Anyone watching the Colbert report?

[white_wolf]

The CIA agent on there doesn't sound very optimist about democracy in the Middle East. He said "If you think were going to have democracy in the Middle East, I have a bridge to sell you." Not saying I agree or disagree just passing it along.

[gateley]

1. I wonder what he would have said if you asked "do you think the Egyptian people

can peacefully overthrow Mubarak?" :shrug:

I think we're learning that the CIA aren't the experts we believed, so I"m not sure he's got a REAL thumb on the pulse of the people of the ME.

[madmax]

3. Annette Bennig in 'The Siege' we're the CIA

something always goes wrong'.

I agree with you gately - they think they know but :shrug: shit happens.

[gateley]

6. Whenever I watch a CIA movie where they're so coordinated, perform flawless

operations with the most incredible gadgets and gizmos, have it all under control I always think "yeah, they wish."

"Whoa! What's that sound? WHAT? The Berlin Wall is coming down? That can't be right! Who'da thunk? D'oh!" THAT'S how I envision today's CIA! :hi:

[RandomThoughts]

2. What does the CIA know?

They can't even correct the beer and travel money that is due, they really aren't relevant.

I figure some in the CIA have some better intents, but most slid down secrecy into a worse place.

[gateley]

7. I think you've identified the problem. If you're waiting for your beer and travel

money to come from the CIA, you'll be thirsty and homebound for eternity. :7

[RandomThoughts]

10. I am not 'waiting for it'

It is due. There is a difference. The due of beer and travel money is a fact, not a requirement.

It will arrive because it is due, not because I am waiting for it.

And I am not 'waiting' for beer or travel money, but not doing things that would be wrong in a condition where beer and travel money is due.

As far as the CIA paying, there is a bit of error for a tax funded payment of that, it should come from groups that have more then they need, and by proxy have responsibility for those errors that created those smears. Although within areas of corruption in the public sector that could be a proxy source

There are plenty of Billionaires, and millionaires that can correct that situation, although some of them are part of that organizations, that organization is not relevant to the point, except by proxy by some actions many in that organization choose to do.

your comment about waiting for eternity comes from a 101 script. The condition that needs correcting is not a pattern, it is an acknowledgment of the need for society to establish justice with compassion.

And the concept of being 'home bound' is inaccurate, since I am not at home or bound. and I am not thirsty.


So you are wrong on pretty much everything.

[gateley]

12. "So you are wrong on pretty much everything."

You're right - I never learn my lesson. I continue to think I can post to you in a friendly manner and I invariably get shut down. I'll be "right" from here on out, though. It took a while, but I finally get it.

See ya. :hi:

[RandomThoughts]

15. A friendly manner?

You mentioned a condition that would be unacceptable, with a probable superiority complex.

You said I would be waiting for ever and would be thirsty.

That is the highest degree of insult, mostly used to break a person, or get them to leave better concepts of justice with compassion.

What was friendly about your post?

You were wrong in trying to set a condition for me based on a perception that makes you feel better about yourself, without regard for the just debt of beer and travel money that is due to me.


It may have been that you were trying to say something about the CIA and not me, but you matched many concepts around other thoughts with your post.


As far as me being antagonistic at times, duh, I am due beer and travel money, and many experiences.

[fishwax]

4. I was confused by one aspect of his argument

He said that the real reason we went into Iraq was to protect Israel. Then he said that by getting rid of Saddam Hussein we removed one of the two most important shields to Israel (the other being Mubarak in Egypt). It was clear that we defined success in Iraq by getting rid of Hussein, so if that was a destructive development for Israel than how can it also be that our intervention in Iraq was meant for their protection?

Perhaps I just didn't hear his argument correctly.

[gateley]

8. We went into Iraq for O.I.L. Cheney had divvied up the spoils to four (if I recall

correctly) oil companies BEFORE we went it. I'm not sure if it was before 9/11, but I bet they were just giddy with that event so they could use it as an excuse.

That's my belief, anyway. :shrug:

Did he say HOW getting rid of Hussein was supposed to protect Israel? I don't get it, either.

[fishwax]

11. the way I understood what he said, getting rid of Hussein didn't protect Israel, but endangered it

That's why I didn't see how his earlier argument that we were there to protect Israel didn't make sense. He seemed to contradict himself. :shrug:

Oil and a personal vendetta--that's the explanation that resonates with me.

[gateley]

14. Yeah, I'm with you -- I didn't hear him but it doesn't make sense as you report

it. I'm thinking you DID hear him correctly. This is the kind of "huh?" that seems to exemplify our "intelligence" these days.

I was just curious if he mentioned why on earth they thought that going into Iraq would protect Israel. Their 'reasoning'. Or should I say 'excuse'.

[aquart]

9. This guy must believe everything he's told.

We went into Iraq because Georgie, Dick, and their buddies had a vision of an American empire in the Caspian oil basin.

Good Lord, is the CIA that far behind?

[Kurovski]

5. C-I Who now?

[kenny blankenship]

13. Enough about the M.E. What does he think our chances are?

[polichick]

16. At least the M.E. is moving toward democracy - we're moving away. nt