Disturbing series of events

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Our Chief Spy, the CIA Director is named Secretary of Defense. Our commanding General in the middle-east is named to replace the CIA Director. The government confirms construction is under way on a covert CIA air base, somewhere in the middle east, tasked with running missions, on the sovereign soil of nations, who limit or forbid our operations. Admittedly, these missions will largely be securing, and/or eliminating, suspected terrorists.

 

Who else is disturbed by this series of events? The CIA, which is beyond the control of Congress, is taking on a clear military role. We have our chief spy in charge of the military; our top general leading the CIA on military type operations; were actively planning on violating the sovereignty of other nations; and we are carrying out an active campaign to assassinate suspected terrorists, who will not be allowed trial.

 

Here I thought Bush exceeded the powers of his office, abused his authority, and was in the process of setting himself up as the next King George do we now have Emperor Obama in the making?

 

[packsaddle]

This is a logical and predictable extension of the policy that Reagan embraced when he created CENTCOM in the first place, the seeds for which were planted when Roosevelt made the Faustian bargain with the Saudis in 1945. We were merely too stupid to see what would come or else we didn't care.

[BadenP]

OX

 

These kind of CIA operations have been going on since WWII and into the present. Nothing really new just that they are not being as covert as in the past. This global war on terror has created a whole new reality worldwide, and this is one of the costs of that war. But I agree that it is disturbing.

[NJCubScouter]

I don't see how this is possible, when I keep hearing from certain talk radio hosts that our "socialist" president doesn't care anything about defense and protecting our national interests. These don't sound like the actions of a president who doesn't care anything about defense and protecting our national interests. Or could it be that these radio talk show hosts are wrong? Is that possible?

 

By the way, I find it amusing that the Republican Congressional leaders have suddenly discovered the War Powers Act. (Regarding the situation in Libya.) When Presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush were in office, the Republican Congressional leaders didn't seem to have heard of it.

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

I find two things particularly disturbing about this, and the first one is kinda ironic.

 

1. Yea, I knew the CIA had been running similar ops for years, but this type of operation was always very discreet. Things have gone beyond open, to brazen. Running this type of op openly invites reprisals. Are we asking for another 9-11?

2. The amount of control being shifted from Congress, to the Chief Executive. This is precisely what our constitution was set up to prevent. Sure, it can be argued that the Constitution is 220 years old, and does not allow for the way things work in the world we now live in, and there may be some truth in that. However, the mechanism to correct such flaws is amendment, but be honoring laws which are invalid on the face, because they exceed limits defined by the constitution, such as the Patriot Act. Amendment is difficult be design, for our own well being.

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

How is this any more disturbing than the people of the United States electing a former "chief spy" as President of the United States (and Commander in Chief of the Military)?

 

Congress has plenty of control over the CIA - all they have to do is exercise it. Congress could, if they wanted, eliminate all funding for the agency or just disband the agency completely tomorrow if they wanted.

 

A bit of history is also in order. Of the original 19 Directors of Central Intelligence (who could all be called the "Chief Spy"), the 1st four were nominated directly from the military and were referred to by their military ranks. There were two others who were also referred to by their military ranks - making 6 of the 19 "military" folk (though most of the Directors had served in the military).

 

Today, the position is known as the Director of Central Intelligence Agency, and the Director reports to the Director of National Intelligence - so the "chief spy" is no longer the head guy at the CIA which technically means Panetta (a former military man himself) was never the "chief spy".

 

More importantly to the original post - George W. Bush appointed General Michael Hayden out of the military and into the position of Director of Central Intelligence Agency, succeeding Porter Goss - who was the last Director of Central Intelligence and the first Director of Central Intelligence Agency. So the precedent is already there for the Director of the CIA to be a military man.

 

So now I'm wondering - why was all of this just fine under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc. and is now all of a sudden not fine under Obama? If you think this cynicism, I'll wear that badge with honor.

[Scoutfish]

Yeah, this is everyday cold war stuff that continued after the cold war ended.

 

As for it being brazenly open...well, that's just it: It's not new, not just beginning..just not hiden like it always was before.

 

And why not?

 

"Running this type of op openly invites reprisals. Are we asking for another 9-11?

 

Yeah, about that 9-11....what was that a reprisal for? Living in a free country? Having the choice to practice a religion any way you want? Having freedom to do as you pretty much wish? Because we did not support Osama on a continuous non stop basis whay back when?

 

You are talking extream fanatical terrorists. The may have a big ole Jihad party because we haven't outlawed Sponge Bob yet. Maybe because women have not only shown their ankles in public, but showd the bikini bodies at the beach!

 

Maybe it is time we stand up and say : "Hell yeah, we did that! WE took that guy out because he was a threat to our freedom and hwat we value as a nation!"

 

Terrrorists claim responcibility for any act that catches national or world wide notice. The bigger and more sinister and macabre, the more terrorists who try to claim responcibility for it!

 

It's like making a public example of a lawbreaker ..just on a way bigger scale.

 

Maybe it's the kind of thing that could make our enemies step back and rethink attacking us!

[packsaddle]

Scoutfish, if you believe what bin Laden wrote, the series of terrorist attacks culminating in the ones on 9/11 were in response to the placement of American troops on Saudi soil and more specifically, Bush's decision to renege on his agreement to remove them after Desert Storm. The perception, rightly or wrongly, was that the United States intended to have a permanent infidel military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Holyland and that, plus the Saudi decision to engage the US instead of bin Laden's forces for protection of the Saudis from Saddam, galvanized our former ally into a deadly enemy. And all of this was a logical progression from decisions made in 1945 between Roosevelt and the king of Saudi Arabia. It wasn't inevitable but it did follow a tragically logical path of events.

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

CalicoPenn wrote:

 

So now I'm wondering - why was all of this just fine under Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc. and is now all of a sudden not fine under Obama? If you think this cynicism, I'll wear that badge with honor.

 

 

No, not cynicism, I've been an Obama supported from day one. I'm just disgusted with our goverment in general. This type of thing has never been fine, and you don't want my thoughts on bush, Jr, or Sr, lol.

[nldscout]

I find none of this disturbing, in fact we are not doing it enough. If we started killing more of those in these terror organization, then eventually they would get the word to stop.

 

You have to make it as painful as possible, so painful they don't want to try anything.

 

And this is nothing new, we have been doing it right along. Seriously we did it Central America in the 80's and it cured a lot of problems then.

[Scoutfish]

Nah, I think Bin Laden didn't have a single issue with anything America did...until after we pulled out after giving them all the goodies of war and other help with the Soviets.

 

As long as we were standing by them...everything was cool. But as soon as we didn't jump on the "destroy anybody who is Osama's enemy...we in turn became the enemy.

 

Yeah, it's a psycho thing, ya know!

 

[TAHAWK]

So Uncle Joe was our "friend" so long as we were shipping him Studebaker trucks?

 

OBL was always our enemy. His words and his behavior tell us so.

 

And, alas, we didn't give OBL a trial! How ever will we know he was actually guilty? Oh, that's right. He bragged about repeatedly leading mass murder - of 1000's US citizens of all religions and other 1000's of Muslims -- just because it suited his "holy war." (Notice how readily they plant bombs in public places and deliberately splatter kid parts - infant parts -- all over the area?)

 

Its a rough neighborhood, folks, and we do well to have rough people protecting our rights to critique. Read JFK's inaugural address again. Or has he, like Jefferson, been removed from the list of acceptable thinkers?

 

 

[Gary_Miller]

The big thing about terrorists is, they want everyone to know they are responsible for an event. This is how they gain creditability as a terrorist organization.

 

That being said our(The US Of A)position should be if you take credit we take you out with a whole bunch of shock and awe. No matter where you are or what country you are in. And no we don't ask permission of the harboring country we just do. If your harboring terrorists you are part of the problem.

 

We don't need ground forces to go in after the fact in order to stabilize the situation. We do it all with our Air Force and Navy from our own soil and ships.

 

Its time we show the rest of the world that we are still the super power.

[Beavah]

Yah, I'm sympathetic to the sentiment, Gary Miller. Never have been fond of da cockamamie notion of nation-building.

 

Just one question for yeh...

 

If a domestic terrorist group headquartered in Omaha claims credit, do we carpet bomb Omaha?

 

If not, why not? Even if they weren't part of da terrorist group, surely some of da citizens of Omaha were somewhat sympathetic to the anti-government cause.

 

Funny how the Lord of Hosts agreed He would not destroy Sodom if even 5 just men could be found there, yet we would destroy a city if only 5 unjust men are hiding there.

 

Makes yeh stop and think, doesn't it? Perhaps, just maybe, we should behave a bit more like He who is the only real Superpower, eh?

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[TAHAWK]

Hey, Beav. I am not aware of our carpet bombing any city since WWII. Dresden was nothing to be proud about, but have you some recent incident in mind?