Why do people suddenly seem to trust intel from

groups who were regarded with suspicion before? A lot of the players haven't changed nor the game I'd bet.

If it is questioned, it is seen by some as an attack on President Obama. People ask why don't you trust him? I believe the more pertinent question is do you believe the people who are collecting the intel and passing it along? I don't, and I will always be skeptical of them.

I believe President Obama is making decisions in good faith based on what he is hearing and hopefully being given from other points of view. However, if he is able to get through all the bullshit and obfuscation thrown up like flak by all of them, it will be a miracle.

There are so many players and unknown alliances, I believe it is impossible to know what is actually the status of enemies and allies.

I hope President Obama can intuit what may be correct. I will always look at it with suspicion.

And I absolutely do not trust the CIA.

I can't say I'm really surprised at what's happened but I must say that seeing some Democrats cheer the very same thing they were up in arms about when a Republican was doing those things is demoralizing and upsetting.

reduction treaties, passing healthcare reform, putting severe restrictions on mountaintop coal mining, raising CAFE standards, spending billions on green energy and mass transit and energy conservation, putting a moratorium on DADT while working to repeal it, appointing liberal Latina judges, increasing civil rights protections and so on and so on and so on

it goes to your assertion that President Obama is little different than the former Republican President, which is the underlying theme behind this OP

discussion. Making demands and putting down progressives is his goal so all you'll get are talking points.

Very simple.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

they needed to attack Iraq. I wonder just how much has really changed.

Someone actually said yesterday that if Obama thought someone needed killing then he trusts they do indeed need killing. They also said they didn't trust any other president with that power, but Obama is different.

Boggles the mind. Seriously.

In 10 minutes, you can find out that Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence Agency, is tied closely to neo-conservative think tanks/persons, which are supported by people who sit on the boards of the companies profiteering from the wars.

And he is just ONE of many people in the current Admin. who are connected to money, global corporations who are NOT interested in a calm happy peaceful friendly planet.
Yet, dare to question the reasoning behind the news spoon fed to us by this group, and the RW bots swarm in.

Which make me suspect THEIR motives and leanings.

:kick:

All these same agencies totally screwed up on the Ft. Hood shooter but everybody has forgotten that. Remember? He was under surveillance for a year and both CIA and FBI and god knows who else determined he was not a threat.

Then he kills all those people.

So, announcing that this imam is fair game may be a way to repair that earlier total failure.

The problem is, if they were all so wrong about that shooter, how can anyone with a pulsing brain cell trust them on this guy? That's what I don't get.

Believe me, I feel better when the democrats are in charge but I fully expect the military/industrial complex to do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing, even if that means manufacturing threats.

Obama has made several positive changes but the war machine rolls on.

There's also the State Department and the intelligence agencies. Obama's part in this isn't the biggest part by any means.

they are a hammer, and therefore see every problem as being a nail. What has happened is we have too many governments that seem to hold the military in almost mystically high esteem, making the military untouchable, when what is needed is firm civilian control of the military. Washington decides the role of the military - not the other way around.

There are steps to help assuage the situation.

1) Fire a half-dozen generals. It's overdue. As with ANY large organizations, a certain percentage of the leaders will rise to the point of incompetence. If you are not firing two senior generals a year, you are doing something wrong. Far too many who have REALLY screwed the pooch continue to muddle along in positions of authority.

2) Give them what they need, not what they say they want. Like all boys, they like their new toys, but their toys cost billions and THEY don't have to pay for them.

3) Pass a law requiring a five year gap before any officer of command rank can take a job in the defense industry.

4) Let policy define the military mission, not the other way around. There is really NO sound reason for having 30,000 troops in Japan; 35,000 troops in Germany; 25,000 troops in Korea. If the reasoning is to have stockpiles in advance areas ready for quick deployment, fine - have the materiel there under guard of a couple hundred troops. We can fly in the men within 24 hours, anywhere in the world. We don't need to have 5,000 men and their families living on bases that look like they were plucked out of the suburbs of southern California, complete with strip malls and McDonalds and Dominos. There are over 700 military facilities overseas, half of which come complete with all the amenities of home and family. Most have long since outlived their purpose, but remain because of military appropriations (cut the base, cut the budget - cut the budget, cut the perceived importance of the military) and sheer inertia.

When we went to the so-called all volunteer force, the idea was to have a dedicate corp of professionals. The draft system was retained just in case - in the case of emergency a draft could be resumed, and the professionals would be the foundation of the military who would guide the draftees. The problem is, the military bureaucracy resisted shrinkage - some bases were close and consolidated with others, but many more new bases were built, actually expanding the military's presence. Military pay languished, because even the military had a limited budget and could not expand the number of bases and purchase fancy new equipment to fight the (defunct) soviets with and at the same time keep their enlisted men off food stamps.

It all comes down to maintaining civilian control. Frankly, too many politicians do not really understand the military or its mission. When it comes to military matters they simply defer to the military itself - and the military will always push policies that support its own self interest, no matter how they affect general national policy. It's like asking the inmates how best to run the assylum. No matter what the problem they will say "What's that? Another nail? I'm your hammer!"

Which takes me back to point 1.

The only thing that I would add would be the ability of this hammer to create nails where they didn't exist in order to justify the need for hammers.

Your ideas make perfect sense to me.

:fistbump:

the serious truthtellers now deemed uncredible if they question what Obama is doing???????? Many of them told the truth and put themselves and their family at risk during the Bush years ..but now we are told by some here at DU when they tell the truth about Obama..that they have no credibility.

With schools and teachers, War, Fisa Immunity, the patriot act, the continuing of Rendition flights, Drill baby drill, gay rights , womens rights, health insurance corporation protection bill, and on and on.

Those we put faith in as truth tellers, now are thrown under the bus for continuing what they have always done..told the truth ..are now deemed by many here as not credible, if they even merely attempt to question or tell the truth.

hot is cold and cold is hot now!

The hypocracy is overwhelming.

as I trust the management of large financial institutions -- not much.

I have less trust in POTUS Obama too.

My unease began with Rahm and cabinet appointments.

The world is a messy place by fact and unfortunately design.

We are better off than we were and I still would have voted for POTUS Obama.

Some points of view are not being considered and unfortunately they are some of the more important to many of us.

The media does as much to entertain and create fog than inform.

US officials have confirmed a Yemen-based Muslim cleric has become the first US citizen added to a CIA list of targets for capture or killing. Anwar al-Awlaki is a US-born cleric accused of having ties to the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the shooting at Fort Hood. Many legal experts have questioned the legality of the assassination order under US and international law. We speak with Philip Alston, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/is_the_cia_assassination_order_of

Video at link. Transcript not up yet.

The intel doesn't magically become sound and the organizations that report/manufacture it don't magically become competent or ethical because of the election of a new President.

This isn't about a few bad apples, this is about bad policy.