AP: Dean had his OWN secret energy group.

[JohnT]

Can you really expect more from a guy who links to conspiracyworld.com as a primary source?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by JohnT
He's taking a chapter from OB's book...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned


Oncle B, Dean was wrong not because he said that OBL should get a fair trial, but because he essentially said that WE should not try him but the the Hague should, because that means Osama bin Laden would not get the death penalty if found guilty. To most Americans, this is simply outrageous.

I thought he said he didn't care whether he was tried in the Hague or in the US.

Anyway, if he said anything like he shouldn't get the death penalty, I perfectly understand the outrage and the huge political mistake (though personally I am strongly against the capital punishment, sharing this ideal is not a good thing for an American politician).

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by JohnT
According to Gallup, 64% of Americans support the death penalty.

http://www.bet.com/articles/0,,c1gb8328-9176,00.html

But the support is in general decline. So America as the only democratic nation besides Singapore and Japan still have the death penalty.

This reminds me of a Steven Wright joke. Why do they use sterile syringes at lethal injections?

[JohnT]

I thought he said he didn't care whether he was tried in the Hague or in the US.

Which is tantamount to saying the same thing... or so his opponents will claim.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
He was however ignored by the Republicans as he tried to warn the Bush administration of a possible attack.

The democrats and Clinton ignored him as well while he was president

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ming


The democrats and Clinton ignored him as well while he was president

When who was president?

[JohnT]

While Clinton was President.

[Ming]

The democrats keep failing to mention that warnings of an attack came LONG before it actually did... and started on their watch. They ignored the facts just as the later administration did... something about a boy crying wolf

[DinoDoc]

Do you people ever get headaches after debating tripledoc? Just reading some of the ones you've had with him reminds me of a person banging thier head against a brick wall.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by JohnT
While Clinton was President.

How could Cinton ignore himself?

Seriously why would Clinton choose to ignore Tenet when he was the one who had appointed him.

[JohnT]

Amazing... they did the same thing with the recession... and the dot.bomb age. I really liked it when somebody on this board blamed the AOL-Time Warner debacle on "Bush's refusal to enact the anti-trust laws", conveniently forgetting that the merger was announced in March 2000 and finalized in January 2001.

Edit: Response (kind of) to Ming.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


How could Cinton ignore himself?

Seriously why would Clinton choose to ignore Tenet when he was the one who had appointed him.

'Tis the nature of people, boy. And of politics.

Regardless, Clinton had to appoint a Director of the CIA, regardless of whether he was going to use the agency properly or not.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by JohnT
Regardless, Clinton had to appoint a Director of the CIA, regardless of whether he was going to use the agency properly or not.

I see. The proces of appointing the person of possibly the most powerful intelligence community, besides the former KGB of course, in the world is simply an off the coff chore that any president will eventually have to find the in between time to do?

In reality the attacks on the American Embassies in Kenya should have raised eyebrows. The information on flight students not interested in how to land or take off should similarly have inspired a further investigation.

Maybe it is some sort of organisational failure, where field agents are not allowed to follow their own leads? This would have something to do with a lack of money. However much the Homeland Security has been derided in the liberal press, I sure hope that the money are well spent. The problem is that the money seems to go away from the senior organisations like the FBI and the CIA, and into the Pentagon (which have taken over the role of foreign policy as well) and the newly created dept. for Homeland security. That particular dept. is going to be a monster of an opponent for any newcoming Democratic president. Also I think that the new recruitment of field agents under the Homeland Security is not neccesarily going to prevent intelligence failures (although it might prevent unemployment), but rather take away funds from perhaps more experienced agents in the more senior agencies.

[JohnT]

I see. The proces of appointing the person of possibly the most powerful intelligence community, besides the former KGB of course, in the world is simply an off the coff chore that any president will eventually have to find the in between time to do?

Pretty much. Depends upon how the President views the CIA (or any agency, for that matter) as to how much time they'll spend thinking about who is going to be the director. Do you actually think there was an interview process, that Clinton spent his time reading resumes? Nah, his choices were first vetted by the staff and he was likely presented with a list of 5-10 "acceptable" names. He probably spent an hour or two with each candidate (well, those he didn't unilaterally strike off the list, that is) and told his Chief of Staff - "let's get the ball rolling on Tenet" before turning his attention to other details.