Porter Goss Cia Director

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, What are you talking about? Are you stoned or something?

Think, and you have the answer.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I see. No, wait..... No I dont

[kharmajunkie]

I don't get it either and I am stoned.

[Rainbow]

PatrickHenry
gr8fuldaniel
kharmajunkie

What is that you do not understand in my post ?

[PatrickHenry]

It doesn't make any sense. Are you claiming that it is intelligible?

This is a debate site. Pick a position and defend it or attack the position of another debater with something understandable.

[kharmajunkie]

It just seemed like some stream of consciousness post that we'd probably understand if we were talking to each other; not easy to read
and figure out.

[Rainbow]

For :
PatrickHenry
gr8fuldaniel
kharmajunkie

A word of explanation (a bit long one) :
(Done twice : for the first time, and the last time)

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>He was having a breakfast meeting in DC with Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad who funded Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker on September 11th, 2001. ... Tell me how great Porter Goss is for the CIA.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Rainbow,

1.
Do you have an info on a dinner ?
Post it. We all will be delighted :-)))

2.
Is Goss great as CIA director ?
Call them. They will tell you the true info, for sure :-)))

3.
None of us (probably) knows all the information in the matter you post. Assuming otherwise and following that path, even if a person has all the needed information in this issue, he/she is NOT going to publish it, especially on any web site.

4.
"Who" meet "whom", does not provide the info to determine findings, yet.
These are speculations, only.

5.
Example :
I met a person who later killed another person.
Am I going to be held co-responsible for that act ?

6.
I sense that you desperately want to say something.
Being noticed ? Maybe.
That is not enough. Support your view by YOUR OWN determinations or findings.
You can not comply with it, in this particular subject (you raise), because you have NO info on that subject, except people from intelligence sources or so.

7.
A separate issue (you raise) :
Republicans vs. Democrats or Democrats vs. Republicans (take your pick :-))) )

Neither Democrats nor Republicans (or, vice cersa) want political or structural changes within a state, so the system's core stays the same.
What is the difference ?
A membership fee ? :-)))
An emblem ? :-)))
Democrats have beeter "ladies", like Monica ? :-)))
Republicans are being supported by Arnold - The Terminator ? :-)))
Ect.

What are the core diferences ?
None :-)))
What to "argue" about, then ?

Those "who organize" all the campaignes are "the real winners". They make money on anything and everything :
- on those who are about to be elected
- on those who are about "suck other side out" and cast their votes, and prove their "righteouss and only choice"

I wish I have that money :-)))))
More voters, more money for me.
I wish elections are every month, week or so :-))))

Choose whoever you like, and enjoy your candidate
I prefer "One Dollar" , instead.[/quote]

#1
It is a joke.
An information about having a breakfast does bring any data.

#2
It is a joke.
CIA is an intelligence agency, and its main taks is : NOT to reveal any valid information to the public.

#3
People who may have some informations on the conversation between these 2 guys, would (most likely) never publish it (at least today, or tomorrow). Then, you are not in a possession of such data, either, and coming to any conclusion is a mistake, since no data is available on that particular issue.

#4
A meeting between some people does not provide any information, yet. We may guess (elaborate, specualte) the subject of eventual conversation, based upon eventual outcomes of events that may take place, but some time later.

However, we may evalute that data, only (!) Even if that information is published - since all the talk's details are being kept as a secret for variety of purposes - we may never have access to all the details.

Having that in mind, we will be uncertain to that data authenticity, still.
We will have some papers to read (or tapes to listen to, or watch), but we would never be sure that it is the whole material, especially since an intelligence agency is the source of that information, and an intelligence agency's business is to provide "nothing" to the public.

#5
Example of a meeting, and eventual "results".

#6
That is my scepticism on this whole thread's sense, as it brings (almost) nothing, except for specualtions. We have no specific data to support any "theory" on the subject posted within this thread's topic.

#7
Since the "Bushists" are being mentioned within the intitial post, I (humoristically) replied with my view on :
- Democrats
- Republicans

Additionally, with the upcoming presidential election, I try to make people aware, that voting for "this" or "that" candidate changes not much.
Except promisses, both candidates can offer a "big nothing".
Is there a sense of casting a vote, really ?
Maybe it is, but I can not find "a politician with balls".

[PatrickHenry]

Bah, Rainbow. Who can understand your arguments?
Chalmers Johnson has a lot to say about what is happening at the CIA right now.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2025 or
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112504Y.shtml

Two weeks after George Bush's reelection, Porter J. Goss, the newly appointed Director of Central Intelligence, wrote an internal memorandum to all employees of his agency telling them, "[Our job is to] support the administration and its policies in our work. As agency employees, we do not identify with, support, or champion opposition to the administration or its policies."[1] Translated from bureaucrat-speak, this directive says, "You now work for the Republican Party. The intelligence you produce must first and foremost protect the President from being held accountable for the delusions he has concerning Iraq, Osama bin Laden, preventive war, torturing captives, democracy growing from the barrel of a gun, and the 'war on terror.'" This approach is not new, even though former CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman declares that "the current situation is the worst intelligence scandal in the nation's history." <snip> CIA covert operations subverted domestic journalism, planted false information in foreign newspapers, and covertly fed large amounts of money to members of the Christian Democratic Party in Italy, to King Hussein of Jordan, and to clients in Greece, West Germany, Egypt, Sudan, Suriname, Mauritius, the Philippines, Iran, Ecuador, and Chile. Clandestine agents devoted themselves to such tasks as depressing the global prices of agricultural products in order to damage uncooperative Third World countries, and sponsoring guerrilla wars or miscellaneous insurgencies in places as diverse as the Ukraine, Poland, Albania, Hungary, Indonesia, China, Tibet, Oman, Malaysia, Iraq, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, North Korea, Bolivia, Thailand, Haiti, Guatemala, Cuba, Greece, Turkey, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua, to name only a few of those on the public record. All this was justified by the Cold War, and no one beyond a very small group inside the government knew anything about it. The Central Intelligence Act of 1949 modified the National Security Act of 1947 with a series of amendments that, in the words of that pioneer scholar of the CIA Harry Howe Ransom, "were introduced to permit [the CIA] a secrecy so absolute that accountability might be impossible." <snip> When it comes to ignoring accurate CIA intelligence, the preeminent example in the Bush administration was National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's indifference to al-Qaeda and her failure to ensure that the president read and understood the explicit warnings of an imminent surprise attack that the agency delivered to her. As the Washington Post's Steve Coll has summarized the matter in his book Ghost Wars, "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S. was the headline on the President's Daily Brief presented to Bush at his Crawford, Texas, ranch on August 6 [2001]. The report included the possibility that bin Laden operatives would seek to hijack airplanes. The hijacking threat, mentioned twice, was one of several possibilities outlined. There was no specific information about when or where such an attack might occur." <snip> dangerously for the White House, these reports suggested that its so-called war on terrorism and its attack on Iraq rather than on the true perpetrators of 9/11 were based on false intelligence, much of it manufactured in the Pentagon. The number three civilian defense official in the Pentagon, Douglas Feith, had set up the Office of Special Plans, an operation devoted to going through all the raw intelligence available to the various spy agencies and finding items that offered possible evidence of (or hints of evidence of) links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It was this effort to get around both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, neither of which had found links or ties between Iraq and 9/11, that eventually led some officials to break ranks and charge that the war against Iraq was in fact undercutting the "war on terrorism" -- specifically, Richard A. Clark, the White House's coordinator for counterterrorism in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, in his book Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terrorism; and the CIA's Michael Scheuer in Imperial Hubris and in his letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees entitled "How Not to Catch a Terrorist"[16] The new head of the CIA, Porter Goss, is now setting about knocking off all such messengers and their supporters still inside the CIA because the agency, despite its frequent co-option and misuse by presidents, still retains a vestigial role as a truth-teller. Goss had been ordered to make it appear that the agency misled the President (rather than the other way round, as actually happened). He is then supposed to shake up what he calls a "dysfunctional" organization. After George Tenet resigned as DCI in July 2004 and went on the lecture circuit at $35,000 a pop -- he had earned well over a half-million dollars by November -- Bush appointed Goss to control further truth-telling at Langley and to head off efforts by Congress to create a powerful intelligence czar, as the 9/11 Commission has recommended.[17] The Senate confirmed Goss by a vote of 77 to 17 (six senators did not vote), strongly suggesting the increasing worthlessness of Senate oversight of the executive branch. <snip> The present sorry chapter in the rise and fall of the CIA reflects trends in the U.S. that are bolstering an "imperial presidency" and its handmaiden, militarism. Although the CIA was created to help inform presidents about threats to the country, it is clear that the President and his top officials no longer want or need its intelligence functions, which have, in any case, been increasingly transferred to the military establishment, the professional armed forces, and the military-industrial complex -- groups hardly best known for their reputations as truth-tellers. <snip> Some members of Congress even collaborated with unscrupulous CIA officials to subvert controls over expenditures and covert operations. When Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-TX) became chairman of the House's Intelligence Oversight Committee, he wrote to his friends at the CIA, who were then secretly enlarging the supply of weapons to the mujahideen in Afghanistan, "Well, gentlemen, the fox is in the hen house. Do whatever you like."[19] Similarly, in 1985, the oversight system virtually collapsed when it was revealed that NSA director Vice Adm. John Poindexter and his aide Lt. Col. Oliver L. North had secretly collaborated with DCI William Casey to sell arms to Iran and that no one in Congress had been informed about it in any way. Somewhat more rigorous Congressional scrutiny of the CIA ensued, which had the unintended effect of making CIA officers more risk averse while enlarging the powers of the Pentagon and our 14 other supersecret intelligence agencies, particularly the National Security Agency, whose budget the Pentagon controls. Nonetheless, the CIA still retains its statutory role of compiling and transmitting to the president objective intelligence on matters it deems relevant to the nation's security. The Agency may have become little more than a speed-bump for an imperial president who also dominates the Congress and the courts, but it is still part of the checks and balances of power within the executive branch of our government that make the U.S. a democratic republic and protect us from an imperial usurpation of power. With the reelection of President Bush and the appointment of Porter Goss to bring the CIA under White House control, it becomes increasingly hard to see how the republic will survive.

[Texans 4 Furors]

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgoss.htm

"This photograph was taken in a nightclub in Mexico City on 22nd January, 1963. It is believed that the men in the photograph are all members of Operation 40. Closest to the camera on the left is Felix Rodriguez. Next to him is Porter Goss and Barry Seal. Tosh Plumlee is attempting to hide his face with his coat. Others in the picture are Alberto 'Loco' Blanco (3rd right) and Jorgo Robreno (4th right)."

[Texans 4 Furors]

Originally posted by Rainbow,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rainbow,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry, He was having a breakfast meeting in DC with Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad who funded Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker on September 11th, 2001. ... Tell me how great Porter Goss is for the CIA.

Do you have an info on a dinner ?
Post it. We all will be delighted :-)))

Is Goss great as CIA director ?
Call them. They will tell you the true info, for sure :-)))

None of us (probably) knows all the information in the matter you post. Assuming otherwise and following that path, even if a person has all the needed information in this issue, he/she is NOT going to publish it, especially on any web site.

"Who" meet "whom", does not provide the info to determine findings, yet.
These are speculations, only.

Example :
I met a person who later killed another person.
Am I going to be held co-responsible for that act ?

I sense that you desperately want to say something.
Being noticed ? Maybe.
That is not enough. Support your view by YOUR OWN determinations or findings.
You can not comply with it, in this particular subject (you raise), because you have NO info on that subject, except people from intelligence sources or so.

A separate issue (you raise) :
Republicans vs. Democrats or Democrats vs. Republicans (take your pick :-))) )

Neither Democrats nor Republicans (or, vice cersa) want political or structural changes within a state, so the system's core stays the same.
What is the difference ?
A membership fee ? :-)))
An emblem ? :-)))
Democrats have beeter "ladies", like Monica ? :-)))
Republicans are being supported by Arnold - The Terminator ? :-)))
Ect.

What are the core diferences ?
None :-)))
What to "argue" about, then ?

Those "who organize" all the campaignes are "the real winners". They make money on anything and everything :
- on those who are about to be elected
- on those who are about "suck other side out" and cast their votes, and prove their "righteouss and only choice"

I wish I have that money :-)))))
More voters, more money for me.
I wish elections are every month, week or so :-))))

Choose whoever you like, and enjoy your candidate
I prefer "One Dollar" , instead.[/b][/quote]
You seriously need to start reading what you are responing to. It doesn't help us understand where you are coming from when you post a response that makes zero sense.