Welcome to PatsFans.com

Preventing a military coup

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, May 7, 2006.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,916
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +227 / 6 / -7

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060507/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_future

    A leading Republican came out against the front-runner for CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden.... Members of the Senate committee that would consider
    President Bush's nominee also expressed reservations, saying the CIA is a civilian agency and putting Hayden atop it would concentrate too much power in the military for intelligence matters.

    Bush was expected to nominate a new director as early as Monday to replace Porter Goss, who abruptly resigned on Friday.

    But opposition to Hayden because of his military background is mounting on Capitol Hill, where he would face tough hearings in the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    Despite a distinguished career at the Defense Department, Hayden would be "the wrong person, the wrong place at the wrong time," said the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich.

    "There is ongoing tensions between this premier civilian intelligence agency and DOD as we speak," Hoekstra said. "And I think putting a general in charge — regardless of how good Mike is — ... is going to send the wrong signal through the agency here in Washington but also to our agents in the field around the world," he told "Fox News Sunday."

    ...
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,923
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +577 / 2 / -9

    The Democrats would like to see "Oprah Winfrey" appointed.
  3. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,347
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +163 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    We did so bad with:

    Generals Washington, Grant, Eisenhower.

    Oh wait forgot one: Jimmy Carter was a Annapolis grad, may he should have never been allowed to become President.

    Aren't these the same people who backed whathisface, in the last election? You know the Clinton tool? I forget his name, but his and John Kerry's campaign emails were alll over this child molestors computer I was going through last week.

    The problem with both the CIA and the State Deptarment is that they are lined with liberal washington cronies who cry whenever they think that a new boss, might actually make them work, and work towards the countries benefit and not that of the DNC.
  4. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The Democrats have become so bitter and so against Bush that they no longer know what they want. They just know what they DONT want and thats anything Bush or the GOP (or the people for that matter) DO want.
  5. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    I would have no problem appointing a general: Eisenhower, Grant, Washington, or one like minded. The problem is, Bush would never appoint a person with those qualities. He has continuously made poor choices in selecting candidates. When he does appoint someone of value, he ends up firing them (Paul O'Neil). Child molestation? I thought I was reading a post by Harry.
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,923
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +577 / 2 / -9

    Why do liberals "Bristle" at those two words "Child Molester"?
  7. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I'll give you Washington, of course, but he would be against the military control of civilian government agencies for sure. Washington knew that the military was for defending the United states and would have the chimp tried for treason, IMO.
    Grant, after the hell of the Civil War, was a nearly complete failure of a human being after the war and an inept president at best.
    Ike would have vehemently opposed to such a strong military control of the CIA. His suspicious view of the military after WWII was prophetic and, as we now know, warranted.
    None of these men were in the military when they took office, and none should be mentioned in the same breath as this retarded traitor we now have in the White House. The chimp has consistently made terrible appointments and has consistently shown that he can't be trusted to pick his nose, never mind the director of the CIA.
  8. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    If you look into the OSS(CIA's predecessor) you'll find that it was blown up after WW2 because it wasn't independant enough (from the military)

    I don't know enough about this particular guy to say, but CIA/OSS independance from the military itself has been a bone of contention for at least the past 60 years.
  9. MDPATSFAN

    MDPATSFAN Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The fat Gov't employees at the CIA may benefit from a little military style accountability. They haven't been doing a good job for awhile.

    Let's look at the track record:

    Pakistani Nuke Progarm; Discovered during Nuclear bomb test

    Indian Nuke Program: Discovered during Nuclear bomb test

    Libyan Program: Discovered when Ghaddafi voluntarily turned it over.

    North Korean Program: Funded by US, CIA knew about yet the funding kept flowing.

    Iraqi Program: "A Slam Dunk"

    Iranian program: Jame Risen's book cites that the CIA game them the plans.


    I suggest 5 mile runs three times a week led by the General. They are not elected and do not set policy.
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,923
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +577 / 2 / -9

    Liberals would like to do away with the CIA altogether and the FBI, Liberals live in "Goo-Goo" land, they think murderers, rapists and "Child Killers" should all be counsled and then sent to Disney Land to be rehabilitated and slobbered over while they plan their next murder.

    We have a new problem that is quietly growing in America it is called "MS 13" it is an organized "GANG" of mostly Salvadorian Slime Scum Bag Murderers, when they they really get out of hand and start to affect the law abiding people of America I wonder how the Loopey Looney Liberals will want to handle it?
    You see, they are "Sacred Minorities" do we dare OFFEND them? :bricks:
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,495
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +296 / 10 / -26

    I am reading a lot Republicans do not want him either, has to do with competence and ideology as much as politics...
  12. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,570
    Likes Received:
    591
    Ratings:
    +1,523 / 16 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    Hilarious! Just a week or so ago the liberals here were screaming that 5 generals should have the power to depose the Sec Def because this tiny MILITARY minority was disgrunteled about his leadership. For political convenience they totally abandoned the concept of civilian control of the military.

    This week, we have libs hyperventilating with their panties all atwist over a general having a govt position SUBORDINATE to the elected president. Also subordinate to the head of Homie Security. Another tempest in a teapot as the R leadership does not want the guy. Bush will nominate another.
  13. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,570
    Likes Received:
    591
    Ratings:
    +1,523 / 16 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    Yet another idiotic rant
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,916
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +227 / 6 / -7

    Interesting, there's a split in the Republican Party with the head of the House Intelligence Committee saying, "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time." Pissah, of course, is trying to blame the liberals, who now seem to include retired generals and top House Republicans in his mind. He also seems okay with the military running all intelligence agencies. Get off your cloud, Pissah, even in our nation we have to distinguish between the role the military plays and the role civilians play in order to protect our Constitution.
  15. bmf31c

    bmf31c Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If the guy is the best qualified then he should get the job. If there is a hangup about him being military, then he should retire prior to being sworn in. Then the country benefits from having the most qualified civilain to run the agency.
  16. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    No problem there. There's still a problem with the track record of Bush appointees. I just don't trust him to make the right decision, like most of the country. Even those who might be very qualified suffer by simply being chosen by this idiot.
    Last edited: May 8, 2006
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,916
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +227 / 6 / -7

    There are other equally qualified people, and it is a bad idea to have military people running all aspects of intelligence. There needs to be a voice that puts rights ahead of objectives, not only to ensure that basic rights and laws are protected, but to force the thinking of others. Diversity in background (and in this case I'm not talking about race or anything like that) is constructive. Bush should bring in a top CEO to run the CIA.
  18. bmf31c

    bmf31c Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Sure, whomever is best qualified. That's all I'm saying.
  19. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,923
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +577 / 2 / -9

    All he has to do is take his uniform off, then he won't be "military".
    Eisenhower
    Truman
    JFK
    All military, the Sore Losers are going to yell and whine no matter who he appoints.

    I am also becoming dissapointed with many of Bushs policys, Illegal Aliens being the big one but as bad as things look for him and as bad as some of the blunders he is making I still prefer him over those two "goof balls"
    Kerry/Gore.
    One of the Democrats favorite tunes during the Clinton years was, "it's the economy stupid", where is that cry today, the Economy is great, but the big and most important thing is, The smelly Muslim Terrorists have not been able to blow our women and childrens guts all over Times Square as they do in Israel.

    We have not been attacked in our own country. Kerry/Gore are two of America's biggest hand wringing Liberals, People like them should not be running the country in a time of war.
  20. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,570
    Likes Received:
    591
    Ratings:
    +1,523 / 16 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    I have no objection to a qualified mil running intel. The CIA REPORTS to Homie Security these days, a civilian post. And HS reports to the duly elected President of the United States. Be specific as to where the Constitution says a general can't run the CIA. You cannot.
    Last edited: May 8, 2006

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>