|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
.....This is what I wanted to talk about.....
This is a very interesting quote, and not beacause of the laughable political sound byte they tried to create. ....
.....Honorably redeploy.....
If Iraq is 'unwinnable' or at least not worth winning as its apparent the democrats think, why don't they want to use the words 'retreat?' 'We have been beaten we are pulling out.' 'There is no way we can win this conflict, goodluck Iraq!'
Instead we get 'honorably redeploy' where we are leaving, yet retaining our honor. Interesting.....
There are 24 entries at dictionary.com for 'honor'
I wonder which one applies here?
|
...why do your comments, in reaction to Pelosi's reminder that she has long been on record as an advocate for redeploying troops to existing US bases in more rural areas of Iraq, as well as out of the country, sound so much like those of William Rusher, on the CNP/Salem Comm. website, townhall.com, 13 months ago?
Quote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/W...he_pelosi_plan
The Pelosi plan
By William Rusher
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
....Our would-be Madam Speaker has not uttered two consecutive words on any proposal for solving America's problems in Iraq. She has, instead, confined herself to calling upon the administration to "redeploy" our troops there.
Now, "redeploy" is defined in Webster's New World Dictionary as meaning "to move (troops) from one front to another, as from Europe to the Pacific." But as used by Pelosi, it is merely a fancy, rather military-sounding synonym for "bugout" -- or, if you prefer, <h3>"cut and run."</h3> She has never suggested any place to which the troops might be "redeployed" (Abu Dhabi? Dubai?), or explained what they might do once based there. If she imagines they might use their new location as a base from which to strike in some militarily more desirable direction, what direction does she have in mind, and how many casualties is she prepared to incur?
No, the Congresswoman <h3>from downtown San Francisco</h3> simply means pulling out of Iraq and bringing the troops home by Christmas (or some other date). It is hard to think of any comparably irresponsible proposal by an American political leader. It is the exact opposite of a "plan." It doesn't even ask, let alone answer, what is surely the most important question concerning a bugout: namely, what would its military and political consequences be?....
|
By the way...you don't suppose that Pelosi spokesman <a href="http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_7385887?nclick_check=1">Nadeam Elshami</a> is an Arab or a Persian?
Ustwo, you seem to at least be standing on the front porch of the dwelling that houses "the answer" that explains (excuses ?) a failed presidency, or you may already know what resides inside. Your questions are apparantly answered by author, journalist, and 2000 Maryland, US senate GOP primary candidate, Kenneth R. Timmerman:
Quote:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../10/018662.php
October 4, 2007
Shadow Warriors
For years, we have been writing about the CIA's campaign to undermine the Bush administration--the agency's most successful covert operation in many years. Scott came up with the felicitous phrase <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2006/05/013841.php">Three Years of the Condor</a> for the CIA's secret war. For a long time we felt like voices in the wilderness, but it turns out that some of those who do this for a living were hard at work.
Yesterday, I got in the mail a new book by <h3>Kenneth Timmerman, author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran</h3> and other books. Timmerman's new book is called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Warriors-Traitors-Saboteurs-Surrender/dp/0307352099/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-8494134-7452845?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191547627&sr=1-2">Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender</a>. I haven't had time to read it yet, obviously, but I can't resist quoting the book's beginning:
Some have called it the CIA's greatest covert operation of all time.
It involved deep penetration of a hostile regime by planting a network of agents at key crossroads of power, where they could steal secrets and steer policy by planting disinformation, cooking intelligence, provocation, and outright lies.
It involved sophisticated political sabotage operations, aimed at making regime leaders doubt their own judgment and question the support of their subordinates.
It involved the financing, training, and equipping of effective opposition forces, who could challenge the regime openly and through covert operations.
The scope was breathtaking, say insiders who had personal knowledge of the CIA effort. All the skills learned by the U.S. intelligence community during the fifty years of the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union were in play, from active measures aimed at planting disinformation through cutouts and an eager media, to maskirovka--strategic deception.
It was war--but an intelligence war, played behind the scenes, aimed at confusing, misleading, and ultimately defeating the enemy. Its goal was nothing less than to topple the regime in power, by discrediting its rulers.
Many Americans believe this was the CIA's goal during the 1990s, when the Agency had "boots on the ground" in northern Iraq, working with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein. Most patriotic Americans probably hope that the CIA today has such an operation to overthrow the mullahs in Tehran, or North Korean dictator Kim John Il.
<h3>But the target of this vast, sophisticated CIA operation was none of them.
It was America's 43rd President, George W. Bush.</h3>
I'm looking forward to reading the rest. Shadow Warriors is coming out on November 6, but can be pre-ordered on Amazon.
|
I'm sure that you can learn more at the forum linked in the preceding "article" (It leads to three pages of agreeable reactions) :
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php...wthread/24422/
...and, guess what? Mr. Timmerman, in his new book, tells us who all "the traitors" are in the US government, besides the 250, or so, house democrats. The book's revelation is that Bush is an excellent president who is a victim of his own good nature, in failing to purge the government and the administration of all those who sabotaged his administraion, and the country, through treasonous acts.
Timmerman was nominated recently for the Nobel prize, along with John Bolton:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=46
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articl...2167,2170,3307
Let the Nobel Go Nuclear
The Hon. Per Ahlmark
The Wall Street Journal
February 7, 2006
Page A26
Let us focus on the good guys. The fools of the Iranian nuclear tragedy we already know. The International Atomic Energy Agency was duped for 18 years.
Kenneth Timmerman has for 20 years exposed Iran’s nuclear intentions. In books, reports speeches, articles and private meetings he has told us of specific detail as well as the big picture - a full-fledged, official plan to game the system of international safeguards. His latest book, Countdown to Crisis: The coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, lays this out in chilling detail; and it was his report for the Wiesenthal Center in 1992 that first detailed Iran’s ties to Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan.
John Bolton, former undersecretary of state, has with unusual energy tried to find ways to counter this threat. Friends and foes agree - he never gives up......
Editor's Note:
Kenneth R. Timmerman, a member of JINSA’s Board of Advisors, has been tracking Iranian government terrorism and Iranian weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs for the past twenty years. His latest book, Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran will be released in paperback on March 1, 2006.
His July 1998 profile of Osama bin Laden in Reader’s Digest appeared just three weeks before Bin Laden blew up two U.S. Embassies in Africa and became a household name.
In 1993, Timmerman authored a key Congressional report on Iranian WMD procurement. Since leaving the Hill, he has testified before Congress on many occasions on missile and nuclear developments in Iran, and been sought out for his expertise by a wide variety of U.S. government agencies, including the U.S. Army War College, the Department of Energy, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. In 1998, he testified on Iranian missile developments to the Commission To Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (the Rumsfeld Commission).
He is the author of two New York Times best-sellers: The French Betrayal of America (2004) and Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson (2002). Other books include Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America (2003), and The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq (1991). He is a contributing editor to Newsmax and writes a weekly column for FrontPage magazine.
John R. Bolton, a former member of JINSA’s Board of Advisors, was appointed by President George W. Bush as United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations on August 1, 2005. Prior to his appointment, Ambassador Bolton served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security from May 2001 to May 2005.....
|
"Curt", over at http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/11/...n-on-traitors/ was kind enough to provide a link to Timmerman's Nov. 7th "interview", with Michael Medved on CNP/Salem Radio, edited by Curt to remove the commerical interruptions. I listened to it on the car radio, and Medved gushed about it being the best book he had ever read.
Startling revelations... Karen Kiatkowski is accused by Timmerman as being a LaRouche "mole", and Timmerman made some advance accusations:
Here is one of the comments in reaction to the Timmerman interview, at floppingaces, from the preceding link:
Quote:
|
....This is funny. I am watching the morning news and was just thinking (judged on the actions of democrats) that at least 250 members of the current congress will have an 'asterisk' after their history. *Also an American Traitor.....
|
Quote:
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/sul.../17/33221.html
Monday, September 17, 2007 10:05 AM
<h3>By: Kenneth R. Timmerman </h3>
The Central Intelligence Agency announced on Friday that it was calling back from retirement a controversial former operations officer to head the National Clandestine Service, three years after he left the Agency to protest reforms being put in place by then-CIA Director Porter Goss.
Michael J. Sulick was associate deputy director for operations at the time he resigned in November 2004 along with his boss, Stephen R. Kappes.
The Wall Street Journal called their bitter fight with Porter Goss and his aides over Agency reform “an insurgency,” although both Kappes and Sulick were praised by Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, who became a fierce critic of Goss and his reforms.
Sulick’s return was praised by John McLaughlin, who as acting CIA director in July 2004 was involved in his earlier appointment, prior to the clash with Goss.
“Mike Sulick’s return is a big plus for the agency,” McLaughlin told NewsMax. “He is open to new ideas, but espionage in the classic sense has been around since biblical times and — while novelty is always welcome — there's a lot to be said for the proven experience that Mike Sulick brings to the table. “
The National Clandestine Service, formerly known as the Directorate of Operations, is the Agency’s elite corps of spies.
When Goss took over the Agency in September 2004, he sought to revitalize the clandestine service and weed out “dead wood” operators who were the product of an “old boys network” that failed to recruit spies in difficult overseas environments.
But he ran into fierce opposition from Kappes, Sulick and other products of the CIA “old guard,” who objected to Goss’s efforts to reform the operations directorate and bring it under his control.
<h3>As I will reveal in my upcoming book, "Shadow Warriors: Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender,"</h3> Kappes had been implicated in a serious security breach at a CIA station overseas, but was never disciplined by the Agency.
Furthermore, both he and Sulick were engaged in activities to lobby members of Congress in their own districts that violated U.S. law. When Goss tried to discipline them, the two men resigned in protest.
Sulick’s message sends a “terrible message” to CIA officers who are trying to do their job and stay out of politics, and suggests that the CIA bench is so thin they have no other candidates for the critical job as head of the Clandestine Service, former agency officers said.
Goss was trying to change the “culture” of the DO, where Clandestine officers were promoted for the number of foreign sources they recruited, not the quality of their information.
Sulick and Kappes earned a reputation as political infighters, who fiercely opposed the policies of the Bush administration in the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
“Sulick’s appointment is an unbelievable slap at the president,” a congressional source told NewsMax over the weekend.
Gen. Michael V. Hayden replaced Goss as CIA director last year <h3>under circumstances never before made public that I reveal in my new book.</h3>
Gen. Hayden’s first move was to bring back Sulick’s old boss, Stephen Kappes, as deputy director of the Agency, a move that Goss supporters in Congress viewed as a “disaster.”...
|
So, Ustwo, I understand why you were asking what "honorably redeploying", actually means. If the tiny sliver of discredited, neocon influence (author Timmerman is a mouthpiece for <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2055232&postcount=1">JINSA</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy">CSP</a> as well as co-founder of) :
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundat...ocracy_in_Iran
The Foundation for Democracy in Iran is a U.S. based Iranian dissident organization. FDI was founded in 1995 by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Peter W. Rodman, Joshua Muravchick and Iranian opposition expatriates advocating regime change in Iran....
|
..is still shaping your political views, you're probably in agreement with likud party in Israel, and the Council for National Policy (CNP) in the US, and what the CNP uses 1200 Salem Talk Radio and it's Salem Comm., website, townhall.com to convey:
<i>The people who disagree with Mr. Bush's foreign and military policy goals are democrats of the "extreme left", "looney liberals", "traitors", or all three.</i>
I have a question. Why do you suppose John Hindraker of powerlineblog, Michael Medved, and "Curt", so enthusiastically embrace Timmerman's book and the accusations contained in it? Do they really believe that Bush's only failing was being too soft on the "traitors on the inside"? Do you?
Last edited by host; 11-10-2007 at 04:56 AM..
|