The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust • Hacker News Board

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#91

Post by shrnky » Sat, Aug 02, 2014, 7:14 PM UTC

"Bush derangement syndrome?" At some point during the Bush years the New York Times seems to have been hit with said syndrome and devolved into nothing more than another partisan rag.

Bush is mentioned three times in the article. Guess how many times Obama is mentioned? Not once. The most powerful and influential person in this issue, Not Mentioned Once.

So what if Bush implemented these policies. So what if by some miracle they were able to prosecute and convict him. We'd still have the status quo.

Articles like the one above are the very reason I hold "The Paper of Record" in almost as low esteem as outlets such as Fox News.

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#92

Post by autodidakto » Sat, Aug 02, 2014, 7:47 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #25

You know what's CIA's even more reckless breach of trust? Organizing fake vaccination campaigns[0]. Now the efforts with eradicating Polio in some parts of the world meet with resistance of people who don't trust the vaccination campaign isn't a cover for US clandestine operations[1]. Hard to blame them, to be honest. "The edict by the Islamic militants to ban immunization was in response to the CIA's setting up a fa…

Related: Posing as neutral Red Cross health workers to infiltrate a hostage camp. The Colombian government did this to rescue a high profile hostage. Most didn't seem to mind, some thought it was clever and honorable to do so. Now it's even more dangerous for all those, present and future, who work for the Red Cross or are wounded/taken hostage in battle. But so what? The Red Cross and the wounded don't get you reelected.

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#93

Post by lotsofmangos » Sat, Aug 02, 2014, 11:30 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #89

lotsofmangos wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jacques Chirac has apparently confirmed the account - http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/bush%27s_shocking_bibli... The original source appears to be the theologian Dr. Thomas Romer, whose expertise was sought to try and work out what Bush was going on about. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/08/gog-magog-and-... Of course, they all have it wrong. As anybody knows, Gog and Magog are the two giants who defe…

What about the rest of the article? The conversations between Blair and Putin, etc.

Is a long article, I am sure some bits are more accurate than others as it will be made up of several sources and I cannot be bothered to fact check the entire piece, sorry.

The conversation I referenced was something I had previously read in a different article and it was quoted specifically to make a point about the assertion "We don't need people who inspire others to suicide and homicide in the name of religion.", namely the point that not only do the leaders on both sides do that, but Bush tried to do it to the leader of another nuclear power, in the language of end-time theology.

Which isn't just a bit off-key, but rather is completely fucking bat-shit.

Re: The CIA's Reckless Breach of Trust

#94

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sun, Aug 03, 2014, 2:38 AM UTC

lotsofmangos wrote: post #93

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the rest of the article? The conversations between Blair and Putin, etc.

Is a long article, I am sure some bits are more accurate than others as it will be made up of several sources and I cannot be bothered to fact check the entire piece, sorry. The conversation I referenced was something I had previously read in a different article and it was quoted specifically to make a point about the assertion "We don't need people who inspire others to suicide and homicide in the name of religion."…

I understand - just asking because I ended up reading the entire article, and thought you may be more familiar with it. It was an interesting read.

Not that I doubt the point being made in your original comment regardless.