropped the ball.

The guys who wanted to respond were ordered to not respond. Didn't even send a drone which is the Prez's weapon of choice.

After 7 hours of not responding, apparently this effort affected their judgement, they decided that a multi phased military assault including the use of light weapons, RPG's and coordinated mortar fire was the next logical step for a group of cinema critics to employ.

Next, and continuing through the following months, the administration outright lied about the whole affair and the stenographers in the press simply wrote down everything they said.
 
You're completely wrong on what happened in Bengazi. In every way. What happened, what the administration did and why, everything. The right wing media echo chamber has created this absolutely absurd scenario you've bought into.

Let's say Obama is this ridiculous comic book villain you think he is, and that he'd watch Americans die just for ****s and giggles. Why would he? If nothing else, wouldn't a comic book villain rescue them just to avoid the bad publicity in election season?

This Bad Action Movie Plot you think happened there? It didn't. The only people who think like you are the ones who believe everything Fox News writes at face value, without question, even when there's no source given.



Just to be clear, what do you disagree with?

Was this not a war zone?

Were the buildings provided with the troops and weaponry needed to ward off attacks?

Was it not 9/11?

Had there not been previous events that caused the diplomatic staff to request added security?

Did the attack not last for 7 hours?

Did the local CIA folks not ask for permission to intercede after the attack started?

Were not war ships and air resources in the Mediterranean that could have responded?

Did the victims not immediately request aid?

Were they not killed by folks who had light weapons that could be carried including fire arms and RPG's?

Did the diplomatic facilities not take mortar fire?

Has the cover story from the administration not changed over the weeks and months that followed?

Has the ability of the administration to explain why every player among the survivors said one thing, then another then another?

This is a huge foul up and it was the result of bad planning, bad understanding, bad reaction and a cover up good enough to be defended by those willing to be fooled.
 
Might well be, but the guys who should have provided security to civilian employees in a war zone dropped the ball.

The guys who wanted to respond were ordered to not respond. Didn't even send a drone which is the Prez's weapon of choice.

After 7 hours of not responding, apparently this effort affected their judgement, they decided that a multi phased military assault including the use of light weapons, RPG's and coordinated mortar fire was the next logical step for a group of cinema critics to employ.

Next, and continuing through the following months, the administration outright lied about the whole affair and the stenographers in the press simply wrote down everything they said.


How do you 'know' the "administration outright lied about the whole affair"? Where are you getting this inside information?
 
How do you 'know' the "administration outright lied about the whole affair"? Where are you getting this inside information?



When they say they don't know who changed the reference of the terrorists from Al Qaeda to something else, that's a lie. When Patreus says one thing in one testimony and something else in the next one, he had to be lying in one or the other. Clapper, too.

When Susan Rice and the president present the notion that this was a spontaneous demonstration that evolved into an attack knowing that it was a multi phased military action involving light weapons, RPG's and coordinated mortar fire, that's a lie and that lie was repeated repeatedly. We can either accept that they are lying or that they are completely out of the loop on information.

I am from the Viet nam generation and watched many demonstrations on TV. Funny thing. There were never 7 hour pitched battles that involved RPG's and coordinated Mortar fire. You'd think that mybe this might have been a dead, if you'll excuse the word, giveaway for the administration in assessing whether or not this might have been a demonstration or an attack.

Obama was held up as the guy that directed the "Kill List" for the drones operating illegally in Pakistan, but he apparently had no connection to the reaction for the doomed bastards in Benghazi.

Doesn't anyone ask the obvious questions of this guy? I loved his "news conference": Do you like my dress? What time is your bed time?

What happened to, "During the 7 hour assault on the Benghazi facilities that resulted in the assassination of the ambassador, were you ever informed in any way of the hostilities and if so, what was your response?"

If this had happened during the Bush administration, do you think this question might have been asked?
 
so how do you assertain the possible implications of climate change if you dont understand the science and apply a scientific approach to the problem?

Was agent 86 and Larraby looking at predictive climate modelling results?

In sensitivity analysis one examines possible impacts of scenarios. One scenario might be a +2.5°C increase in global temperatures from a doubling of carbon dioxide coupled with the latest scientific thinking concerning such factors ranging from the incidence/intensity of heat waves to sea level rise. The CIA does not seek to affirm or reaffirm those ideas. It looks at possible economic, social, and geopolitical impacts should such a scenario occur. The logical question then concerns what are the national security/policy implications of such scenarios for the U.S. Of course, as with any analysis there is uncertainty.
 
Might well be, but the guys who should have provided security to civilian employees in a war zone dropped the ball.

The guys who wanted to respond were ordered to not respond. Didn't even send a drone which is the Prez's weapon of choice.

After 7 hours of not responding, apparently this effort affected their judgement, they decided that a multi phased military assault including the use of light weapons, RPG's and coordinated mortar fire was the next logical step for a group of cinema critics to employ.

Next, and continuing through the following months, the administration outright lied about the whole affair and the stenographers in the press simply wrote down everything they said.

Months? No, most of what we know we learned fairly soon. One reason this hasn't caught the fire some conservatives want is because liken so much they overstate the situation. I t,hint you're doing that here as we'll.
 
Back
Top Bottom