chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
I can vouch for jaminjim's good company!! 
CIA Workers Killed in Afghanistan as U.S. Steps Up Spying Role
- Thread starter OntarioVanMan
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Couple of points:
Your premise seems to be that the only ones that could or should have oversight over intel agencies, are the intelligence agencies themselves (since only they would have the "requisite experience" - and everyone else would merely be a "Monday morning quarterbacks")
The phrase "fox guarding the henhouse" comes immediately to mind.
Also your premise seems to imply that it's not the business of the average American to judge the actions of those, who are by definition, his servants. It is abundantly clear that our Founding Fathers did not feel this way. This is not at all the American system of governance that the Founders bequeathed to us (in fact, oddly enough, such a premise it appears to have more in common with the Soviet system, or other similar totalitarian regimes)
Further, as one who has repeatedly pronounced the guilt of many at the drop of a hat, that you would be amazed at such a thing is the epitome of irony.
Finally, it's a consequence of blowback.
And I tell you again: you don't know jack about me and what I have done (or haven't)
You can assume all you want, and try to cast aspersions based on that, but the fact is you don't really know .....
You might wish to explore your apparent abhorrence and aversion to books as a possible (if not primary) reason as well.
I have managed to function quite well outside of the classroom - in a variety of different professions - although thanks for the thought.
BTW, since I'm fairly sure that this has escaped you, your premise that anything other than first hand knowledge is somehow suspect and not to be believed, (coupled, perhaps, with the known fact that intel agencies are prone to use disinformation) should make anyone immediately distrust anything that you have to say (it's one of them double-edged sword things)
Another Layoutshooter-ism ..... that's almost as good as the premise that al-Qaeda being directed by the Soviet Union and the Chinese.
However, let me provide an alternate view: In my experience (in doing investigations) that those who shout the loudest usually have hidden crimes, that they would prefer not to have exposed. (The preceding is stated as a general premise, and is not directed at any particular individual.)
Why do you keep trying to divert the subject and make it personal ? I have repeatedly stated that I have no personal knowledge of what you (or wimpy for that matter) did or didn't do.
Your problem is that seem to want to always shift the discussion of the topic - twisting it into something that it isn't.
No I'm sure you don't - but you might wish to consider reading (it is afterall, believe it or not, a way to educate yourself) to find out about what others did .......
Or you can just continue to come on here and thump your chest, droning on monotonously, proclaiming your patriotism (as though no one else could possibly have any), refusing to look, refusing to acknowledge, and generally keep your head buried in the sand - unless something just happens to comport with your worldview.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yup I do - in fact, I even know how to spell it correctly: egg-sucking cur dog.
Would you like for me to define it ?
You must then live on a farm, or otherwise have an overabundance of eggs, and not mind mixed-breed pooches or the incessant growling ......
So what's your point ?
I really have no interest whatsoever in "firing you up" as you put it. Nor do I consider you an idiot ...... somewhat misguided perhaps - but then you no doubt consider me similarly misguided ...... such is the nature of living with others.
However, I am not going to sit just idly by and ignore my own duties as a citizen of this country to 1. to make at least some minor attempt to keep my fellow citizens informed of matters I feel they should be informed of, and 2. fail to engage in the debate of public policy - particularly policies which I believe to be vital in the interest of national security, ones which I feel might ultimately result in the demise of this nation.
If you take my comments and thoughts generally on such matters, which are really not directed at you, or your service to our nation, personally, then it is indeed unfortunate.
Hardly.
Did I ever call you a criminal ?
Last edited:
Let's put some things straight, I have no problems with books, I just know first hand experience is better. How? I have some. Lots of it. In many fields in and out of the intell service.
I used to read books about firefighters, until I became one I had no idea what it was really like.
I used to read books about EMT's, until I became one I had no idea what it was really like.
I read all the time, did in my past, do now, will as long as I am able.
You have no idea what I read, or why.
I do not think nor have I ever said that the intell agencies should police themselves. I believe in our Constitution and that calls for civilian oversite, that is how it should be.
Those involved in that oversite should, however, be able to pass the same muster as those they over see. Just as honest, just as able to pass back ground checks and polygraphs. It is of no use to have the likes of an Obama, Reid, or any other of those criminals having power over honest men and women.
And yes, I am saying that they are not honest.
I am highly educated, just not in many things that you would likely recognize as education. There is no formal schooling for the education that I have.
I did not say that you could not handle your self out of the classroom, I said that many of my college instructors could not.
I have never hid from mistakes of any agency, just look at it in a much different light. Much of what I have read on so called mistakes of agencies were written by what I call "malcontents" you know passed over for a promotion and such. Not all, but much. Much of what I have read took much of what happened out of both historical or practical context. It is often obvious that many who write on the subject have no idea in the world of what they are writing about. Not everything, but most.
I know that because of that pesky experience.
I take great pride in my service. I did right by my standards which are very high. I have only two that I have to answer to for my life, my wife and God. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
I used to read books about firefighters, until I became one I had no idea what it was really like.
I used to read books about EMT's, until I became one I had no idea what it was really like.
I read all the time, did in my past, do now, will as long as I am able.
You have no idea what I read, or why.
I do not think nor have I ever said that the intell agencies should police themselves. I believe in our Constitution and that calls for civilian oversite, that is how it should be.
Those involved in that oversite should, however, be able to pass the same muster as those they over see. Just as honest, just as able to pass back ground checks and polygraphs. It is of no use to have the likes of an Obama, Reid, or any other of those criminals having power over honest men and women.
And yes, I am saying that they are not honest.
I am highly educated, just not in many things that you would likely recognize as education. There is no formal schooling for the education that I have.
I did not say that you could not handle your self out of the classroom, I said that many of my college instructors could not.
I have never hid from mistakes of any agency, just look at it in a much different light. Much of what I have read on so called mistakes of agencies were written by what I call "malcontents" you know passed over for a promotion and such. Not all, but much. Much of what I have read took much of what happened out of both historical or practical context. It is often obvious that many who write on the subject have no idea in the world of what they are writing about. Not everything, but most.
I know that because of that pesky experience.
I take great pride in my service. I did right by my standards which are very high. I have only two that I have to answer to for my life, my wife and God. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
Who called you a criminal? And please stop calling the President a criminal - if he is, it's news to the rest of the country. [Or is it more of the secret stuff only YOU know, huh?]
You believe what you want, I believe what I want.
No, my friends nor I did not do it for recognition, we did it because it needed done.
That was not my point, it does not matter. They are dead as a direct result of their service.
Ingrates, like that little two bit stinky, smelly, "peace nut" back at Detroit Metro Airport in the '70's. High as a kite, war protesting. Who knows that last time she had a bath or did anything of value. I stepped off the plane, in uniform, brass shinning. She walked up an smiled, I smiled back, then she SPIT in my face and called me a baby killer!!!
I will never be spit on again. Not in real life or otherwise.
I have done no wrong. And sorry, you have no idea what my first, second or third hand experience is and most likely would not be able to understand it if I told you.
As said in another post, I answer only to my wife and God. She is obviously happy with what I did, she stood by me for over 36 years now. She is proud of my accomplishments. All of them, intell or otherwise. She has never second guessed what I did.
So you believe what you want, I don't give a flip. You, frankly, ain't been there either.
No, my friends nor I did not do it for recognition, we did it because it needed done.
That was not my point, it does not matter. They are dead as a direct result of their service.
Ingrates, like that little two bit stinky, smelly, "peace nut" back at Detroit Metro Airport in the '70's. High as a kite, war protesting. Who knows that last time she had a bath or did anything of value. I stepped off the plane, in uniform, brass shinning. She walked up an smiled, I smiled back, then she SPIT in my face and called me a baby killer!!!
I will never be spit on again. Not in real life or otherwise.
I have done no wrong. And sorry, you have no idea what my first, second or third hand experience is and most likely would not be able to understand it if I told you.
As said in another post, I answer only to my wife and God. She is obviously happy with what I did, she stood by me for over 36 years now. She is proud of my accomplishments. All of them, intell or otherwise. She has never second guessed what I did.
So you believe what you want, I don't give a flip. You, frankly, ain't been there either.
You think that only those who have 'been there' are entitled to even have an opinion, much less be taken seriously on the subject of the role military intelligence should play - I strongly disagree.You believe what you want, I believe what I want.
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes: it's what you say instead of answering direct questions.
No, my friends nor I did not do it for recognition, we did it because it needed done.
Reread your earlier comments and tell me that's not backtracking.
That was not my point, it does not matter. They are dead as a direct result of their service.
Ingrates, like that little two bit stinky, smelly, "peace nut" back at Detroit Metro Airport in the '70's. High as a kite, war protesting. Who knows that last time she had a bath or did anything of value. I stepped off the plane, in uniform, brass shinning. She walked up an smiled, I smiled back, then she SPIT in my face and called me a baby killer!!!
Jeez, can you get any more judgemental? But if you truly believe the war protester was worthless, why does it bother you? [30 years later?!] It sounds like you expect the everyone to applaud what you did - that's not gonna happen.
I will never be spit on again. Not in real life or otherwise.
Then you probably will miss out on holding the grandbabies, eh?
I have done no wrong. And sorry, you have no idea what my first, second or third hand experience is and most likely would not be able to understand it if I told you.
All I know is what you say you've done, but the arrogance of your attitude is rather insulting, IMO. How can you know what I might be able to understand? Your assumptions are both groundless and boundless.
As said in another post, I answer only to my wife and God.
The why are you posting in a place where folks ask questions and expect [and deserve] answers?
She is obviously happy with what I did, she stood by me for over 36 years now. She is proud of my accomplishments. All of them, intell or otherwise. She has never second guessed what I did.
Nice, but totally irrelevant.
So you believe what you want, I don't give a flip.
See first response above.
You, frankly, ain't been there either.
I've held out as long as I can...
"And sorry, you have no idea what my first, second or third hand experience is and most likely would not be able to understand it if I told you."
That's pretty dаmned condescending, and you do it a lot. To dismiss someone as irrelevant simply because they do not have the same exact experiences as you is an immense failure of character. Most knowledge is, in fact, second hand. First hand knowledge is generally the most limiting of knowledge, since it is knowledge gained through very specific and narrow experience. Those who have not experienced what you have will ever be able to understand the experience you went through, but don't for a second think they cannot understand the knowledge to be gleaned from that experience. It's rude, condescending and belittling. The primary method of attaining knowledge is through the experiences, both good and bad, of others, gained from plausible interpretations of experience. If people cannot understand your experiences, rather than dismiss them, look to your failings of not being able to properly present the experiences within plausible interpretations.
I have done research and read books about many things, and then went on to do those things, and when I did them, by golly I had a really good idea what it was really like before I did them, and the experiences weren't very different from what I expected. The fact that you were surprised at what a fireman or an EMT really is should not be indicative of whether or not others can process and retain forehand knowledge in a meaningful way. For example, I have no doubt that I could sit you down and relate to you my experiences of working in a French kitchen under the tutelage of a perfectionist, overbearing French Chef, and by the time I'm done with you, you could walk into the kitchen of any French restaurant and not be surprised at what you encounter. This is how knowledge is passed along, and just because it's second hand knowledge doesn't make it any less viable, meaningful, or real, than having experienced it first hand.
So the "I've been there, done that, and you haven't" crap is wearing a little thin. I'm just sayin'. Yes, I know, it's what you believe, it's how you were raised. I don't give a flip about that, either. It doesn't excuse rudeness or condescension. What is does do, however, is stretch the limit of plausibility and believability in a classic display of overcompensation.
"And sorry, you have no idea what my first, second or third hand experience is and most likely would not be able to understand it if I told you."
That's pretty dаmned condescending, and you do it a lot. To dismiss someone as irrelevant simply because they do not have the same exact experiences as you is an immense failure of character. Most knowledge is, in fact, second hand. First hand knowledge is generally the most limiting of knowledge, since it is knowledge gained through very specific and narrow experience. Those who have not experienced what you have will ever be able to understand the experience you went through, but don't for a second think they cannot understand the knowledge to be gleaned from that experience. It's rude, condescending and belittling. The primary method of attaining knowledge is through the experiences, both good and bad, of others, gained from plausible interpretations of experience. If people cannot understand your experiences, rather than dismiss them, look to your failings of not being able to properly present the experiences within plausible interpretations.
I have done research and read books about many things, and then went on to do those things, and when I did them, by golly I had a really good idea what it was really like before I did them, and the experiences weren't very different from what I expected. The fact that you were surprised at what a fireman or an EMT really is should not be indicative of whether or not others can process and retain forehand knowledge in a meaningful way. For example, I have no doubt that I could sit you down and relate to you my experiences of working in a French kitchen under the tutelage of a perfectionist, overbearing French Chef, and by the time I'm done with you, you could walk into the kitchen of any French restaurant and not be surprised at what you encounter. This is how knowledge is passed along, and just because it's second hand knowledge doesn't make it any less viable, meaningful, or real, than having experienced it first hand.
So the "I've been there, done that, and you haven't" crap is wearing a little thin. I'm just sayin'. Yes, I know, it's what you believe, it's how you were raised. I don't give a flip about that, either. It doesn't excuse rudeness or condescension. What is does do, however, is stretch the limit of plausibility and believability in a classic display of overcompensation.
Whatever. I have the truck loaded for tomorrow, the handguns are back in the safe.
We are ready for going back in service tomorrow.
This, for the most part, is a waste of time.
Have a happy day.
We are ready for going back in service tomorrow.
This, for the most part, is a waste of time.
Have a happy day.
Just an observation from a casual observer...
There are a great number of individuals that perform tasks in or for the Military Services with no practical knowledge prior to training. The training is directive by nature and the individual's personal opinion is not asked for. They are taught to follow orders and due to compartmentalization, will never see the complete picture. It is not until the twilight of their careers, if at all, that they are in a position to determine policy. Whether or not they agree with an order or position, they are not in any position to question it.
Intelligence gathering is a necessary evil, and the public vetting of real time information is neither productive or plausible. People that are trained to acquire such data report it, nothing more. Some group of individuals north of the field operative analyzes it, combined with additional information sourced elsewhere. The field operatives follow orders, it is not their purpose to reason why, but to act.
Loyalty is a valued trait, as has been demonstrated in this thread. There are individuals that have committed suicide over the stress of these types of jobs, and I am sure some reflections. We all go through stages in our maturation process, all guided by our experiences, mentors, and training. I am quite sure that we do not hold opinions now that we held in our youth. If we do, it has been tempered or tweaked as our number of experiences increase.
"Need to Know" is not a personal affront, but a known term that reflects on an individuals level of security clearance and assigned tasks. A piece of information that has a specified security level for access does not mean that anyone with that access can see it, only those with an immediate "Need to Know". In the context in which it was used, I believe was a cautionary counsel.
Scott
There are a great number of individuals that perform tasks in or for the Military Services with no practical knowledge prior to training. The training is directive by nature and the individual's personal opinion is not asked for. They are taught to follow orders and due to compartmentalization, will never see the complete picture. It is not until the twilight of their careers, if at all, that they are in a position to determine policy. Whether or not they agree with an order or position, they are not in any position to question it.
Intelligence gathering is a necessary evil, and the public vetting of real time information is neither productive or plausible. People that are trained to acquire such data report it, nothing more. Some group of individuals north of the field operative analyzes it, combined with additional information sourced elsewhere. The field operatives follow orders, it is not their purpose to reason why, but to act.
Loyalty is a valued trait, as has been demonstrated in this thread. There are individuals that have committed suicide over the stress of these types of jobs, and I am sure some reflections. We all go through stages in our maturation process, all guided by our experiences, mentors, and training. I am quite sure that we do not hold opinions now that we held in our youth. If we do, it has been tempered or tweaked as our number of experiences increase.
"Need to Know" is not a personal affront, but a known term that reflects on an individuals level of security clearance and assigned tasks. A piece of information that has a specified security level for access does not mean that anyone with that access can see it, only those with an immediate "Need to Know". In the context in which it was used, I believe was a cautionary counsel.
Scott
We could compare the heroics of Johnny Mike Spann with the treachery of John Walker Lindh in Afghanistan, but unfortunately such an exercise isn't as much fun as throwing mud. These two guys, Spann and Lindh, are a microcosm of our conflicting policies in Afghanistan.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I glad you clarified that - because it certainly appeared from many of your comments that you did.
Well, I have a slightly different take on it - understanding the theory of something (which is something one gets from studying books, etc.) is generally useless - unless one has at least some practical experience to go with it. Knowledge, un-applied, is but a waste.
Conversely, someone whose knowledge has only been gained through practical experience, with no education in the theory of whatever field they are in, lacks the benefit of the observations of others, particularly those that have gone before. As such, you can teach that person to do a task (a mechanical action, or procedure), but they may any lack real understanding beyond "when you press da button, da machine turns off"
A good example of this would be someone who aspired to be a heart surgeon - you take him, largely uneducated and without the benefit of study of the human body and the way it works (the theory) and turn him loose on a room of people who all needed heart bypasses ......
Eventually, he might figure it out and get it right .... but he's probably gonna bury a lot of patients while he's getting there ....
And you think others don't ?
That's good - I'm right there with you - sum of us benefits whenever another one of us raises his knowledge - it's how civilizations progress.
Of course I don't - just as you have no idea what I've read (beyond what I've mentioned here) .... or for that matter, what I have done (beyond what I've mentioned here)
Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding.
Good - then we are in agreement.
I'm gonna tread very lightly on this one - because by your choice of characters above, it has the tendency to render the discussion on this matter down to nothing more rank partisan politics - which is not where it should be. I will address it from one aspect however:
It would be a real trick to do what you suggest - considering that it's gonna be politicians doing the oversight.
What is your suggestion to resolve that dilemma ?
Oh, don't sell me short Layout
- I'd probably be inclined to recognize such things as valid education, perhaps more so than many others.That's a bit of barrier to be sure - but it certainly is possible to overcome such things. Besides, formal schooling is no guarantee of an education, useful or otherwise ..... even a parrot can be taught to repeat something one says.
Good - so you didn't mean to infer it to me.
As I said earlier, that's quite understandable.
I understand - and I understand why you might view them as such. Me, I think sometimes a bit of little malcontent, or saying it another way, a little bit of rebelliousness, is not necessarily a bad thing - although I do understand that the armed forces as an institution takes a fairly dim view of that for rather obvious reasons.
Our Founding Fathers, being such men themselves (rebels against authority), didn't seem to feel that rebelliousness was such a bad idea - in fact, I think it was a suggestion of theirs that we might want to try a little of it from time to time.
Again, I'll impart a little personal history - my wife's father was career Airforce. He served in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and rose to the rank of either Lt. Colonel, or Colonel, I forget which. He eventually retired because he had risen to a point where he was not going to be promoted further.
In discussing his career with him, what he had said to say about the ending of it, was that it was largely politics, and that he wasn't willing to play that game. The politics had more to do with socializing and such, rather than anything he would have been required to do as part of his job. He was not particularly bitter about his eventual career deadend as near as I could tell when we discussed it - although I know that he had had aspirations to rise further. He was reasonably critical of the service, but not overly so.
Was he a malcontent ? I rather doubt it. In fact, I'll bet he was the consummate team player.
One of the problems with the armed forces is, that like the political arena, it is composed of men (and women) - all of which have flaws. Nature of the beast.
Well, you know what you know - generally however, I'm much more interested in learning what it is that I don't know.
I don't think anyone here is under any illusions that you don't - at least not if they have been paying attention at all.
Isn't that all anyone can do ?
Well, I certainly don't think that I ever said that you did.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Scott,
Thanks for weighing in - a great post - it comports with my understanding and I certainly don't find anything to disagree with in what you wrote.
However, blind loyalty (to anything) is not a virtue, but a form of moral weakness.
Again thanks for posting.
Thanks for weighing in - a great post - it comports with my understanding and I certainly don't find anything to disagree with in what you wrote.
I have no disagreement with this - and it's certainly not anything that I'm advocating.
Absolutely true - as it should be.
However, blind loyalty (to anything) is not a virtue, but a form of moral weakness.
Wouldn't doubt it for a minute.
Yes, you're right - inherently it isn't - that doesn't mean however that it can't be used as one
Again thanks for posting.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yeah, yeah, yeah ...... I was gittin' to it
.... I just ain't that fast (I had a rather lengthy response almost done on your "rough men stand ready" post too - but alas, my browser crashed - I'll try and reconstruct it )Well, I'm not a liberal - nor a conservative (and at the same time, I am both), however Life being sufficiently complex, I can't resist weighing in - my answers would be:
Both C and D ...... and here's why:
In the case of C, both men had potential to live lives that could have been of benefit to their fellow man and that could have been lived without harming others (the ideal) Neither, apparently, choose that path - both likely became murderers of their fellows. A tragic case and a terrible waste in both instances - ones that effected not just themselves and their victims, but their loved ones, and indeed everyone whose lives they touched in a good way, as well. A man whose actions ensured that his wife and two children will grow up without their father, her husband .... And a son which ensured his parents will spend their golden years and the remainder of their lives, living with the disgrace he visited upon them .....
Both have to live with the consequences of their actions - one, now in this life, and the other, in the hereafter (if you believe in that sort of thing) ..... neither is a burden I would wish on anyone.
In the case of D, I hold no sympathy for either - both were responsible for their own condition, and the circumstances that they ultimately found themselves in. Their own individual choices decided their respective fates - they themselves made those choices, and therefore can blame no one but themselves. Spann lived by the sword and ultimately died by it, and Lindh's time may yet come.
Last edited:
More information coming out about the CIA suicide bomber - a Jordanian doctor working not-so-clandestinely as a double agent.
AFP: US intel operations in Afghanistan under fire
According to other reports the CIA trusted the guy's Jordanian handler and failed to properly search him when he arrived at the base in Khost. Obviously, the vetting of this terrorist was inadequate on several levels of the CIA and the Jordanians.
This article gives us a good insight as to what our soldiers are up against in Afghanistan, and why we need better inteligence operations there.
AFP: US intel operations in Afghanistan under fire
According to other reports the CIA trusted the guy's Jordanian handler and failed to properly search him when he arrived at the base in Khost. Obviously, the vetting of this terrorist was inadequate on several levels of the CIA and the Jordanians.
Now even more info coming to light - somebody really dropped the ball with this guy.
CIA bomber coerced to work for Jordan spy agency - Yahoo! News