Comments Posted By SShiell
Displaying 141 To 150 Of 223 Comments
PLAME STILL LEAVES US WONDERING
"Want to Know" and "Need to Know" are two completely different things. How would Libby have known Plame was undercover? Does he have a folder in his office that's labeled "Undercover CIA Officers"? No. He would have to contact someone over at the CIA and ask about her status. Any hint of that come out in any of the reports or discussions of this so-called outing? Not that I have heard about. From Libby or Armitage or anybody else for that matter.
Could Libby have known she worked at the CIA? Yes - even I can access various publications and find a name and a phone number. Those directories are available all over DC for the various agencies. And just because someone works at the CIA, it is not a "Red Flag". I should know because my wife worked there for 20 years and never held a clearance above Secret but she was not "covert" and worked in an office full of people who were not "covert". I even have an old phone directory of the CIA dated 2001 and guess what - Valerie Plame's name, office and phone number is in there! Any star or special symbols by her name to indicate she was covert? Uh, No.
You can also call over at the CIA and ask for a phone number - guess what - there is a directory assistance over there that will give you a person's phone number essentially if it is available through the same printed directory. Call it - the number is (703)482-0623. The website is also really easy - www.cia.gov - and the same phone number is posted there and they even a point of contact available "To Verify a CIA Employee's Employment" if you are a mortgage company, creditor or potential employer.
As far as any limits to what the President or VP has access to, there are none that I know about. But i can tell you that any inquiry by anybody on the White House staff start fevers boiling all over DC. A staff member from the White House calls over for some information and entire staffs are called out in lock step formation, if necessary, to return the info. I have seen General Officers in the Pentagon in a veritable slather trying to get information to a member of the National Security Office and if you are tasked with a "Presidential Inquiry" you have Cart Blanche throughout the entire building.
So the thought of someone on the White House staff calling around and to quietly get some information is patently bullsh*t. It doesn't happen that way.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 21.03.2007 @ 17:10
"They have the security clearance to know pretty much anything, don’t they?"
For someone to seek information that is classified, two things must be present before the information can be granted.
The first is the appropriate security clearance. You must have a clearance equal to or greather than the information is rated. A person with a Secret Clearance cannot have access to Top Secret material.
The second, and the one area most misunderstood by the public is "Need To Know". Just because you have a clearance does not allow you to rifle through the files perusing the information that is there. You have to have a legitimate "need to know" in order to access any classified material. People who work with classified materials over time stay away from such material whenever they can. I have held as high as a Top Secret clearance and to tell you the truth, I did not want to know. If the information was material to my job - that was one thing. If it was not - keep it the hell away from me! The hassles with dealing with classified material and the penalties for mishandling such material minimized any curiosity I may have had.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 21.03.2007 @ 10:07
NEWT'S PECCADILLOS: POLITICAL AND PRIVATE
Bowden: "Even sophisticated voters do not remember the House banking scandal."
Correction: The House Banking scandal occurred in 1992. Newt became Speaker of the House in 1995. The referenced Banking Scandal was one of the reasons the Democrats lost the house in the '94 midterms.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 23.11.2011 @ 19:32
DEMS IN A QUANDRY ABOUT HOW BEST TO RETREAT FROM IRAQ
"The Democrats are right. Declare victory and go home." Just like they did in Viet Nam. But there the troops were already gone, they just needed to place the final nail in the coffin of their choice, Defund the South Vietnamese and the results of which became - the Killing fields of Cambodia and hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese suffering through years of re-education.
You and the Democrats go dig your own holes - it may be the only thing you may be good at.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 27.02.2007 @ 18:25
POLLSTERS FINALLY STARTING TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS ON IRAQ
Bob:
I agree with you 100%. The problem is the liberal/anti-war voice is the only voice that is heard by the mainstream today becasue MSM is virtually only reporting their side of the issue. There are no moderate voices. If the people were faced with the statements you listed, there would be a general concensus. But who will put such statements out there and then who would report the results without a biased spin. (See comment #8 for an example)
Comment Posted By SShiell On 22.02.2007 @ 18:38
WAPO SLAMS MURTHA'S "SLOW BLEED THE TROOPS" PLAN
So, Alex - "Lee Harvey Oswald was a United States Marine." Are you trying to say Murtha and Oswald are cut from the same cloth? If so, you make an excellent point there.
And, Halgerson, does the fact that Murtha "actually fought in combat" mean he is above criticsm? If not then why bring it up?
For someone who is so knowledgeable of conditions in Iraq, how many times has Murtha been there? Let me give you a hint - ZERO! Does that matter? When someone states he KNOWS what the conditions are like on the ground there and says he KNOWS how to fix the problems there and KNOWS this and KNOWS that - you would assume he KNOWS what he is talking about. But not Murtha. He is an arogant old man who wants his day in the sun and he will turn his back on the troops in order to get what he thinks is his rightful due.
I will gladly give him his due - Middle Finger Extended!
Comment Posted By SShiell On 18.02.2007 @ 10:47
ARKIN: IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED...
I have wondered for years at the left's incoherent "We support the troops but do not support the mission" screed. I cannot for the life of me fathom how they cannot understand how this hurts the troops and enboldens our enemies. Recently, I have heard an analogy that may put it into perspective - especially on this Super Bowl weekend.
Imagine an NFL team playing on their home field in front of their home crowd. The game is a lopsided score, in favor of the visiting team. The home crowd boos the home team during the game.
Now ask yourself just a couple of questions.
Does that affect the morale of the home team?
Does that prop up the morale of the visiting team?Yeah, I know we are in a war that is not being fought in front of the home crowd. In this case, it is even worse. We are fighting a war (game would be the analogy here) on the enemies turf (other teams home field) but the media (game announcers) are not viewing the war (game) the same as the soldiers (players). In fact, the reporting is depicting a lopsided victory for the enemy (other team).
Don't you think this could/would affect the morale of the soldiers fighting this war? The military is kicking the everloving crap out of an enemy that resorts to terror tactics against its own people in order to make news reports that our military is losing. Logically, you cannot say we are losing the war without meaning the enemy is winning! What kind of logic is that to the soldier in the field? And someone like Arkin wonders why they think the way they do?
General Giap, commanding general of the North Vietnamese Army during the Viet Nam War, has stated time and again that opposition to the Viet Nam War at home gave the North Vietnamese continued hope even when they lost battle after battle with American forces. That's history speaking loud and clear. And yet, no matter how many times the anti-war left tries to equate this war with Viet Nam they refuse to consider the effects of media misrepresentation and home opposition to the situation on the ground.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 2.02.2007 @ 13:41
Blatant? Yes! But high marks for originality.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 25.01.2007 @ 09:28
Happy Birthday, Rick.
WHY HILLARY WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT
I once watched then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton during a reception talking to one person after another. One man came up to him complaining about an issue affecting workers in the Northeast portion of the state. Clinton listened intently and after a moment took his hand, shook it firmly and told him he understood the problem only too well and that he would work it out. Not long after this, another man spoke to Clinton about the same issue but from the perspective of the employers from that part of the state. Again, Clinton listened intently and after a moment took his hand, shook it firmly and told him he understood the problem only too well and that he would work it out.
I do not believe Clinton lied to either man. I think he really believed he could find middle ground acceptable to both.
I am not one of Clinton's supporters - Bill or Hillary. But I do believe Bill was far more suited to this kind of approach than Hillary ever will be.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 19.12.2006 @ 14:24
I DARE YOU TO MAKE ME A DEMOCRAT
"You give these guys way too much credit. Shit, you act like they’re smarter than we are. What gives?"
It has nothing to do with how smart one is but it has everything to do with how determined.
A little history lesson: Half of the US Navy’s casualties in World War Two came in the last 12 month of the war in the Pacific and is directly attributable to Japanese Kamikaze attacks. It is the end of the year, 1944. The war in the Pacific is virtually over. The Japanese Navy is but a shell of its former glory. Their merchant fleet has lost over 4 million tons of shipping sunk by the US submarine service. The Japanese mainland is facing starvation from this devastation. In a very short time, Saipan and then Iwo Jima will fall and the B-29s will start the bombing of the Japanese mainland. The Japanese resort to Kamikaze, Divine Wind, attacks and they create horrendous casualties among the US Pacific Fleet.
These suicide attacks were intended to save the Emperor. The Japanese high command felt if they could inflict horrendous casualties on the US, then they might be able to bring us to the Peace Table and end the war before the war brought the total destruction of their society.
And therein lays the basic difference between the same types of actions from World War Two to today. I do not give these guys any credit at all. But they still scare me. Why?
A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."
In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
The previous two paragraphs were taken from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768
Their intent has nothing to do with the salvation of their society or their religion or their way of life. Suicide is their ends to a means. If they die as a suicide in the name of Allah, they go to Paradise. They win. If all die, and I mean ALL, then they still go to Paradise and they still win. If that type of attitude does not scare the crap out of you, then you are blind to it.
Comment Posted By SShiell On 14.11.2006 @ 12:35
