oldschooler Posted March 17, 2018 Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 This tweet is from 2016 ... I guess they're losing ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 17, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2018 Former head of the CIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted March 19, 2018 Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted March 19, 2018 Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 On 3/17/2018 at 6:52 PM, Jamie_B said: Former head of the CIA This is a "case in point" of what I talk about all the time. You quote something that John O. Brennan says, because it's anti-Trump. What do you know about him? Can he be trusted? Is he a stand up guy? Did you know this? John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination Glenn Greenwald Obama's top terrorism adviser goes from unconfirmable in 2008 to uncontroversial in 2013, reflecting the Obama legacy Mon 7 Jan 2013 09.55 EST First published on Mon 7 Jan 2013 09.55 EST Counter-terrorism adviser John Brennan is reportedly Obama's pick to lead the CIA. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP (updated below - Update II) Prior to President Obama's first inauguration in 2009, a controversy erupted over reports that he intended to appoint John Brennan as CIA director. That controversy, in which I participated, centered around the fact that Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. As a result, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration, issuing a bitter letter blaming "strong criticism in some quarters prompted by [his] previous service with the" CIA. This "victory" of forcing Brennan's withdrawal proved somewhat Pyrrhic, as Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser, where he exerted at least as much influence as he would have had as CIA Director, if not more. In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year. He also spouted complete though highly influential falsehoods to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Osama bin Laden killing, including claiming that bin Laden "engaged in a firefight" with Navy SEALS and had "used his wife as a human shield". Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen - targeting people without even knowing who they are - and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency. As it typically does in the US National Security State, all of that deceit and radicalism is resulting not in recrimination or loss of credibility for Brennan, but in reward and promotion. At 1 pm EST today, Obama will announce that he has selected Brennan to replace Gen. David Petraeus as CIA chief: the same position for which, four short years ago, Brennan's pro-torture-and-rendition past rendered him unfit and unconfirmable. Although I actively opposed Brennan's CIA nomination in 2008, I can't quite muster the energy or commitment to do so now. Indeed, the very idea that someone should be disqualified from service in the Obama administration because of involvement in and support for extremist Bush terrorism polices seems quaint and obsolete, given the great continuity between Bush and Obama on these issues. Whereas in 2008 it seemed uncertain in which direction Obama would go, making it important who wielded influence, that issue is now settled: Brennan is merely a symptom of Obama's own extremism in these areas, not a cause. This continuity will continue with or without Brennan because they are, rather obviously, Obama's preferred policies. Still, this is worth commenting on because the drastic change between the reaction to Brennan in 2008 and now is revealing. The New York Times article this morning on the appointment claims that "it is uncertain whether the torture issue will now cause any problems for Mr. Brennan." Of course, there is nothing at all uncertain about that: "the torture issue" won't cause any problems for Brennan, as it did in 2008, because Obama has buried that issue with his "Look Forward, not Backward" decrees; because most people who claimed concern over such issues back in 2008 have resigned themselves to Obama's posture in this area; and because, with very rare exception, there are no more serious campaigns mounted against Obama's decisions except from the American Right. It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus. UPDATE There's one more point worth noting: the reason Obama needs a new CIA chief is because David Petraeus was forced to resign. Here we see the ethos and morality of imperial Washington: past support for torture and rendition does not disqualify one for a top national security position; only an extramarital affair can do that. UPDATE II The ACLU today said that the Senate should not proceed with Brennan's nomination "until it assesses the legality of his actions in past leadership positions in the CIA during the early years of the George W. Bush administration and in his current role in the ongoing targeted killing program". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 Glenn Greewald? The guy behind the Wikileaks leaks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted March 19, 2018 Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 Did you even read the article? Everything that Greenwald put in that article is also attributable to many other politicians, media outlets, and detractors from BOTH sides of the political fence. Don't discount something just based on the author, or you'll never be able to find any real truth. I get information from many sources that I don't necessarily like, because there isn't one person, agency, or media outlet that will EVER give you the 100% pure truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 But let's go down this road putting Brennan aside for a minute. My issue I have with this "they are all the same" thinking is that word all because I don't believe it. I do believe that while a good majority are beholden to their campaign donors, and again that is something that will be the case for most of them regardless if we vote new one's in because it a broken system more so than corrupt politicians (which I have zero issue saying do exist, because we both know they do), I don't believe all of them are, I do believe there a minority who do try to represent the people, but and here is the rub....there isn't any politician on earth that is going to fulfill all of his campaign promises...hell many of us on the left believe that FDR was our greatest or top two, greatest Presidents.....but we are still fighting for his 2nd Bill of Rights....because in a two party system both parties must compromise at times to get things done....and compromise causing a politician to not get his agenda fully done the way he wants it does not make that politician corrupt. Hell Lincoln who may have been our greatest President had to compromise on all sorts of issues to keep the union in tact. .... I mean cripes our entire history and founding is a series of compromises between opposing viewpoints. You seem to have this idealistic view that there exists some politician in our history or future that has gotten all of his ideas done or will get all of his ideas done and that anything less than that is just a politician lying to us again. I don't get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 Further I strongly disagree that Trump is just like the rest of them, this screams of a need to normalize things that have been going on leading up to and his election as normal when it is anything but. Now we may argue that there has been a strain of Authoritarianism going on throughout the world, and I would completely agree with that, but Authoritarianism in the U.S. isn't normal..... Not even Nixon was this bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted March 19, 2018 Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 15 minutes ago, Jamie_B said: But let's go down this road putting Brennan aside for a minute. My issue I have with this "they are all the same" thinking is that word all because I don't believe it. I do believe that while a good majority are beholden to their campaign donors, and again that is something that will be the case for most of them regardless if we vote new one's in because it a broken system more so than corrupt politicians (which I have zero issue saying do exist, because we both know they do), I don't believe all of them are, I do believe there a minority who do try to represent the people, but and here is the rub....there isn't any politician on earth that is going to fulfill all of his campaign promises...hell many of us on the left believe that FDR was our greatest or top two, greatest Presidents.....but we are still fighting for his 2nd Bill of Rights....because in a two party system both parties must compromise at times to get things done....and compromise causing a politician to not get his agenda fully done the way he wants it does not make that politician corrupt. Hell Lincoln who may have been our greatest President had to compromise on all sorts of issues to keep the union in tact. .... I mean cripes our entire history and founding is a series of compromises between opposing viewpoints. You seem to have this idealistic view that there exists some politician in our history or future that has gotten all of his ideas done or will get all of his ideas done and that anything less than that is just a politician lying to us again. I don't get that. Those that exist are lifelong politicians who have been bought already. They need to be gone... bipartisanship does not exist, and big business is too intertwined with our government. I don't know why you think that I believe " exists some politician in our history or future that has gotten all of his ideas done or will get all of his ideas done and that anything less than that is just a politician lying to us again". I have never stated that nor do I believe that is even a possibility. I just know that our current political debacle sucks and has for decades. Could you please try and enlighten me to those politicians that you "do believe there a minority who do try to represent the people". I'd love to get to know them, and would completely enjoy being wrong. 11 minutes ago, Jamie_B said: Further I strongly disagree that Trump is just like the rest of them, this screams of a need to normalize things that have been going on leading up to and his election as normal when it is anything but. Now we may argue that there has been a strain of Authoritarianism going on throughout the world, and I would completely agree with that, but Authoritarianism in the U.S. isn't normal..... Not even Nixon was this bad. So "normal" is the shit we had been putting up with and "abnormal" is messier shit that Trump has ushered in? Umm... that makes them both shit still. Sorry... Trump IS just like the rest of them to me. Liar? CHECK Greedy? CHECK Corrupt? CHECK Difference? Not a polished piece of shit who acts "presidential"... kinda like HRC who is wallowing in her own shit and blaming everyone but herself for her loss. Everyone who didn't vote for Trump always said she was eons more "presidential acting" than him... what a fucking joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 Quote Could you please try and enlighten me to those politicians that you "do believe there a minority who do try to represent the people". I'd love to get to know them, and would completely enjoy being wrong. I will answer this with a question. Whether you agree with his politics or not, do you believe Bernie Sanders, a career politician, is corrupt? Quote Sorry... Trump IS just like the rest of them to me. Liar? CHECK Greedy? CHECK Corrupt? CHECK Name me any politician in the last few decades (as that seems to be your measuring stick) not named Nixon, who has shown these kind of Authoritarian tendencies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted March 19, 2018 Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Jamie_B said: I will answer this with a question. Whether you agree with his politics or not, do you believe Bernie Sanders, a career politician, is corrupt? Name me any politician in the last few decades (as that seems to be your measuring stick) not named Nixon, who has shown these kind of Authoritarian tendencies? I will when you answer mine with names Jamie... quid pro quo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 I believe I did answer it. I don't believe Sanders is corrupt, I asked you if you do believe he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted March 19, 2018 Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 16 minutes ago, Jamie_B said: I believe I did answer it. I don't believe Sanders is corrupt, I asked you if you do believe he is. My apologies, I didn't (still don't) see where you thought he wasn't... Yes, I believe he is corrupt, without a shadow of doubt. If you find out that the DNC screwed you over purposely, why would you still support them? Could it bee..... SATAN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 19, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 So because he believed Trump had to be defeated he is corrupt? That's a pretty ridiculous standard to meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted March 19, 2018 Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 It’s also a pretty ridiculous standard to support a party that had PROVEN that they would undermine the electoral process that this country is built on isn’t it? It is a double edged sword, both sides cut and wound deeply. A man NOT corrupt would call out both sides I would think. It’s NOT ok to ignore an evil that you know has happened for one that’s coming. On another note, why hasn’t he called them out for it since it occurred about 2 years ago? If it looks corrupt, smells corrupt, and sounds corrupt... Hell... that’s what everyone is doing with Trump... but it doesn’t apply to everyone else? That my friend, is hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted March 19, 2018 Report Share Posted March 19, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 4 hours ago, USN Bengal said: It’s also a pretty ridiculous standard to support a party that had PROVEN that they would undermine the electoral process that this country is built on isn’t it? It is a double edged sword, both sides cut and wound deeply. A man NOT corrupt would call out both sides I would think. It’s NOT ok to ignore an evil that you know has happened for one that’s coming. On another note, why hasn’t he called them out for it since it occurred about 2 years ago? If it looks corrupt, smells corrupt, and sounds corrupt... Hell... that’s what everyone is doing with Trump... but it doesn’t apply to everyone else? That my friend, is hypocrisy. Who said anything about supporting the Democrats as a party? The #1 issue was defeating Trump after he lost the primary after that you can talk about calling out the Dems too, and apparently you havent paid attention because he has done just that, continuing to suggest the party needs to fundamentally change. But to suggest Trump is no different from the rest of them, well I fundamentally disagree with that. Because there is a large difference between being bought out by your campaign donors and being Authoritarian in nature. So I ask again, since I have answered your question. In the past few decades, can you name me one US Politician that is as authoritarian as Trump is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 10 hours ago, Jamie_B said: Who said anything about supporting the Democrats as a party? The #1 issue was defeating Trump after he lost the primary after that you can talk about calling out the Dems too, and apparently you havent paid attention because he has done just that, continuing to suggest the party needs to fundamentally change. But to suggest Trump is no different from the rest of them, well I fundamentally disagree with that. Because there is a large difference between being bought out by your campaign donors and being Authoritarian in nature. So I ask again, since I have answered your question. In the past few decades, can you name me one US Politician that is as authoritarian as Trump is? George W. Bush, FDR, Nixon, Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson...etc... do your home work. Some were worse than Trump, some not as bad. Did you know that John Adams made it a crime to criticize the president? He had that law enforced, look it up, it's true. I also believe that most politicians are authoritarian in nature. Definition of authoritarian; 1. favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. Politicians (and the other rich) do NOT live by the same laws we do, that has been proven time and time again. They have more freedoms than we do, because the laws do not apply to them. Sanders has not denounced the party that screwed him over and broke the laws. As you said he has "continued to suggest the party needs to fundamentally change." What a candy ass.. and hypocrite. Where are the democrats SCREAMIMG for a clean sweep of the party? Why aren't heads rolling? Hypocrites... They want you/everyone to forget about it, focus all your energy on Trump, then business will carry on as usual. Look at all the support HRC still has... how ignorant people are, completely ignoring her transgressions out of stupidity. Think about it, if Trump is ever taken down, then what will be left? The same criminals who gave us Trump and HRC. You WANT that? For Gods sake why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 I'm not sure where you got that definition of Authoritarianism (I like the sneaking of "at the expense of personal liberty", makes me think it came from some Libertartian source) But here is Webster's Quote Definition of authoritarian 1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority had authoritarian parents 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people an authoritarian regime So again I strongly disagree with you that in the past few decades (your measuring stick) that anyone has been this bad. Now as far as Sanders. You are given a choice denounce the party all together or work to change it? If he did neither you would be right about him, as he is doing the 2nd part you are not. The standard you hold up of him having to denounce the party is your own and it's a silly line in the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 Also the notion that I want HRC and those that want business as usual is so far beyond the pale that it makes me wonder if you've ever ready any of my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 Sigh... Strongly disagree with this then... George W. George W. Bush browbeat Congress to pass his Patriot Act, which eliminated some Constitutional protections for Americans. The administration was tapping people’s phone calls, getting information on them via the Internet, and harvesting private information about them — all without a warrant, which is unconstitutional. In addition, he had Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans, according to SourceWatch, which basically fabricated a case to invade Iran. And post 9/11, Bush claimed broad presidential powers. Lest we forget he called himself “the decider”. Nixon Everyone knows about Nixon’s biggest crime — Watergate — and his subsequent disgraced resignation in 1974. Nixon’s administration, however, is known for keeping things that were going on in the White House secret from the public, according to The New Yorker. Because there was always the danger the press would uncover some of these secrets, Nixon despised the reporters and frequently accused them of being out to get him. He also believed — despite his being a lawyer — that the law didn’t apply to the president. FDR The Supreme Court actually struck down many of Roosevelt’s proposals, calling them unconstitutional, according to Smithsonian.com. By starting a lot of the federal programs that are still in place today, Roosevelt essentially turned the U.S. into a socialist nation. In Roosevelt’s defense, he was president during the war — and Congress gave him full decision-making power regarding the war. He had to make decisions fast and decisively, and that he did. I have read your posts Jamie and I didn't say YOU PERSONALLY want HRC... but what is left if Trump is removed? The same shit Jamie, the same pieces of shit that are currently fucking everything up. Why WOULD'T he denounce a party that broke all the laws when it came to the election process? He wants the financial backing Jamie, pure and simple. MONEY, POWER, INFLUENCE, FAME... Principals, ethics, morals all go by the wayside when big business writes you a check. Why wouldn't the GOP asshats renounce a party that would even let Trump be a THOUGHT in the political process? Because they don't give a fuck Jamie, they want shit to remain the same... but you can't see this. Don't know why you can't/won't see this, but the facts are irrefutable. They want power, money, influence, and fame at the expense of those they say they represent. For some reason, you seem to give Sanders a pass... fine. What has he done to make it better Jamie? Have any examples? How long will (whatever he is doing) actually affect the party? Let's just say he is a totally honest and perfect politician who will do exactly as his constituency wants. Vermont has a chance then, but the rest of the country is fucked. Sanders talks a good game but he can't enforce his ideas, he would have to change the very fabric of America and even if it were best for us, people won't let it happen. Words mean a lot when backed by the existing power bases. "He's a communist" is what is always said, and people eat that shit like a fat kid loves cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 The Patriot Act I am not 100% against, just 99% against it. The 1% of it that forced the intelligence agencies to share data was a good freaking idea because they were not doing so before. The rest of it is garbage, but Authoritarian? If we remove Trump what is left? Pence, whom I disagree with on a number of issues, but I don't fucking worry about him starting WW3 because he has no self control. Sure alot of things will remain the same....but I'm not expecting things to change if we remove Trump other than that one....pretty big freaking issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USN Bengal Posted March 20, 2018 Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 This belief that he will "start WW3 because he has no self control" is a totally made up falsehood. The "experts" who have said he can are complete and utter liars, and you've bought the swampland in Florida they were selling you. As far as the agencies sharing data, how in the world can you believe that? They've been sharing data all along, that's just a very shitty cover story to make someone feel good about them going against the Constitution. Most people have forgotten that, specifically because of the reason you mentioned. Hey... they went against the Constitution... it's ok though because the agencies that were already sharing information are now sharing information that they weren't before... Tail wagging the dog and you , along with millions of others, bought off on that sadly. So with the REALITY being that he CANNOT just decide to launch nukes on a whim, what do you have left if you remove Trump and have pro-life and completely homophobic hero Pence in charge? Like I keep saying... same shit different day. Garbage in = Garbage out... You say "the rest is garbage" when the proof is there to be seen by all. What is garbage about it? The healthcare system that was doomed to fail from the start, the continued stealing from Social Security, the total lying factories that we have as the "fourth estate free press", wars started over oil, politicians who do not use the same "mandatory" healthcare system that everyone else is mandated to use, politicians not being held responsible for mishandling classified items but servicemen and women going to prison for it. There are so many more things that point out the total hypocrisy of our system, and the fact that we a owned and ran by big business... but you call it garbage and continue to believe that the same pieces of shit who have power now in ANY party are going to make it better? Please Jamie... I ask you to enlighten me on how that is going to happen even if Trump is taken down. I've been waiting for that answer forever, not just from you, but from anyone who supports ANY party. So far, no answers have been forthcoming from ANYWHERE. I will wait for you to answer, and I hope you can change my mind with some evidence... but to tell you the truth, I'm not expecting you to have anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 20, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2018 Totally made up false hood? So you believe he knows what he is doing when he calls Kim Cho'ng Un "Rocket man"? Do you think that that is a good thing for relations between the two countries and trying to prevent them from firing nukes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.