• 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!

House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Faced

Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Twice as many terrorist threats come from domestic right-wing groups than from Islam-inspired groups.

But we all knew that, right?

Study: Right-wing terrorism has killed 48 people in the US since 2001 - Vox

It will be dismissed based on the numbers of Americans killed not including 9/11. But we all now that's a convenient duck and dive when the point is that the right wing has conducted more incidents of attacks than Islamic extremists. ;)
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

None of your "very important points" were a surprise to anyone.

Nor are any of yours Jack, ever. Funny watching you get your ass handed to you here. As Dave says, your in the toilet, just pull the chain. :lamo
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

That is in fact, not true, at all. Gates is clearly stating that analysts assess policy and criticize it as a matter of fact, your inferences and semantic nonsense do not change this in the least, Jack Ryan.


Actually, Gates is saying the opposite of what you claim. They may have opinions about policy and they may be aware of the policy implications of their analysis but they will never cross the line to explicit policy assessment.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Okay, let's go back to 9/11. But let's not stop there. Let's also include Oklahoma City. How far back would be appropriate?

The right wing in action:
oklahoma-city-1995.jpg

Perfectly fair.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Nor are any of yours Jack, ever. Funny watching you get your ass handed to you here. As Dave says, your in the toilet, just pull the chain. :lamo

I'm not sure why you think your series of commonplace observations were important.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Actually, Gates is saying the opposite of what you claim. They may have opinions about policy and they may be aware of the policy implications of their analysis but they will never cross the line to explicit policy assessment.

Your splitting hairs with your semantics, seen by all. It started with you denying that a consensus amongst our intelligence agencies pointed out to Bush that his invasion and occupation of Iraq was not having it's intended effect, and you've been busier than a cat covering up **** trying to squirm your way out of your idiotic statement. :lamo
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

I'm not sure why you think your series of commonplace observations were important.

And I'm not sure why you're even talking to me!!!!!!
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Far from kowtowing to policymakers, there is sometimes a strong impulse on the part of intelligence officers to show that a policy or decision is misguided or wrong, to poke an analytical finger in the policy eye. Policymakers know this and understandably
resent it. To protect the independence of the analyst while keeping such impulses in check is one of the toughest jobs of intelligence agency managers. In this connection the policymaker sometimes has the sense that the CIA
is attempting, at least by inference, to "grade" his performance. Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing or in difficulty, these conclusions are widely circulated by the Agency,
with malice, for use as ammunition by critics of the policy in the Executive Branch, in Congress, or among the public. These suspicions are magnified by leaks that pit the policymaker against CIA in a contest for political advantage.

http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-26...x-10-115-1.pdf
Actually, Gates is saying the opposite of what you claim. They may have opinions about policy and they may be aware of the policy implications of their analysis but they will never cross the line to explicit policy assessment.
Again Jack Ryan, you are back to arguing that when intelligence officers SHOW that a policy is misguided, they have not assessed the policy they are showing to be misguided.

Again, I'll take the word of Gates confirming that his officers do in fact criticize policy, and I don't think you have any authority to claim the officers do not assess policy, explicitly or otherwise.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Your splitting hairs with your semantics, seen by all. It started with you denying that a consensus amongst our intelligence agencies pointed out to Bush that his invasion and occupation of Iraq was not having it's intended effect, and you've been busier than a cat covering up **** trying to squirm your way out of your idiotic statement. :lamo

The invasion of Iraq was not undertaken primarily as a CT mission, and it's effect on terrorism was never going to be determinative. I merely pointed out that an intelligence assessment is only that, and this particular one surprised no one.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Far from kowtowing to policymakers, there is sometimes a strong impulse on the part of intelligence officers to show that a policy or decision is misguided or wrong, to poke an analytical finger in the policy eye. Policymakers know this and understandably
resent it. To protect the independence of the analyst while keeping such impulses in check is one of the toughest jobs of intelligence agency managers. In this connection the policymaker sometimes has the sense that the CIA
is attempting, at least by inference, to "grade" his performance. Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing or in difficulty, these conclusions are widely circulated by the Agency,
with malice, for use as ammunition by critics of the policy in the Executive Branch, in Congress, or among the public. These suspicions are magnified by leaks that pit the policymaker against CIA in a contest for political advantage.

http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-26...x-10-115-1.pdfAgain Jack Ryan, you are back to arguing that when intelligence officers SHOW that a policy is misguided, they have not assessed the policy they are showing to be misguided.

Again, I'll take the word of Gates confirming that his officers do in fact criticize policy, and I don't think you have any authority to claim the officers do not assess policy, explicitly or otherwise.

And again, you have missed the subtle but crucial nuance in Gates' presentation. His formulation is exactly my point.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

And again, you have missed the subtle but crucial nuance in Gates' presentation. His formulation is exactly my point.
His formulation is that his officers criticize policy often, your point is that they do so without assessment of the policy they criticize. Your argument is claiming that these officers make ignorant criticism. That is a damning claim against your (supposed) brethren.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

His formulation is that his officers criticize policy often, your point is that they do so without assessment of the policy they criticize. Your argument is claiming that these officers make ignorant criticism. That is a damning claim against your (supposed) brethren.

Gates is careful not to say that analysts criticize policy. Analysts analyze intelligence, and their analysis may have policy implications.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Because you are so fundamentally uninformed and misguided.

No Jack, you are. You asserted that the 2006 NIE wasn't for Bush's ear, and you've been running from it since.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

No Jack, you are. You asserted that the 2006 NIE wasn't for Bush's ear, and you've been running from it since.

I never said the 2006 wasn't for GWB. Every NIE is for the President.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Gates is careful not to say that analysts criticize policy. Analysts analyze intelligence, and their analysis may have policy implications.
WTF? perhaps it is again a problem of font size:




there is sometimes a strong impulse on the part of intelligence officers to show that a policy or decision is misguided or wrong, to poke an analytical finger in the policy eye.

Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing or in difficulty, these conclusions are widely circulated by the Agency
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

WTF? perhaps it is again a problem of font size:




Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing or in difficulty, these conclusions are widely circulated by the Agency

You again fail to grasp Gates' point. Intelligence analysis may indeed suggest a policy is failing but the analysis will never address the policy. The analysis will address the intelligence picture. The policy maker draws conclusions that may or may not make him suspicious.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Michelle Bachmann was on that committee and she said there was a secret Muslim infiltration at the highest levels of government.

OK. If you have any evidence she was wrong, what is it?
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Intelligence analysis may indeed suggest a policy is failing but the analysis will never address the policy.
Oh this is getting good, analysts show policy is misguided, show the policy is failing......but they do not criticize it...and now they do not "address" the policy.

Tell me JR, how does one show a policy is misguided, failing, without speaking or writing directly about the policy?

Do they mime it out?
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

You are asking the wrong questions. Why shouldnt our govt, which serves US, provide us with the facts?

Last I checked, catching terrorists does not include giving away all of the methods used to catch them.

It's worthwhile to alert the nation to a threat--they may be able to help. In fact he mentioned that people who use the kind of websites involved should be on the lookout for anything that might suggest jihadist activity.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Oh this is getting good, analysts show policy is misguided, show the policy is failing......but they do not criticize it...and now they do not "address" the policy.

Tell me JR, how does one show a policy is misguided, failing, without speaking or writing directly about the policy?

Do they mime it out?

Analysts never discuss the policy. They discuss the intelligence. If that intelligence points to success or failure of a particular policy that is outside the analysts' concern.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

there is sometimes a strong impulse on the part of intelligence officers to show that a policy or decision is misguided or wrong, to poke an analytical finger in the policy eye.

Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing or in difficulty, these conclusions are widely circulated by the Agency
Analysts never discuss the policy.

Now your argument has further devolved into absurdity, to the point where you are calling Gates a liar. How can he say that analysts show policy is misguided, wrong and suggest a policy makers policy is failing....without discussing the policy with his peers or the policymaker?

Jack, this is another instance where you just keep digging holes your argument cannot escape from. Stop, please.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

there is sometimes a strong impulse on the part of intelligence officers to show that a policy or decision is misguided or wrong, to poke an analytical finger in the policy eye.

Further, the policymaker is often suspicious that when the CIA's analysis suggests his policy is failing or in difficulty, these conclusions are widely circulated by the Agency


Now your argument has further devolved into absurdity, to the point where you are calling Gates a liar. How can he say that analysts show policy is misguided, wrong and suggest a policy makers policy is failing....without discussing the policy with his peers or policymaker?

Jack, this is another instance where you just keep digging holes your argument cannot escape from. Stop, please.

Sorry, but you're still not getting it. My point is precisely that made by Gates. Analysts can be well aware that their intelligence assessments will "poke an analytical finger in the policy eye" but they analyze intelligence, not policy. You can quote Gates all you want; his point is my point.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

Sorry, but you're still not getting it. My point is precisely that made by Gates. Analysts can be well aware that their intelligence assessments will "poke an analytical finger in the policy eye" but they analyze intelligence, not policy. You can quote Gates all you want; his point is my point.
He did not say they are analyzing intel, he is saying they assess the policy, determine it is misguided (a criticism), directly tell the policymaker it is failing. This is all about direct dealings with current policy, with the responsible policymaker.

But keep digging Jack, the molten core awaits.
 
Re: House Intel Committee Chair: US Is At ‘The Highest Threat Level We Have Ever Face

I never said the 2006 wasn't for GWB. Every NIE is for the President.

Wtf. This is what I said: It was our intelligence agencies that pointed out to Bush the failure of his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And this is what you said: No they did not. Intelligence agencies do not assess the success or failure of policies.

But the fact remains that George Bush was going to go teach these guys a lesson with his tough talk. Standing on the debri with his bull horn, "you'll be hearing from us soon"!!!!! Lol.

What the NIE said was, your little operation in Iraq has failed to crush Al Qaeda and put them on the run as Rummy was saying. It served as a recruiting ground for Islamic extremists. Caused an increase in global terror, made America less safe. Iow, you ****ed up Bush, your Iraq policy is a failure.

:lamo. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom